I am mindful of that.
Part 2 aims at solving crime, and I understand that. I don't think anybody around this table is saying, boy, we want more crime. The question is about getting it right.
To Mr. Bilodeau and to all the other witnesses, we have heard from so many witnesses. Frankly, not enough time was given to them because sometimes we had three experts on a panel. If you have an opening statement of five minutes each, that's 15 minutes, and that leaves 45 minutes for questions and answers, sometimes with three outstanding witnesses. Really, we could have had one of them, so we didn't always hear the in-depth knowledge.
I sound like a broken record, I know, but I think the chief issue here that we are dealing with is that we didn't get a lot of the technical information. We were told that we needed this, and Mayor Brown touched on that. We need this because we want to catch criminals. I get that, and we get that, but how does proposed subsection 5.2 relate to that? How does the ministerial order relate to that? How do the different categories of metadata relate to that? How do location services relate to that without intruding on privacy, notwithstanding the requirement for a court order? Those are all very live issues in part 2 that I don't think we really dealt with.
I apologize. This might not seem like a fair question, but I think it's an apposite question. If given the choice of having part 1 or nothing, I assume the officials would say that we need the powers in part 1. Is that an accurate statement?