Yes, I'd like to speak broadly to clauses 230 and 231.
At the briefing for parliamentarians which took place on May 11, an official was asked explicitly what the motivation was behind this division. The response was that it was “in response to recent developments”. Only when the official was pressed on the nature of these recent developments did the official admit that it was related to an access to information investigation. It took two more days before we learned through a media report that the Information Commissioner hadn't just undertaken an investigation, but she had found evidence that suggested the RCMP had broken the law, and referred the matter to the Attorney General.
Why weren't officials more forthcoming about these events in the briefing to MPs on May 11?