I'd like to start with the comment that, first of all, I think it's so necessary that we respect all the opinions that are involved in this conversation and the need, as you say, to strike that balance. I'd also like to acknowledge particularly that there have been many victims' families, particularly on the cyber issue, who have spoken quite publicly about their leadership, about their bravery, and about their leadership in terms of ensuring that we in this country have this conversation—this very important conversation—about that balance.
This conversation is not unique to this bill. This is something that we constantly have to be looking at, but in my opinion, the tools that are in this bill are needed to ensure that law enforcement can conduct that investigation. My understanding is simply that there is information that comes in specific to an investigation. They then ask the telecom provider to preserve that information and they then get judicial authorization to access that information. So I think that does.... I mean, when you talk about checks and balances, I certainly think that judicial authorization is an appropriate check and balance.
So as we move forward—and I did in my comments talk about technology and its impact—this won't be the end of these conversations. It is a conversation that I think not just parliamentarians and governments continue to have, but that Canadians need to have, because it is involving us in that very public discussion that allows us, as Canadians, to really ensure.... In a way, it's another method of oversight that Canadians are having this very important conversation. But in my opinion, these tools are needed to assist law enforcement in ensuring that we have the ability to gather and preserve that evidence.