Justice committee  Thank you very much. I think it is arguably the case that the French wording is not the same as the English in that suicide bombing.... If one interpretation of “l'attentat suicide” is “suicide attack”, then that is certainly a broader phrase than the “suicide bombing” in the En

Justice committee  I'm sorry...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

Justice committee  I offer my apologies. Could you repeat your question, Mr. Ménard?

Justice committee  Just very briefly, as it has already been mentioned, I believe the intention of this piece of legislation was to focus specifically on the aspect of suicide bombing and to ensure, in case there was any lack of clarity, that suicide bombing was caught by the definition of “terrori

Justice committee  My own view is that it is not a fatal flaw, if that's what you're concerned about. I think it would be an interpretive issue that would be decided by the courts, as they have done on past occasions when there have been differences in wording between French and English versions.

Justice committee  Ultimately that is a decision for this committee to make, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.

Justice committee  Well, I think that in English certainly, the word suicide “attack” is broader in scope than suicide “bombing”. We've been discussing whether or not 9/11 was in fact a suicide bombing and whether it would fall within the suicide bombing aspect. I'm afraid that to the extent there

Public Safety committee  With regard to the recognizance with conditions, it was the special Senate committee that recommended that the annual report for both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions be an expanded annual report and that the Minister of Justice, or in this case the

Public Safety committee  I would hope there would be sufficient time. Remember, this is an area into which we've built additional safeguards to add to the multiplicity of safeguards that were already part of the original legislation back in 2001. I wouldn't want to expand it beyond 90 days. We're trying

Public Safety committee  It was also, as I mentioned, our effort to fulfill a recommendation made by the House of Commons committee that originally reviewed these two powers. They were concerned that the law was unclear as to how long a period of detention there would be for someone who was arrested purs

Public Safety committee  If you don't mind, I'll try my hand at answering that question. With regard to the comparative aspect first, I think it is fair to say we are either equivalent or more restrained in our scope in terms of investigative hearing procedure. The United States, of course, has the gr

Public Safety committee  It's a crime. It's not so much failure to testify; it's failure to report to a police constable if you have information.

Public Safety committee  The sanctions could be, I suppose, contempt of court. If the judge orders the person to answer and he refuses to, he will be dealt with in just the same way as would any other person who refused to answer.

Public Safety committee  I was talking, I think, about section 707 of the Criminal Code.

Public Safety committee  A witness can be arrested pursuant to a warrant under the Criminal Code. There is a specific power to do that in certain limited cases, such as, for example, where a witness is about to abscond. Under section 707 of the Criminal Code, there's a scheme set out for how long a witne