Public Safety committee  You can do one of two things: you can remove the section, which may not happen, or you can perhaps provide that, if the Prime Minister is going to redact it, he has to provide reasons to the committee—not to the public, but to the committee of parliamentarians—explaining why the

Public Safety committee  Well, the dispute mechanism I recommended is—

Public Safety committee  —the Federal Court, the designated nine judges of the Federal Court.

Public Safety committee  Yes. In a perfect world, yes, you would, but you might not get it.

Public Safety committee  I think redaction would be acceptable if the information would jeopardize an operation of one of the security agencies, such as CSIS or the Canadian military. Let me, Mr. Miller, give you the flip side of that. What information that has been redacted in the past should not have

Public Safety committee  I have a view on this, and I tipped my hand on this a couple of weeks ago when I appeared before you in Toronto. If you leave it for three or four years, you're into 2018 and, if I recall, there's probably going to be a federal election in 2019 and reviewing national security leg

Public Safety committee  It would be. Is it three years from when—

Public Safety committee  It's five years, that's correct, but some have suggested that some review be held in three years. Some have suggested in five years. My big concern is that Bill C-22 is all you're going to do and that everything else is too delicate and too difficult to fix. If you do Bill C-22,

Public Safety committee  Nothing will happen. In my view, that would be a mistake.

Public Safety committee  I think those clause 14 areas are within the list that has always been operative in the security community in which I've operated for 30 years. I don't want to say that it's beyond debate, but it's generally accepted that this is the list. It came originally from CSIS. It was att

Public Safety committee  It's not Canadians, but the committee of parliamentarians.

Public Safety committee  Yes, I was perhaps being more symbolic than real in the current context of a majority government. I think a prime minister would propose a chair, but propose that to Parliament, and it would be in law and would inform the decision of Parliament. In a minority Parliament, it would

Public Safety committee  That's correct.

Public Safety committee  No, I think that's one of the difficulties. The proposed committee of parliamentarians would be under a different set of rules than would SIRC or the commissioner for CSEC, and that doesn't make sense.

Public Safety committee  That's correct.