I've actually raised this with the House leaders, because I agree with Mr. Ménard--it really makes no sense that it be here.
I'm the only one from public security from last time. We spent a whole year doing that review. It clearly had more relevance to the security area than it did to the justice area, in spite of the fact that Mr. Moore's point that it has relevance to justice issues--civil liberties and civil rights issues in particular--is well taken. The reality is that's how it was handled in the last Parliament. There are still three of us who went through that review left on the public security committee, so there is a corporate history there that just makes sense.
In any event, I did raise it at the House leaders' meeting on Tuesday. Whether they're going to review it and perhaps send it to public security is under consideration.
The argument I made at that point I'll repeat here. We have already seen what our agenda is like. If we're going to do an adequate review, as we are legally mandated to do under that statute, we're looking at the better part of six months or more, even with heavy hearings, to get through all that evidence again. I don't think the government is prepared to wait that long on this.
I have one final point, Mr. Chair.
This issue may be better dealt with if we met as the smaller group, the agenda and procedure committee, to try to hammer out priorities.