Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Ritu Banerjee]

The Minister of Public Safety has the mandate and the power for all issues relating to national security. That's why the Minister of Public Safety will manage this program. And the agencies that come under that minister's portfolio, including CSIS, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, will be able to support him in his duties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madam Doré Lefebvre, we're well over but the chair has an intervention should you wish to ask a brief question.

You're fine...? Okay, no problem.

Then we'll go to Mr. Payne, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming today and for your testimony.

I just want to make sure I have this clarified.

In your comments, Mr. Davies, you talked about how once a person has been advised of cancellation, they're given 30 days. It starts from when they actually know. Is that correct?

[John Davies]

That's right.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I just wanted to make sure that people understood that. That's an important piece of information. Then of course it's the same thing in terms of being able to have a reconsideration decision. It's 30 days after they have been notified of that.

[John Davies]

By reconsideration decision you mean the.... Once the person is notified, they have 30 days to apply for reconsideration. There's a reconsideration process. There's no actual timeline on how that will work because there will be a lot of back and forth with the applicant. After the reconsideration decision is upheld, then there will be a 30-day period in which they can apply to the Federal Court for appeal.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Perfect. That clarifies it. Thank you very much.

In terms of what happens in the investigation, who's doing the investigations, what information is being gathered? In fact, at such point obviously the minister has to have that information to make a decision to cancel or revoke the passport. Could you fill us in on that process?

[John Davies]

Typically, the national security agencies—the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP—will put forward an individual they believe has met the threshold for cancellation of “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the person is a threat to national security or is suspected of participating in the terrorist acts that are noted in the passport order. They would prepare a rather detailed case brief on the individual who they believe meets the threshold. There would be a discussion at the table with national security experts. That decision would be discussed and referred to the minister or a delegate to make the decision.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Some of that information could come from some of our other allied sources—

[John Davies]

That could be the case.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

—as well, obviously, as from here in Canada?

[John Davies]

Yes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, that's important to note.

Could you also comment on provisions of the previous legislation, Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, as well as the current bill, Bill C-51?

[John Davies]

It's best to look at the provisions here and the changes in the Canadian passport order and the changes in the budget implementation act as another option. It's in addition to Bill S-7, in addition to Bill C-51, and it gives security agencies another option for considering the best way to manage and mitigate threats.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Also, in your opening statement you talked about a period of refusal of passport services that a person might require on an urgent or compelling, compassionate basis. Could you tell us on what basis you believe this will allow them to have a passport to travel for some of those circumstances?

[John Davies]

There could be a case in which an individual has had their passport revoked, for example, and it's very clear that they need to travel, say, to a family funeral or something like that. There would be a discussion and confirmation that this was the case and about where the individual would be going, but a discussion of whether or not it should be allowed. If it were allowed, then there are various procedural mechanisms that can be used to allow the person to travel on a one-off basis.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

What would that individual be required to provide to whoever is making the decision?

[Ritu Banerjee]

They'd have to demonstrate why they're going and provide some indication, some legitimate documentation to show that they're actually going for, let's say, a family funeral and that they actually have people there, some indication of the legitimacy of their needing this urgent travel.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

If they were issued a temporary passport, is there a term that the passport would be issued for? It would be interesting to understand the whole process in their getting a temporary passport.

[Amanda Taschereau, Policy Adviser, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think that, with discussions between us and Passport Canada, we would be able to come up with a defined timeframe for that person to travel. It would be negotiated with the individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. Your time is up now.

Madame Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

The government states that this bill is a balance between protecting the safety of Canadians and foreign nationals, on the one hand, and that of individuals who might be accused of terrorism, on the other. However, the bill indicates that the chief justice of the Federal Court should, in certain circumstances, hold a hearing in private in the absence of the applicant or their counsel.

In the event of a mistake, it seems to me that the defendant is not well protected. In fact, no one is there to defend the defendant's rights.

First, could you specify the circumstances in which a judge might decide to hold a hearing in private and exclude the counsel representing the defendant?

[Sophie Beecher]

Actually, the legislation stipulates that the judge is required to hold a hearing in private. It is not left to the judge's discretion. It's at the government's request.

However, once the judge is aware of the government's position and has determined why the government has asked for such a hearing, the judge may decide whether the information is sensitive and needs to be protected.

A private hearing is held, but it is used to determine what the government wants to propose or is trying to protect. The judge then renders a decision. A series of private hearings are then held to protect the information. In cases like that, a summary of the information is provided to the individual and the individual's counsel. However, the judge may consider that the information is not sensitive and does not necessarily need to be protected, in which case, things proceed in the customary way.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

If I've understood correctly, if the judge determines that the information is sensitive, counsel for the accused will have access only to the summary and will therefore not have access to all the evidence to properly defend the client.

[Sophie Beecher]

That's correct.