Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the commissioner for joining us today.
I just wanted to echo what my colleague said.
It's great that we have had several hours of debate in the House of Commons and in committee. However, I think it's important to mention that most of the experts agreed on one matter. They felt that the study of the bill should have been carried out in a more comprehensive manner when it comes to the provisions on access to information. Unfortunately, we could not examine the provisions of other bills, especially Bill S-4.
Although we have carried out a good study, we could have considered the issue in more depth. We could have taken into account other bills that could have an impact on the application of Bill C-13.
My first question is about your presentation. You talked about a lack of accountability mechanisms. In fact, Bill C-13 contains no oversight mechanisms or provisions for notifying individuals whose data has been shared.
For instance, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was struck down by the Supreme Court, not because those mechanisms made it possible to share information obtained without a warrant through wiretapping, but rather because that section did not provide for any oversight or notification mechanisms. The people who were tapped by police officers were never notified of that fact.
I will make a comparison with section 188, which allows for a quick examination by a judge owing to the urgency of the situation. So the Supreme Court ruled that section 188 was valid, since it included an oversight mechanism.
Could you expand on the requirement, in Bill C-13, to comply with, on the one hand, section 8 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms and, on the other hand, the ruling of the Supreme Court that calls for such a mechanism?