You have raised a couple of matters, Ms. Findlay. Certainly, with respect to border security—and, as you know, I come from a border community that has four separate bridges along the Niagara River—I am keenly aware, as I have been all my life, of the issues that exist between our countries and the need for cooperation between Canada and the United States.
It does give me some comfort to know that in 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the investigative hearings provisions of the legislation that existed at that time. I am satisfied that all of the provisions are constitutional. That is a decision we make whenever we table legislation. For those who may argue that somehow these tools to prevent or control terrorist activity are somehow unreasonable—you are quite correct—I take some comfort in knowing, at least with respect to investigative hearings, that the top court in the country has had a look at them and has judged them to be constitutional. Again, this is consistent with the message we have consistently given with respect to these provisions—that they are necessary, that they are important to have, and that they are added tools in the fight against terrorism in this country, which affects not just Canada but the world. It's important that we have them. Yes, I do believe they will pass constitutional muster. As I say, one important component of these provisions has already met that test, in 2004.