Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't speak to the amendment that was just raised, but I will speak to the substantive motion that was put forward.
Mr. McCauley and I have had a very good working relationship at this committee and elsewhere. He rushes. It's nothing personal—I can assure Mr. McCauley of that.
However, I'll begin with his point that he would like to know more about how the CRA chooses organizations to audit. He had an opportunity just a few days ago to engage with the CRA on that. I think, if my memory serves, he asked a question in that direction. If he's not satisfied with the answer, of course, there are other ways to put that question forward so Canada Revenue Agency could provide a response. He could write a letter, for example, if this is what animates him as an MP and if this is his driving concern at the moment. He can raise that directly with the agency in a way that does not create a number of problems for us as parliamentarians.
I wonder whether Mr. McCauley, in preparing this motion, had an opportunity to look at the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, because what he is calling for is incredibly problematic, with all due respect. He is putting the officials of the CRA in a terrible position, in that they would be asked to break the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act.
That's not an exaggeration. That's not me being political. That's me looking at the act and recognizing the serious violations that follow in terms of monetary penalties. It's $5,000 for each violation of the act, and even jail time.
We heard very clear testimony from CRA officials on Thursday about why they can't divulge information about work they may or may not be doing vis-à-vis organizations in question. The privacy provisions of the act are quite clear. They are there for a reason. They are there to make sure the CRA—