My comment about detailed review is that if you look at the sheer complexity of an organization like CSIS, for instance—and Anil talked about some of the challenges in terms of getting to the bottom of issues—and multiply that by 17 agencies, I cannot imagine a world where this new committee has an ability to really do detailed review on an ongoing basis.
I see a bit of a tiered approach. The existing review bodies do detailed review. It's part of a larger plan, larger architecture. This committee starts to concentrate on what I might call strategic issues: the co-operation between agencies, the gaps, the funding. There will be circumstances where a major event is an opportunity for this particular committee to weigh in, like an Air India event or a Parliament Hill shooting event, where the committee will want to satisfy itself that organizations are working effectively and that there weren't any gaps. For the day-to-day review, in terms of the sheer magnitude and complexity, I simply cannot see a world where this committee gets down in the weeds. For that, a relationship with the existing review bodies would seem advisable.