Thank you for your question.
The fact is it doesn't replace the Privacy Commissioner. They are two different things. Part VI sets out the conditions in which police can use the tools. It stipulates the obligation to obtain authorization from a judge, the obligation to give notification and various other conditions. That is very important.
One thing is for sure. If the use of a tool was not subject to such obligations or a regime like this, there would be even fewer mechanisms to limit that use. A tool that is used across the board for everyone will certainly be handled differently than one that is used specifically for the purposes of an investigation. However, that does not relieve police of the necessity to assess the potential privacy repercussions when they plan to use new tools. That is why my office views those assessments as necessary, and we can contribute to the process by providing advice and an opinion on the issue.
Perhaps we will come to the conclusion that the assessment mechanism is adequate and come away reassured. The police could then tell the public that the tool had been scrutinized, and Canadians would be reassured. Perhaps we will conclude that the mechanism is quite good but has a few gaps given how quickly technology evolves. The regime would then need to be strengthened, and new criteria or safeguards added. All of that is possible, but it won't automatically flow from part VI, and that's where my office comes into the equation.