When I said something along the lines of what you suggest, it was not to say that the members of the committee or their staff would have insufficient expertise to review the issues that are the subject matter of the mandate of the committee. If I said something like that, it would be akin to what Mr. Leman-Langlois was saying, which is that in order to have good review overall, you need a number of types of review, one of which is parliamentary review with its advantages, particularly the democratic legitimacy of that process. But it is not sufficient.
You also need expert review that can look into the operations of agencies more deeply, I would suggest, than a committee of parliamentarians. You also need judicial oversight. You need all kinds of oversight in order to have a fully effective system.
There is a role for parliamentarians, but I think the gist of what I said before is that the surveillance, the review of national security agencies, cannot be limited to parliamentary review, and I would suggest that as a committee looking at this proposed legislation you should not think that a review by parliamentarians is sufficient. It is absolutely a good idea, but it is not sufficient. There needs to be judicial, expert review, and other reviews.