Evidence of meeting #4 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was individual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
Director, Operational Policy Section, National Security Policy Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Of course, we're doing some assessments, but there is no money put aside at the moment.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you.
This is my last question. Do you know what the operating cost is for the detention centre at Kingston?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Operational Policy Section, National Security Policy Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We don't have someone from the Canada Border Services Agency here, but I think on their website and publicly they've stated that it costs in the range of $2.3 million on an ongoing basis.
5:15 p.m.
General Counsel, Canada Border Services Agency
Could we just undertake to provide you with the exact number?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Yes, please. Thank you.
Thank you very much, everybody.
I'm fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Roy Cullen
Thank you, Ms. Priddy.
I had put my name down. I was on the other side, but I'm going to cede that to Mr. Dosanjh, and that will wrap it up.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Thank you.
I have the same question that my colleague Serge Ménard had with respect to the absence of solicitor-client privilege being fine but the non-compellability of the advocate not being explicitly recognized. In fact the advocate is not explicitly prohibited from disclosing that information, not just to the crown, but to anyone in the world. One is putting the individual at a great disadvantage. He or she can't get any information out of that solicitor-client privileged information, but he or she is at risk of being exposed to the entire world, maybe in a book ten years from now, or in a newspaper column, or maybe actually to the crown. Why is there hesitation to explicitly providing that individual that protection from disclosure?
5:15 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
As my colleague said, it is not our intent to make the special advocate compellable.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
That's not the issue. The issue is that the special advocate has information. He is not under oath to not disclose that information to anyone. Ten years down the road, maybe it will be in a column; maybe it will be in his autobiography.
I understand national security. That's why we support this legislation. It has defects. Why would we not afford even the worst individual the kind of protection we would want for ourselves if we were stuck in that situation? Why is the department hesitant? We should provide explicit protection. We are taking away the right of the solicitor-client privilege from this individual, yet we're not prepared to offer the protection this individual needs on the other side of the equation.
5:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
As officials, our role is to explain what the current version of the bill was meant to say, but we're ill-placed to tell you how to amend it.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Can I ask you a question? I don't mean to badger you. You're civil servants, and you're being very civil to us. But it is up to the civil servants to actually explain the rationale as to why certain protections might be missing. You say that it wasn't your intent to actually make that information disclosable, which is slightly narrower than information being non-disclosable, or the individual compellable. I take your remark at its face value, but I am left wondering what the rationale is, and I can't comprehend it for the life of me.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Roy Cullen
Thank you.
This will be our last line of questioning.
We have Mr. Norlock.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Earlier, during a question from Ms. Priddy, she indicated that the U.K. House of Lords had not thought very highly of the special advocate provisions and that it had given a considerable number of reservations. Yet upon questioning I don't know if it was Mr. Therrien or Mr. Dunbar who said that the House of Lords recently said the current legislation in Great Britain was within accordance with U.K. law as well as European jurisprudence. Am I correct in saying that?
5:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
Yes, and I'll expand on that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Please don't expand too much, because there are a couple of other questions I'd like to get in.
5:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
The principle in the decision of the House of Lords is that the role of the special advocates is consistent with U.K. and European law. The one caveat was that the House of Lords added that it might be in exceptional circumstances that special advocates will not be sufficient to ensure a fair process. In these exceptional cases the trial judge should have discretion to find that the role of the special advocate is not sufficient and to not allow the government to proceed based on the secret information. That is for exceptional circumstances. The norm is that special advocates are sufficient to ensure a fair process.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I made a note, and I may have made my notes a little faulty, but there's very good information flowing. Is it not true that the Federal Court sees all the evidence? In Bill C-3, in our case, we have a balance that the U.K. doesn't, in that the court does see all the evidence and can render decisions vis-à-vis special advocate and other situations. We covered that possible inequity or fault that was seen.
5:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
Certainly the Federal Court, under the charter, would have the opportunity and responsibility to decide whether the system, as applied in a given case, met the charter requirements. At the end of the day, that would ensure fairness in the process.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I was part of the subcommittee that looked at this, created the law, basically reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act that the previous government put through, and fine-tuned it. Then the Supreme Court--although this is not part of that act--had some concerns. We've addressed those concerns.
For an average Canadian looking at the system, we've painstakingly, at great length, listened to every special interest group—as a friend of mine used to say, the people who are interested in the pain in your left toenail—and we've gone through every single special interest group. We've listened to them all. We have probably crafted in this country some of the best legislation when it comes down to the protection of the average Canadian from people who are not Canadian, the people who are perceived to have come to this country to do us harm. We drag ourselves through the smallest knothole to make sure that some foreign person is protected. To the average Canadian--and maybe the justice minister doesn't agree with me—the cost of that is tremendous.
We say that's part of the cost of being a free nation. I guess when we talk about the three-sided cell, if we're that bad a country, if we don't provide that kind of protection, you have an option: you can go somewhere else. Being emotional is just one side of the philosophical disagreement, but we have to make sure that we do give all the protections that are necessary.
I want to get it correct. If the court sees that the special advocate is put in a position, or there is a situation that arises in which the special advocate cannot be of specific assistance to the person who is being held on the certificate, the court can look at that situation and make the necessary amendments or changes or address the specific instances. Am I correct in that?
5:20 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship, Immigration and Public Safety Portfolio, Department of Justice
We think, of course, that the system we've devised is constitutionally sufficient. In the system of law that we have, it is up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of the legislation. A court faced with that situation would have the tools to make the appropriate decision. To be clear on this point, our view is that the legislation in front of you is constitutionally sufficient. It addresses fully the Supreme Court decision in Charkaoui, and it is constitutional.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Roy Cullen
Thank you, Mr. Norlock.
Thank you to all the officials for being here today and answering our questions. I had another one, but in the interest of time, I won't ask it.
I think we can adjourn for a couple of minutes and then go in camera to deal with a few items of committee business.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]