No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. I want to take a step back to when you were asking about the Privacy Commissioner.
What we have done at the Department of Justice and at Public Safety is come up with legislation that has built-in privacy considerations. That's the Privacy Commissioner's mandate, as your colleague pointed out. Law enforcement have a mandate. You will recall that Hunter v. Southam set out that section 8 protects a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, not “all expectations of privacy”. Law enforcement and privacy interests have to be balanced in the analysis.
We came up with this legislation after already thinking that through. It is now up to the committee to think through whether we got that calibration right.
What we did when we came up with that definition is think about subscriber information more broadly. It's not an exhaustive list because of the services provided to Canada. We can't possibly identify every single way services characterize subscriber-type information. The category of subscriber information itself, more generally, is calibrated in such a way to target information in a minimally intrusive way, one that provides law enforcement with basic information about services, like name, address and the things we can think about today. My friend calls it future-proofing. When the digital world becomes an AI world, that language might not be exactly the same, but it is basic identifier information.