Evidence of meeting #49 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Have you received any recommendations from anybody, whether oral or in writing, suggesting that it is necessary to put these back into the law?
5:20 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I think if you ask the RCMP, they would indicate that they think these provisions would be useful.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Have you received any recommendations, either orally or in writing—you yourself, your department—suggesting, making requests, that these are necessary?
5:20 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
In oral conversations? I think my officials have consulted with the RCMP and others. I personally haven't, but there are others who have.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
He didn't say that. He said others have. Don't add evidence, please.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a very simple question for Mr. Piragoff. I would like to know what groups or individuals you consulted while this bill was being developed. Whom did you ask for an opinion on the bill?
5:20 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The original bill was reviewed by a Senate committee, as well as a committee of the House of Commons, which made recommendations. The House of Commons committee recommended that the provisions should be extended and continue. Both committees made recommendations as to amendments they thought should be made to improve the provisions. Both committees made reports.
We examined those reports. We consulted internally within the federal government with respect to the recommendations made by both the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee. We've also had consultations with the provinces, because we do discuss security issues with the provinces, because they do have a role in terms of investigation and prosecution. Those are the people who we would have been consulting with.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
They would have been part of internal government discussions.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I can't, off the top of my head, recall exactly who they were, but if you want, we can answer--
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I would like you to send us a list of departments, ministries and agencies that rely on Public Safety Canada.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We will go back to the government side, but first I would like to ask a question.
For my own edification—and some of it may end up being hypothetical, but I want to go back to why this would be used.
The question has come up in regard to the Toronto 18. Am I not correct in assuming that authorities were able to somewhat gather evidence? They watched. They knew what was going on. Wouldn't it be their preference to charge under the existing Criminal Code in a case like the Toronto 18, where they had the opportunity to watch, to see, and to know there was evidence?
Wouldn't this be a practical bill...if all of a sudden that opportunity to gather evidence was not there, that phone call comes, there is an imminent threat, and they do not have the opportunity to gather that much-needed evidence but they have to stop a terrorist attack? That's what this bill is here to accomplish. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The purpose is to provide the police with some power to disrupt preparatory acts before the police would actually have the ability to effect an arrest.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So if you were a police officer, or even a CSIS agent, wouldn't you much rather charge someone under the Criminal Code? If you did, then you could use.... The problem here is that if we gather evidence in this hearing, it can't be used in a deportation and it can't be used in any criminal action anywhere down the road. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
During the investigative hearing, yes. It's clear in the bill that--
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So they couldn't take the evidence they have and use it against them. If I were an RCMP officer, I would say, “Listen, I'd rather gather evidence so that I can charge this guy and I can get him”, but this here is simply to save the public from a terrorist attack. Even though there may not be a charge, they may be able to save lives. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
That's a decision the police would have to make. If they have the evidence to effect an arrest, then I would think, as you say, they would effect the arrest. If they don't have the evidence yet to effect an arrest, this would give them the power to disrupt preparatory conduct and, as you say, protect the public.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm going to call that government time.
I'm going to ask Mr. Davies if he would like to have a quick question at the end here.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had these provisions in substantially similar form from 2001 to 2007, and then of course they were sunsetted and we didn't have them for the last three years, from 2007 to 2010. I have two quick questions. One is, how many times were these provisions, preventive detention and administrative arrest, used from 2001 to 2007? Can I ask that first?