Thank you for your question.
As I explained before a Senate committee recently, the Supreme Court ruling in Spencer is a very important step forward in privacy law. Before the ruling, it was difficult to know whether the information that Canadians were putting on the Internet could receive strong constitutional protection of privacy. However, the Spencer ruling clearly states that personal information ultimately related to a person's activities on the Internet can in fact receive strong constitutional protection.
There are lessons to be learned from that. Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the evidence required for a government to gain access to information that constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy, in these conditions, we can expect the government to have access to that information only if there are what we call “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is generally the standard applicable here, and not on suspicion.
I think there is a link between the sensitive nature given to information by the Supreme Court and the evidence required for the government to have access to that information.
I will stop there.