Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That was a good question from my colleague Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
I believe the recommendation was made by Mr. Dufresne.
I think this is exactly why it would have been valuable to have the commissioner testifying about the amendments that were very important to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. I know that this was something my colleagues attempted multiple times to have happen. It's unfortunate that the Liberal government did not want to do that and have now introduced legislation that further weakens the power of the Privacy Commissioner. That seems to be adding insult to injury for someone who's trying to help Canadians.
In any event, I appreciate that very much. I would just submit to this committee that if the government felt it suitable to make crystal clear in the statute that medical information and solicitor-client privilege would not be at issue in the confirmation of service....
Again, it's a lot harder to draw a line from confirmation of service to medical information or solicitor-client privilege. If that were the argument from the government in that section, I see no reason why they would not want to make the same crystal clarity in the actual production component, where there is potentially a greater connection between these two things—unless, as Mr. Mantle suggested, it was deliberate to not offer that certainty and not offer that assurance. The government has had months to work on this bill. You have to assume that everything in it is deliberate, just as you have to assume that everything not in it is deliberate.
That speaks to the broader point of why cutting short this committee's process and preventing us from being able to subamend amendments is an incredible violation of the rights and privileges of members.
Thank you.