I don't know if I understood you correctly. I have no doubt the Privacy Commissioner's team is competent in this area. They have a legal department. In fact, Mr. Dufresne is himself a lawyer. However, you're telling me he and his team knowingly proposed amendments that would undermine the work of police officers. That's troubling. I have a great deal of respect for the commissioner, and I'm saddened that he's not here to make his case or share his point of view, or that he doesn't even have the opportunity to say he was wrong if that's the case.
What you just said is a big deal. I'm troubled by that. I don't know if you're familiar with this Quebec expression, but you're telling me the commissioner is “dans les patates”, which means he's completely out in left field. What you just said is pretty big. I don't know how the expression “être dans les patates” is rendered in English, but it's very colourful in French. It means being completely wrong. I think that's a very strong statement, Mr. Wong. I'm shaken to hear you say the amendment would undermine the work of the police. I'll have to take your word for it, but I still doubt that. If the commissioner was here, I could ask him questions and I'd be satisfied.
I'm going to stop asking questions, because I'll basically keep going in circles. You're going to keep repeating the same thing. Deep down, what I'd really like to hear is the commissioner's answer. This little legal battle would allow me to better understand what the commissioner had in mind when he proposed this. He proposed eight amendments. I can't believe his entire team got it wrong. His intent was not to undermine the bill or lawful access.
Thank you for your heartfelt answers to my questions.
Mr. Chair, I'm done with my remarks.