Thank you Mr. Chair.
I would like to continue with that discussion with respect to folks leaving the country. We do know, from what you said and from other testimony, about a certain trend for youth to leave for terroristic purposes. At least, that's the fear.
I'm just wondering what kind of evidence is going to be needed to prove the whole “intent or attempt to leave the country” crime. You immediately gave as an example that we might have intelligence. I want to present to you the following problem. It's been a problem throughout, say, the last couple of decades of history—Air India being one example. When sources of information come from the intelligence side, it all gets very messy in court. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies don't like to see certain kinds of intelligence sources, etc., evidence that reveals sources, appearing in court.
We have a recent case, Harkat, but there are other reasons to think it's even dodgier that intelligence sources might necessarily be kept secret in court proceedings.
All that leads to a dynamic whereby if intelligence is one of the main pieces of evidence for knowing that people intend to leave the country for a certain purpose, what are the chances that when you stop somebody and arrest them there is actually going to be a prosecution? If there is not going to be a prosecution, isn't the system a form of prevention that's a disruptive system? It's not really about prosecution.
Can you convince me that the kind of evidence that will be available can and will lead to prosecutions?