NDP amendment 3 goes back to a conversation we had in committee when it was noted that excluding evidence obtained through an investigative hearing from use in criminal proceedings against the person giving that evidence should be, according to one argument, expanded to include extradition or deportation hearings, because this was something the Supreme Court, in its only case on investigative hearings, effectively read into the previous version.
I think that's all that's really going on here. I don't see how, for example, this can be outside the scope of the bill, simply because I think the government side has said this is implicit. We're saying it should be explicit for reasons of certainty and caution, and effective criminal law should be as clear as possible.
I'm happy enough that the government has indicated they think this would be there anyway. I'd just much prefer that it be explicit.