It's a very interesting question. In many ways, many of our systems and approaches in Canada are already modelled on the British precedent.
One point that is taken for granted in the U.K. by the public, which would probably raise eyebrows and raise questions in Canada, is the use of photo identification. They say that London is the most photographed city in the world and surveillance cameras are everywhere. When you walk around the streets, you can certainly see them.
Photo ID and visual identification were important factors in the way the new Labour government here addressed the right-wing extremist violence that occurred in the U.K. about a month and a half ago. There were riots in a number of communities and a lot of very extreme civil disobedience. The U.K moved very decisively with its police and security forces and dealt with that situation quite emphatically.
It was perhaps to be expected because the new prime minister, Mr. Starmer, is a former director of public prosecutions, so dealing with a crisis situation of that nature would be right in his wheelhouse. Broadly speaking, while all of these things are always controversial, I think people would say he dealt with it all in a very effective and forthright manner.
However, one area for which this committee might want to look at a British precedent is the use of technology for the purposes of identification in emergency situations. When you have life and limb at risk, when there is the potential for violence and when crowd control and the restoration of order are an important public priority, using photo ID proved to be reasonably effective in the circumstances of a few weeks ago in the U.K. It's not nearly as developed in Canada. In fact, it's quite controversial in Canada, but maybe this committee should examine the pros and cons and have a good, solid, technical discussion about whether this is a valid innovation for Canada to consider.