I know we're not allowed to talk about whether someone's here or not here in the House, but in the context of committee, I want to welcome the member. I'm new as well, and I've been welcomed here.
The subamendment that we are talking about specifically relates to the kind of information that law enforcement is able to get as part of a judicial order. As everyone, I think, around the table who's been involved with this bill knows, there are Canadians who are really concerned about this bill. Many of those concerns relate to part 2 of the bill, and that's one of the reasons why we've been proposing to split the bill into part 1 and part 2.
Of course, today we're talking about part 2 of the bill, and a specific amendment and a specific subamendment. We were talking about the specific situations in which law enforcement uses the judicial authorizations to be able to get information. In terms of that top-down, general, I hesitate to use the word “surveillance”, CSIS operates in a very different way from law enforcement. It's a much broader scope and arena. This is law enforcement saying, well, it's much narrower. The tie-in and the way in which this part of the bill, I think, does something really interesting is that it helps law enforcement make the kinds of connections that sometimes lead to CSIS, without getting CSIS directly involved.
If I'm correct in understanding the interaction between both witnesses and the questioning, the RCMP may find that there is a connection among a number of frauds, or things that look like frauds, that are happening to seniors in our communities; but it turns out that there's enough similarity that they learn through the IP addresses that, in fact, they can be linked to organized crime. This is really relevant in my community and throughout British Columbia as we cope with the addictions crisis, but also for CSIS as they think about issues of national security.
Have I represented your comments accurately in that?