Merci, Madame.
The prioritization process I described in my opening remarks really is based upon a totality of the facts. Our office of information management assesses all of the facts and assigns ratings pursuant to a benchmark of definitions. When the standing committee that I referenced sits to meet, prior to that meeting we're provided with the operational plan itself and a scoring matrix that we can look at. We can read it, we can put our minds to what all is entailed in that investigation, and then determine whether it's a tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 investigation.
Over the past year and a half, in my current role, my experience is that the highest-priority files are Anti-terrorism Act investigations. They really are about potentially saving lives and getting to people who could perpetrate acts that will make the front page of the news. That is our job, and that's why we take it very seriously. That's not to say that SEMA or the other acts do not have a role to play, but as the other member said earlier, it could potentially be in the disruption, which is part of our mandate as well, to prevent crime, that the answer lies, rather than the prosecution.
In summary, I think the prioritization of files, the way it is right now, works, and we're getting our resources allocated to the right files.