We're looking into that. I know that this committee has previously looked into that. There are a number of models, and they vary from country to country.
As you know, in the United States there's a certain oversight model. People are sworn in and they spend a lot of time on committee processes like this, which some people probably find entertaining. And some actually do some good. New Zealand has a certain model. Great Britain has a certain model. Some of those involve members from all parties, selected by leaders or selected by the leader, who take an oath of secrecy. Some of them take an oath for as long as they're in office, others take an oath for life, which is a considerable thing to do, but it's on the grounds that they will be aware of certain national security interests that are vital to the safety of their country, and they don't want them writing a book ten years later exposing how their country protects itself.
There are a variety of models, but I can tell you that I've looked at some of the suggestions that Mr. Comartin has brought forward and that Mr. Cotler has brought forward. I know that Mr. Ménard has des idées . I think everybody had some ideas on that. That's why we're not being presumptuous. I have some ideas on what I think would work. I want to wait, first, to see what Justice O'Connor has. I'd like to run those ideas by this committee.
We do need an oversight capacity of some kind that we don't have now. I don't want that to drag on forever, either. With this committee, and under provisions of the ATA, a lot of work has gone into that. I don't want to go over the old ground. I think we can take what Justice O'Connor--I don't want to sound presumptuous--offers next week, and then let's compare notes and let's get to it and come up with something that works for Canada.