That is helpful, and I agree. I started at the genesis with the first case, and of course it's evolved, as common law does. I take the point that it's not that test anymore but a version of it. Even in those cases, it's still cited approvingly as the start. I like to start at the beginning and then go to the top to see how it's most recently been considered. I appreciate your comments there.
Maybe we interpret the facts a bit differently. You were making the distinction in the Southam case that you're investigating a place of business or a home. That obviously attracts a higher threshold. Of course, I agree with that. If you're going into someone's home, that probably has the highest threshold we could establish, but with our activities online, in all of their various ways, online has increasingly become our digital home. People are participating in society online in a way that they never have before. We as parliamentarians should recognize that and seek to protect the privacy of Canadians online in a similar manner sometimes, not at all times. I agree that some stuff attracts a lower expectation and some attracts a higher expectation, but where I disagree with the government on this is in some of the stuff they're suggesting, like that basic information should a attract lower expectation. I'm not sure that it should.
Over time, more activities will be done by Canadians online and more of their life will be online. The common law needs to grapple with that and I hope protect it under charter jurisprudence and common law jurisprudence.
I have another point I want to make, but I think I'll make it in our discussion of the production order.
I want to ask for unanimous consent one more time, Mr. Chair, and then I will be done my comments. As in my other comments, we've been talking a lot about the first step here, which is about the ISPs and providers. I would like you to canvass the committee, if you could, to see if there would be unanimous consent to invite NordVPN to provide testimony on part 2 of Bill C-22.