Mr. Chair, while pondering the member's question, I've thought of a few different models.
One example comes from our partners in Australia who, at regular intervals of just a few years, has a non-governmental third party review of all agreements and statutes governing national security. Their purpose is to ensure that, depending on the status of the threat, the tools in the tool box are the right ones and kept up to date. The aim of this kind of exercise is to take stock of the situation outside of electoral periods.
I've said several times over the past few years that Canada has been lucky, and that the threats it has faced were different from what other countries have experienced. Our geography, the three oceans bordering the country, and the fact that we have the United States as an economic and military partner, have enabled us to avoid the severe threat level that other countries have had to deal with.
So Canadians haven't had—and I'm delighted about this—to think about these questions in the same manner and with the same urgency as others. However, the world has changed and all the trends that have made Canada a prosperous, safe and sovereign country have been headed in the wrong direction for a few years now. I firmly believe that a different way has to be found to discuss these threats, including in Parliament, and that it has to be well-thought-out.