What you just added is good to know, because there's something else that has been on my mind since I read Bill C‑29. We already have the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, and other bodies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, obviously, that investigate a lot of these issues. A whole range of organizations are working on this. I wonder if, at some point, that might create a kind of commotion. We can come back to that.
Let's go back to the definition issue. I am not acting in bad faith, and I am not against the bill. I think it's a good idea: It is essential to fight these crimes. However, there is a way to go about it. I wonder if the wording of the bill could be improved, because I think it is essential to define these criteria in the act. We can't tell a commissioner, whose position is created by the act, that they will have to define the criteria for the investigations the agency he heads, and that is also created by the act, will conduct. It's a vicious circle. I think there's a bit of a contradiction there.
Do you agree that these definitions should be clarified in the bill?