Justice committee  I can answer that question. In our opinion, the best solution would be to set aside any offence against the person or a person's physical integrity. Of course, if we specifically include torture in the exceptions, that is already a better solution. But there are also other offences--and we have named them--that relate to the integrity of the person.

Justice committee  First of all, as regards torture, I've rarely seen people tortured in public the way parliamentarians are in front of the television cameras. I just want to say that as crimes go, it is the most odious of all crimes internationally. If you consider the crimes that are prohibited under emergency measures ordered under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is one of the ones that are absolutely forbidden.

Justice committee  I should say that the case law also provides nuanced definitions of the various offences. So, we do have definitions in the case law. In this context, there is no clarity, and that is the danger.

Justice committee  As for allowed offences, I want to say right from the start that any and all offences against the integrity of the person should not be authorized.

Justice committee  Yes. Assault is not exempted in the paragraph you read out earlier, because it refers to assault with bodily harm, something that a police officer cannot be authorized to do. However, he can be authorized to commit assault. Common assault can be authorized. But, as I say, assault causing injuries that are not just temporary injuries or are detrimental to a person's health, may not be authorized.

Justice committee  That term is used if there is no temporary injury which is detrimental to a person's health. Here we're talking about assault with bodily injury. Assault with bodily injury is more than just an ordinary injury; it's an injury that is prejudicial to one's health and is not of a temporary nature.

Justice committee  I am not aware of the details of the police protocol. However, I imagine that such protocols are, indeed, in effect. I just want to sound a cautionary note with respect to protocols. Such protocols are indeed necessary. I represented an intervenor in the Arar inquiry. The matter of protocols was extremely important in the context of that inquiry.

Justice committee  If the legislation is renewed, a periodic review would be necessary in the shortest timeframe possible. I fully agree with you there. Indeed, today's exercise is not a societal debate. In fact, most Canadians are not even aware of this statutory justification. In our opinion, there has not been really substantive public debate on this, except within certain organizations and among legal experts.

Justice committee  By way of reply, I would like to refer to the interception of private communications. This is referred to in sections 181 and following of the Criminal Code. It is surprising to see that a whole section of the Criminal Code deals exclusively with interceptions of private communications.

Justice committee  I just want to add that unlike police officers, drug traffickers and pushers, along with pimps, as referred to by the person sitting next to me at the table, are not subject to a code of ethics. That is an important distinction to make. Indeed, it is increasingly the case that under current law, policing responsibilities are conferred upon agencies or officers that are not subject to the same code of ethics.

Justice committee  First of all, I invite you to read the definition of “torture”. It can be found in section 269.1. The exact same definition can be found in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Just to summarize, it refers to severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted on a person for the purposes of intimidation, with a view to obtaining a statement or something else from him.

Justice committee  First of all, Mr. Brown, I want to say that what distinguishes us from the Canadian Bar Association is that the Ligue des droits et libertés does not represent a single group within the community. The Ligue des droits et libertés is a policy- and action-oriented organization whose members have a variety of backgrounds.

Justice committee  Yes, except that in camera meetings should be restricted to matters relating to the protection of informants and the conduct of investigations following review of the situation by MPs and experts. In other words, they should be the exception, rather than the rule. Having a small committee of politicians conducting ongoing overview of the way in which these sections are enforced could indeed be useful.

Justice committee  First of all, the Ligue des droits et libertés is very reluctant to support the idea of a judicial warrant for anything involving crimes against the person. We are quite concerned about the notion that a judge could authorize assault, forcible confinement, hostage taking, and other such acts.

Justice committee  Excuse me, can I answer first?