Public Safety committee  Yes, that's a copy.

Public Safety committee  Again, I think there are operational aspects to any kind of report that means something's ongoing and people are doing work in real time. The issue is, from a policy discussion standpoint, whether or not you want that kind of thing brought in front of the committee.

Public Safety committee  My concern is that unless the definition of “operational” is anchored in the act, you may find your way to viewing anything that is ongoing as operational. If “ongoing”, as I think, implies “operational” by nature, whether you put it in or not will not, I think, have a great effect, but I think you would have to look at the draft.

Public Safety committee  My first reaction is that it would be redundant, but I think you'd want to ideally define the word “operational” in the act, if you're going to put it in, because the effect of the narrowing is not clear either way.

Public Safety committee  It's anchored in the SOI Act.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Information & Ethics committee  That would take a bit of time. That's policy work that we're doing in the context of the national security consultations—

Information & Ethics committee  It's a viable question to ask in the context of the consultations that we're doing, but it's not as easy as a one-week or a two-week reply. It will take a few months.

Information & Ethics committee  Not necessarily the CSIS Act.

Information & Ethics committee  It doesn't matter whether you get a specific example or not. The point is that if you go up to the necessity standard, then there will more than likely be less information going to the national security agencies. Whether it's example A, B, or C, it doesn't really matter. There's likely to be less information moving.

Information & Ethics committee  In my opening remarks, I talked about this a bit. The definition in the act is broader. The issue is whether all the other 16 departments and agencies would see themselves within the CSIS Act. As a national security agency, you have to look at whether they could see themselves within the CSIS Act.

Information & Ethics committee  I can only talk to the policy work that was done prior. All of the 17 were requested...in fact, anyone who thought they had a national security responsibility was requested to look at their activities, argue, and get their deputy head and minister to agree that they have a national security responsibility and that this definition that we're working on would fit for them.

Information & Ethics committee  The governance structure linked in the act is that the deputy head is ultimately accountable, but the deputy head can create a delegated structure within his or her department that would include the necessary training and the other people who have authority, for example, to make determinations or advise internally on what is relevant.

Information & Ethics committee  Just to add on that, SCISA has proved to be necessary but non-sufficient, in the sense that other than closing legal gaps and having a clear legal framework from which to encourage departments and agencies to share in the national security agencies, it allows more training, learning, or working on educating people, particularly those in the non-national security world, on how those gaps are closed and how they can use the act in a way that creates safeguards and respect for privacy but also helps on the national security front.