Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, minister.
Obviously, we are all aware of the time limit, since the Supreme Court of Canada gave April 13 as the deadline in R. v. Tse. So we have between now and then to do something.
The government took another approach. With its introduction of Bill C-55, it announced the withdrawal of the much-criticized Bill C-30. The government dragged its feet for some months, so now we are forced to study an important bill post-haste. You said yourself that it concerns the “Invasion of Privacy” part of the Criminal Code. So we are very aware of the matter we are legislating.
That being said, I read Bill C-55. Although the Supreme Court did not make a determination regarding peace officers, police officers and so forth, I can somewhat appreciate that the government, in its wisdom, did not wait to establish definitions. However, the provision says the following:
“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.
I am always a bit averse to those kinds of catch-all expressions. I'd like you to tell us who exactly “other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace” refers to. Does it go as far as to include private security guards? Does it include individuals employed to enforce other federal laws such as the National Defence Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and so on?
It might be advisable to define those things, because you may have opened the door to a complicated side issue, in your efforts to address the Supreme Court's ruling.