As a law student pursuing a doctorate -- which is no small thing in the life of an individual -- you are seeking to strike a balance, just as this Committee is, between the powers needed by police to dismantle organized crime networks and the necessary accountability that we consider to be desirable, as elected Members of Parliament.
What I found interesting about the idea of judicial review is that a third party -- possibly a judge -- becomes involved in the process to ensure that there is no abuse. Is that consistent with the confidential nature of some police investigations? Do you believe that as currently worded, these provisions are too generous and thus do not jibe with the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada, because of their imprecise nature.
Is that not an example of a judicial review that would have the effect of closing a door? There is a potential risk of abuse or the risk that people will rely on a public officer, and specifically a member of the RCMP, to be acting in good faith. In the final analysis, what's you're concerned about is abuse, is it not?