Sure.
Let me explain how this ties back to the subamendment. I think all of my comments thus far have been substantive. I just want to make it clear that I'm trying to get to a substantive discussion here.
I'm asking these questions because Madam DeBellefeuille's amendment and my subamendment are directly related to the recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner. That was a recommendation written to the public safety committee and discussed during the Privacy Commissioner's testimony here.
One of the problems I am pointing out is that we do not have the Privacy Commissioner here while we are discussing the subamendment and the amendment, which are directly from the recommendation. My point is that that's a problem and a departure. What we are engaging in here is a departure from past practice.
I want to put on the record that in the previous discussion of Bill C-13, officials from Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice were here—their attendance is routine—but the inclusion of the RCMP and CSIS during this clause-by-clause is different. I want to make that point, because if we are going to say that agencies that have a view on or are affected by part 1 or part 2 of Bill C-22 should be here to provide their input.... I don't disagree with that. I think it's helpful to have the RCMP and CSIS here to answer questions on this. At the same time, on this amendment and my subamendment, it would be helpful to have the Privacy Commissioner or a representative of the Privacy Commissioner here.
That is how this line of questioning relates.
Is that satisfactory, Mr. Chair?