Information & Ethics committee  I think it takes a number of instruments. On your point that the sending institution may not be an expert, in the context of this legislation, on national security, that's quite correct. I think government envisions that before information is shared, there will be a discussion between the sending and receiving institutions as to whether, in the context of the current act, it is relevant to the mandate of the receiving institution, on which the first department may not be an expert, but the second is.

Information & Ethics committee  Absolutely. There's a risk of that for intelligence-analysis purposes. From my perspective, from a privacy-protection perspective, that is why you need a number of tools to ensure that information sharing occurs, because there is a value in information sharing for national security purposes, but you have to ensure that not too much information is shared and retained.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to discuss the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, or SCISA, which was enacted under Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. When Bill C-51 was introduced in Parliament in early 2015, I expressed strong reservations, which remain true today.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  In my remarks I referred to a few. On the question of to what extent the disclosure of information that would be injurious to national security limits the mandate, access, and reporting, I think these deserve amendments as well.

Public Safety committee  It is certainly better than it was a few years ago, particularly before the revelations by Edward Snowden, but it is still very imperfect and weak overall.

Public Safety committee  I can certainly undertake to provide this information to you.

Public Safety committee  I will say that the way in which the committee is proposed to be structured under the bill is certainly preferable to the status quo. It would be certainly possible, and I think desirable, to have more independence in the way the committee is structured than what the bill proposes.

Public Safety committee  The other three committees are subject matter experts for the national security operations of the agency they supervise. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of course is an expert on privacy as it relates to all government departments, including national security agencies, so there's a complementarity to the mandates of SIRC, and so on, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Public Safety committee  I didn't understand the last part of your question.

Public Safety committee  We're dealing with the committee of parliamentarians' independence or lack thereof. Under the bill, the committee reports to the Prime Minister. The committee is therefore part of the executive. In this context, it would be normal for the Governor in Council to establish the regulations.

Public Safety committee  I was talking about the mandate. I think the mandate should not be subject to exceptions or limitations. In terms of access to information, the limitations in the bill should be reduced. In terms of the type of report, certain limitations may be reasonable.

Public Safety committee  My opinion is slightly different from the opinion of the other witness. I think—

Public Safety committee  I think to conduct an informed review in accordance with paragraph (a), it's useful to review the activities in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c). If paragraph (b) is limited, the application of paragraph (a) may be affected.

Public Safety committee  It is absolutely essential to have access to a maximum amount of information. In the case of recent reports we have prepared about the CSE and the disclosure of information to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, we had to know the details of what had happened in order to make useful recommendations which were relevant and likely to improve the protection of the rights of Canadians.