I appreciate the concern raised by colleagues on the other side. I recall having asked the question of witnesses a number of times in the process to get their views on whether this legislation is sufficiently flexible to address what are essentially unknown unknowns—the eyes beyond the horizon, the questions of artificial intelligence, the questions of quantum computing. As far as I could gauge, the witnesses had confidence that the apparatus as currently framed had that flexibility, and I would assume that's in part because of the presence of this provision. I don't imagine the core logic will be changed by technology, in the sense that this legislation is aimed at both providing good security for Canadians and protecting rights and freedoms under the charter. Those principles will remain standing no matter what the technological change is going to be.
I'm wondering if, to address the concerns that were raised by colleagues on the other side, it's at all valuable to ask witnesses if they're prepared to give a potential example of how a regulation may be changed in the face of changing technology. If that's not possible, I'll understand, but maybe there are some hypotheticals that have already been contemplated.