With respect, Ms. Ablonczy, I think there's a difference between saying we're going to grant the ability to ignore every law of a foreign state every time and the responsibility of a judge to take into account existing laws of other countries. That's why I'm calling it an overreach.
We're not saying that in the scenario you raised a judge might not go ahead and issue a warrant for a very good reason. But what you're saying with this wording, again, as Mr. Easter says, I think will come back to haunt us because it says that you may at all times ignore international law. What the court did is it invited Parliament to create such warrants. It did not have any such wording like this in its decision. I still regard it, as I've said, as overreach.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])