Mr. Speaker, what we put forward makes a lot of sense, because even the Minister of Justice agreed to one of our amendments, but the government refused it. Basically, the member is telling us that all of the witnesses appeared, but he is not telling us that all of them were in favour of this.
Mr. David Fraser said:
Even though the definition excludes content, just the transmission data tells you a lot more about really what's going on.
I would suggest this can be fixed by either raising the standard from reasonable grounds to suspect to reasonable grounds to believe with respect to this data, or re-crafting the definition of transmission data....
He added a little bit more, but the whole idea here is that although the government allows witnesses to appear, it does not listen to what the witnesses are saying. Again, we see a government that continues to victimize the victims and makes it legal to do illegal things.
Can the minister indicate whether or not the government is absolutely sure that this will not constitute a constitutional debate?