Justice committee  Because that was the existing law. The 90 days is the existing law for ordinary wiretaps. The provisions regarding wiretaps under section 186 already have notification requirements of 90 days, and possibly for an extension.

Justice committee  Basically, what happened in terms of notification was that we just used the same model—

Justice committee  —the same wording that existed for the judicially authorized authorizations. The Supreme Court of Canada even noted that there were previous attempts by the government to address the same type of problem and had proposed notification requirements. The Supreme Court of Canada wa

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  We basically followed the advice of the Supreme Court.

Justice committee  Thank you. I think on this issue we would disagree with the Canadian Bar Association, because the provision in the bill actually requires, in the amendment to subsection 195 in proposed paragraph (2.1)(a), that the report set out “the number of interceptions made”. So those are

Justice committee  It's included—

Justice committee  —because there's already an obligation to report all interceptions and all persons who are notified, whether or not.... What the report does is go beyond that to say, can you also state—

Justice committee  That's right.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  In this case, it was very easy to know what would be compliant, because the Supreme Court of Canada told us. The Supreme Court said that a notification requirement would meet the—

Justice committee  Thank you. As I understand the question, it's whether there should be some concordance between this bill and another bill that's before Parliament, and if that bill is passed whether certain references in the Criminal Code already to certain provisions of section 467 of the Code