That is exactly the point that I was driving at in my first comment. I think it's unclear on the face of the language what category of information we're talking about and whether it is the same as that intended under clause 16, which has a very specific definition under a specific statute.
It may indeed be redundant, in which case we don't need the subamendment, as Mr. Dubé is proposing, because it would be covered under clause 16. On the other hand, if it's not redundant and if it's intended to cover some other category or subcategory of activity, then I would agree with the comments made by Mr. Davies and Mr. Sutherland that we would want it anchored in some kind of definition that currently does not exist. That's why I think there is the prospect, which is my original concern, that there could be unintended consequences and contradictions that flow from adding this new term to the act.
Do I have that right?