Evidence of meeting #11 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 case.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's important that we have this discussion, but I also think it's important that we look at what this section really deals with.
If you go to the proposed subsection itself, it says, “the judge shall appoint that person unless the judge is satisfied that”. It's not an arbitrary thing on the part of the crown that somebody's not going to be appointed. The judge would have to be convinced. I think that gives the safeguard we're looking for.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. Ménard, did you indicate that you wanted to make another comment?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes, I believe that this is yet again something that would discredit the office we are creating. It is clear, upon reading this, that the idea is to have lawyers with the least possible amount of experience. As Mr. Dosanjh so rightly stated, if we find people whose knowledge of this type of case is sufficient to be aware of exculpatory evidence, then it will be concluded that we do not want these people. To my mind, there is no measure between the defence, the incapacity of a lawyer and the risk entailed. I am in perfect agreement with Mr. Dosanjh: lawyers are trained to keep secrets. First of all, they are bound by solicitor-client privilege and they recognize this. I am convinced that the special advocates will be more than trained and that they will always be mindful of keeping secret information confidential. I believe that this would discredit the special advocate function.
You can keep this provision if you wish, but I find it perfectly useless. Once again, this will convince people that the special advocate function is just a lot of window dressing, as several witnesses have stated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I would just like to get Mr. Therrien to comment on one comment that you made, sir, and this is needed for balance. I think you used that expression. Would you mind just clarifying that for me?
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I'm back to the motivating factor for the whole bill, which is the Charkaoui decision of the Supreme Court, the need to strike the right balance between the protection of the rights of the individual who is the subject of the certificate and the legitimate protection of government information that is secret and where disclosure would have a detrimental effect on national security.
So this goes to the heart of it. The special advocate is there to try to achieve that balance. Their role and the rules of operation of the special advocate go to this balance. That's what I meant.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
So you feel this would be in line with what the Supreme Court mandated we do?
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I think so.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I believe that you are misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision. I recognize that there might be [inaudible: editor's note], but what you say goes to the very heart of our difference of opinion. The Supreme Court did not tell us what to do; it told us that the act was not appropriate and that it was not consistent with the requirements of Clause 7. It sent the whole thing back to us in order for us to do the appropriate work. The Supreme Court is refusing to legislate. I have several times felt, through its decisions, that the Supreme Court is tired of seeing the legislator slough off all of the difficult issues by sending them its way. Very clearly, the Supreme Court did not tell us what to do; it gave us examples of attempts at solutions that were tried elsewhere. There is nothing... I understood the word mandated as meaning that this is what we must do. The Supreme Court did not tell us what to do in this case; it is important that we be aware of this. If this Bill is not amended, the Supreme Court will send it back to us stating that it is not consistent with the requirements of Clause 7.
December 7th, 2007 / 9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
I simply wish to underscore that my comments do not mean that the Supreme Court requires this provision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The question is on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Now the question is on the main amendment. That number was G-2.
Is there any further discussion on that? If not, I will call the question.
(Amendment agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We will now go to G-3. It's page 10 of your package, and page 7 of the bill, line 27.
Would you like to introduce it, Mr. MacKenzie?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Liberal amendment 2, pages 12 and 13 of your package. From the Liberal side, who would like to introduce this?
Mr. Dosanjh.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Could we postpone the consideration of this until...? If you get to the next one, I think that deals with—
