Okay.
Again, I think the record of our session today will be very important in the future, and it may, hopefully, prevent the need for litigation if in fact it passes as worded.
I'm grateful to Ms. Findlay for pointing out what the Supreme Court has already read into the predecessor version of this. That helps, if we don't get it made explicit.
I have another question. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Nicholson, in the Senate referred directly to the investigative hearings provision as one method of getting evidence on this new leaving-the-country offence. By implication, I think he must be talking about speaking to family, neighbours, community about maybe youth who are under surveillance or about whom there is a concern.
I'm just wondering if I could give both of you an opportunity to talk about the linkage between the investigative hearing and proof on leaving the country, because without really strong proof, my worry is that this provision will just turn into a disruption provision.
I hear the minister, in the sense that this could produce the right proof, but it would be using investigative hearings to do so.
What would you say about that?