Thank you.
Let me first start by answering the last question, Ms. Mourani's question, because it leads into yours.
Have the provisions ever been used? Yes, one of the provisions was used. That was the investigative hearing provision. It was used in the course of the Air India trial; an investigative hearing was commenced. During the course of the hearing, a challenge was made that the provision was unconstitutional. The issue went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions concerning investigative hearings were constitutional.
I believe the case that you were referring to was dealing with security certificates. It was the Supreme Court, on security certificates, that said that the law was unconstitutional, but it gave Parliament some time.
The Supreme Court said that the provision in this bill concerning investigative hearings is constitutional. They did make some suggestions—which I think Mr. Davies indicated—concerning interpretation, which are the law. They could be codified, but they are the law whether codified or not.
In terms of the protections, the minister reiterated a number of them.
Of the protections prior to the use of the powers, first, there's political control: requiring the consent of the Attorney General of Canada or of a province. These powers have judicial control; they need the consent of a judge, either before or after the power is exercised. And all these powers are subject to a sunset clause.
But they're also subject to a review being undertaken by a committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate at any time within the five-year period. The minister also indicated that there must be an annual report tabled with Parliament with respect to the use of these powers, and because it's a report made to Parliament, any parliamentary committee then could examine one of the ministers with respect to the use of those powers.
So those are the judicial safeguards as well as the accountability safeguards.