Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to wish you a happy birthday in advance.
I'll be brief. I'll take your wise advice that we should speed up our deliberations.
This subamendment is related to amendment BQ-4, which is a very well-intentioned amendment that follows a recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner. It relates to what could be in a document that is provided by a service provider in response to the back-and-forth with police and the order.
Mr. Chair, when I read BQ-4, which says, “produce a document containing the subscriber information that is specified in the order...”, I felt that it was too limiting. It assumes that police would know, when they are preparing their request, exactly what information the service provider would actually have, and it's way too early in the process for them to know that.
What I propose is to refer back to the definition of subscriber information, and to say that they would produce a document containing the subscriber information referred to in any of the proposed paragraphs (a) to (c) in our definition of subscriber information. I would like to try to limit it in a way that I think is respectful of what the Privacy Commissioner had actually intended.
I'll leave this by asking the officials if they feel that what is drafted here is something that would work—not from a determination of the committee's perspective. Does it actually reflect the intention of what should be in the bill in terms of how it's referred back to the definition?