I think there is a mechanism there, but frequently our agencies get tagged with what's going on in other countries, particularly in the press, because the issues get crossed if you're watching American news. Some Canadians may even be on another country's no-fly list. That's not our doing. That's obviously the airline's responsibility, who gets on their aircraft.
I think it's worthwhile clarifying for Canadians that we do not have the no-fly list. The former Minister of Defence, Mr. Graham, said that he had problems going through airports, and I never indicated he was on a no-fly list. That was not our doing; it was another country's.
I sense a total difference in the two agencies. Mr. Kennedy's agency is set up as a complaints body to investigate complaints, but it would like to go beyond that, and the SIRC body was set up with a different role. There seems, to me at least, to be a clash of corporate personalities, if you will, between the two agencies: one feels they have the tools to do the job and the other would like to expand.
To me, Mr. Kennedy's vision would go beyond what a police complaints body is to do and move into another area. In many respects I can see the suggestion that SIRC be expanded, because if we talk about all of those other agencies, they do cross a number of things, and probably from the perspective of internationalism, the SIRC body is the natural body--if it's to be expanded in some way--to do those things.
I'm wondering, Ms. Pollack, from your knowledge of what occurs in other countries--and you've explained that many of them are parliamentary committees and so on--could you tell me if there's anybody out there who has something that we are suggesting or that has been suggested that is significantly different from what we do.