Justice committee  That's correct.

Justice committee  Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Justice committee  I'll take you right now to paragraph 25.1(9)(a), so I'm reading: (a) is personally authorized in writing to commit the act or omission—or direct its commission In other words, this would be directing another person to commit the commission, so let's remember that, and now let's go to paragraph 25.3(1)(b), as you were referring to: (b) the number of authorizations made under paragraph 25.1(9)(a) So currently there has to be reporting for the authorization of a non-policeman, in other words, an informant, as in your example.

Justice committee  Indeed, that's a concern. I'm certain the RCMP, in its current operations, has devised certain safeguards in that respect. I won't be able to speak to that, obviously, not having worked for the RCMP, and especially not having worked at the levels where this type of information is available.

Justice committee  Perhaps I was unclear before. There are three areas that require reporting under the annual reports: the first is that in an emergency designation, in other words, where the minister hasn't designated someone, a senior official can for 48 hours; the second one is where there's a prior authorization to commit crime, or what would otherwise be crime, effecting serious property damage; and the third one is where there's an authorization to allow a third party, in other words a non-police force member, to commit this.

Justice committee  Thank you for your question. I should clarify one thing to start off ,and that is that I'm not here as a delegate of the Trudeau Foundation. I am a proud member of the Trudeau Foundation, but I don't pretend to speak for it today. I just wanted to clarify that. You mention speeding, going though stop signs.

Justice committee  I fully agree with you, Ms. Freeman.

Justice committee  Indeed, sections 25.1 to 25.4 have no effect on matters relating to evidence. They stay the same, whether we discuss section 25.1 or not. On the other hand, if I were a defence lawyer and my client had been accused of an offence under the Criminal Code or the criminal law, and I knew that the police used these sections, the question would be why the police officer believed the act to be reasonable and proportional.

Justice committee  Thank you for that. There'd obviously be no objection to including such a review provision three years down the road. I think the necessity of recourse to that type of provision would in part depend on how much we want to restrain the legislation as it exists currently. If we put in a sufficient number of guidelines, there may be a way of providing for ongoing supervision by way of more public reporting, by way of a senior official, or perhaps, as some of your colleagues suggested in prior discussions, through a judge.

Justice committee  No; indeed, I completely agree with you. There's currently a regime in place that obliges prior authorization, as I mentioned to some of your colleagues, respecting damage to property and authorizing a non-police member to make use of these provisions. There we require prior authorization, but also in the provision we say that in certain cases or situations of the kind you mentioned--urgency, saving a life, not compromising the identity of an undercover police officer, for example--you don't need prior written authorization if you're a police officer.

Justice committee  I'm afraid I won't be able to provide much more information than you received from the Department of Justice or the RCMP on that. I'm aware, as they are, that Australia has some provisions similar to this one. That's the only one that I'm aware of, but I don't have any information as to how it is working in practice over there.

Justice committee  In fact, the report itself is already out and has already been published. My thesis is in the same area, constitutional law, but it doesn't draw on these particular provisions themselves.

Justice committee  Thank you. At the very beginning of my presentation, I said that I was favourable in principle to the scheme outlined here, but rather, I sought to provide a greater framework. In fact, Parliament has already provided somewhat of a framework. For example, certain acts are altogether excluded: murder; wilful attempt to obstruct or pervert the course of justice; any conduct that would violate the sexual integrity of an individual.

Justice committee  My answer, unfortunately, would be the same as theirs. I haven't heard anything that could be of assistance to your committee.

Justice committee  There is not only the matter of abuse, but also the constitutional difficulty that this raises if these powers are not adequately framed. You referred to the matter of confidentiality and the role of judges. Judges already order search warrants, and there is a whole regime in place that strikes a balance between the confidentiality required for a police investigation and the need to involve judges for the purposes of obtaining a warrant.