I have to admit that I'm quite swayed by the testimony of the two groups that we have just heard. I just want to be sure I understand. As regards judicial authorization, the argument made to not consider this kind of control mechanism is the need to keep the data confidential.
It's quite true when you look at the parallel drawn by the CBA to interceptions of private communications, search warrants, production orders, and so forth, that information is not necessarily disclosed as to the stage that has been reached in the investigation. I'm not questioning the fact that some police investigations can be very complex, particularly when the heads of organized crime groups are being targeted. They need to carry out investigations. But like you, I am relatively favourable to the idea of judicial control.
However, what do you think about this idea that some information needs to remain confidential? Do you think that is something that could be problematic?
I will come back to the matter of in camera meetings and the two mechanisms that you have recommended. I don't know whether it was Mr. Barrette or our other witness who raised these points. My advanced age prevents me from seeing your name, but I do know that you are a member of the Bar.