There is. That is one of the issues that will be before the courts: to see whether in fact this was reasonable and other tools were investigated and other attempts looked at.
It's a question not just of the investigative officer but also, as I indicated, with the consent of either the provincial or the federal attorney general. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, a number of safeguards have been put in place in addition to the ones that were there 10 years ago, when this was brought before Parliament.
I think these are reasonable measures, because ultimately we all have a stake in trying to prevent and break up possible terrorist activity. That's the world in which we live. We understand that. The tools have to be there. However, as you've pointed out, there's a requirement to look at these acts in a reasonable manner; that will be overseen by the court. It will need the consent of the Attorney General.
As I pointed out as well, these won't be operating in a complete vacuum, in the sense that there will be no oversight. No: the attorneys general will make annual reports and assessments; Parliament can, on a regular basis, have a look; and the public will know when and if these measures have been used, and their usefulness.
Again, I think these are important tools to have.