Public Safety committee  We could certainly look into it, if we get there. With what's proposed in Bill C-44, if we come to a point where we would have to identify our source, I guess with discussion there's either the option—and it's a crown decision—to pull the information and possibly the case would collapse, or we disclose the identity of the source and then there's the question of assessing the risk to the security of that source and what we can do to mitigate that.

Public Safety committee  It was in confidence, yes.

Public Safety committee  It does, and it goes back to my earlier comment that I truly believe there's also a duty on the part of the state, when it makes that promise of confidentiality, that it has the measures in place to assure the promise it has with that person.

Public Safety committee  We always try to corroborate information coming from sources, and not just the human sources. We always try to corroborate in order to better assess the validity of that information, and it doesn't matter if it comes from partners or others.

Public Safety committee  Again, it is difficult to compare because of different legislation, but yes, they are consistent in terms of being able to operate overseas. Again, the regime of obtaining warrants might be different, but overall it is consistent.

Public Safety committee  I'll answer your question the same way as when I appeared in October and we talked about Canadians who are currently overseas involved in threat-related activities. I mentioned countries like Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, so you can just imagine going through the court system or the judicial system of those countries to try to get authorization.

Public Safety committee  Yes, that's a fair description.

Public Safety committee  We can certainly dig down on that question and provide the committee with a better answer. As I said, I'm not coming here prepared to—

Public Safety committee  It's when section 8 of the charter is at play.

Public Safety committee  Maybe I can just correct my previous answer, because I'm not an expert on the legislation. Just quickly reading this, I see that actually New Zealand, in its legislation with regard to foreign intelligence warrants, which is what we're talking about here, says that it can be issued notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other act.

Public Safety committee  You have to understand that, with like-minded partners, we do work overseas jointly. It's not like we would go into a friendly country and do things covertly. As a security intelligence service, and not just as a service—all of our partners do conduct operations covertly. That's kind of obvious.

Public Safety committee  Yes, that is correct.

Public Safety committee  Exactly, it's following the Federal Court decision of last year, and the Federal Court of Appeal decision.

Public Safety committee  Yes, in fact all Bill C-44 would do in terms of.... Section 21 is the one that deals with acquisition of warrants. We're just adding “outside”, so it is the same article, the same criteria, that would be used.

Public Safety committee  Again, I think what's in the bill is exactly equivalent to the class privilege protection that police informants have. As was mentioned earlier, that has been tested a number of times in court, so that's not different. Plus, there are exceptions if it is believed that it is essential to reveal the identity of that source to prove the innocence of the person accused.