OTTAWA — Canadian law enforcement agencies made 103 applications last year to electronically eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and child pornographers.

A report on the use of electronic surveillance tabled in Parliament outlines cases when the covert investigation method was used for offences that may be prosecuted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. The bulk of applications were related to drug crimes, but the limited list of offences that can warrant audio or video snooping also includes gun smuggling, murder, assault and kidnapping.

Authorizations were also granted in 2008 for unlawful possession of tobacco products, bribery, breach of trust, obstructing justice, hostage taking, money laundering, conspiracy and arson.

The Criminal Code requires judicial consent to conduct surveillance of private communications in criminal investigations, and the judge must be satisfied that it is “in the best interests of the administration of justice.”

“These procedures are to be carried out in such a way so as to ensure that the privacy of individuals is respected as much as possible during the surveillance,” the report from the federal public safety department states.

Most surveillance was conducted at home residences, but also took place at commercial premises or vehicles. Incidents involved telecommunications tapping and interceptions of microphones or video.

John Thompson, president of the security think-tank Mackenzie Institute, said the average citizen might feel like there is a “secret policeman” monitoring their every move, but in reality the laborious nature of surveillance limits its use. Officers can spend days or months without yielding useful information.

“There’s a lot of brass you’d have to sort through before you get to the gold,” he said.

He said surveillance can be “enormously helpful” in tracking suspected terrorists and organized criminals, and police have become cautious because they know it is under tight scrutiny.

“They really need to know what they’re doing if they’re going to try and secure a conviction and go to all that expense,” he said.

Micheal Vonn, policy director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said the surveillance landscape is changing dramatically in the digital age, and that the “gold star” standard must be judicial review. She said there is a “massive push” to give police new and unwarranted surveillance powers.

“Everywhere the police get those powers, they are abused,” she said.

kathleen.harris@sunmedia.ca