INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section defines the term competent authority in relation to public officers and senior officials for sections 25.2 to 25.4.
SECTION WORDING
25.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this section and sections 25.2 to 25.4. "competent authority" means, with respect to a public officer or a senior official, (a) in the case of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, personally; (b) in the case of a member of a police service constituted under the laws of a province, the Minister responsible for policing in the province, personally; and (c) in the case of any other public officer or senior official, the Minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that the officer or official has the power to enforce, personally.
EXPLANATION
Section 25.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term 'competent authority' and its application within sections 25.2 to 25.4. The term 'competent authority' is used to refer to the person or body responsible for overseeing the exercise of powers conferred upon a public officer or senior official. This section outlines that the competent authority differs based on the type of public officer or senior official in question. In the case of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the competent authority is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. For members of a police service constituted under the laws of a province, the competent authority is the Minister responsible for policing in that province. For all other public officers or senior officials, the competent authority is the Minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that the officer or official has the power to enforce. This section is important as it establishes the oversight and accountability mechanisms for public officers and senior officials in Canada. By designating a competent authority for each of these officers, it ensures that their powers are exercised in accordance with the law and that any violations can be properly investigated and addressed. Additionally, it establishes a clear line of responsibility for these individuals, ensuring that the relevant Minister can be held accountable for any misuse or abuse of powers by their appointed officers.
COMMENTARY
Section 25.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term competent authority" in relation to public officers and senior officials. This definition applies to section 25.2 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the issuance of immunity orders for witnesses in criminal proceedings. The term competent authority" is defined differently depending on the type of public officer or senior official. For members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the competent authority is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, personally. For members of a police service established under provincial law, the competent authority is the Minister responsible for policing in the province, personally. For any other public officer or senior official, the competent authority is the Minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that the officer or official has the power to enforce, personally. This definition is important for the application of immunity orders in criminal proceedings. Immunity orders provide witnesses with protection against self-incrimination in exchange for their testimony in court. Section 25.2 of the Criminal Code allows for the issuance of immunity orders by a competent authority. The competent authority must be satisfied that the witness has relevant information and that it is in the public interest to grant immunity. The definition of competent authority ensures that the immunity order is issued by an appropriate person with the necessary authority and accountability. The different definitions for different public officers reflect the decentralized structure of law enforcement in Canada, with provincial governments having responsibility for policing in their respective jurisdictions. The requirement that the competent authority issue the immunity order personally also highlights the seriousness of the decision. It is not a decision that can be delegated to subordinates or made lightly. It must be made by someone with high level of responsibility and accountability. Overall, section 25.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides a clear and specific definition of competent authority for the purpose of issuing immunity orders. This ensures that witnesses have the necessary protection to testify in court without fear of self-incrimination, while also maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
STRATEGY
Section 25.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the definitions that apply to sections 25.2 to 25.4. These sections relate to the disclosure of information by public officers and senior officials, in circumstances where it could be harmful to national security or the safety of individuals. There are several strategic considerations that need to be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. One of the primary considerations is ensuring that the disclosure of information is necessary and justified in the context of the situation. This requires a careful assessment of the potential risks and benefits of disclosing the information, as well as an evaluation of the likelihood of harm occurring if the information is not disclosed. Another important consideration is ensuring that the disclosure is made to the appropriate competent authority, as defined in section 25.1. This means that public officers and senior officials must be aware of the specific minister who has responsibility for the Act of Parliament that they have the power to enforce. Failure to disclose information to the appropriate competent authority could result in legal consequences for the individual involved. When dealing with section 25.1, there are several strategies that could be employed to ensure that disclosures are made in a responsible and effective manner. One approach would be to establish clear communication channels and protocols for disclosing sensitive information. This could involve developing standard operating procedures for assessing the necessity and justification of disclosures, as well as identifying the appropriate competent authority to whom the disclosure should be made. Another strategy would be to provide training and education for public officers and senior officials on the requirements of section 25.1 and the associated sections. This could include training on risk assessments, privacy considerations, and the legal and ethical implications of disclosing sensitive information. A third strategy would be to establish mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing disclosures made under section 25.1. This could involve regular audits of disclosures to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Criminal Code, as well as ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of disclosure procedures and strategies. By implementing these types of strategies, public officers and senior officials can ensure that the disclosure of sensitive information under section 25.1 is made in a responsible and effective manner, while minimizing the risks of harm to national security or the safety of individuals.
CATEGORIES