I'm trying to understand the purpose of the amendment, because I think Monique just did a good job of describing something that's critical to this process and part of the reason why they'll be kept that long.
We actually grant visas, one-year or temporary visas, or five-year visas, or even the new 10-year super visa. One of the advantages that visitors to this country have under the new strategy with respect to biometrics is that they would have to pay the fee once, and at least their record, if they're legitimate and confirmed travellers.... They would not have to continually go through the process.
I understand the issue of privacy. Whether or not we happen to agree on this particular part of the bill is one thing, but one of the aspects that's very important to the members on this side is the issue of privacy and how that privacy is respected.
I think it's a useful vehicle, not just for the safety and all the other reasons I have argued or presented over the past couple of days on this biometrics issue. The fact is that it actually gives those who are travelling here to this country a confidence that if they have qualified once under the new system—unless something happens to them, from a security perspective—they're going to be approved to travel again and again into the country.
So it's an actual advantage to travellers coming into the country. It's obviously an advantage to Canada in terms of the nature of its safety.
One more point I would make—and please confirm this, staff, in case I'm wrong—is that if an individual has gone through the biometrics process and then has been granted the honour of Canadian citizenship, those documents and records will in fact be destroyed.