Look, to help us get there, I want to provide a bit of context.
Ms. Kirkland, when she led her questions, talked about this debate going on for a few years. It hasn't been going on for just a few years; it's been going on for 30 years.
I invite everybody to watch the video of Commissioner Carrique's summary of the importance of this bill upon the legislation being tabled. You can hear the frustration coming out of law enforcement. I think there is consensus among law enforcement to move forward, because they are very tired of the criminal organizations responsible for human trafficking, auto thefts and drug trafficking. They know this activity is going on, and they are trying to do their jobs with one hand tied behind their backs. When they receive tips from foreign governments, in particular, on something as sensitive as child sexual exploitation, they want to move. They do not want to invade people's privacy along the way.
Thankfully, there have been several evolutions in Canada and around the world that demonstrate how we can better protect privacy. There's been some discussion at this committee about the differences between the approaches of our Five Eyes partners and Canada's. Of our Five Eyes partners—or France, Germany, Finland or Spain, for that matter—none require judicial authorization to get subscriber information. We're talking about information that used to be in the phone book. We would still require that a court approve access to that information. This would streamline access without compromising privacy in any significant way.
If you want to go beyond that, even in exigent circumstances.... The one exception would be when an emergency is playing out and the crime can be stopped, or if evidence is going to be destroyed. There would even be opportunity on the back end to.... The test would still have to be met, but the harm could be undone, so to speak, by a court excluding evidence, should they need to—if, in fact, there was a privacy breach committed.
We've improved this, by the way, through a consultation process with different MPs from different parties, and with experts who said, “You know, you might want to ring-fence what subscriber information you're looking for”, so we excluded medical information and legal advice. This is about finding out who is behind a phone number or an IP address when we suspect they are tied to a criminal activity of one kind or another.
At every step of the way, we've tried to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat modern crime. At every step of the way, we've said, “How are we going to do this in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?” I'm convinced that we found the right balance, after many years of debate and many months of discussion among parliamentarians of different parties. This strikes a balance that will allow us to defend the interests of Canadians, keep our communities safe and respect the privacy rights of Canadians at the same time.
