I can't count the number of constituents in the past three years—the lineup is very long, Mr. Chair—who tell me that the most exciting part of their week is looking forward to the CPAC airings of our meetings. I get emails bombarding us to show more and do more.
On a more serious note here, I don't doubt the sincerity of my colleague opposite. I've known him for the past three years. We're on the foreign affairs committee together.
Here, I disagree with a number of things raised in the motion. My colleague mentioned the word “duplication” in another context, but I still think it's a very relevant word to focus on here.
For half of these proposals within the subamendment, I think they're the purview of other committees. For example, if you look at subamendments a) and b), I can make the case that those are issues to be taken up by the committee on public safety.
I don't think they've gone ahead with it, Mr. Chair, but I'm aware that the committee on public safety has been very interested in pursuing a study on cybersecurity. I think subamendments a) and b) would fit within that. It's certainly not really the purview of the finance committee to look at, for example, “current data” and “security risks”. Or, if you look at b), at the words “risks and threats” to private data, that is again a matter that the public safety committee can look at.
Also, if you look back to a), Mr. Chair, the ethics committee, if I'm not mistaken, has recently looked into such matters, particularly with reference to social media.
My colleague opposite seems to be nodding. I think he might be on the committee.
Mr. Dusseault, yes...?