Yes. Mr. Fraser, I know, spoke to that, and he could perhaps elaborate around why that very broad definition encapsulates far more than I think most people would realize, given just how broadly it's defined.
I did want to return to your question that I didn't have the chance to fully respond to, where you asked, why go so broad? I do think—and I say this with respect—that as I look back on the many years of lawful access debate, it is invariably the case that law enforcement seeks as many powers as possible, and one can understand why. They would like to ensure that they can do their job as effectively as possible. However, just because you can demand that very broad approach doesn't mean that the government of the day ought to acquiesce, and certainly Parliament should not, once it's had the opportunity to study the implications and the trade-offs that exist when that happens.
We saw it, frankly, in Bill C-2, where there was clear overreach with respect to warrantless access to information from anybody providing a service in Canada. People said, hold on a second, that goes too far. Thankfully, the government listened on that issue, but we still have other issues where I think we need to recognize that it does go too far and we need to scale back, recognizing that we'll still address many of law enforcement's concerns and needs.