If I may, there is no doubt that part 1 is important, but so is part 2. Our job as the public service is obviously to hear concerns about gaps in the system. In this case, it's lawful access and some of the difficulties of law enforcement and the intelligence service in getting access to certain information because capabilities are not uniform across a particular sector. We've talked about the unevenness and about how this legislation, especially part 2, is creating some consistency across core providers, for example, which would likely be telecoms in the first instance. It is about creating a level playing field.
We've heard the concerns from law enforcement. We've developed policy options. The result is the legislation that's before you today. Part 1 and part 2 are obviously—it goes without saying—distinct parts of the legislation, but they are both equally important to solving some of the gaps that have been identified in various lawful access regimes and can help law enforcement and intelligence services fill those gaps.
The legislation that's been put forward is the result of years of effort and policy and is trying to achieve the balance of having lawful access within the Canadian system while respecting the charter. That's the legislation before you. Obviously, we're here to support you in answering questions about amendments and providing our best information and advice on those amendments so that you can make an informed decision.