Thank you.
I think the amendment is quite reasonable. In fact, the words used are the following: “An employee who was, is or has been designated as likely to become [...]”
That is very broad when we we are talking about the employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but I think that it is still in the spirit of how we should consider a future employee.
In English, the terms are the following:
“likely to become”.
There again, the wording is quite broad. A lot of identities could be protected with that.
That is all I wanted to mention.