Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 23
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  It's under the general warrant provision.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  They're not general warrants; they're warrants for the attachment of a device to a motor vehicle specifically in order to monitor its whereabouts.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  It's simply called a general warrant and it covers several different kinds of access to what people are doing, including electronic surveillance.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  He's talking about general warrants, yes, but the GPS ones are tracking device warrants.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Yes, section 492.1 of the Criminal Code covers tracking devices.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Traditionally the limitation period, where there is a limitation period, has been 60 days. As I say, for wiretaps it is 60 days, but can be for up to a year in these cases. Mr. Ménard's point is well taken that perhaps the same provision should extend to tracking devices.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Just that we'll certainly be happy to provide the jurisprudence in both languages where it exists, but not all of it will be in both languages.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Yes. We can certainly make the jurisprudence available to the committee, if that's your wish, but yes, the link has been made in a couple of major cases.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Electronic surveillance is a little different because it comes under the general warrant provision and doesn't have the same limitation. But a tracking device does have a limitation. Wiretaps are probably the best comparator here. Wiretaps are normally for 60 days, but if the cas

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  It would include the drive-by shooting where that drive-by shooting was designed to fortify the gang's position within a given territory, so that it can carry on drug trafficking or extortion or whatever else it's primarily engaged in.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Yes. That's not to downgrade the difficulties that police and crowns face in making those links. Proving the link to a criminal organization, we recognize, is a very challenging matter for law enforcement and crowns.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Certainly it does, and what I believe Mr. Ménard's motion is aimed at is not that there needs to be a provision to provide for this. There is a provision that makes warrants that authorize the use of the GPS system. It's generally under the description of tracking devices, and GP

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Yes, for electronic surveillance warrants there is--

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  No. Drive-by shootings, in terms of the context in which they're committed and what they're all about, are usually quite directly linked to the primary criminal activities of these organized crime groups: drug trafficking, extortion, protection rackets, a variety of things. The d

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett

Justice committee  Not quite. They have to show that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. They don't have to show that there was a link in that particular case as long as they can show that the group constitutes a criminal organization and that the crime was committed

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

William Bartlett