Evidence of meeting #107 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
This wording is just an amendment for CSIS to produce reports: “An application for a judicial authorization under section 11.13”.
I'm sorry. Let me just take a moment, because my notes are all messed up, and I'm filling in for Mr. Fragiskatos.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
We jumped ahead a fair bit. Because I'm filling in for another amendment, I would like to make sure I have the proper notes before I start speaking.
Thank you.
This isn't a substantive amendment. It will correct a cross-referencing error. This is actually just a technical amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment PV-23 is next.
Ms. May.
12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is dealing with a proposed section that we find on page 111, dealing with the process before a judge in looking at the issuance of a warrant, the collection of information, and so on.
What we're trying to do here is to ensure that when issues of charter rights are being adjudicated—and this is essentially a very private and secret hearing before one judge alone, and it may never be subject to an appeal—we're inserting into the section the presence of a special advocate.
A special advocate, of course, is present, from the Chrétien era changes to anti-terrorism legislation, when security certificates are issued. The special advocate is there obviously not in the interest of any accused, because the accused can't know about the hearings against them, in this case for the issuance of a warrant. Obviously, you don't want to have the person under suspicion notified of the proceeding. That's why it's ex parte and why it's secret. But the public interest should be represented. In this case, the public interest would be represented by a special advocate.
This was recommended by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as well as by Professor Michael Nesbitt. I think it's appropriate that we import into this section the presence of a special advocate.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
There are two parts.
Firstly, this would require royal recommendation, as it's a new role that would have to be funded. Aside from that, there is already a system in place whereby an amicus curiae can be appointed, a system by which judges can get that extra opinion that isn't necessarily being presented before them. An amicus curiae can be appointed, and it is part of a judge's role to undertake any special considerations.
We would submit that this is not necessary.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I take note that it is one o'clock. I frankly don't want to interrupt the discussion about clause 107, so with some indulgence I will let the debate go on. Let us go to the vote and end at 1:07.
Is that all right with everyone?
Mr. Dubé.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have nothing to add. You said it was done.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
No, it's not entirely done, but anyway....
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 107 as amended agreed to on division)
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I do. I thought I was handed the schedule.
We're going to have a meeting from 5:30 to 8:30 on Wednesday and on Thursday from 9:00 to 1:00, so we have another seven hours to go.
I'm rather hoping we don't use all seven hours. After Wednesday's meeting, we'll make a decision as to whether we need four hours on a Thursday or two hours on a Thursday.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, as you can see, our work is proceeding smoothly. I think we can cancel the meeting tomorrow and meet only on Thursday at 4 p.m.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I would normally agree with you, but I don't want to walk away from the extra time if we need the extra time, especially in light of the fact that we have lined up the minister to come the following week. I think that with any kind of serious good faith among colleagues, we can wrap this up by the end of the week. At this point I'm not going to drop the Wednesday time or the Thursday time in the hope that we will finish on time.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Conservative
