Public Safety Committee on Dec. 7th, 2007

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Since we did not yet know what the decision would be regarding the word “défenseur“, we tabled the two versions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I didn't get any translation.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We withdraw amendment BQ-5 and keep BQ-6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, sorry. Let's wait for the interpretation.

Do you want to go over that again? The interpreter didn't interpret it.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We submitted the same amendment with two wordings: one has the word “défenseur“, in case the change in the translation were not accepted, and the other one has the words “avocat spécial“.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, right.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Of course, in this instance we will withdraw BQ-5 since everyone agrees to translate “special advocate“ by “avocat spécial“.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

You've moved amendment BQ-6 and withdrawn amendment BQ-5. Okay.

Is there any discussion on BQ-6? Do you wish to speak to it? Do you have any comments?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

If everybody agrees, it is redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard, the problem is that the interpreter is not.... You're not quite close enough to the microphone. There we go.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We can also have the discussion right away.

I firmly believe that when we talk about solicitor-client privilege, the concept necessarily includes those limitations that are recognized in case law and as they appear in the rules of all bar associations and all law societies of Canada. Those limits are rather clearly spelled out, much better than what is suggested — with all due respect to the mover, Mr. Dosanjh--, in the next amendment.

We say that the special advocate has a solicitor-client relationship but there are certainly limits to that privilege, among which the fact that the solicitor must disclose information regarding serious crimes and also the solicitor cannot assist a client in the commission of a crime, as you well know.

Regarding the concept of “secret professionnel“, it says in English:

Privileged information as a lawyer.

We talk here about something that is well defined in case law. There is no need to try to add what Mr. Dosanjh proposes, where it says that the special advocate:

may disclose to the appropriate authorities information that has been disclosed to him or her by the permanent resident or foreign national if, in the opinion of the special advocate, such disclosure is necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offence.

Furthermore, I think that this provision moved by Mr. Dosanjh, as it would appear in the act, would discourage some people to disclose everything they should be telling their lawyer.

An individual who does not know the laws of the land might wonder if what he or she might disclose to the advocate is legal in this country or not. An individual who consults, who talks to an advocate, must have the assurance that this advocate is not there to judge or to harm him.

This is why I would rather stick to the notion of solicitor-client privilege, which has been widely interpreted in case law and has legal meaning in its use by all bar associations of the country. There is a mention of a “criminal offence“. Could the commission of a criminal offence be the fraudulent rental of a car with a credit card belonging to somebody else or things of that order?

Nevertheless, I am convinced that in your mind and in the minds of all of us, it is obvious that if an individual discloses to an advocate plans for a terrorist attack, such an attack would obviously be illegal and viewed as similar to murder, as we have seen in organized crime cases. These certainly are not lesser offences. This is why I would prefer to stick to the notion of solicitor-client privilege, the limits of which are well recognized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Inasmuch as I want to agree with my colleague, Mr. Ménard—we used to be attorneys general together a long time ago—I disagree. I think Mr. Ménard's motion does not import the concept of solicitor-client privilege to the extent of imposing the obligation on the special advocate to actually provide information, disclose information to the law enforcement authorities with respect to any commission of a crime that might be contemplated.

To that extent, I would forgo our motion as well, because it is not as well worded as the motion from the government. The motion from the government, G-5, imports and actually excludes the solicitor-client relationship, and then deems it back for a specific purpose, therefore deeming back the obligation on the special advocate not to disclose any future crime information. I think that is more neatly done, and I'm prepared to abandon or withdraw our motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If there's no more discussion, then the question is on BQ-6.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We will go to Lib-3. You have already indicated that you would defer to G-5.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It's withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, it's withdrawn.

Let's go to G-5.

Mr. MacKenzie, would you please introduce G-5?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes. Mr. Chair, I would ask that the committee adopt motion G-5, which is that Bill C-3 in clause 4 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8, the following, and it is on the document. Do I need to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I don't think so. You all have it before you? Is there no more discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I need to indicate that we will replace “défenseur” in four places on page 8 with “avocat spécial”.

We now go to G-6.

Mr. MacKenzie, when you're ready.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I would ask that the committee adopt the motion as listed on G-6, replacing lines 27 to 33 on page 9 with the wording that's before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'll give you a minute if some of you have not had an opportunity to go through it.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I will also draw to your attention that on page 9 of the bill we will replace “défenseur” with “avocat spécial” on lines 7 and 33 of the French version.

Are there any questions?

We now go to G-7, which is on pages 23 and 24 of your package.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the committee adopt G-7, which is replacing line 17 on page 10 with the following, which is in the document before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Is there any debate? Yes, Ms. Barnes.