Thank you.
I would repeat the comments that were made earlier to the effect that we really are in uncharted territory with the use of the act, so it's an important test case. I think there are a lot of lessons that we need to learn and it's incumbent upon the committee to be able to make good recommendations on what we have learned from this and how to ensure that, when powers like this are used, they're used appropriately and they're not used any more than they must be in order to deal with a national emergency.
I think there's a civil liberties association already that's challenging the use of the act. I welcome that test. I think it's appropriate that these things be tested in court.
For Canadians who have had a bank account frozen and who feel that it was inappropriate because they had nothing to do with the convoy, for instance, one of the things they need—and this is why I've been talking about the importance of a notice, letting people know that their account was in fact frozen under the authority of the Emergencies Act—is to know that that's why their account was frozen, and then they need resources obviously in order to be able to challenge that.
I'm wondering what thought the government has given, and what the plan is, for Canadians to be able to pursue this after the fact if they felt that the government got it wrong in flagging them to financial authorities, and that they weren't dealt with appropriately under the emergency orders. What recourse will there be for them? Who would be held responsible if there was a successful court case that found they were inappropriately flagged?