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.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The investigative hearing was used, as far as we know, once, in the course of the Air India trial in 2003, I believe it was. The preventive arrest powers, as far as we know, have not been used. We never used them in that time period.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
We know that from 2007 to today, of course, they've never been used because there hasn't been a law.
Isn't it fair to say that pretty much in the last 10 years—we're in our tenth year now—we haven't had any example of a terrorist activity that's occurred that has not been able to be successfully broken up by the powers that are currently possessed by the police under the Criminal Code? Factually, that's what the evidence would suggest.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Factually, we've been lucky and have not had a terrorist incident.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Would it be a fair conclusion to say that if we were just basing it on the facts, just on the evidence before us, not on our speculation or worry but just on the facts...would the logical, legal conclusion not be that the current powers we have under the Criminal Code are sufficient to break up potential terrorist activity, based on the facts?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Based on the facts that have presented themselves to date, but I can't talk about what the facts might be in the future.
December 15th, 2010 / 5:25 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
That's the issue. That's what this committee has to decide.
We can indicate where there's a gap, and I've indicated where the gap is. I think you and I agree where there is a gap in the law. The question of whether you believe that gap should be filled or not is a policy question, and that's not a question I can answer.
I can only tell you what the bill would do, where the gaps are in the law, and where the bright lines are in the law. Whether you want to extend the law is a policy issue. That's for parliamentarians to decide.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
As a committee we want to determine what the proper policy should be. I'm trying to get a factual understanding in front of us to determine whether these powers are in fact needed or not.
Obviously, we could give extraordinary powers to the police. We could allow them to detain for a week. I understand your testimony is that these powers are more benign when compared to other jurisdictions, but they still do represent giving additional powers to the police for preventive arrest and administrative detention—I probably have those two mixed up—beyond what they have currently under the Criminal Code.
I want to thank you for your testimony here. I'm sure it will be very helpful as we deliberate going forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Davies, for ending on that note.
We want to commend you for sticking around for the last hour and for your input into this as we discuss this very important piece of legislation.
I think all parties want to get the balance, and they want to have the resources for our authorities to prevent terrorist attacks, but we also want to be very cautious of human rights and the balance there.
Anyway, thank you very much.
Before we adjourn, this is the last meeting. I want to wish each one of you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah, and all the other happy holidays, festive and whatever else. Have a Merry Christmas, and we'll see you back here hopefully in February and not a lot before.
We're adjourned.