Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague. The ideals, the goals and the principles that are being sought after in the approval of this particular bill are laudable.
However, there are some serious flaws. I intend to vote against the bill despite my colleague's plea because I want to ensure the government gets the message that there is one amendment which is mandatory. I am concerned that Canadian companies would be painted with the same brush as those companies in countries which are guilty of the crimes that my colleague spoke about.
There is a clause in the agreement that says that investigators can walk into a place without warrant and basically do it without any recourse for compensation for any damage that they may cause. That is a great concern to me.
I think an investigation is proper. However if there is damage to property such as breaking down doors and other things, and if the investigation shows that nothing has gone awry, then companies should be entitled to compensation for that damage as a basic protection of that search and seizure.
I would like my colleague to comment on that particular issue. Perhaps he can give me some reason to change my mind on being opposed to the bill on that account.