Sure. My apologies. I will slow it down. I think my staff have gone home for the day, so I won't be able to get them to send it to the interpreters. I will start at the beginning of the first sentence and go more slowly.
The scope of disclosure under the new order is a further concern. Although the definition of subscriber information has been narrowed compared to Bill C-2, the order still allows for production of a broad scope of information, including the types of services provided and the identifiers of every device associated with the account. This goes well beyond what is needed to connect a name to an IP address. It can be directed to a physician, a cable company, or a platform like iCloud, requiring disclosure of what cable packages a person subscribes to, what medical services they receive, or what devices they use. Much of this information carries a high privacy interest and calls for a higher legal standard. If Parliament seeks to create a subscriber information order that can withstand scrutiny under section 8 of the Charter, it should narrow the scope to basic identifying information—name, address, and the specific account identifier in question—and raise the threshold to reasonable grounds to believe.
To that end, they also note:
Including analogous powers in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS Act) raises even greater issues. Unlike criminal defendants, “persons of interest” to CSIS are never given an opportunity in court to challenge the intrusion of state power into their private lives. The Charter concerns are more acute with CSIS, and the Service should have to satisfy a “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold for all of these authorities.
This amendment would narrow the scope to basic identifying information—name, address and the specific account identifier in question—and would raise the threshold to “reasonable grounds to believe” to withstand scrutiny under section 8 of the charter.