There are so many things I would like to say.
First is with respect to peace bonds. I guess you are a defence criminal lawyer, but I practised family law for 30 years, and I can tell you that peace bonds are very effective in our society. They protect very vulnerable people all the time. They deter violence against the people they're meant to deter violence against. To suggest that our system of peace bonds is ineffective and doesn't help anyone is really quite shocking to me.
I found your remarks very interesting, Monsieur Barrette, about whether it is useful or it is necessary, and I agree with you those are both valid questions.
However, we have been asking that question of many witnesses who have appeared before us. The answer we have been getting is that it is absolutely necessary because terrorism remains the greatest threat to Canada's national security, and it is a continuing and present threat.
I note that when, for example, Professor Martin Rudner testified on this bill before the Senate in April of this year, he noted that at this time various terrorist organizations see it necessary to reach out to get human resources for the struggle for the downfall of what they call the apostolic regimes, and to prepare in fact for the next stage, which is declaration of caliphate to be followed by the total confrontation with the infidels, which they see us and our society, in the main, as being.
They see themselves reaching out to citizens of western countries in particular, in part to gain passports to travel freely, in part to get knowledge and networks, and in part to get skills.
The kind of people that they target, and many witnesses have talked about the radicalization of our own Canadian youth, are young, single, physically fit people who have savvy in terms of science and technology, and a higher education. They reach out to them through the Internet, through charismatic leaders, through other information channels, perhaps through religious channels, and try to bring them over to commit to a jihadist theology.
We are told by many witnesses that we have this threat that is continuing and present.
As to your suggestion that somehow our judges might be turned into ventriloquists for law enforcement, I can say again, in my many years of practice at the bar, the judges I have ever appeared before resist ever being put in a position of doing so. In fact, that is one of the beauties of our system that we have judicial independence.
I would suggest that the opposition members are often in fact finding themselves in the position of telling us that we should never be fettering the independence of our judiciary because judicial discretion is what our system is built on.
I was pleased, Mr. Calarco, that you mentioned the 2004 reference on the Air India prosecution to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that you did acknowledge that the Supreme Court of Canada has found investigative hearings to be constitutional.
I will also note that in a companion case of the same year regarding the The Vancouver Sun, the Supreme Court held that there is a presumption that investigative hearings would be public. In this proposed bill before us, that is part of the bill, that those investigative hearings would be public, unless a judge, in his or her judicial discretion, determined that privacy would be needed. I am assuming that would be in cases where someone's safety is perhaps at risk.
In your submissions before us, you talk about the need for commensurate safeguards if we are bringing in extra powers. My colleague, Mr. Leef, talked about many of the safeguards that are built into this legislation under investigative hearings. In addition to those, there is always the right to retain counsel and have counsel appear at any stage of the proceedings. A person can refuse, of course, to answer a question or produce anything that is protected by Canadian law relating to non-disclosure of information or privilege.
Their testimony cannot be used against them—we had this dialogue with another witness—not just in other criminal proceedings, but also because in that 2004 case, the Supreme Court of Canada said it extended to administrative tribunals or to other such proceedings, immigration hearings, for instance.
We have federal and provincial attorneys general required to report annually on any use of these hearings. There is an additional requirement. If it's the AG of Canada or the federal Minister of Public Safety, they have to provide an opinion supported by reasons on whether these provisions should remain in force.
Would you agree with me that at least those safeguards I've outlined are important to have? I'm directing this question to Mr. Calarco.