I'll start.
I would take a step back and remind myself what the subscriber information provides to people who provide services to the public. It's not going to be one-size-fits-all, which means that the information needs to not be an exhaustive list. It needs to be an exhaustive definition that could have varying components or examples of it.
Ms. Sullivan said it was a good drafting technique. That's a thumbs-up from Ms. Sullivan that we did a good job by putting in the chapeau. It must mean information used to identify the subscriber, and then they're giving examples of what that could look like. It has to be non-exhaustive, as it were, because service providers capture identifying information in different ways.
I am personally comfortable with that because it is a judicially authorized warrant where the police will have to go to a judge or a justice, identify the kind of information they want and set out how the reasonable grounds to suspect test is met in order to fall into those rubrics. That's how I would answer the question. Mr. Wong may have further things that might help you.