Just a couple of comments.
The Arar inquiry, the Air India inquiry and so on, are very good examples of a situation that shows the inadequacy of the present review system. For example, in Mr. Arar's case, SIRC couldn't have reviewed that situation. The RCMP complaints commissioner couldn't. You need a public inquiry. What we're looking at is a review body that would be very similar to the Arar inquiry, that would have jurisdiction over all the national security agencies, to do an effective review.
As to the interrelationship with a parliamentary committee, you're the elected people. You're accountable to the people. You're in a position where you should be making strong recommendations to the government as to what the national security legislation should be.
I think that there has to be a relationship between the review bodies. It's just like the Arar inquiry. It looked at a situation. It made a number of recommendations. I see the same thing with a review body, which is all across government having a similar relationship with the parliamentary committee in terms of the policy and systemic recommendations you would be making. I think you should be less involved in reviewing national security, so I would take that power away.