I think, ultimately, I can understand. I am a conservative, but I also believe in the libertarian ideals of civil liberties, so contrary to the way the Islamist groups try to portray our work, we're not giving up any of our civil liberties. There certainly should be just cause if there are going to be violations of privacy, but if our security forces are doing good intelligence work, they need to follow the leads to wherever they take them. As Mr. Quiggin highlighted, a lot of these organizations that are working under the ideologies that fuel anti-western thought need to be monitored, even the public elements. Our mosques, for example, are open, public places. You can walk in. You are not violating someone's privacy. It's different from putting a wiretap on a phone in a private facility. It's one thing to be monitoring public places; it's another to violate privacy. If you have to do that, I hope then you have probable cause and an actual concern about an act that not only will be committed but might be committed.
The other part of this, which is new, is disruption. Disrupting doesn't mean arresting these individuals or violating their personal property rights or taking them out of commission. You're actually just disrupting a plot. To say that Canada should not have access to groups and cells that come together, and should not be able to monitor their communications.... Nidal Hasan was speaking to al Qaeda from Fort Hood. You'd think our military would have been monitored, yet most of our military soldiers were unable to speak out because they were worried they'd be labelled as anti-Islam and bigots, so you realize we have a problem.
Even five years after Fort Hood, the reports that came out still didn't identify Islamism, jihadism, and ideologies that needed to be monitored, so we have a major problem in identifying the ideological problem. I think the warrants are a small part of the bigger picture that hampers CSIS and other intelligence operating systems.