SECU Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met at 3:45 p.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, Garry Breitkreuz, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

On Clause 1,

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible as an amendment must be relevant to the clause it is proposed to amend, and must therefore relate to only one clause of the bill and not to two or more clauses at once, as provided on page 651 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

“charge des questions relatives à l'avocat spécial dans”

Clause 1, as amended, carried.

Clause 2 carried.

Clause 3 carried.

“78. If the judge is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who is named in the certificate is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, the judge shall quash the certificate.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Serge Ménard and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“79. (1) An appeal from the determination may be made to the Federal Court of Appeal

(a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone;

(b) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact, with leave of the Federal Court of Appeal or a judge thereof or on the certificate of the trial judge that the case is a proper case for appeal; or

(c) on any ground of appeal not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) that appears to the Federal Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal, with leave of that Court.

(2) However, no appeal may be made from an interlocutory decision in the proceeding or a review of the reasons under subsection 82(3).”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Whereupon, Serge Ménard appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 3.

“85(1), celle qui agira à titre d'avocat spécial dans”

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 6 with the following:

“special advocate in the proceeding after hearing representations from the permanent resident or foreign national and the Minister and after giving particular consideration and weight to the preferences of the permanent resident or foreign national;”

(b) by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 7 with the following:

“with an opportunity to be heard;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ujjal Dosanjh and it was agreed to.

“anything — other than a statement obtained under torture — that, in the judge’s opinion, is”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Serge Ménard and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

“(1.1) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(h), reliable and appropriate evidence does not include information that is believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained as a result of the use of torture within the meaning of section 269.1 of the Criminal Code, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ujjal Dosanjh and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

At 5:21 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.