Public Safety committee  Yes, as soon as the information is found not to be necessary for the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the recipient, they must destroy it. That is what preserves the privacy interest of the individual whose information is presumably being shared. However, if the information

Public Safety committee  There was once a provision in the bill—and it is still there for the moment—that indicated that nothing in the legislation affected the retention or disposal of information. An amendment to that effect has just been passed. That is why these words must be taken out of the bill. I

Public Safety committee  I will just explain what it does. It takes away from the definition pure activities of “advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. It's to make clear that we don't wish to capture those when sharing information. However, we did modify it to say that if such an activit

Public Safety committee  The issue here is that we have a frequent use of the word “investigation”, referring to two types of investigations. We just need to be precise. Perhaps it would be, “if, in the agency's opinion”, as a start to the subamendment followed by “and in consultation with the agency le

Public Safety committee  Or “proceeding”.

Public Safety committee  In my experience in legislative drafting, it does happen that the French and the English are not direct translations of one another but rather, the operative words are not the same to achieve the same effect. In the case of the “mais” as opposed to the “et”, I think we have less

Public Safety committee  I don't particularly, but I think that our drafters would probably tell you that “and” is comprehensive, so both elements are included in the sentence. “Or” maybe just parses it out, says this or that. Honestly, I think either way you would achieve the intent, but our drafters t