Public Safety committee  In responding to that question, when CSIS was created I don't think the occasion to disclose classified information in an open forum was originally envisioned. We've had to move down toward that reality. At the same time, the federal courts that usually deal with open information are struggling with dealing with classified information, which in an intelligence organization, by definition, the intelligence is secret.

Public Safety committee  That is exactly how I understand it. I did read the testimony of Mr. Leckey from CBSA and that is exactly as he has articulated it. Our exit becomes their entry, and vice versa. As I understand it, it is only a trial exercise at this point. It hasn't been fully implemented across the board.

Public Safety committee  I'm probably not the best person to answer that question. As I said, not being a peace officer, I would not be directly involved in executing the provisions of the act as they are proposed right now. Again, people from Justice have been before you. I believe they commented with respect to their perception of the potential vulnerabilities with this legislation.

Public Safety committee  That's a very good question. It's a difficult job. We're a victim of our success sometimes. I would only point to the Toronto 18 case as an example of individuals who were radicalized in this country and were looking to commit a significant terrorist act in this country. Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism.

Public Safety committee  I guess you would have to ask Mr. Fadden what his thinking was on that particular one.

Public Safety committee  I'm not privy to that information, Mr. Scott, unfortunately, but I can tell you that, from a service perspective, we would be very interested in an exit information system. I chose that word rather carefully. It's not control we're after, it's information on individuals who have left the country, because as it stands now—and I believe you heard the testimony from Mr.

Public Safety committee  Under the new system, as I understand it, but you're absolutely right that it would be U.S. to Canada and vice versa.

Public Safety committee  I'd suggest to you that it probably wouldn't be as direct as a requirement. I would suggest it would probably make very good common sense in most instances. We work very closely with our RCMP colleagues, who have the authority to enforce this law. We speak about a variety of different issues all the time, including direct investigations where we may run our own parallel investigation to theirs.

Public Safety committee  I'm all you have, I guess, at this particular point. I guess, in responding to that, if there's latitude for expanding the no-fly list, or the specified persons list, as it's known more appropriately, that's a policy question for government. We will react to whatever the government decides on issues like that, and we will adjust our own operational protocols accordingly.

Public Safety committee  As I said in my opening comments, it does give law enforcement another tool to prevent terrorist activities from taking place. I think that's fundamental in this regard. The Government of Canada's counterterrorism strategy does emphasize the prevention aspect. I think what we're doing here, or what was intended by this law, is enabling law enforcement to engage individuals before they travel to those faraway lands and prevent them from engaging in what would be described as terrorist activity, or what you described as occasions for training and that sort of activity.

Public Safety committee  I would certainly agree with that as you have articulated it. I think prevention and disruption are slightly different things. When you are referring to prevention, perhaps you are addressing the root causes of radicalization, but you can also suggest that when that individual arrives at the airport intending to travel to faraway lands to engage in jihad activity, you are certainly preventing him from doing that as well.

Public Safety committee  I guess you've heard from the experts on that, Mr. Scott. I read the testimony of assistant commissioner Malizia in that regard, and I would agree with his assessment that it's important to have the ability to question individuals who might not otherwise be cooperative with the government or law enforcement with regard to potential attack or the opportunity for terrorist training.

Public Safety committee  Again, the experts would be in justice or in law enforcement. I can offer my own opinion based on what I have read of the legislation. I would suggest to you that doing that is not the intent. I would think it is to be used very rarely and under very specific circumstances, to question individuals who would have a direct knowledge of threat-related activity.

Public Safety committee  It is indeed a continuing and present threat. Al Qaeda has been around for a while now. Their leadership has suffered some losses, but the message that al Qaeda delivers resonates increasingly in the west, in Canada in particular. We've seen an increase in individuals who have expressed an interest in al Qaeda.

Public Safety committee  We're aware of at least 45 instances, possibly as many as 60, where individuals from Canada have travelled to the countries you've identified to participate in training or in terrorist acts.