Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I think that our amendment, which follows this and amends another part of the same page, perhaps is broader.

I understand the worry about derivative evidence. I don't believe that either Mr. Ménard's amendment or ours prevents the law enforcement authorities from pursuing issues of investigation based on whatever information they have. It may impact on the admissibility of the evidence in a court of law, but that's up to a court to decide. All we're saying is that evidence that has been obtained as a result of torture isn't admissible. We want to make that explicit here. I don't believe we're impacting, with either his amendment or our amendment, the derivative evidence that you're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Tell me the process, Mr. Chair. Have all three of these amendments now been brought forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

No. We're only dealing with one at a time.

I'll just let everybody know there are two other amendments dealing with a similar topic.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay, that being the case, can we vote on the first one, and then...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes. You've all heard the comments from the officials.

Does anybody else have a comment to make?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have one question, Mr. Chair.

If we defeat this amendment now, because it is of the same substance as the other two amendments coming forth, can we deal with it? I'm wondering if we need to amend the motion forward. Can we do that? I just want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You can defeat this, and you can go to the next one and deal with the same subject with a different amendment. If that one is defeated, you still have the third one.

Mr. Brown, did you have your hand up?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

It's 5:10.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, I realize that.

We will go to the vote on BQ-4.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Now we are going to amendment LIB-1.

Mr. Dosanjh, are you interested in that?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It's pretty self-explanatory. It would follow paragraph 83(1)(j) on page 7, as subclause 83(1.1), and it simply reads:

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(h), reliable and appropriate evidence does not include information that is believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained as a result of the use of torture within the meaning of section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture.

I would commend this to all members, and then we can get on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Is there any other discussion?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

I'd like to ask the officials to comment. If we approve this amendment, could it lead to a judge excluding valid information derived from a statement made under torture? It would be derivative evidence, I guess.

[Daniel Therrien]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure we have the amendment before us. I'm not sure which section is being amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Why don't they have the amendments?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Well, they're just here to answer questions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No, but they have to see the language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, but it would be good for them to have a copy.

[David Dunbar]

It would aid us in answering a question if we had the wording in front of us. I don't have it.

[The Clerk]

They have it now.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Therrien will comment now on my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If you're now ready, we'll continue this discussion.

Mr. Therrien.

[Daniel Therrien]

The main difference we see between this particular phraseology and both the amendment that Mr. Ménard proposed and the amendment that was made by the government side is exactly on the derivative use of information, as you raised.

In the two other motions we're talking about excluding statements obtained by torture. Here we're looking more broadly at information obtained as a result of the use of torture. I will just comment technically that between the two wordings, this particular wording would seem to deprive law enforcement authorities, or at least could quite possibly be interpreted by the courts as not allowing law enforcement authorities, to pursue the investigative lean you mentioned earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Dosanjh.