Mr. Speaker, I have three quick questions for the member.
It seems that we agree in many respects, but that we have come to two significantly different conclusions about second reading. I believe the member understands that the fundamental difference between our position and hers is the issue of sleeper cells.
Does she believe that there are terrorist organizations in the world today that are training people and sending them to democratic countries with orders to lie low and lead an exemplary life until the day they are told to commit a terrorist act with other people? They have not yet done anything illegal, but one day, they will.
Does she believe that intelligence services can identify such individuals—by planting agents in training camps, for example? The agents' names cannot be revealed, of course, because to do so would put them in grave danger. We have to hear their side of the story.
That is one of the things that convinced me. Such situations have convinced me that security certificates are necessary. I was trained as a lawyer, and I spent most of my career as a defence attorney, so even though I do not like the process, I believe there is a need for it. It must be used sparingly, however.
Even though the member is against it, is she willing to work together to improve the security certificate process and make it as fair as possible, just as Messrs. Waldman and Forcese, whom she quoted, are doing?