That's a very good idea, and it's obviously something we might even consider in our report. I appreciate it.
I just want to go, again, more into the....
I'm sorry. I feel guilty and maybe I should make a disclosure, Mr. Chair. I used to work at Rogers when I was in high school and university, on the telephones trying to put through cable requests. I will admit that even back then—this is the reason I feel guilty—Rogers was really hard core when it came to people's privacy. I thought they had, at that point, one of the most advanced systems I had ever seen.
When I got into the provincial government, I brought government ministers in to see how your systems work—and this was back in 1995 or 1996—to protect people's privacy and make it easier for people to get information. I have always felt that you guys were a leader in that area.
I want to deal with the name and address check again, because this is the one that has caused much of people's concern.
On this side of it, you're basically just confirming something so that police know where they're going. You're just talking about a time-saving mechanism, so that in certain cases the police avoid extraordinary duplicate information or avoid going to multiple sources when they can just come to you and make sure that they get the right information so that they get the warrant. You are still in essence protecting people's charter rights, but you're providing basic information for the police.