Yes, I heard the comments by Justice Létourneau, and with respect, I disagreed with them. It's not the first time I've disagreed with them publicly and in writing, and that is what it is.
However, the point is well taken that of course we don't live in Disneyland; we live in the real world. This is serious stuff. Just like many provisions in the Criminal Code, it will be tested by defence counsel. That's their job. It will be tested by people whose interests are engaged in the system. I was a defence counsel. I went at it hammer and tongs, in terms of challenging the constitutionality of various things, often with little success.
But you've made a good point. The system, as I said, is a living tree, just like the Criminal Code. It is part of the function of defence counsel to challenge the constitutionality of provisions and of course to assess those challenges.
There is a dialogue between the courts and Parliament, ultimately. I'm not going to stand before you and say there will never ever be a successful constitutional challenge to some of these provisions. Life doesn't work that way. What I can say is that having assessed them to the best of our ability, we are confident that they are legitimate, that they are compliant with the charter, and that they are appropriate for Parliament to consider.