Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In contrast to Mr. Norlock, I'm going to dampen Ms. May's hopes on this one, as this essentially serves the same purpose as the subamendment, which we moved to government amendment number 1, in requiring what is already the law in Canada, according to the Privacy Commissioner.
What we keep getting from the government is that somehow protecting security is in conflict with protecting basic rights. We've always argued from the beginning of the debate about this bill that it's a necessity for the government to protect both rights and civil liberties, and we never doubted the capability of a Canadian government to do both of them at the same time.
We're not being asked to choose terrorists over other Canadians in these amendments, or terrorists over privacy rights. We're asking that the measures we adopt in this bill protect both the security of Canada and privacy rights. Again, the Privacy Commissioner has made very strong recommendations with that clearly in mind. I think no one here would argue that the Privacy Commissioner had any intention of supporting terrorism or the use of violence.