Thank you.
It's funny, but at the very end, if I had had the time, I would have asked the question that my colleague just asked. Perhaps I could talk to you about this right now.
The O'Connor report does not contain any suggestions in this regard. Even so, there was a bill tabled by Ms. McLellan of the previous government, which was intended to set up this kind of committee. Since then, nothing has happened.
Concerning the questions from Mr. Oliphant, I think it is essential for us to categorize people that police officers are investigating. Be it investigations into organized crime or more of an investigation relating to national security, when the police suspect people, it is important for the other police forces to know that these people are under suspicion. Even if the police officers do not yet know whether the suspicions are justified or not, suspects must be categorized when criminal intelligence is being analyzed.
For example, we talked about persons of interest. In my opinion, Mr. Arar was one. However, there are thousands of people of interest who are not terrorists. If we met them under other circumstances, or if we observed them, we could verify if there was something else that could justify taking them from the "person of interest" category and placing them in the "suspect" category, or moving them from the "suspect" category to the “confirmed person" category or the "people we are sure of" category.
I would like to hear Ms. Stoddart's opinion on this. In my opinion, such categories should remain secret, because if the person has been put in the wrong category, and if we want investigations to go somewhere, we must not let people know that they have been slotted into a particular category and are under investigation. Such suspicions can be passed on to other countries or to agencies of other countries.