I'd just say to my colleagues that I'm a strong proponent of the need for review, and the reason for that is because I think that we have to understand that this is an improvised piece of legislation. Governments have to respond quickly to situations, and you respond quickly with an improvised piece of legislation. But don't let anybody tell me that this is the product of deep consideration with respect to how this fits into the general framework.
I'll just make a couple of points.
One is I think the review should include a review of the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, as well as this legislation, so we see how all these things fit together and consider how it could be done better.
I have no problem with a joint committee. I think that's a possibility. I don't see how there's anything wrong with that. I think it's a committee that should have the ability to hold meetings and hearings in camera because I think there's a lot of information that needs to be received that's confidential. I don't know whether my colleagues in the New Democratic Party object to having a joint committee. I don't know. They may do it for their own reasons, and that's fine.
People have to appreciate that this is a new area that we're all learning about as time goes on. Three months ago, people wouldn't have said that if a government writes you and says, “I want you to seize the assets of Harry Jones”, and you say, “Oh, okay, Harry Jones, we'll get them”.... This has an unprecedented nature to it.
I'm prepared to pass the legislation, and our party is prepared to pass it, but we do think that the House has to take a deep breath after this is passed and ask how all these pieces of legislation fit together. Can we do it better?
I don't think that's unreasonable. We're not being difficult here. We're just saying we should be doing our work as legislators.