It is notably recognized in Canadian law that we do not pursue, nor do we support, nor do we advocate in any way--as a matter of fact, we condemn--the use of torture and information that may be gleaned by torture. It's both explicitly and implicitly a matter of Canadian law, which is probably why the Supreme Court didn't address itself to that issue when looking at the security certificates. There are a number of things that are understood in law that simply do not need stating. That's why we took the lead from the Supreme Court itself on that. We accept the fact that information cannot be, should not be.... We condemn the gleaning of information by way of torture.
There's also a provision that is given to the special advocate that was not in the act before that allows the special advocate to challenge any of the information that comes forward on its reasonableness. And on the scope of that, if you tried to delineate all of the things that would qualify to be challenged, you'd quite rightly have a book or probably several hundred pages.
It's absolutely open for the special advocate to challenge any information on its reasonableness and to make an appeal on that. That's why we have approached it in this particular fashion.