There are a couple of things. I absolutely agree with my honourable colleague's point regarding witnesses and that it may develop over time. There might be new angles that we find, and new witnesses. Certainly, keeping witness lists open is something we've done in Foreign Affairs on some of the larger studies. It means that there is the opportunity, if we discover a new area of interest, to continue to raise witnesses.
I also think that, given the complexity of this issue, it might benefit someone like me—and maybe other members too who aren't as familiar—to have the analysts do a broad scope document for us on some of the key issues as we are getting into this in the next week or so, if that experience is there. That would certainly be helpful to me, and probably to some other members too, to be able to get our bearings on this.
I just have one final point, which relates to the work done by the previous committee. I can think of no issue before us in Parliament that has more of a dynamic across jurisdictions than this one. It may be that this once again aligns with the idea of a super committee with colleagues in other jurisdictions. I'm not trying to overstep. I know we're getting this rolling, but I was just at the Munich Security Conference, and these sorts of issues are coming up all over the place. It may well be that in working with some of our like-minded allies in other jurisdictions—this is the Foreign Affairs voice in me coming out—this could have a very significant impact.
I leave it as a possibility and maybe something that we can think about as a committee as we're moving forward.