Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Public Safety committee I simply wish to underscore that my comments do not mean that the Supreme Court requires this provision.
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I'm back to the motivating factor for the whole bill, which is the Charkaoui decision of the Supreme Court, the need to strike the right balance between the protection of the rights of the individual who is the subject of the certificate and the legitimate protection of governmen
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I think so.
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I was too broad in my characterization. What I'm trying to say is that there will be overlaps in the facts of cases that may lead to this concern with tainting. I'm trying to describe what they might be, but I'm not saying that simply because a special advocate played the role fo
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I believe they do not legislate to that level of detail, but in the British system, first of all, it is not the judge who decides on the appointment of the special advocate, contrary to what is proposed here; it is the government. The government has discretion to appoint or not t
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee It is not easy, but the jurisprudence requires the ministers who file the certificate, or their counsel, to reveal exculpatory evidence related to the foundation of the certificate.
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee This provision flows from the British experience with regard to special advocates. Indeed, the British observed that, in certain cases where there was a risk of disclosure, there was a phenomenon called tainting. Let us take the example of a special advocate who is called upon to
December 7th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee The main difference we see between this particular phraseology and both the amendment that Mr. Ménard proposed and the amendment that was made by the government side is exactly on the derivative use of information, as you raised. In the two other motions we're talking about exc
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I would agree with that.
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee It would prevent the use, possibly, of that, yes.
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee Well, it would prevent not only the direct evidence obtained by torture, but also the findings of the investigative body, because a court might well—
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I think it could.
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee I'm sorry, but I'm not sure we have the amendment before us. I'm not sure which section is being amended.
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien
Public Safety committee The two versions obviously refer to the same thing. What we understand from the amendment proposed by Mr. Ménard is that the text would essentially say that the judge rely, in deciding whether the certificate is reasonable, on reliable evidence, with the exception of evidence obt
December 6th, 2007Committee meeting
Daniel Therrien