Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, I think we've moved past where we should have been.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Oh, I see, he wants to do it page by page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Dosanjh made general comments on several things, but we're now coming back to vote on G-2. I hope you have that before you. This is the whole amendment here, right?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

This is line 21 on page 6, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes. Should I read it so you all know what you're voting on?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, to the question:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by

(a) replacing line 21 on page 6 with the following:

special advocate in the proceedings after hearing representations from the permanent resident or foreign national and the Minister and after giving particular consideration and weight to the preferences of the permanent resident or foreign national;

(b) replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 7 with the following: with an opportunity to be heard;

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard.

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

Let's go back and proceed in order, because you are covering three pages, and we have an amendment to propose in the middle of those three pages.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay, I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

BQ-4 is next.

Monsieur Ménard, you may introduce BQ-4.

BQ-4 was in your original package, that Bill C-3 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 10. Do you have that one?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

We're going to do ours first.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, we can have both, because his is line 10 and it's not the definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Page 7, line 10: “anything—other than a statement obtained under torture”, and so on.

Mr. MacKenzie, did you have a comment?

You have to table your amendment, Monsieur Ménard.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:

anything—other than a statement obtained under torture—that, in the judge's opinion, is

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would prefer that it be amended under that same section, after line 27 on page 7, by saying, in proposed subsection 83(3):

For greater certainty, a statement obtained by means of torture is not reliable.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

We can do both.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

There are three different places—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We can take a vote on this. If you don't agree with it, we'll just—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Another thing I would ask is that you ask the officials at the table with respect to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Amendment BQ-4? Okay. Mr. MacKenzie has asked for a comment, Mr. Therrien.

[Daniel Therrien]

The two versions obviously refer to the same thing. What we understand from the amendment proposed by Mr. Ménard is that the text would essentially say that the judge rely, in deciding whether the certificate is reasonable, on reliable evidence, with the exception of evidence obtained under torture.

That suggests that information obtained under torture can be otherwise reliable. In our view, a statement obtained under torture is not reliable. The proposal made by Mr. MacKenzie achieves essentially the same goal by specifying that unreliable information includes statements obtained under torture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

It has been pointed out to me that there are three amendments that will deal with this issue: the one that is before us, amendment BQ-4; but also one from the Liberals, your first one; and one from the government, amendment G-1. I guess the committee has to decide what they feel is the best.

Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

As I read them, Mr. Chair, l don't think they're mutually exclusive. It suggests in three different spots our aversion to anything obtained under torture, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that bit of repetition to show the emphasis that we want to place on that concept in the bill.

So I think you should take them one at a time. If all three pass, fine; they don't contradict each other in any way.