Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two aspects to this amendment. The first one might be called interaction. The utility of the investigative hearing and the recognizance-with-conditions provisions is not necessarily linked to the leaving Canada offences, and thus requiring this additional information to be included in the annual report, in our view, is not necessary.
The investigative hearing, for example, was invoked in the past in respect of the Air India trial, and at that time there were no leaving Canada offences as are contemplated in this bill. To the extent that there might be any interaction between holding an investigative hearing or imposing recognizance with conditions and the leaving Canada offence, it is likely that such a connection would be noted, in any event, without the need for this particular proposed amendment.
The other aspect of it is the Senate committee. Senate committees have traditionally played an important role in reviewing anti-terrorism measures, and this amendment would be inconsistent with the provision in the bill that seeks to keep this option open and not restrict any subsequent comprehensive parliamentary review in this way.
In summary, we say that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and is inconsistent with the policy underpinning the bill. We will not be supporting it.