Public Safety committee  It's hard to say how much it will cost to enforce. It all depends to what extent they are used, so it's a little hypothetical. In terms of whether there will be challenges, we do anticipate that there will be challenges. We believe that there are arguments that would support the

Public Safety committee  The same issues were raised in 2001 when the original legislation was enacted, including these provisions. Maybe that's one of the reasons that Parliament put in the five-year review clause: to see to what extent they're used, how they're used, and whether there is a concern they

Public Safety committee  The annual report is just one piece of evidence that a parliamentary review would undertake. I know that the parliamentary reviews that were undertaken a number of years ago were quite extensive. They went on for months and a number of different witnesses were heard. The reports

Public Safety committee  It's a report of the Attorney General and a report of the Minister of Public Safety. They'll determine what to put in the report, but Parliament has given some indication as to what it wants. It wants to know whether the provisions have been used and whether they believe the prov

Public Safety committee  In the Air India case, the witness the crown prosecutor wished to examine was not one of the accused. It was a relative who held some information. I think when you speak to the authorities, basically it will be useful to obtain the evidence of witnesses, not necessarily the poten

Public Safety committee  Thank you. I can't give you my personal opinion because my personal opinion is really not that important. What I can do is explain how these provisions are similar to the existing law and how they are different. The minister said that they are based on tradition and to some exte

Public Safety committee  Just for correction, it's not quite true to say that the provisions have never been used in the first five years. Their use was attempted once in the investigative hearing in the Air India case. That's why it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Once the Supreme Court of Canada m

Public Safety committee  That's a reflection of the existing law, both common law and also the law under the Canada Evidence Act. Where you have protection against self-incrimination, it applies except for prosecution for perjury or providing contradictory evidence—so you can't purposely lie and then pro

Public Safety committee  I think you answered the question when you said it doesn't fit. The person is entitled to counsel, so the person has his or her own counsel. Special advocates in immigration proceedings are used in situations when the state has security information it wishes to present before t

Public Safety committee  I don't know. That's an issue for the government.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  It was also a recommendation of the committee.

Public Safety committee  Yes, if the situation had not changed. Again, it really depends on what the facts are. It's not simply a renewal process; it's an actual new application. A full application would have to be made.

Public Safety committee  If the judge is still of the opinion, or a second judge or another judge is of the opinion, that the conditions are necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity, then that situation still exists. Just because 12 months or 11 months have expired doesn't all of a sudden mean

Public Safety committee  That's the existing law with the peace bonds. The only way a person can be detained under a peace bond or under these proposed provisions is if they refuse to accept the conditions, in which case the judges say they shall be detained. That's based on parallels with the existing l