Public Safety committee  It's one of the 17, but what they can collect does not change. This is making sure that all of the 17 have the authority to collect information, and that information can be disclosed to them. We're not changing the powers of the service at all.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  It's because the 17 that are in the schedule of the act need all of their mandates to be encompassed by the act, otherwise the act won't have an effect. It will only have an effect for CSIS if we use the CSIS mandate defined in the CSIS Act in section 2. We needed to make sure th

Public Safety committee  I'll let Sophie take a crack at it.

Public Safety committee  That's right, because the other 16 would be affected. You cannot disclose lawfully to the other 16 without the proposed definition. The CSIS Act definition in section 2 of that act doesn't necessarily include all the other 16.

Public Safety committee  To the second part on the threshold related to critical infrastructure, I just go back to the point that we've made before that the chapeau is the key here, that the threshold be considered in the context of whether the activity undermined the sovereignty of Canada, the security

Public Safety committee  We haven't actually received the subamendment.

Public Safety committee  The immediate reaction, based on legal advice as well, is that government institutions don't sign agreements with themselves. They can't bind themselves.

Public Safety committee  My response would be that the consequence of switching from “relevant” to “necessary” as the amendment proposes would put the many departments and agencies in government in an awkward position. They would be forced to become the national security experts to understand what is nec

Public Safety committee  That's correct.

Public Safety committee  No, sir. Could you repeat that?

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  No, the threshold for the passenger protect program has been the same since its inception. I think it was in 2007-2008 that it was originally created with the Department of Transport. It's always been reasonable grounds to suspect.

Public Safety committee  To terrorist travel.

Public Safety committee  My initial reaction would be, yes, it would complicate things. By bringing in the concept of imminent, it would create issues on how you meet that definition and how that would be prescribed. It's much easier to keep things open-ended in case the minister needs to take other kind