Public Safety Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If you're asking me, I have complete confidence in the Canadian judicial and criminal system. It doesn't get any better than right here in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now move back to Ms. Findlay, please, for five minutes, and in fact to wrap this up.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Minister, I know there are similar pieces of legislation in other countries—the United Kingdom, for instance, and Australia. My understanding is that in the United Kingdom, detention can be up to 14 days. I think that in Australia too it's up to that number.

Am I correct in understanding what you're saying, that as with other parts of the Criminal Code, here someone must be brought before a judge within 24 hours? Perhaps that can be extended to 48 hours, but the maximum would be 72 hours; is that correct?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That is very correct, and thank you, Ms. Findlay, for setting that out. I think that's important. I'm often asked this question whenever we have changes to the criminal law of this country: yes, but in some other jurisdiction, here is what they're doing.

I appreciate that. Each country, each jurisdiction, has to have a look at these issues and come up with a plan. Countries with legal systems similar to our own are continuously looking at these things, and you pointed out that in the British example an individual can be detained for 14 days; up until very recently that was 28 days. They're having a look at it themselves.

That said, it's a little bit like bail hearings. We want to get people before the criminal justice system. We want to get them into court. We want them to have that opportunity to make sure their rights are protected. Again, I pointed out to you that the individual has the right to counsel. I think that's only appropriate and fair in our judicial system.

Getting somebody before a judge in an expeditious manner is critically important. I think that's fair on every level. We want to have information. We want to protect Canadians against terrorist activity, and at the same time we want to make sure this is a reasonable process that protects the rights of an individual and at the same time protects the rights of Canadians.

In that sense, it's dissimilar to what's taking place in Great Britain and Australia, but nonetheless this is a very reasonable response with considerable safeguards. Your analysis, Mr. Chair and committee members, will confirm, I believe, the comments that I have made: that this measure can and should be brought back into the laws of this country.

It was on the books for five years after it was passed, and not by this government. I wish we were in power for the last 10 years, but that wasn't the case. We didn't bring it in, but that said, I think these were important measures to have and I wish you and committee every success on that. However, I believe your analysis will confirm that these measures are very reasonable and are just what this country can and should have on its books.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Am I correct in understanding that the purpose investigative hearings is to disrupt terrorist activity or potential terrorist activity at a preventative stage, but that they do not result in a criminal offence or a criminal hearing? Is that correct?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think it's a good point. I forget whether it was Mr. Scarpaleggia who asked me about this, but I was asked about it. This information on those investigative hearings, whether it's information with respect to past or future or indeed present terrorist activity, will not be used to incriminate the individual in any criminal charges that may have been laid or would be laid on the individual, so there's protection against self-incrimination.

I did say there would be an example if the individual is perjuring himself or herself. There are the usual common law exceptions, but that said, it's very clear that this kind of evidence won't be used at any subsequent criminal hearing. I think that's reasonable as well.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I understand that, but also the recognizance with conditions is not in itself a criminal charge, is it?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's not a charge, no. It's like a peace bond. Most people are quite familiar with them. The individual is brought before the court and conditions are set upon that individual. That has been part of our criminal justice system for many years. This is one more tool to break up the kind of activity that all of us abhor and want to do everything we can to stop.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I see that our hour is up. We want to thank you for appearing and commencing this study. We look forward to the study.

We are going to suspend for just one moment and then we will pick up where we left off. We'll just continue on the same, so we'll suspend for one moment and allow the minister to leave.

Now we'll call this meeting back to order. This is just really a continuation of the first hour. We are not going to go back to the first round, the second round. We're going to stay on the round that we are on.

Mr. Rousseau, it was your turn to question the minister. As you can see, our minister has had to leave after the first hour, but there are two officials from the department here who can answer your questions.

You have five minutes.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am an ardent supporter of human rights and freedoms, including the freedom of movement within the country and the freedom to exit and enter the country. As a Canadian, I have the right to leave and enter the country as I please, and I would like to know whether the new offences added to the Criminal Code through Bill S-7 violate that right I have, as a Canadian, under subsection 6(1) of the charter.

Could you clarify that for us, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Piragoff.

[Donald Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the minister indicated, all the rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are subject to section 1 of the charter, which provides that the rights are guaranteed, subject to reasonable limits imposed by a free and democratic society. The view of the government is that it is a reasonable limit upon Canadians' constitutional rights to enter, remain in, or leave the country if they are leaving the country for the purposes of facilitating, participating in, or actually committing a terrorist offence.

This is not simply a question of people leaving to go to a foreign country to commit terrorist acts. It may be that they're going there to obtain training and then coming back to Canada and actually threatening the lives and safety of Canadians. They are trained by a terrorist group, and then they're able to use that training to threaten the safety of Canadians.

In the context of public safety there's a strong case to be made that it is a reasonable limit to prevent people who are intentionally leaving the country not for a holiday and not for personal purposes, but for terrorist purposes. We should be able to stop them.

We stop people from coming into the country if they have criminal designs or criminal purposes. We stop people from coming into the country if they have terrorist purposes. Our immigration law provides that. The government believes it's also a reasonable limit on people who leave this country for terrorist purposes, and even come back to this country. That is also a reasonable limit. It's a balance, as the minister indicated.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

The gun registry system has been abolished. Will the government now create a registry to monitor Canadians' entries and exits?

[Donald Piragoff]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister answered that question already. The government does not intend to have a monitoring system. The minister said this is like any other criminal offence. Information comes to the attention of the police; upon further investigation, if the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is about to commit an offence or will commit an offence, then they are entitled to arrest the individual.

Their source of information, as the minister indicated, may be parents indicating to the authorities that one of their children intends to leave the country. It could be other people in the community who are aware that youth in the community have been radicalized and that they intend to leave the country to be trained, or even worse, to actually join a terrorist group in a foreign country.

The minister indicated that Canadians would be very upset with the government if the government were to say, “Yes, we knew, and we suspected these youth were going to leave the country, but we had no power to stop them.” Then the kids go off and get killed. There would be some very upset Canadian families if that were the case.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

So information will have to be retained on individuals who are leaving and entering the country. Would Canadian citizens born in other countries potentially be the object of racial profiling? Who will establish the objective criteria? Will testimony from individuals be eligible to be used as evidence against others?

[Donald Piragoff]

Well, as the minister indicated, there is no record. There's no intention to keep a record of why people leave the country. When I go into a bank, there's no record as to why I walk into a bank. When I walk into a bank to make a deposit, to make a withdrawal, or to rob the bank, there is no record. It's the same situation when I walk onto a plane; no one knows why I'm getting on a plane.

However, if the police find out somehow that the reason I'm walking into the bank is to rob the bank, or if the police find out somehow that I'm getting on a plane for the purposes of committing a terrorist act, then the police have the right to intervene and stop me at the bank door or stop me at the airplane door. That's the way the criminal law works. We don't keep registers of people coming and going into the banks or onto airplanes, but if they can prove that the person is going into the bank or going onto a plane to commit a criminal offence, then the police have the authority to arrest individuals. It's the same—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Piragoff.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That's it? I was on a roll.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That was six minutes.

We'll now move back to Mr. Leef, please, for five minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that explanation, actually. I think you've provided a real “plain English” explanation that will resonate with Canadians about how that's applied and how we go about putting that provision in place.

Maybe I could get you to do the same with the provision for a recognizance; I think that has a possibility to stem a little bit of confusion. When somebody goes before the courts and a recognizance is negotiated, maybe you could give us some background on what sort of condition could be applied, based on your years of experience.

If somebody is involved in computer crime, for example, or computer terrorism, and using that as a networking system to communicate, could a reasonable condition be to stop them from communicating with the utilization of technology? Maybe you could give us some background on that so that we can understand the kinds of conditions that might be or could possibly be imposed and what would be reasonable and what would not be reasonable in terms of conditions.

[Donald Piragoff]

The types of conditions are very much contextual to the circumstances. You gave examples of misuse of a computer. Parliament has dealt previously with situations of imposing conditions on people who use computers to communicate with children for the purposes of luring, for example, and part of that was actually a power enacted by Parliament to provide conditions or prohibitions on people's use of computers.

Likewise, if the activity involves supporting terrorist groups by distributing material, etc., or being involved on the Internet, if it's reasonable that the person not go on the Internet or only go on the Internet with supervision, that could be a reasonable condition. It really depends on the circumstance: if the conduct of an activity has nothing to do with the computer, then prohibiting someone from communicating on the computer would not be reasonable. It really comes down to that question.

The other question you asked me was about the purpose of the recognizance with conditions. As the minister indicated, the purpose of that provision is not to detain a person. It's not preventative arrest. It is recognizance with conditions.

The purpose is to put a person under judicial control. It's to put some conditions on the individual. It is not to detain them for a long period of time, hoping that in that period of 14 days you'll put your case together and get enough evidence such that you can actually lay charges. That's not the purpose of this measure. It's very much, as the minister said, a provision to disrupt activity for people who have not yet committed a crime, or for whom there is not enough evidence to charge them or others. It's a means of putting some judicial control on the individual.

Of course, once you put judicial control on this individual, you've also indicated to others that the authorities are essentially investigating, and they will know that something is up. It may deter others from actually participating and going further with their ideas.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

With their right to counsel, then, of course they're able to make representation when it comes to a recognizance issue. They can put a case forward as to what conditions they themselves might feel are onerous. They have an opportunity to plead their case. The judge can review and consider, and the crown has an ability to retort on it as well. It's a transparent process.

[Donald Piragoff]

As the minister said, Canadian law is not without precedent in this area. We have many years of experience with the peace bond process, which is very similar, whereby a person is ordered to appear before a court for the court to determine whether conditions should be put on the individual to ensure they do not cause danger to other individuals. In that hearing process the person has the right to counsel, evidence can be presented, and arguments can be made as to what conditions should or should not be put on an individual and on what's reasonable. These provisions are mirrored on existing provisions that have been on Canadian law books for many years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

We'll go to Mr. Norlock, please.

Mr. Norlock, you have five minutes.