What I want to get to, though, is that in this bill, the intent, as per the sponsor, is that first step. As members of Parliament, we do not have an administrator or someone saying that this person's job requires access to those assets, information, technology and so on. From what we heard from the last panel, there are two steps. First is what I'd like to call the justification or reason to apply, which is the administrator step. Second, once you've passed your security clearance, there's the need to know.
The fact that there is a reference to the words “need to know” in this bill may cause some ambiguity in terms of.... What are we referring to here? Are we referring to the application part, or are we referring to the fact that once you've passed all of that, you must now have a need to know?
Would you recommend any changes to this bill that would eliminate any ambiguity or remove any little bémol that you may have with respect to this bill? I understand the intent is really about parliamentarians applying.
Is the concern about the need to know, because it's in the second step in terms of the access to this information?