It would be desirable for the commissioner to review that because the conditions prevailing at the time he provided his initial authorization may no longer be applicable.
I have to say we aren't convinced about the commissioner's role. I would say the commissioner position gives the impression that there will be a kind of quasi-judicial review of the minister's decisions to determine whether they are consistent with the charter. That's what's understood. It's a kind of security, but it must be understood that the information the commissioner receives to validate or not validate an authorization depends entirely on what the intelligence services provide to the commissioner for the purpose of establishing an assessment of the situation that warrants the authorization.
The minister issues the authorization, and there is an enormous amount of pressure on the commissioner to approve it since no one wants to be held responsible for having denied something that might result in a subsequent security breach. There is no counterparty to advise the commissioner to oppose the file submitted by the intelligence services.
Our great fear is that the commissioner may play somewhat the same role as the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is widely known to grant authorize authorizations almost automatically.
We are not opposed to this commissioner position, but it must provide adequate protection from rights abuses. We feel that remains to be proven.