First of all, I want to say that I don't trust anyone unconditionally: either elected officials, the police, judges, or lawyers, even though it's not a flaw to have a legal background. I studied law myself, so I know that. However, we do need to be concerned about the effectiveness of police investigations, particularly when they target organized crime. At the same time, there are freedoms that we must cherish, and nothing can justify abuse.
I have two questions. Some witnesses have told us that if these provisions were to remain in place, even though you are in favour of their repeal, they should apply only to investigations dealing with organized crime. It's primarily the RCMP that appeared before the Committee with respect to the work of law enforcement organizations. It informed us that these provisions have been used in two types of situations: investigations relating to organized crime, narcotics and drugs-related investigations, and immigration-related cases.
Do you share the view that these provisions should only be used where investigations relate to organized crime? That my first question.
And I'll move directly to my second question. In your view, what are the major, generic offences that would be authorized under the existing provisions, in light of what it says in subsection 25.1(11)? For the last little while, we've been talking about assault being authorized, but subparagraph 25.1(11)(a) states the following:
(a) the intentional or criminally negligent causing of death or bodily harm [...]
Yet bodily harm and assault are two different things. Those are my two questions.