There's a bit of a crossover on this issue, especially with respect to cost during the ongoing lawful access consultations we've had over the last number of years, which my friend alluded to, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, the bill that was introduced by the previous government.
The Telus Mobility case is going before the Supreme Court of Canada, actually. That's the case that dealt with the imposition of a fee by Telus at the time as a precondition for complying with an order for production of data. The Supreme Court, it is my understanding, has granted leave to appeal. The CACP is considering intervening in that case.
What we found is that the deregulation of the telecommunications industry has produced a lot of small players in the industry. We have consulted with them, and we're mindful of the challenges they have in complying with requests from law enforcement. A lot of these ISPs are mom and pop operations, and they operate on a very thin margin, profit-wise. They tend to be good corporate citizens, and we know that. They want to comply, but there's an impact to complying.
We do find also, though, that there's perhaps some concern with respect to their liability if they produce information without a warrant, when in fact a warrant isn't required or we don't have a warrant available. We try to give them some comfort and clarity as to what's required.
By and large, we do run into some challenges, that's true. There are probably no doubt examples of blatant disregard, but I would say those are the exceptions, not the rule. That's why we look for clarity in terms of the tools, and we look for the tools necessary to get the information to us. The other concern, obviously, is that ISPs' data is erased quickly, so we need to get to it quickly. That's an area of concern for us that the MITA legislation was intended to address as well.