Thank you. That's generous.
Well, let me welcome our witnesses today. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Forcese, I'd like to just start with you, if I could. That may be as far as we go.
Clearly, we all recognize that terrorism is a global threat today and Canada after last month's activities is not immune. In an article in the National Post back in October, I believe it was you or your colleague who was quoted, it said:
The new bill puts surveillance outside Canada on a clear legal footing. This is a reasonable fix in a globalized security environment. Indeed, the bill is diplomatically courageous...
—as you've already stated. You go on to say:
There do, however, remain outstanding issues: When CSIS investigates abroad, the risks of misconduct, including complicity in human-rights violations, increase. That behaviour would raise legal issues.
So I'm concerned. Or, confused, I guess, is probably closer. We have the new act that we all agree is the right direction. We've talked about our allies and some of the models. One of you referred to the Canadian version as, I believe, a hybrid of those models. I'm just wondering what the right fix is. I hear you on how we have warrants and Federal Court inclusion. We have put in the safeguards that will ensure that we do the job right ideally. What am I missing?