Chair, amendment NDP-4 is virtually identical, certainly in intent and perhaps in text, to what we had moved in the context of one that was defeated just a moment ago. That is the same provision that we dealt with on warrantless disclosure of taxpayer information in clause 28, which was defeated.
The language is very, very similar. Once again, it would allow an official to provide a law enforcement officer with this information with absolutely no court oversight. Our concern is the same here as it was there, and indeed, I should foreshadow that we have another one with the same intent later, Mr. Chair.
We don't know who this official is. The term is not defined. It could be anybody. I guess it could be somebody who's working temporarily in some regional office of the CRA some night, giving the police some information which this person, who has no law training and no knowledge of criminal law, considers to be a serious offence of some sort, providing confidential taxpayer information for that purpose. It is so contrary to the way we do business in Canada that people are lining up to take a run at this in court. It seems so unnecessary and so contrary to our traditions to proceed in this way that we make the same amendment with the same goal to defeat this, really, un-Canadian approach that the government is taking.
Conservatives have really stepped out on this one. It's not the way we've done business in Canada. It's an infringement of civil liberties. That's why so many people across the country and our Privacy Commissioner have blown the whistle on this.