May I add to that, Monsieur Ménard?
I think it's really important to emphasize that the court was clear that the liberty infringement isn't minor; it's actually very, very significant. I think the court is sensitive now, and it has been quite sensitive over the years, to Parliament pronouncing...especially after a decision is written.
Although, quite frankly, I think Madam Chief Justice McLachlin's decision is fairly wide open. I think it simply says there are some other alternatives that are less infringing; it doesn't go into a really detailed discussion of those.
The court is going to give you some latitude, but I would suggest that given the seriousness of the infringement, it is going to be very searching when it comes to looking at any proposal you put forward, as parliamentarians, about special advocates. I think you've heard testimony from Mr. Waldman and Mr. Forcese that goes through a variety of points, and we can go through those in more detail if you want.
Even if you're going to take the special advocate model--Ms. Aiken has indicated they don't endorse that per se--you're going to have to make it the best possible special advocate system in the world if it's going to really pass muster. And I don't think it is.