I think the key item from a legislative perspective that your committee needs to reflect on is what is the standard of suspicion, the standard of doubt, the standard of evidence that the security establishment should feel comfortable engaging with political parties on? I think right now that standard, whether it is legislative or in practice—I'm not sure, as I'm not a security expert—is too high. I think that at the very least, if you are cynical, you'd say that's the excuse. If you were generous, you would say that's the reason. We should take that off the table as legislators, I think.
But more importantly, Ms. Blaney, I hope that all of us as political parties could really help our security establishment appreciate the chilling effect this type of thing could have.
In terms of what happens afterwards, there's actually a very short period of time where SITE is still up and running and engages with political parties until the new government is put in place. It doesn't go on forever.
I saw some reports about SITE playing a role right now, and maybe that's new and a fantastic thing if it is the case. But it really is in place until the caretaker government has done its work.
Maybe there's something that's ongoing, Ms. Blaney, year-round where there are senior people from the political parties who are engaging with our security establishment. I would think and I'd hope that all leaders would have mature folks sitting around that table really working hand-in-hand to get the right outcomes. Maybe that's an approach to consider.