I'd like to answer that.
The point is that I recently had experience with SIRC. I went through it, and the reason, in part, was because a person, during a security screening interview, was asked personal opinion questions. The person was an Arab Canadian, an airport worker, and they were asked, “What do you think of the Palestinian Authority? Why do you think they can't achieve peace, or do you think they'll ever be able to achieve peace? Do you think it's okay for the government to describe some organizations as terrorist organizations?”
The person wasn't applying to be a foreign policy analyst. They were a customer service representative with a major airline. That was their job. What was interesting--and it ties into this business of compartmentalization--was that we argued that this was a violation of section 2 of the charter. They have a right to have these beliefs, as long as they're legally held. There is no correlation between having these beliefs and criminality.
The government argued at SIRC that SIRC lacked jurisdiction to deal with the charter, that they were limited to looking at the specific enabling legislation for CSIS, and that the requirement to look at political beliefs comes from the government security policy and that's from Treasury Board, and SIRC had no jurisdiction to look at anything the Treasury Board produced.
So this compartmentalization is exploited. This is why there has to be an overarching agency that will review all these things.