Justice committee  That is the way I would read the amendment.

Justice committee  Exactly. As well, I would add to your description of multi-year operations the point that the same covert identity, I'm told, is used by the same officer from investigation to investigation. A great deal of effort has gone into nurturing a covert identity for an individual office

Justice committee  We have extensive case law on officers being held to a standard in the lawful execution of their duties, and it's that kind of concept. I'll clarify how some of section 25.1 would operate because I think it would be helpful. The competent authority under section 25.1 is designe

Justice committee  Yes, I can answer that, because we did give consideration to it. I'll point out this: the provision is a defence for the person who makes the document. As for the entities listed, it's not a “member of” one of these entities; it is the entity itself. So it's not every member of

Justice committee  I think your second question is focused on the new offence as opposed to the hybridization aspect, but I will add just on the hybridization point that there was a larger effort to hybridize offences that began in the mid 1990s, around 1997, working with the provinces and the terr

Justice committee  A lot. It would be extremely cumbersome. This is a tool in a tool box, much like the firearms, and it also raises security concerns in terms of that reporting.

Justice committee  What we've heard from the police is that this type of conduct is routine and it's part of maintaining the undercover work that's done every day across the country on a routine basis.

Justice committee  It's not intended to provide additional cover. It's a different approach. I think you're referring to section 25.1. The scheme, the “law enforcement justification”, as we call it in 25.1 to 25.4, is designed to provide a justification for offences that are committed by the police

Justice committee  Precisely. It's akin to the way we exempt the police from the carriage of firearms, which is different from citizens. Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exempts the police from mere possession of controlled substances, while we have a similar scheme under the CD