To be clear, I think this is a good thing that we're doing to allow disclosure of information. It's just that more questions arise. We just want to make sure that it's done correctly and that the sharing is actually going to lead to a fruitful outcome and have a positive net impact, instead of leading us into more rabbit holes by accident.
Moving further on in the bill, there are quite significant amendments to the Security of Information Act in this legislation. I'm thinking specifically of clause 53 of the bill. Clause 53 is roughly five pages long. In the existing Security of Information Act, section 24 says, “No prosecution shall be commenced for an offence against this Act without the consent of the Attorney General.” However, in clause 53, specifically there's a section “Political Interference for a Foreign Entity”. Given that the Attorney General ultimately is someone who was elected to the House of Commons and then appointed to cabinet, I'm just wondering if you are comfortable with that section, needing the consent of the Attorney General.
Do we need to inoculate it with a more permanent member of the civil service who is not elected and not swayed by political events? Do you have an opinion on that?