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.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Therrien, would it be correct to say that it would not actually prevent the investigations from going on but it may affect the subsequent admissibility of that evidence in a court of law?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I would agree with that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Yes, so it doesn't prevent the investigation from going on. It doesn't prevent a crime from happening. If they get the information, they pursue it.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
It would prevent the use, possibly, of that, yes.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
Yes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
That's what we're trying to do. We are trying to prevent evidence that's been obtained by torture to be evidence against individuals.
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
Well, it would prevent not only the direct evidence obtained by torture, but also the findings of the investigative body, because a court might well—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I hear you, but it would not prevent the law enforcement authorities from pursuing the criminal and preventing the crime at that particular moment, which is a big difference.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You can think about that, Mr. Therrien, and comment in a moment.
Mr. Cullen.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
That is a concern as well, but let's say there's information in front of a Federal Court judge, and there's an individual who's potentially going to be detained under a security certificate. The lawyer for the detainee says this information in front of the judge was derived by torture. Let's say there's no debate around that, that everyone agrees. But because the information was obtained under torture, that led the authorities to collect some evidence that was not hearsay evidence or unsubstantiated but evidence that clearly linked this particular person to some terrorist activities or involvement. A clever lawyer might say that evidence was derivative, it was obtained indirectly or directly by torture, so it's not admissible to the judge.
That's my concern. Could that happen?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I think it could.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay, this has been a very good discussion. If there are no more comments, we'll have the vote on this. You're all clear on what we're doing? This is amendment LIB-1.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We'll have to adjourn in a minute. Let's decide on when we're going to get together again.
What about tomorrow at nine o'clock?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
And the meeting will continue until we complete clause-by-clause of this bill.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We don't know yet. We have to get translation and everything lined up.
This meeting is adjourned.
