Thank you, Mr. Chair and I won't belabour the point, but I think fishing is a good analogy for this particular issue. I think sonar is great, but unfortunately, it only covers a very limited amount of any particular lake at a time, so it doesn't get in every body of water just as this particular proposal won't do very well.
But I would like to know bluntly, what is the benefit? What is the end result you hope to achieve? Because as a government, and a good government that takes care of taxpayers' money efficiently and with some sense of responsibility, we have a finite amount of resources.
So I'm wondering what the cost-benefit ratio is here and whether there is, from Mr. Rankin's perspective, some endgame that he sees to be a benefit. Because ultimately, I don't think people—like taking a survey—are going to step forward and volunteer the information. You actually have to catch them in the act, so to say, in order for it to be a benefit.
I'm kind of curious as to what the benefit is because our witnesses indicated to us that, frankly, many of them did not see a benefit in this data being collected. I don't really see a benefit in the data being collected either. In fact, I think it's a misnomer. But I'm curious if Mr. Rankin could actually identify for me what end result he expects to receive or at least what he hopes to get, and what he will do with that data or what he expects the data to be used for. How will it benefit Canadians on a cost-effort ratio? Because we do have finite resources and we do have an obligation to spend money wisely. I just don't see this as a wise spend.