Yes, I figure that this is probably going to be one of the more critical decisions and one of the more controversial decisions, and I can see both sides, including Director Fadden's case for not, I think, giving the minister the option.
Much of what this legislation will ultimately do, rather than sort of prosecuting people, is about drawing red lines and establishing clearly what sort of behaviour is and is not acceptable in this country. This is what much of the Criminal Code, for instance, also does. It lays out the rules of the road.
The problem that, for instance, universities have when it comes to research security—where the government made a similar choice of listing only public sector entities but not private sector entities, all of whom have Communist Party structures within them that pose the exact same threat that public sector entities engaged in intelligence and defence do—is that, for universities, for private sector actors, it doesn't provide a reference point based on which they can then engage in higher scrutiny. Without government providing that reference point, it will become relatively easy to accuse universities of randomly, for instance, scapegoating or whatnot.
I think more direction from government is required for those players who do not have the classified access that federal government entities do, including on the research security side, for instance, where I chair the Ontario research fund advisory board and where we know there are significant challenges around what is being funded.