Ironically, the very persons you are alluding to are already paying a premium by going to a law firm to hire the expertise and to submit the requests. If anybody's going to pay, and for whatever reason or whatever motive, which the court says should not be of importance to us, either because they don't want to reveal their identity or they want to have somebody who they know has the technical professional skills to put in a request at the right location.... Who knows? Whoever these individuals are, they are already paying professional fees to the law firms they hire, so why would we want to ask more of them?
I have to go back to how many requests we get a year: 29,000 from a population of 30 million. It's not as if we have any tremendous number. You almost have to ask yourself why people are hiring lawyers. Why are people going through these data brokers?
One of them, I would pose to you, could very well be a large media organization that uses the act repetitively and frequently. I know they do. The Library of Parliament uses it on your collective behalf. Ought they to be paying a premium because they asked, not for you but for the gentleman next to you, the gentleman next to him, and the gentleman next to him?
It's a road that I think would meet with more frustration than actual savings, if you know what I mean. Why would you want to penalize this? Why would you want to look behind the veil, wondering if the 15 requests I've received from this individual represent one client or five clients, and so on?