Mr. Gilkes, I'm going to conclude with this, because I wouldn't want to be accused of filibustering.
I know that, after conducting an investigation, you successfully charge people. The investigators are good, and they manage to secure charges. However, today, it's as if you're telling us that you can't catch criminals with the tools you have. However, I know that your success rate is quite significant. I believe in your intelligence and your experience. According to your testimony, it's as if it were a life and death situation.
You aren't telling me that you're currently doing a good job, that you're succeeding in catching criminals even though the threshold is a bit higher, but that it would be easier if the threshold were lower. To me, that isn't necessarily a good argument. What I always have in mind is that there has to be a balance between security and privacy. What I'm hearing right now is that it would be easier, but it isn't impossible, since you're already doing it. Your success rate isn't 0%. You're successfully catching criminals.
I don't want to belabour my arguments, but I have to say that I remain skeptical. Perhaps my colleagues will ask questions that will enlighten me more. I remain skeptical, but I don't want you to think that you haven't answered my questions well.
I'm wondering if this is a case of looking for an easy option. Basically, you're already doing your job very well, and you're asking the provider for confirmation. Why do you need a lower threshold to continue the investigation? I remain skeptical.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.