Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming. I respect what you're trying to tell us. Unfortunately, for procedural reason, many of the examples of changes to this legislation, as presented to us, would be outside the scope of our amendment power for a bill coming to us after second reading.
So I am going to talk to you about some of the things I think are within that scope. One of those would be the choice of lawyers. Another would be a prohibition against using evidence from torture. Another one could be a duty of confidentiality, just because the bill specifically says there is no solicitor-client privilege.
I would like to canvass how important you think each one of those would be. I am not saying right now that we are absolutely certain they're within the confines of any amendments we could make, but I can tell you some of the others I've seen are definitely not within the confines of the process. This is not a bill...and I know the procedure for a bill sent to us after first reading is that we can amend it in any way we want. So even though I understand what you and others have been telling us, I'm just telling you that some of those wider amendments are not possible with this particular piece of legislation at this time.
Having said that, I would like to go to the Canadian Arab Federation, because I think the choice of a lawyer in this situation would be a critical thing to have in the bill. Could you expand on that?