The objective, Ms. Damoff, is to have language that accurately reflects the contracting capacity of the person or the organization with whom you will be entering into a contract with, if I have my participles right. The language in the present law is a bit vague, and the intention here is to describe the other contracting party who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract with the Correctional Service of Canada. There is no intention here to narrow the scope or to rule out potential contracting parties, but they need to have the legal capacity to enter into a legally binding contract.
I note that the language we've used here is similar to the language used in other legislation—for the Department of Indigenous Services Canada and so forth. We've tried to mirror that legislation by expressing it in the same way.
If some further clarity needs to be found in that language so that we get the intent exactly right, we would be happy to consider any amendments that might be proposed, but we think this language, running in parallel to what Indigenous Services Canada does, accurately reflects the intention here: to enter into contracts for the provision of services, with the other side having the legal capacity to sign the contract and to honour it.