Sure. I'll do that. I'd also like to just note a couple of things. The commissioner did not appear before the Senate committee on Bill S-4. Because of the long delays in getting a commissioner appointed at that time, there was no commissioner, but people from that office were in a position to appear because it had been studied. So the commissioner actually didn't appear on Bill S-4.
In terms of lengthy study, with respect, let's be clear. The committee began a review of this bill in November 2006, and by May of 2007 it released its report.
We got first reading of Bill C-29 in May 2010. A second reading took until October. There were never any hearings held on Bill C-29.
The next bill that was introduced was Bill C-12, which was the second attempt at this bill. It sat at second reading for two years without moving forward. There were no committee hearings held on it.
We finally now have Bill S-4, on which there were two sets of hearings. Four days were allocated to this piece of legislation within the Senate: one day for the minister to appear; another day for clause-by-clause; two days for hearings. So if we're going to talk to witnesses about not having appeared, frankly, there were very, very few witnesses who had the opportunity to appear at all. This is, with all respect, not a well-studied bill. It is a bill that has now come through three times, and in most instances there has been no study whatsoever. When the Senate had the chance to hear on this bill, there was not even a privacy commissioner in place to deal with it, due to the long delay in finding a new commissioner to replace Commissioner Stoddart and later acting commissioner Chantal Bernier.
With respect to the commissioner's support, yes, I too can cherry-pick particular comments from the Privacy Commissioner about where the commissioner supports the legislation, but I can also note that the commissioner's office has been consistent in saying that it finds it problematic with respect to voluntary disclosure, and yet that hasn't changed, and in identifying a number of other improvements.
So the question is this. Is this a well-studied bill that we ought to get on with? With respect, it is both not well studied and ought to be fixed. Canadians deserve better.