Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to also comment. I think I heard Mr. Housefather say that some of the information in the subscriber production order was minimally identifying or narrow. I take a very different view. We've established that the confirmation of service is certainly much less intrusive, but the subscriber information is quite broad. It goes beyond just the potential to identify a name or an identifier of a person. I'm not sure I agree with his point that there's no likelihood that it might be disclosed in this. It could include all the types of services provided, when those services were provided and anything that identifies devices, equipment, etc. I want to put that on the record. That's a different view on the scope and how broad the production order for subscriber information is.
Second, I will reiterate that it would be fabulous and useful to the committee to have the Privacy Commissioner here to speak on his suggested amendments. I know we have asked for unanimous consent multiple times to get consent to bring the Privacy Commissioner here, so I'm not going to do it again because it will be futile with the members across the way. This is an example of how this process has become fouled by the members opposite who simply don't want to devote sufficient time to going through this bill in a civil and substantive way in order to deal with these issues.
They may not like being reminded of those decisions, but we will continue reminding them of those decisions.
Thank you.