Certainly, Mr. Chair.
I want you to know that I usually appreciate your sense of humour, but I think you went a bit too far when you speculated that, based on how much time we've put in so far, this study would go on until 2028.
Of course, if we had genuine co-operation among all parties, we could have done this in less time. However, I don't think there's really any room for discussion or debate when the government isn't necessarily willing to listen to our arguments or amendments.
I just want to put your humorous remark and tone into perspective. They did not sit well with me, as an opposition party member. I would have appreciated a bit more sensitivity from the chair.
Regarding amendment BQ‑5, this proposal stems from the brief submitted by the Barreau du Québec. As I'm sure you understand, the Barreau du Québec is, in my view, quite an important and credible witness. Amendment BQ‑5 reflects one of their recommendations. They propose changing the standard for making an order to disclose subscriber information from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”.
I actually supported the first part of the argument for “reasonable grounds to suspect”. I no longer recall which amendment it was, but I agreed with the government. However, this time, I think it would be more reasonable to introduce an amendment and change the threshold for obtaining the data.
With respect to this specific clause, I would like someone to explain to me how changing the threshold for accessing data and replacing “suspect” with “believe” in the context of the production order would hinder police work. This change would take us to a whole new level of accessing information and data. Why are you so attached to leaving it as is?
If my amendment is adopted, would that be the end of the world for police work?
Sergeant Gilkes, you're so good at explaining things clearly. Can you try to help me understand why the amendment proposed by the Barreau du Québec isn't a good idea?