When I read the Supreme Court decision, I don't get the impression that the court is saying that it is impossible to have a rights regime that would enable us to deem inadmissible any person considered dangerous because he is a potential terrorist, given the type of terrorism we are currently facing, which is a far cry from the FLQ, and much more advanced than the threats at that time. However, the nature of this system is such that it will be based on secret information provided by allies, on the condition that it remains secret, and that will come from infiltrated agents whose lives would be in danger if we were to reveal their names or knowledge. The war on terrorism, contrary to the fight against organized crime, requires that its investigation methods be kept secret so that they can be effective against terrorists.
So for the Supreme Court, there must be a way of putting that in legislation. I think you have given us some potential solutions. What suggestions would you like to make to ensure that if this security certificate legislation ends up back at the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will uphold its provisions.