Government Operations committee  It depends on the issue. On the technical expertise it would certainly be CSE. I do believe they have that expertise now and have provided it in certain select cases but they have to be consulted first. Then on the geo-economic aspects, I think you wouldn't want to involve an a

Government Operations committee  I'm not saying that it's harmless. What we're dealing with is a spectrum of risks here, and how we manage those risks can have a huge impact on the overall security. Even if we aren't going through Chinese companies, there still are a lot of risks that are put in place. That's ef

Government Operations committee  I think this was backed up by Christian Leuprecht's testimony, in the sense that the risk is fairly moderate. Of course, these devices do have to be updated, and there is the fact that perhaps Chinese individuals would be coming in to fix the equipment. All of these are serious r

Government Operations committee  There are so many other ways—

Government Operations committee  In my view, I think it would just be easier to harness the expertise that we have now within the Communications Security Establishment. They are perfectly able to provide technological reviews, as well as help with risk mitigation strategies. Certainly, that seems to have been th

Government Operations committee  That's one possibility. My concern would be that we simply would not be able to adjust fast enough. My issue is that we seem to be all one way and not the other. What I'm arguing for is layered security. Again, I very much respect the testimony by other colleagues, but if we tak

Government Operations committee  Thank you. I note that my computer has glitched throughout, so hopefully I will be able to make it through. I believe you have my written testimony, and I would be happy to repeat if required. Thank you for having me here today. Before I begin, I feel that I should disclose tha

Public Safety committee  Thank you for your question. Again, I would refer you to the worldwide threat assessment. It is a 10- to 15-page report written in very basic language that provides guidance as to the priorities and concerns of the U.S. national intelligence committee. It's there for anyone to r

Public Safety committee  Again, I don't see any overly broad restrictions here in terms of sharing information in the legislation. As I noted earlier, if anything, it's actually in a lot of ways wider than the previous legislation, so I believe that won't be a problem. In terms of how the guidance is t

Public Safety committee  I have a general comment. Do you have something specific?

Public Safety committee  Are you referring to the SCISA-SCIDA changes?

Public Safety committee  If anything, I actually thought the definition was probably widened in the current legislation as it stands. There was actually a limitation in C-51. I know I keep referring to Craig, but we podcast a lot, so we're kind of melding into one. First it was the chapeau piece, and tha

Public Safety committee  My view is that they actually want clear guidelines. They want to know where they can step and where they can't step. The reason is that they want cover in a sense that they want to know that where they're actually operating is in the correct legal area. Providing them that, whic

Public Safety committee  Do you mean the public reports?

Public Safety committee  In some ways I think what we're going to learn from these reports is how these powers are being used, how often they're being used, and whether our security services are having difficulty complying with the law. What they're not going to necessarily reveal is what the threats are