Okay.
I may have another two or three questions to ask you. Basically, what I am hoping is that this will convince us we need to get the Canadian Bar and the top-echelon police chiefs back before the committee.
For argument's sake, let's say I authorize an investigation, for example in east Montreal; I am a designated officer and I give a policeman the go-ahead to launder money in order to infiltrate an organized crime group. The provision in question may apply, from what I understand, because money laundering or drug trafficking would have been involved. What I am interested in knowing about are other cases when, due apparently to some sort of emergency, a designated person has not given authorization for such an offence to be committed. Those that are opposed to such a provision fear a reduction in accountability; they are afraid that practices may be engaged in which break the law.
There is one thing that would have been useful this afternoon. Usually, the Department of Justice provides the committee with a helpful information kit before the meeting. The department has previously given us copies of decisions handed down or annual reports. I am not complaining, you are all fine folk. I imagine it is because you were asked to appear at the last moment and that your ability to bounce back may have you headed for the senior public service. No one knows what the future holds.
Can you give us any examples of emergency situations which have been invoked which may reassure or give cause for concern to those who would challenge the provision? Was my example very relevant? If it were an exam, what would you give me out of 10? Remember, I can always get it reviewed.