It's a mystery to me, because in order to override a constitutional right such as the section 6 right to enter, or your section 7 right to have your liberty affected in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, it usually requires some pressing and substantial government objective. As we've said here, public safety is not really put forward or enhanced by this process.
The act existed long before the Khadr situation. It may be that this is what's behind these amendments. I don't know. Mr. Khadr is a good example. If you take somebody who is accused...well, he has pled guilty to murder, but in the context of terrorism. Paragraph 10(2)(a) of the act talks about, currently, whether the offender will commit a terrorist or criminal organization offence after transfer. So you take somebody from a terrorist situation and you ask yourself, where's the safest place for him to be? Is it in some foreign country where he may suddenly be deported back, or is it in one of our country's jails, one of our prisons, where we can get to know more about him and control his imprisonment and his release back into the community as a Canadian citizen?