I do not understand why a parallel has been drawn between the amendment proposed by Mr. Comartin and the issue of good faith. As I see it, good faith is always involved when someone assumes a false name, in order for that action to be legal. The goal pursued must be in the public interest; for example, when a person has to use a false name to trap someone breaking the law, so that the investigation can move forward.
Before the Criminal Code was amended, such cases were dealt with through the case law. They were essentially resolved by applying the good faith principle. I do not recall the name, but I know that was done in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling dealing specifically with the use of a false identity for the purposes of a police investigation, as well as the fact that police officers had to break the law.
Let's take an obvious offence—for example, buying drugs; police officers had no choice but to break the law. With respect to assault, they were protected by something else. It was an obvious case, but there have been even more serious cases, where police officers had to act illegally. The judgment there was based on good faith and the fact that the police were pursuing a public interest goal.
However, because the definitions were too vague, the Supreme Court invited Parliament to legislate. It did bring in other provisions on this. I believe the provisions here—perhaps the witness could tell us—are intended to mirror those made to the Criminal Code in the wake of that Supreme Court decision, and are along the same lines.
The requirement for the good faith principle to be engaged is a necessary one. And, in fact, the good faith requirement is not the only one. The action must also be in the public interest or be necessary as part of a criminal investigation. When the decision was made to go the legislative route, as opposed to relying solely on the case law, in order to allow police officers to break the law or use a false identity—and here we are talking only about a false identity—some control mechanism had to be included.
I support Mr. Comartin's argument, because it seems to me that the control mechanism here is extremely week; there are too many people able to exercise that control. It should be given to the Department of Justice or the Department of Public Safety. However, because the administration of the criminal justice system is a provincial responsibility, it should, in fact, be given to the provincial Minister of Justice, or the federal Minister of Justice, who also has a role to play in the administration of justice.
I am not going to draw a parallel between Mr. Rathgeber's remarks and Mr. Comartin's amendment, but I do think it would be advisable to retain the words “in good faith”. As Mr. Murphy pointed out, it is almost pointless to have it in there, because it is obvious that the individuals involved must be acting in good faith. That is part and parcel of the activity we are seeking to protect.