Absolutely. In addition to the revelations that already were quite well known, I think, before Justice O'Connor did his work--the fact that the Commission for Public Complaints, for instance, had inadequate powers--I think the most stark and important lesson about review and oversight that emerges from looking at these four cases and reviewing Justice O'Connor's report is that we need an integrated, comprehensive approach.
This work happens, as well it should, in a coordinated way amongst police and security agencies. They do work together. Canadians would want and would expect them to be working together. How, therefore, can we not have a review process that responds similarly? A review process that continues to take a silo approach, looking separately at each of the multitude of different agencies--Mr. Allmand listed the many different departments and agencies involved in national security work in Canada now--will be contradictory. It will involve turf battles. It will miss all sorts of issues that fall between the cracks. And we simply can't risk that.
Amnesty International, along with, I think, many of the organizations that were involved in the Arar inquiry, had actually urged Justice O'Connor to go further in his report and recommend that the government set up a new formal institution that would be actually an integrated review agency for all of those different bodies. He hasn't gone that far, and has maintained separate review bodies. But he has, very importantly, called on there being a committee that in an overarching way coordinates and integrates how those bodies are reviewed. We view that as essential.