Mr. Speaker, the court ruled that section 83.28 of the Criminal Code did not violate section 7 of the charter—that is, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person—nor did it infringe the right against self-incrimination; that subsection 83.28(10) provided that evidence obtained during an investigative hearing, and evidence derived from such evidence, could not be used in criminal proceedings against the person who provided the evidence; and that paragraph 11(d) of the charter did not apply, because the subject of the investigative hearing order was not an accused.

9. Considers that ‘dignity, autonomy and self-development’ of human beings are deeply ingrained in this European model and recalls that privacy, data protection, together with freedom of expression have always been considered as core elements of this model as fundamental rights as well as political objectives; underlines that this must be taken into account when balancing against the right to protection of intellectual property and the right to conduct a business, rights also protected by the Charter;

However, the protection of minorities must not result in excesses such as collective rights, the promotion of autonomy and self-determination, including territorial.

Although the legislation was necessary and reasonable to protect Canadians against terrorism, concerns have been raised that it violated constitutional rights such as the principle of the presumption of innocence, the principle of freedom of expression, freedom of association, protection against arbitrary detention, and protection against self-incrimination.

Indeed, the right of self-protection is an integral part of the UN charter itself.

Yet I doubt any victim organization in Canada would advocate eliminating the right of an accused to a fair trial, the right of due process, the protection of habeas corpus or the protection of an accused against self-incrimination.