I can say there was considerable thought given to the exact wording, including extensive consultations with the police themselves. In terms of the wording “reasonable and proportional”, we did endeavour to ensure they were comfortable with that. As I understand it, when this was last before the committee, the RCMP commissioner told the justice committee that the words “reasonable and proportional” have always defined the essence of ongoing police responsibility. That's the essence of what police officers have to do; they have to act reasonably and proportionally in the circumstances.
In respect of who will evaluate that, there is a question of who's looking over the law enforcement officers' shoulders and second-guessing them. There had to be standards enacted in the legislation, and as soon as there are standards there are people who are going to potentially second-guess those standards.
Those are issues that can come up in court. In situations where it is found that an enforcement officer did not believe, on reasonable grounds, that it was reasonable and proportional, there could be consequences for that individual officer, for the investigation. Nevertheless, it is a standard that is analogous to one that has always been in law. Police officers have always had to.... Part of the challenge of being a law enforcement officer, I suppose, is that people are going to be examining your conduct, and your conduct will be subject to law.
