Public Safety committee  Actually, you are right. In his decision, Justice Noël himself said that his definition of “associated data” may differ from the service's definition. I must admit that it may be a little confusing. The section of data that Justice Noël decided that we could not retain constitutes his definition of “associated data”.

Public Safety committee  First, we said that we were in the process of amending our policies and procedures. There is an adjustment in terminology, but the terminology matters little. Justice Noël's decision is clear: If the information is not threat-related and linked to third-party communications, we cannot retain it.

Public Safety committee  Maybe John will be able to clarify it. In the database containing all the associated metadata, some of that data was the subject of Justice Noël's decision. When the decision was rendered, we stopped accessing the database in its entirety. Now we are resuming access to the data that we are clearly able to identify as threat-related.

Public Safety committee  I will let John answer that. But I can say that when associated data is threat-related, an operational report is produced. We are able to establish the link, that is, to go back to the operational report and find the associated data that was used to produce the report. That is how we work.

Public Safety committee  Perhaps I would like to add that, as part of that analysis, if we cannot clearly determine that the pertinent analysis is linked to a threat for which a report was produced, we err on the side of caution and we leave it in the section that is not accessible.

Public Safety committee  I can give you one example of why we're doing further analysis. Let us say some of that information that is subject to that decision was used in any type of proceeding in the context of a criminal case or an administrative case, and we destroy that information. Then, if we go back to Charkaoui II, the Supreme Court decision told the service that when you're using information in a court context—criminal, administrative, tribunal—you have to retain that information.

Public Safety committee  That's what we're trying to do now. It is extremely complex to go back—and I can ask John to explain why—into that data bank of associated data and to do that analysis of what is threat related and non-threat related, what was used before, what was not, and what could be safely destroyed.

Public Safety committee  No, it would be me, obviously informing the minister as things progress. It would be informing the minister, and as the minister mentioned, he has asked SIRC to review what we're doing as a result of that decision and to report back to the minister.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  No. Actually, Justice Noël said that he did not express an opinion on the entire matter of privacy in his decision.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  Once again, Mr. Frater can comment on that. However, the Federal Court decision deals with our responsibility to be transparent and candid with the Federal Court. Despite the fact that we had advised the departments, SIRC and the inspector general, we had failed in our duty and responsibility to be transparent with the Federal Court.

Public Safety committee  An opportunity certainly arose when the program was created. As indicated in Justice Noël's decision, the program's existence was mentioned at one point in 2011, but only in passing. According to the Federal Court, it was not done thoroughly enough to really allow the program itself to be understood, especially the fact that we were retaining all the associated data.

Public Safety committee  Yes, in terms of the information that is subject to the ruling, it is still retained, but no one has access, and no one can use it in terms of doing analytics.