I don't think Mr. Dryden is here today.
It is important to point out that I do three kinds of reports. There's the annual report that you have here and which obviously contains no classified information. You'll notice that the 55 reports you referred to aren't identified as such in a very specific way, and that's obviously important for security matters.
The annual report is a report in which I tell the minister what I've done and what my team did during the year. I tell him what kind of review of the CSE's activities I did during the year. It's ultimately an information report, much more than anything else.
The reports referred to in the annual report are confidential reports concerning a specific CSE activity that I have reviewed or that my officers have examined during the year. In those reports, we get to the bottom of things. Our review is conducted on site, on the CSE's computers. We look at how they get their information, how they assess whether a certain piece of information concerns a private communication with a Canadian and how they conserve and use that information. We examine their policies. We have access to all their documents.
Based on that review, I am able to tell the minister whether or not I think the CSE has complied with the act. Thus far in the CSE's history, the conclusion on every occasion has been that, yes, there has been compliance with the act, but there are improvements that should be made to the system. These are obviously not things I can talk about publicly. However, if we believe that a CSE policy could be improved, we make a recommendation to that effect.
To date, as I say in the annual report, 94% of the recommendations we've made have been followed up by the CSE. As for the remaining 6% of recommendations, it's not that they weren't followed up; it's simply that circumstances changed and there was no reason to act on them.
The third point concerns non-compliance. This is very important. It isn't at all related to the reports. If I came to the conclusion, in reviewing a CSE activity, that there had been a violation of the act, my duty would then be to send notice immediately to the Minister of National Defence and to the Attorney General of Canada informing them that there had been a breach of the act and obviously inviting them to take the necessary action.
I obviously can't know what action would then be necessary, but that has never occurred in the history of the office.