You would have access to the data, since I don't see any reason why you would be denied that.
Basically, as we speak, you need to have “reasonable grounds to believe” before moving on to the next stage of your investigation. You want to lower the threshold to make it easier to obtain data to continue your investigation.
What surprises me is that it's a bit like the lawyers versus the police. All the lawyers, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and many experts have told us that giving you this ability would be the wrong way to go.
I'm sure you're an honest person, an honest police officer. You have a flawless track record. However, we know that no one is infallible. We know that there have been corrupt police officers. We know that there have been police officers who have been infiltrated.
We have some questions. Lawyers in Quebec and Canada are recommending that we don't go down this path, and what you're giving me as testimony right now is not convincing me to withdraw my amendment.
I know that my amendment will be defeated, but that doesn't make me want to withdraw it. Honestly, if I felt I was on the wrong track, I wouldn't be embarrassed to withdraw it, because I'm not an MP who plays politics. I'm genuinely interested in the content, and I want to improve the bill. However, your examples aren't convincing me. If you have any others, I encourage you to share them with us, because right now, I'm not convinced of the merits of having such a low threshold to access that data.
Do you want to give me another example?