Thank you.
The officials are confirming that. I don't want to eventually see this at the scrutiny of regulations committee, where we'd have to quibble over whether it is the same.
In regard to this, I'd like to ask Mr. Garon something.
Referring to something that has not yet been identified is always a bit of a tricky thing. When you say there's an equal expectation of privacy and say “not limited to”, what kinds of things could this be referring to? We are counting on an interpretation by future bureaucrats and the minister responsible that allows them to determine what would have that status. I'm always a little loath, particularly after the Bill C-22 debacle, to give too much power of interpretation for future decisions without clarity as to what we're giving consent to.