Public Safety committee  If I could answer that briefly, I don't agree with Professor Forcese that there is a gap. The most serious terrorist act that was ever committed in Canada was the Air India bombing. Recommendations came out of the major inquiry in relation to that bombing, and Canada should be de

Public Safety committee  Do you want a short answer? No. I wouldn't agree with all of the preamble you put to it. There are some aspects of it.... If you pass the law, then the rule of law follows, but I don't see any value in these provisions and I don't see any need to resurrect them again. You're no

Public Safety committee  Well, when I presented at the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice in a conference on the anti-terrorism legislation in 2002, I took the same position. I don't find that the Liberals were particularly good on these issues.

Public Safety committee  Except that this legislation was sunsetted and died, and somebody's now trying to resurrect it, so it would change the landscape back to where we were immediately after September 11, 2001.

Public Safety committee  Can I make two comments? One is that the Americans have done more terrible things than probably any western democracy, given what they've done in waterboarding and in torture and in keeping people in Guantanamo. In regard to Professor Forcese's paper, I noted three places--page

Public Safety committee  The only information I have, and I'm not sure it's totally accurate, is that Australia brought in some provisions—I think they're in Professor Forcese's paper—that provided some detention. I think theirs are still in effect. I don't know about their use at all.

Public Safety committee  For me to answer that question, you'll have to tell me where you are in the process. If you're talking about a bunch of people who are charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, I don't see why you're going to need it. Presumably you would have the evidence before you arr

Public Safety committee  I will say that at the outset that the only time it's been used was to have an investigative hearing in regard to Mrs. Reyat to see what she would say in the Air India trial.

Public Safety committee  No, it was totally ineffective. They never got past going to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether it was constitutional. As far as I know, she never testified at an investigative hearing. They tried to do it in the middle of the trial, and that was one of the reasons.

Public Safety committee  It was useless and it was used in a manner that nobody contemplated it would be used. Nobody ever talked about being in the middle of a trial and not knowing what a witness was going to say, so they held an investigative hearing to find out what she was going to say.

Public Safety committee  That's other than for Air India.

Public Safety committee  That's my view.

Public Safety committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the committee. I was hoping to get some written material together, but I've gotten virtually none done. I do have a handout here, unfortunately in English only, that outlines my background in dealing with national security matters over the