Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
I think Mr. Garrison is up first. He's been up for a while.
Conservative
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
If Mr. Garrison would agree with me, then there's no problem.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I was actually going to say that I think the problem—and I probably should have said it more explicitly—is at the other end. If you offer this blanket protection, then when you try to use the information and to test it in court to try to prosecute someone who is a terrorist and is guilty of that, you're going to run into problems. The courts will take a very dim view of being unable to check the sources and will allow the defence to challenge that information.
The courts have said before that a case-by-case basis works, and from the few witnesses we had, we didn't hear any evidence that the case-by-case protection was not working. This is really trying to embed that very same idea back into the bill.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
[Inaudible—Editor] the consistent arguments here, but it may be that it's in a not-so-seedy bar that this information is secured, as opposed to that of my colleague.
Conservative
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
It may not be as bad as she implies.
The important thing, though, is human trust. Clearly, in order for somebody to come forward, they have to have trust, and the trust has to be explicit and consistent. I don't think a written solution to that is the appropriate way to go in this business.
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Chair, this is dealing with the same issues. We're putting back in the authority of the court or the person in charge of a body to require the disclosure, and taking out the discretionary parts if the CSIS director agrees with this. We're putting the decision-making back where it belongs, which is with the court or the head of any tribunal that's investigating, to decide if the disclosure of a human source's identity is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I disagree. I think that Bill C-44 already includes the provisions that would allow for the disclosure of the identity information if it's essential. I think that decision is left to the judiciary, and I disagree with it being added to this section. It's already there.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Now amendment LIB-2.
I presume you would like to say a word, Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes.
Mr. Chair, I'll not read the amendment, but it is to broaden the protection provided to human sources. The legislation proposes an amicus curiae. I wondered what that meant at one time, but in simple terms it's an appointed lawyer, as I understand it. This amendment provides that human sources would have access to a lawyer whom they choose themselves to represent them.
I think it gives the human sources better satisfaction that they are getting the legal counsel they believe can protect their interests.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I think this is the same intent as NDP-7 where we are dealing with a slightly different part of the bill.
I think it's a very important point. It expands what is a traditional right in Canadian courts, which is to have the right to choose your counsel. When we get to NDP-7 we go slightly farther by saying that there's a right if they've received a previous security clearance to participate in these, but it's heading in the same direction, so we'll be supporting the amendment,
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I hate to keep talking—actually I don't—but remember I am also speaking instead of Mr. Norlock in some cases. My observation is this: there's already a mechanism in the bill for a human source to instigate the disclosure of his or her own identity. Why would this amendment be necessary? The human source can already say they want to be identified. I don't know why they'd want to, but they can bring in a friend of the court or some other lawyer to do that. When the source can already do it themselves and can hire a lawyer if he or she wants to do that—and being a lawyer I'm sure he would want to do that—I don't see why this amendment is necessary.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think I've made my point. I don't need to re-argue the point. I think if they want to hire their own lawyer, they should have the right to do so, but they have to pay for it. That's the difference.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Chair, this is probably the most important amendment we placed to this bill. The bill rightly creates an exemption that would allow disclosure of identities if it's necessary to prove the innocence of the party, but it limits that exemption to the right to prove innocence.
What we're saying here is that it should apply to other parts of the criminal process, including detention or bail hearings, any place where life, liberty, or security of the person is involved. This would also extend it to actions under the immigration act in terms of removals from the country and things like that.
The exemption heads in the right direction but is inordinately narrow and this would broaden it out to any process whereby the life, liberty, and security of the person is likely to be endangered by the proceedings, without declaring the disclosure necessary.