Mr. Chair, I can take a crack at that. It's an excellent question.
What I can speak to, perhaps, is how our closest intelligence partners manage similar situations. The way they do that is also by facing independent scrutiny by designated parliamentarians, similar to how we do it in Canada. For example, the U.S.'s FBI is overseen by specialized congressional intelligence committees. The U.K.'s security service is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is overseen by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's similar for New Zealand, but with a different acronym.
What you'll see is the consistency in how allied partners manage this. There are designated parliamentarians who are cleared to the appropriate levels to receive—based on the reviews, specific files and issues they're looking at—the information they need to be able to carry out that function. It's very much about entrusting a designated group of individuals to carry out that function, similar to what NSICOP does for us.
We would be in a bit of a difficult position if we tried to speak to the views of all of our international colleagues. However, I think it would be fair to say that there would be concern, and there always is, when there's a possibility that they or we, as a designated intelligence service within Canada, would lose control over who gets access to specific pieces of information. That's where it circles back to being very clear about the vocabulary around “need to know” and that having a right to apply does not equal having a need to know.