I don't want to play the game of “what ifs”, as Mr. Vernon.... We can imagine a number of scenarios and will come up with a giant book of laws to prevent every possible scenario of “what ifs”, but let's look at the facts, as you've mentioned.
For the Toronto 18, Mr. Khawaja, and just recently a number of others, we didn't use any of these extraordinary powers, even though we had them. Why not? Because we used the Criminal Code, and by doing that they get a fair trial. So we know what we're getting in evidence and in cross-examination, and the adversarial process is right and correct and we convicted the right people and it's an open process that creates confidence in the public and does not compromise the role of the judiciary and a host of other things.
If you're going to pass this legislation, I have a number of amendments I think you should make, imminence and others, a two-year sunset clause, not five years—I don't want to go there, and I'll talk to you about those if you want—to implement what the Supreme Court had said. So there's a lot of work still to be done on this, but I don't think we need them. As I mentioned, there are all those other provisions—facilitation, participation, enabling—and those were used and used successfully and it didn't erode our rule-of-law traditions and confidence in the system.