Mr. Chair, I do have a question for the officials who are here.
It is somewhat problematic on two grounds. Ms. Groguhé said the difficulty is that we should limit the amount of information the individual would be required to provide. I have great difficulty around that, because it suggests the individual can do what we're hoping to prevent, and that is to hold back information, information that is necessary to the interview or to determine whether or not the individual who would be interviewed has done something that is contrary to the act.
That part concerns me off the top, and it's part of the reason we wouldn't support the amendment.
The other is the issue around what is currently required versus saying what is relevant. Perhaps we could get staff to find out what the intention is in terms of the interview process. Currently, when the CBSA has the opportunity to interview individuals, I understand or hope, to get clarification, the information is, generally speaking, relevant to the case that they're hearing versus their trying to find out information about other cases.
I can't see how an amendment such as this is actually suggesting that this is what's currently happening, and I would like to get some clarification on that.