I'm going to push back a little bit, and here's why.
Judges often aren't experts. I know a lot of judges. I taught with a judge. They frequently rely on submissions of counsel or information in an affidavit. What this would do is require somebody, on oath or affirmation—which is serious, since you could commit perjury if you stated something falsely—to say that the test is met, and why the test is met in section 15.
I'm not trying to be combative here with you. I'm just trying to express myself to say that a lot of times judges have to deal with complicated material. When somebody under oath or affirmation says, “These are the requirements under the act. This is the threat. This is the action we propose to take, and this is why”, I don't think a judge has to be an expert. They have to say, “Is the definition of threat or material threat met? Is this information reliable?”, and things like that.
Just because we haven't done it before and this is new, I don't find it persuasive, to be very candid, to say that we shouldn't be entertaining this, and here's why. This is new legislation. These are sweeping powers, and I'm mindful of the fact that in the G7, this is a requirement. Nobody, I think, wants to say that we invite threats to our telecommunications. Of course not. We just want to get the best legislation, legislation that balances the privacy rights of people and the safety of our critical infrastructure, and anything in between.
Given that, I guess I just don't see why a judge would have to be an expert on this, when they're simply evaluating whether the law is met, and somebody under oath or affirmation would be stating why.
Am I making any sense here?