I would like to say briefly that I guess one way you can reassure your constituents is by realizing that our immigration act contains a number of provisions that allow us to get rid of those people we don't want to keep in the territory.
You can be declared inadmissible for various reasons—very minor criminality, very serious criminality, medical reasons, or if you gave some false information in the course of your arrival in Canada. All those reasons can be used to send you out of Canada. Therefore, we have very useful tools in the act. Our officers are using them every day, don't worry. There are lots of people who are either refused admission when they arrive from abroad at the border, or at the airports. They are sent back because we discover something in their history that we don't like and we don't want to let them in.
There are people who are never able to even board a plane, because of a criminal background. We do protect the country and we do use a large number of resources to do that.
The specific situation we're talking about today in the Bill C-3 context is in situations where we don't want to put on the table all the evidence we have against these people, because we want for various reasons to keep it secret. That's when it becomes more difficult to meet the requirements of the charter that would still give the person a fair hearing, which is one of the fundamental values we were talking about earlier. We're not ready to get rid of that value. That's what I think the legal community is telling you.
In spite of the cost and in spite of the efforts, it's something Canadians are attached to because it's applicable to them, to their neighbours, to their daughters or sons. That's something we're not ready to get rid of, in spite of the special mechanisms it may require.