Coming from a former elected office myself and being familiar with the responsibilities that parliamentarians have to always examine and re-examine policy and structure in view of changing times, I think it's fair to consider a variety of different options. We have the benefit of meeting, as we just did about three weeks ago, with security and intelligence review agencies from all over the world to take a look at different systems. Indeed, they are very different. If you look at the countries of the world with which we interact, Canada's system is different from virtually every other one. Parliamentarians, or Congress, are involved to a different degree in some of the different oversight and review mechanisms.
I don't know whether there's any perfect system. I do believe the powers we have and the ability we have to do our reviews and respond to complaints work well. In fact, we're told by other countries in the world, almost universally, that they see a lot of merit in what powers we have and the way we're able to do our work.
Does that mean it's the best? I'm not sure at this point. Could we do more with a commissioner who is responsible across all of the different security and intelligence functions? There would be some advantages to that, but there might be some disadvantages. I think parliamentarians will have to examine that very closely.