Evidence of meeting #63 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was reporting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I don't think I can ask questions of the mover. If he wants to add after that, he can comment.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I'll put you down, Francis, to respond.
Who would like to respond to the question?
Karen.
March 6th, 2013 / 7:15 p.m.
Karen Audcent Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We can say this. If the proposed change is made, it will probably bring with it some difficulties in terms of interpretation in the provinces, given the way in which the reporting is divided up. The current bill reflects what is in the Criminal Code at the moment. The Criminal Code talks about designated persons and authorizations. Designated persons can come from a province or they can be federal. That is how the reporting requirement is divided.
The bill proposes that the report be made by the one who initiates the process. If the clause in question refers to the provinces, how will that be interpreted? Will it be interpreted as a requirement for the federal level to produce reports on what comes in from the provincial level? That is not how things work at the moment, nor how we foresee them working in the future.
So the proposal would raise some concerns.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Essentially, this really does not add anything particularly striking. I think it would muddle things in terms of provincial and federal responsibilities in reporting.
We'll be opposing this motion because, quite frankly, just adding the number to be intercepted province to province doesn't really add anything needed. It potentially creates confusion in reporting. Who would have the responsibility of reporting? There would also be a disparity between reporting requirements, between other types of interceptions in section 184.4. In essence, it creates more confusion than benefit, so we will not be supporting the amendment.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Both my questions were for the witnesses. I'm trying to understand why this would be complicated. If you're putting together a report, presumably you're getting data from different police forces, different provinces, different attorneys general. Would it come through the attorney general of each province? Is that how they would channel the information?
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Provincially it's done through the attorney genera,l and federally it's the Minister of Public Safety.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Right. So that is already coming in province by province.
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
How it's designed right now is that each province would report on its own activity. The global numbers that the amendment would seem to be looking for would be already part of the scheme, because each province has to report on the total number of interceptions. The breakdown by police force is not right now something that's done. That would be a new aspect.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Only the attorney general of that province would have the information about which police force.
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Right now, that's the way it's divided up. Each province has information about its own activities, and the federal government has information about the federal activities. The RCMP, which operates in both federal and provincial areas, reports on their provincial activities to the province and on their federal activities to federal.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Is it not possible to require each attorney general to provide the data according to police force? Is there something legally or constitutionally wrong with that?
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The difficulty of doing it the way it's proposed is that people might be confused as to who is receiving the reports. As to your question about whether there's a reason they couldn't provide that information, the only thing I would signal to you is that police forces might be concerned about what the information reveals about operational capabilities, because it's not part of the reporting scheme right now.
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not something that we've ever canvassed with them directly. When information about capabilities regarding intercept was published in the United States, there were repercussions. Organized criminals were taking that information and moving their operations to areas that had less capability. I don't know if police would share a concern like that in this situation or not. It's not something we've looked at.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I take that point. There's nothing wrong with reporting provincial numbers separately, is there?
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
How it would work right now is that each province would report its numbers and the federal would report its number.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
There wouldn't be anything wrong with reporting the numbers province by province, would there?
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's how it works.
7:20 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, each province reports its numbers.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The report that Parliament would get would be by province.