Basically, amendment NDP-11 does two things, because there is a second amendment that follows if this one gets voted down. The first thing it does is specify that if there is only going to be one committee doing this study, it has to be a committee that the House of Commons has voted to create, either its own House of Commons committee or a joint committee. By definition, any joint committee would also need to have the Senate on it.
With the way the current provision is written, and then with the follow-on provision that refers to “The committee”, it seems fairly clear to me that it's possible we could have this review done only by the Senate, and it would then knock on as being “The committee”. I honestly think, given the subject matter and the concern we've expressed from the beginning—which is that this particular bill started in the Senate—that we really want the House of Commons to have a say in the committee that ends up doing this. That's in the middle of this.
All that the rest of this is doing is just being more specific about provisions that have to be reviewed, including the fact that we're very keen to make sure that the interaction of the leaving-the-country offences and the resurrected investigative hearings and recognizance provisions is looked at, so we can see whether or not investigative hearings and recognizance are being used in tandem with the leaving-the-country offences. We had a fair bit of testimony along those lines. I'm not saying it would be illicit if that were to happen, from a legal perspective, but we wouldn't want to see it too much. I think there needs to be transparency. That's why it's there.