Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister made very specific reference to 10 amendments. He was very detailed in his description. He made reference to the fact, in conversations around the table, that they exist. That was not in testimony but in the conversations. I think it is an insult to this committee, which is going to embark on quite an extensive study of probably one of the most important bills we'll see, both from the privacy perspective and from the perspective of the artificial intelligence act, which some have claimed may be an existential threat to humanity.
We should have the amendments so that the testimony we are going to embark on in the next 13-plus meetings—it's at least 13—enables the witnesses to adequately assess the latest version of the bill that the minister intends to present to Parliament. I think it is a disservice to every witness who has spent over a year and a half considering this bill since it was tabled in Parliament to reference at this stage that he is amending the bill, going into the specific details—I can repeat from his speaking notes what he said—on those amendments, but then say, “Oh, no, they'll come during clause-by-clause study.”
That is unacceptable, because witnesses will adjust their testimony based on how the government intends to make sure that a fundamental right is in section 5—as mentioned in the Privacy Commissioner's brief, as well as his discussions on this bill elsewhere—and worded in such a way that it has teeth. We do not know that, because the minister wouldn't even say that this is where it would go when asked about it.
I believe it's incumbent upon us to have those amendments in order to have a very fruitful and knowledgeable discussion with witnesses over the next 13-plus meetings.