Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll attempt to get three issues on the floor as quickly as I can. We'll see if it works.
I want to continue where I left off before on decision-making and draw our witnesses' attention to page 11, item 1.19:
Our 2004 audit reviewed the management of security intelligence, finding that overall direction came from five high-level government committees within the intelligence community, and that decision making was by consensus. When agencies could not reach consensus, decisions could be delayed.
I draw to your attention items 1.27 and 1.28, as the Auditor General did. You'll recall that when I asked her if this was still a concern, her answer was yes. So I'd like to hear a response to that.
Secondly, on the day this audit was tabled, in the news release, the Auditor General said in the fourth paragraph:
The audit also found, however, that security and intelligence agencies are still not subject to a level of independent review that corresponds to their intrusion into people’s lives.
I'd like to hear some comment on that.
My last comment is on the watch list--they're called lookouts in this report--on page 27, item 1.72, and on page 29, item 1.81 where it says:
Processes to ensure the quality of lookouts have improved in certain areas; however, there is a gap in ensuring the quality of lookout information provided to CBSA by other agencies.
If you flip the page over, that comes up as an issue first shown in the 2004 audit, and it's still unsatisfactory.
Those are the three areas.
Don't all jump in at once.