Public Safety committee  Yes, but we mentioned in our presentation the obligation on Canada. Canada can act on that, but obviously it has to be reciprocal. What we're objecting to is what was revealed by Snowden and others, the fact that you can obtain information from a foreign agency that came from spying on Canadians, which the Canadian agency itself could not have done legally under Canadian laws.

Public Safety committee  We did not review that specifically, but the fact that it is a part-time position definitely left us somewhat perplexed, given the extent of the work involved. In view of the fact that the commissioner must seriously review the authorizations and various proposals submitted to him or her, we feel it would be reasonable for that person to occupy the position on a full-time basis.

Public Safety committee  Our hope is that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency can verify that the agencies respect Canadians' rights in the course of their work. That is why we think the agency must first have the necessary resources, as Mr. Mirza previously mentioned. Second, the agency must also be seen and act somewhat as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does with respect to privacy.

Public Safety committee  No, terrorism is not a fantasy, but if you consider the tragic events in which two Canadian soldiers were assassinated in separate events in Canada in fall 2014, and if you recall the way those events were described, you would have thought all of Canada was under attack, whereas that assessment was largely exaggerated.

Public Safety committee  Yes, the gathering of incidental information is a major problem. We now know that agencies gather an enormous amount of information. We are aware of all of Edward Snowden's revelations. Information retention is indeed a major problem. It should be clear that information incidentally acquired on persons who are not the target of an investigation or are not suspects should be purged as soon and as effectively as possible.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  Okay. I'm sorry I haven't—

Public Safety committee  I'm sorry; I don't...

Public Safety committee  Pardon me; who received tens of million of dollars?

Public Safety committee  What does Leadnow have to do with this?

Public Safety committee  The letter to what effect? Sorry, I'm a bit misled by the....

Public Safety committee  That's not at all what that means. We acknowledge that terrorism does exist. We acknowledge that terrorism is a problem. However, we do not feel this is a war in the sense in which the word "war" is used in international law. We feel that terrorism is fundamentally a criminal activity in the same way as the activities of international drug trafficking networks and other similar groups and that the term "war" was used to dramatize the situation in the public's eyes, to arouse fear, and thus to permit the adoption of provisions that we think do not enhance our security but undermine our rights and freedoms.

Public Safety committee  I agree with what the representative from the Muslim Lawyers Association just said. I think a necessity requirement would be a definite improvement, and it would provide some standard to evaluate data retention, because, of course, as mentioned, one of the threats we see in what's proposed is the fact that there would be data banks built on Canadians.

Public Safety committee  Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but he's a lawyer, and he thinks so.

Public Safety committee  We feel it is a distinct improvement and does not pose the same threat to freedom of expression. That much is clear. However, counselling a person to commit an indictable offence is, in itself, already an indictable offence. Consequently, we fail to understand why this provision was not simply repealed, since this amendment has been made.