I'll answer the first one, if I may, which is the one about information-sharing and foreign arrangements, because I think it is an important point, and this was one that again came up when the CSIS Act was first passed in 1984.
The way we dealt with it was that in section 17 of our act it says that before we enter into any arrangement with a foreign agency.... We too have some written arrangements, but a lot of them, frankly, are not written. But before we enter into an arrangement with a foreign agency, we have to get the permission of the Minister of Public Safety, and he has to consult with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that consultation is done on paper. So the arrangement, even if it is verbal, has to be described on paper, if you see what I mean.
Then under section 38 of our act, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is specifically mandated to look at all of our arrangements and to review the provision of information and intelligence pursuant to those arrangements, and they do that every year. For example, although the details are not public, every year they look at that. I notice in their last report, which was just out last fall and tabled in the House last fall, as of March 31, 2007, CSIS had 271 foreign arrangements with agencies in 147 countries.
SIRC reviews all new enhanced or modified arrangements. SIRC found the service had informed itself of the human rights situation in all the countries and agencies in question. Moreover, the service had proceeded cautiously with exchanges of information involving countries with questionable human rights records. So the difficulty, of course, is that in some cases the information is not public. What you are dealing with in some cases, again, are surrogates for the public, because of the nature of the information. SIRC appears before Parliament to talk about its report, and the Privacy Commissioner, of course, has the same kind of access. Again, it's that bit of process versus substance.