I would like to simply point out, and I think reinforce what you said, that this bill has proceeded on a remarkably non-partisan basis from the onset. Yes, there were differences, but I think generally speaking we all agreed that the aim was a noble one and we wanted to do the best job possible.
In terms of possible amendments, we don't come here with any specific agenda to seek broader powers. But we are in fact very interested in what this committee and the Senate committee is thinking about this matter.
The one point that I think the committee should look at is the sunset clause in respect of the investigative hearings and recognizance orders, that these will cease to apply in 2007 unless their application is extended by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. For me, these are very important tools in the fight against terrorism. I wouldn't want those to be suddenly lapsed for a reason of an election or other times when the House wasn't sitting. That would concern me. I would be interested in this committee's consideration or recommendation of whether it could be accomplished in another way, perhaps a regular review of the provisions of the act, mandated by legislation, rather than the legislation itself collapsing and then we're left with a hole in our safety net, so to speak, when we might require it.
It's not that I shy away from parliamentary or committee oversight, but I'm wondering whether this is in fact the best mechanism to accomplish that for what I consider rarely used but very important tools.