Thank you. I think it's important for Canadians to see parliamentarians standing together when it comes to that sort of thing. Excuse my emotions.
To go back to the matter at hand and this amendment, can I just say how deeply thankful I am for all of you here? I know it's been a long time. We're asking very in-depth, very crucial questions. I'm really thankful for how much attention you've paid to this. You've been actively listening to all our questions and concerns. That means a lot to me personally as we delve through this.
It feels like some members come to the committee with decisions already made. I feel somewhat disappointed that the questions being posed and answered aren't being closely listened to, or not as well as you all are listening to our questions, so we can make informed decisions about these amendments. It's important to me that we make informed decisions on the amendments.
Ms. Gibner, I appreciate your help in all this. You've helped clarify a lot of things for me. You mentioned that when something is less intrusive, the threshold of suspect versus believe is acceptable. I'm with you on that to a point.
If I didn't feel like all of the amendments we're putting forward for part 1 and part 2 to qualify language, which are upcoming and have already passed, quite frankly.... When we want to qualify and clarify language to be “namely” versus “including”, for instance, as in the last amendment we looked at, being very careful to limit what you mean by “subscriber information”.... It seems that, in general, at least the Liberal members on our committee aren't willing to specifically name and qualify so that we can get more specific. We might have been more willing to accept the threshold of “suspect” if we understood what exactly it was.
I understand with this one that it's specifically in terms of.... It's not subscriber information. What's the wording? I'm sorry. I'm losing my train of thought. It's to find out whether or not they're a subscriber, yes or no.