Thank you for the question.
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I spoke, but the recent Juristat report said 94% of cases were not cleared—and this is for child sexual exploitation cases. The two main reasons they gave were that they had insufficient evidence—either they couldn't meet the evidentiary threshold to get, probably, the next tool, or they were unable to identify the suspect. Those are the two main reasons that 94% of child sexual exploitations are not cleared.
The subscriber information production order is designed to help police lower that number, because it will provide quicker access to evidence so that they could identify the suspects and decide whether or not to pursue an investigation.
I would also like to say, in terms of the example that Sergeant Gilkes gave, that it's important when tools that the police use might generate other leads. You know you're investigating a bad guy, and that bad guy has known associates, or he's phoning other people. Some of the tools in the Criminal Code allow us to monitor the activities of these bad actors. Those numbers that are generated are the types of identifiers that need to be tied to an individual. Therefore, a lower-threshold tool with specific information allows police to get only the identifying information so that they can identify who's on the other end of that number.
The tools that are available for them today are the general production orders, and those would allow police to access any and all information when they can eventually reach that threshold. That's a longer process, but it's also much more privacy-invasive for, say, the pizza delivery guy whom the bad guy called. Instead of saying that he's the pizza delivery guy and no longer a suspect, he is now the pizza delivery guy whom the police have all the information on. These tools are not only meant to provide police with greater flexibility and agility in investigations but also meant—because they're specific production orders—to protect privacy.