Again, it was on the grounds of national security or of Canadians being significantly threatened by an individual whose known history was such that it posed that threat. I think the government of day, in this case the Liberals, took the right position in saying that if it was the role and responsibility of government to protect its citizens, then a government would be irresponsible if it let a known menace just wander around; it would in fact be irresponsible of a government to do that.
Therefore, this provision was put in place, still recognizing the right of appeal and still recognizing that a person who comes to Canada, even though they're not a citizen, does have certain rights, though not as broad as a citizen would. So it tries to respect the same balance Ms. Priddy raised, the balance between liberty and protection. That's a fine line to walk, and I believe the balance was achieved correctly when this type of legislation was initiated. I believe we've also addressed what the Supreme Court thought was an imbalance in two of the areas.
If I can just restate that point, the Supreme Court did not say the security certificate process was unconstitutional, but deemed that two areas were unconstitutional: fix those and the process will hold; don't fix those and the whole process will collapse.