Evidence of meeting #10 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Not being a lawyer, I think I'll get a comment.
Mr. Therrien.
5 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I think they do contradict each other in that Mr. Ménard's motion essentially says that information obtained by torture would otherwise be reliable. So you cannot have—
5 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
Essentially the judge, in determining the reasonableness of the certificate, has to look at reliable information, to the exclusion of what is obtained by torture, which assumes that, as a rule, information obtained by torture is reliable—which is, with respect, incorrect.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I understand Mr. Therrien's opinion perfectly. I understand his reasoning, but that is not what I am saying.
I am saying that if a judge believed that a statement obtained under torture was credible and useful, even that judge should reject it. I hope, as he does, that all judges are going to find that a statement obtained under torture is not credible, but some day, a judge might find that, in the circumstances, a statement obtained under torture was credible. The amendment I am proposing would prevent that statement from being relied on in that case.
I think this is a nuance...
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Maybe some of your concerns, Monsieur Ménard, would be alleviated if you turned to a later amendment, amendment G-1.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes. The Liberal one is much longer. There's LIB-1 and G-1.
I know everybody's in a hurry, but I think we've got to get it right. I'm sorry.
Ms. Priddy, do you have a comment?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
You probably had this discussion when you looked at the Anti-terrorism Act and other things. Under the definition of torture, if I say that if you do not cooperate with me and sign something or say something or participate with me, I will assassinate your family, is that torture?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
No, I wasn't going to be answering the question. I had another intervention.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
I was looking for some clarification on the definition of torture. If I were to not physically touch you, harm you, leave you in solitary, whatever, but if I were to say to you that unless you participate with me in a particular activity...and if you say no, you won't help us, that we will assassinate your family--your children, your wife, your parents--is that torture?
That is a common story that we hear from people. That's why I want to know.
December 6th, 2007 / 5:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency
It's always hard to answer hypotheticals. I think I can answer your question by stating this, which is that definitions of torture, both at international law and I believe domestically, do not restrict themselves simply to the application of physical violence to the individual. It can also include psychological torture. Many definitions include it.
I believe the answer then to your question is potentially yes, but it's always hard with a hypothetical with limited facts.
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency
If the general point is whether psychological torture gets included in definitions of torture, the answer to that is yes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to raise an issue. Actually, Mr. Ménard raised it with me privately earlier. He's not raising it. He's trying to sort out all his own amendments.
One of the things I would caution against...let me give you a scenario. Someone is tortured and they supply certain information, but in that information they indicate, let's say, that there's a cache of information in some hideaway somewhere, not to be overly melodramatic. But the authorities, the police, go to that location--that information is obtained under torture, that's not in debate--and they find the smoking gun or information that clearly points to a certain direction and some criminal acts or otherwise. I just think we need to be careful with the wording, that we wouldn't exclude that kind of evidence, that kind of information, which was derived under torture but which led to some other information that is useful and could be creating an issue in terms of public safety for Canadians.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Chair, I am actually somewhat confused. Are we still discussing Mr. Ménard's amendment?
