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.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, that's a conspiracy; that's a criminal offence, sir. Is conspiracy not a Criminal Code offence?
4:55 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
If they have evidence that there was a conspiracy--
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Sir, you're talking in circles, because you're trying to script the truth, with respect.
This legislation is necessary because the current law requires the police officer to suspect a particular person to be about to commit an offence. This legislation says that they may not be able to prove or have any reasonable suspicion that the particular person they're throwing in the hoosegow actually is going to commit any offence. And that's the key difference.
4:55 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
That's correct.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
So you could throw an innocent person into detention for three and a half days without any evidence that the person is going to actually commit any offence. That's the key difference in this legislation.
4:55 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
No. You said that the person is totally innocent without any evidence. The bill says that the police officer has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrest of the person is necessary. That's not just pulling people off the street. You have to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrest of the person is necessary. There has to be some factual basis for it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Piragoff, and thank you, Mr. Davies.
We'll now go to Madam Mendes.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Piragoff, I would like to begin with an observation. There is a lack of supervision or close monitoring, if you will, when it comes to the application of this legislation. I would like to ask you a question that is somewhat similar to the one asked by Mrs. Mourani earlier.
If I remember correctly, this law has been used only used once since 2001, before becoming obsolete. It was used in the Air India case, right?
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Correct.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In the case of 18 people charged in Toronto, the legislation was completely useless. However, at that time, the legislation was still in force. Why do we need to bring back this legislation when the authorities were able to uncover a plot and to avoid an incident without even invoking the provisions of the act? The act was in force, there had been no prorogation. Could you explain to me why the act should be brought back into force?
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I think the Toronto case was a situation in which the police had reasonable grounds to believe not only that a terrorist offence was being planned and would be committed, but also that they had reasonable grounds for believing who the actual individuals were. Therefore, rather than preventing the activity from happening by acting sooner and using powers like this, they chose to actually conduct a sting operation. They were surveilling people who they actually had reasonable grounds to believe would be the perpetrators--
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
--until they collected more and more evidence and decided that they would actually arrest.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Yes, but do you agree that they prevented the event from happening? They prevented it.
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
They prevented it by the arrests, yes.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Yes. They were able to act firmly and in a way that prevented a horrible act of terrorism without even needing to use these clauses.
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
It was because, in that case, they had the evidence already.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Wouldn't it always be the case that they would need some sort of evidence?
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
You always have to have evidence. It's a question of whether you have enough evidence to arrest and charge a person as opposed to arresting a person to prevent them from carrying out their activities.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Okay, but if you don't have the evidence, despite whichever kind of law you have, you won't be able to keep the person.
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
That's right. That was my answer to Mr. Davies. You have to have some evidence. It's a question of what kind of evidence. Under the existing law, you have to have reasonable grounds--evidence--to justify that the actual person is the likely perpetrator, while under this bill--
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Or will likely perpetrate, because in the case of the Toronto 18, they hadn't perpetrated anything yet--
5 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I said “likely” perpetrators--while under this bill, you have to have evidence justifying the judge in believing the police officer's statement that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrest of this person was necessary.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
That is the danger we see in this bill. Authorities now already do the job; the danger we see in this bill is that it would give unwarranted powers to the authorities to go beyond that. The former CSIS director has already said that it's not needed. They can do their job to prevent these acts from happening with the existing laws and the provisions they already have.
How often since 2007 has Canada been under threat? We don't know, or at least the public doesn't know, thank God, because the laws that we have allow the authorities to do their job. That's the bottom line. Our whole concern about this bill is that we don't really need to go beyond what we already have.
Do I have one minute left?
5 p.m.
Conservative