As officials we're never in a position to provide policy advice on specific pieces of legislation, but there is often some confusion around language and vocabulary. The term “need to know” is understood differently in different contexts.
When we talk about need to know, that applies to each and every individual specific piece of information. Therefore, in our work, there is no deemed need to know on any piece of information. It's the originator and owner of the information that determines who gets access to it. To give you an example, when we get information from an international partner and we want to provide it to the RCMP for a law enforcement investigation, we at CSIS have to go back to the international partner, ask if we can use these exact words, and give this exact information to the RCMP for the purposes of a criminal investigation. It's very regimented.
From our perspective, there's always value in being very precise about the language that's used. In our business, in our world, there is no deemed need to know on pieces of information. It's determined on the basis of that very specific circumstance.
Every day, for example, there are a number of meetings that I'm not allowed to attend, because, despite my position, I don't have a need to know for that specific operation.