Okay. I'll be quite brief here. I would like to answer Mr. Ramsay's points about materiality. I respectfully disagree, and here's why.
We talked about potential threats. Right now, the bill says “any threat”. That would probably include a potential threat. What we're saying—and I think we would all agree around this table—is that a threat must be substantial enough that the government can act. The concern we have is that, in order to prevent any abuse of power.... I'm not trying to impute nefarious motives to anybody. The whole point is to say that, when the government is going to act, it must have reason to act.
I think that's a sentiment we all share around this table. Now, we may disagree on whether the word “material” encapsulates this. Usually, the word “material” in law means “important”, “substantial” or something like that. If the government is only going to act when it should be acting, the word “material” is quite important. When we get to “any threat”, it's much more confusing because “any threat” is so subjective. Who sees what as a threat?
That's why I prefer the term “material”, but I'll allow any of my other colleagues to intervene.
Thank you.