I'm mindful of that. This is new, but sometimes the law develops in new ways.
Vavilov is obviously common law from the Supreme Court of Canada, which Canadian tribunals and courts on judicial review are bound by, but we're creating something other than common law. We're creating statute law that tells a judge, in the administrative context, which I know is a novel one.... Yes, this could be very new, as you would say, and perhaps, dare I say, groundbreaking. I don't like to say that, but you're smiling.
I'm sure it's giving some people fits and they're saying, “What are they doing?”, but sometimes we have to challenge the process. If challenging the process means that despite it being in an administrative context, we would like a judge to see this and to make a decision on what could be a life-changing issue for parties.... I get that it's new, but I just don't get how.... You talk about the crosswalk, but saying that we don't know how it's going to work and that this is going to be different doesn't mean it's going to take months for somebody to satisfy a judge that, in terms of disclosure, there are reasonable grounds to believe something would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.
I guess where I'm struggling, sir, is that I don't see how that would take months simply because this is something we're figuring out. Sometimes we do have to figure things out. Sometimes we do have to change things. Perhaps this is that time or perhaps it isn't. That is ultimately up to the House of Commons. That's why I'm pushing back.
I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm just trying to put something on the table and clarify why I believe what I'm putting forward, in order to get legislation that balances privacy, charter rights and the government's necessity to protect our digital infrastructure.