Given the fact that we still have some time here, we should be able to revisit that.
I'll begin my round now, and I want to pick up in the spirit in which I'm engaging in this. You touched on some of the stuff. You talked about the political climate.
I'm hoping for an opportunity for Canadians to heal from what happened in what was a protracted...It was, I think we agree, very divisive, sometimes filled with rhetoric around violence.
We had a group of people who provided a logistical occupation of the nation's capital, including an MOU that spoke explicitly about overthrowing a democratically elected government. This is all public, and what we know to be true. We had a situation in Coutts where munitions were found in large quantities—enough, in my opinion, to constitute a threat to national security.
However, one of the critiques I have—even being somebody who supported this, given the information that I had, Mr. Beatty—is that the actual declaration in and of itself, I felt, was overly reliant on the blockage of goods and services.
Could you comment on whether or not this committee should contemplate all circumstances as related to the CSIS Act—under 2(d), in particular, but all the definitions—when contemplating the invocation of this act, or is it strictly prescribed to what was written in the invocation?