Thank you, Minister, but in this case, it’s a matter of qualifying or describing the issue of reasonableness.
If it was useful in the proposed section 15.2, then the same reasoning should apply to the proposed section 15.4. That’s my humble opinion, but I’m not the minister, you are.
When it comes to reasonable grounds, you know as well as I do that depending on case law and the courts, interpretation of what constitutes reasonable grounds will differ from one judge to another, for all kinds of good and not so good reasons. I don’t want to criticize that, but it’s still a rather variable criterion.
In the proposed section 15.2, it looks as if you wanted to define reasonableness by stating that it must be reasonable “in relation to the gravity of the threat”. I think that’s appropriate. You do understand that it’s pretty serious because it involves sharing information that would otherwise be confidential. That may well be necessary. However, the Commissioner has told us that regardless of its necessity, it must be done properly because it’s a serious infringement of individual freedoms.
I think you were on the same page with the Commissioner when you decided to talk about scope and substance that is “reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat” in the proposed subsection 15.2(3).
I apologize for repeating my question, but I think it’s important. How come this language is not in the proposed section 15.4? I think it would be easy to add “in relation to the gravity of the threat” after “believes on reasonable grounds”, as is the case in the proposed section 15.2.
How come you’ve not done that with the proposed section 15.4? Maybe it’s your intention to do so, but I’d urge you to do it if that’s not the case.
If you’re not doing it, could you explain why you believe it’s unnecessary?