I'm happy to chime in here, just because we've been working with the RCMP and CSIS on challenge functioning and trying to pressure test the concepts that we're talking about today that are in the bill.
We really saw this as a building block. It is the first block, and my colleague has done a great job of explaining how we saw this very much as a yes or no. With the ground of suspicion, that makes sense. If, say, we get.... I mean the royal “we”. I suppose it could be from any side, but certainly with law enforcement. When the U.S. child sexual exploitation centre, which has greater flexibility within the investigative space, provides the RCMP's unit with an IP address, it's literally put on the shelf right now.
To go back to the numbers and stats that Ms. Gibner gave, this would at least allow us that first crumb in order to figure out who in fact the IP address belongs to. The building block of that investigation, in its totality, has to be presented in a court in order to have somebody charged and prosecuted. All of that information would be put bare for all of the public to see.
For us, the collection of all of that information and all of the steps that both of my colleagues have spoken eloquently to certainly gave us pause and gave enough of a rationale to encourage that it be put forward to the table for consideration.