They aren't drafted how the Office of the Law Clerk would draft them, but I don't think it should be too difficult to turn them into amendments, given how we've laid them out in our brief.
We refer to existing regimes, such as Australia's law, which stipulates that orders must not have the effect of rendering encryption less effective. That amendment is in there. One of the provisions in the bill we're concerned about says that the provider is not required to comply with an order.
We feel it's important to state that the order shouldn't be made at all. It puts the provider in a tough spot. They are being ordered to do something but are allowed to disobey the order under the law. I think things should be done right from the start.
We addressed necessity and proportionality, referring to Great Britain, which takes those factors into account. Australia does too. They are core principles, so it's not hard. They can be added to the factors the minister or Governor in Council has to take into account.
The eight recommendations we've made are targeted and concise. Essentially, they're intended to achieve that critical balance.