Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I presume everyone has now received the subamendment in both official languages. This is just to level set the purpose of the subamendment to Ms. DeBellefeuille's very good amendment, which originated from the Privacy Commissioner's suggestion to narrow the scope of information that could be available in a confirmation of service request.
You'll recall that we had an exchange with Ms. Gibner and Mr. Wong on that. There was some disagreement or confusion on my part or their part—it doesn't matter—on how the list of subscriber information as described in the bill should be understood. Specifically, it was whether the types of subscriber information listed in the bill are just that and nothing more, or whether this provides some sort of illustrative or non-exhaustive list.
My suggestion was to delete the word “including” in proposed paragraphs 487.011(a), (b) and (c). The advice from the legislative drafters was to not only delete the word “including” but also include the English word “namely”—forgive me; I don't know the exact translation in French—so that it is a closed list. What is described in proposed paragraphs 487.011(a), (b), and (c) would be the list itself.
That's why you received it as deleting “including” and including “namely”. I just wanted that on the record since my understanding of the advice I received from the drafters was different from my own suggestion.
I want to talk a bit about why I moved that subamendment, but prior to that, I will just build on one point from MP Caputo with respect to the officials who are here.
I want to ask the RCMP and CSIS if they could tell me how they were invited to appear before the committee for clause-by-clause.