I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm putting a hand over my ear. It's not because I'm hearing impaired. It's because, when Mr. Mantle speaks English, I hear him in my right ear and I hear the interpretation in my left ear. If I don't cover my ear, I think I might go crazy. I don't want to sound like I have a problem. I just want to explain why I'm doing this.
It's the same thing when witnesses are too loud, sometimes. It's not your fault, Mr. Mantle. You're sitting close to me and you have a strong voice. You're a good speaker.
All that said, I'd like someone to explain something to me.
Mr. Wong used a great expression at our last meeting: he talked about a fishing net, as opposed to a fishing rod. I like the image. He said it was as if Bill C‑22 allowed for the use of a large net and, as a result, increased the odds of catching fish, that is to say criminals, compared to using a fishing rod, which is more complicated.
I don't know about you, but when I analyze things in life, I always draw a line where on the one side is what's unacceptable and, on the side, what's ideal. In my life, I always try to lean towards what's ideal, but I often settle for what's achievable.
Now, I'll tell you how I feel about the amendment that the Privacy Commissioner recommended. It's as if he's telling law enforcement he understands they've wanted legal access for 30 years and that, now that they might get it, they want the big net right away, without compromise. They should eat the elephant, or the whale, to stay with the fishery imaging, one bite at a time.
When I ask law enforcement what my amendment would change, they say it would make things more difficult, more complicated. The Privacy Commissioner's objective is surely to restrict things a bit. The wording he proposed is clearer on the type of services.
We talked a lot about aliases at the last meeting, but I'm much more interested in the information on the services provided. At some point, there's a limit to allowing access to an exhaustive list of services provided.
Regardless of how many times I ask law enforcement, I know they'll tell me the current wording of the bill is better than the amendment, because it would allow them to do more. However, if my amendment were adopted, the bill would still give law enforcement access to information to which they don't currently have. That would be a plus. Am I wrong, Mr. Burchill?