I could comment on the last presentation, but I will indulge your advice on that, Mr. Chair.
I will note that when we've discussed biometrics in any of the previous amendments that have been suggested by either Mr. Lamoureux or Ms. Sims, the concern we have had, and continue to have when we see the amendments come forward, is that if we were to pass them, it would actually prevent the government from being able to collect biometrics to (a) check for a criminal background and (b) check for previous immigration history, which is critical to the success of implementing biometrics, at the same time as passing the bill. If someone is going to seek entry into Canada and they are not a Canadian citizen, and they do so through the means as suggested in the bill, then I think the adoption, as is, of the biometrics strategy within the bill is important, and it will be supported by the government.
I do note, though, that Ms. Sims is correct. I do recall when she did ask for that information and it was to be forthcoming. I just don't recall that we'd actually set a date so that we could have it before clause-by-clause, which we probably should have done. It's my mistake as much as anything else because I don't think the biometrics folks were thinking we needed it before clause-by-clause. I think they determined it was something the committee wanted to look at under its biometrics study, but not necessarily for the clause-by-clause.
I could be wrong, but if any of the staff here want to comment on that specifically, they are free to do so. I'm not asking for that, but if they want to make a clarification, it's probably a good time to do it.