Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
Just as a matter of helping us understand, the Criminal Code is a pretty large book, and it has at the beginning of it, in section 2, some definitions that might be used later on. The original intent of Bill C-299 was to throw in personal information under section 2, as a defined item, by referring it to PIPEDA and that sort of thing.
My understanding was that PIPEDA wasn't going to work, for a number of reasons, but particularly because it wasn't personal information that was in there, and therefore it wouldn't help the spirit of this act. The amendment seems to make sense.
Just as a matter of form, in the same manner in which you did PIPEDA in section 2, why didn't you throw the new definition of identification information into section 2? When you look at proposed paragraph 362(1)(e), for instance, on false pretence, the principal definitions, like “organization” and “false pretense”, are in section 2. It's just a matter of form. I'm just wondering why that was done that way. I don't know if I should ask Mr. Moore or you or whomever.