Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, then, we'll go back to Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro, for giving us a little time.

I wanted to give Ms. Cheung a chance to weigh in on the conversation between Ms. Findlay and Ms. Des Rosiers. It is a legal, theoretical difference between whether you make explicit something you already know to be part of the common law or whether you trust the common law, as articulated by the Supreme Court, to be sufficient.

I'm happy to hear there's agreement that the Supreme Court has actually set parameters that we would read into this provision. It's not just limited to the explicit language of criminal proceedings. But I tend, I guess, to be more of a codifier, wanting to see that made explicit.

I'm wondering if you could add a little bit of your perspective on that.

[Carmen Cheung]

At the risk of being facile, I would say that if the Supreme Court has already told us what the law ought to be, then that's how we should construct our laws.

I agree with Ms. Des Rosiers that it doesn't seem terribly efficient for us to possibly have to go and relitigate this all over again in order to establish that this is how the law should be interpreted. If it's our understanding that for it to be constitutional we have to have these safeguards, then I do think it is prudent, and is the better course, to codify as opposed to having to reach for the common law as well, to use it in tandem.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay.

Again, I think the record of our session today will be very important in the future, and it may, hopefully, prevent the need for litigation if in fact it passes as worded.

I'm grateful to Ms. Findlay for pointing out what the Supreme Court has already read into the predecessor version of this. That helps, if we don't get it made explicit.

I have another question. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Nicholson, in the Senate referred directly to the investigative hearings provision as one method of getting evidence on this new leaving-the-country offence. By implication, I think he must be talking about speaking to family, neighbours, community about maybe youth who are under surveillance or about whom there is a concern.

I'm just wondering if I could give both of you an opportunity to talk about the linkage between the investigative hearing and proof on leaving the country, because without really strong proof, my worry is that this provision will just turn into a disruption provision.

I hear the minister, in the sense that this could produce the right proof, but it would be using investigative hearings to do so.

What would you say about that?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

I would say a couple of things about these provisions. Number one, as you know, the definition of terrorist activities is at the Supreme Court now and being debated as to whether it's too wide or not. When you read the provisions, there is a certain ambiguity to it, a certain vagueness, that I think will create some trouble or some difficulties in proving that.

I understand that what the minister envisages is that, for instance, the mother of a young man is called in front of a judge to say what she knows about his intentions, and on the basis of that, a charge is later put. I think that is certainly one of the fears within the communities, that indeed they will be forced into things that we don't usually ask of other people in Canada. You are not obliged to speak to the police, and we trust that as being.... People do; people often do; but it's an individual case.

We've been living like this for a long time, having reached many thresholds and so on, and this changes it for only one particular community, presumably, and I think we should be concerned about that. This is a little bit the message of the social cost, not only on victims but also on the indirect victims, the people unfairly targeted and so on.

I would echo the need, if you want to continue to do prospective work...I think CBSA oversight should be part of the package deal. If the idea is to do a good job of reassuring Canadians that counterterrorism is done in the appropriate way, I think it is incumbent upon you to demand a good framework of accountability for all actors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. Our time is up there.

To end the day, we'll go to Mr. Norlock, please.

Mr. Norlock, normally you'd have five minutes. It looks like you have about three or four minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for appearing.

When we get to the stage where we hear from victims, I usually need to speak to my constituents through this committee and to the victims, as well as ask the witnesses questions. I've heard from previous and current witnesses about all the rights we have as individuals in this country, but one of the primary rights we have in this country—the first right we have in this country—is the right to life. Terrorists deprive people, as we heard from the first witnesses, of the right to life. Not only do they deprive them of the right to life, but they deprive victims of the right of association with the people who are no longer on this earth.

As for what we are here discussing and talking about, constantly over the six years that I've been on this committee we have heard from various groups of civil libertarians, who have never ever, to my knowledge, agreed with the vast majority of the legislation that this government has brought in. They will placate us by saying that they agree with the fundamentals, but in particular, no, this is not quite good, they say.

But when we talk about the current witnesses, I heard very strongly from Mr. Gupta that he hears them talk about the people who have been incarcerated, at a cost to our society, he says, of $100,000 to $140,000 a year—I think he said $60,000 and someone corrected him. Yet he says that all through the Air India event he was not aware of anybody from a civil libertarian group coming to the victims. There were some 300 people killed, but the relatives left on the earth to mourn their loss never heard of civil libertarians wanting to take up the fight for their rights.

We also heard today from the witnesses that we should be concentrating on rehabilitation. Well, actually, this particular legislation offers an opportunity for rehabilitation, in that if a mother, relative, friend, or citizen sees someone who may be going to commit a terrorist offence, they can go before the hearing, and there is a recognizance built in for the people at home. There can be a rehabilitative part of the recognizance, so in actual fact, this legislation does have built into it an ability to rehabilitate.

How long do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're 10 seconds over.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that 10 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think we'll leave it at that for today.

Thank you for attending, both via teleconference and by your attendance here today. We get different perspectives when we have legislation come forward. We look at all perspectives. Thank you for presenting yours.

We are adjourned.