Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I really think, Mr. Chair, that this is getting into confusion. The government is the government is the government. To have two separate authorities for passports is, I think, wrong-headed.

Let me come back to the appeal process. Can you explain the appeal process to me? We tried to amend the appeal process that is in Bill C-51 for the no-fly list. If the minister doesn't respond to an appeal within 30 days, the name on the no-fly list continues. That to me is not an appeal.

How does it work under this particular piece of legislation? Does the minister have to respond in writing to an individual within the appeal period, or does the cancellation or denial continue?

[Sophie Beecher]

The process is spelled out in two different places.

The Canadian passport order states that in the context of a passport cancellation the individual can apply for reconsideration. The procedure for that is not spelled out in detail.

However, the Department of Public Safety will have a full process in place based on other requirements for procedural fairness. Therefore in the context of reconsideration, I would say to the same extent as in the secure air travel act, a notice will be sent to the individual, that individual will be invited to present information, that individual will be provided with a summary of the facts justifying the cancellation, and there's an opportunity for an exchange of information. The minister, in making his or her decision on reconsideration, will take into account the information provided by the individual.

That's the process that will be in place and that meets the requirements for procedural fairness. Once a notice of the reconsideration decision has been provided, the individual, if not satisfied with the decision, may appeal that decision to the federal courts.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, but would you really believe that is a fair process, if yours were one of the passports cancelled? I've dealt a lot with people on no-fly lists, and it is just an impossible situation to get through. It takes years, and it's because your name happens to match somebody else's. If you're just an individual out there whom, for whatever reason, the minister denies or prevents from gaining your passport, it's a serious issue. There needs to be an obligation on the part of the government to respond to an individual within a certain period of time.

Going to the Federal Court is always an option; I agree with that. However, you have to have a fair slice of money. It's getting to be that justice in this country is only for those who have the money to go that route. There seems to be no obligation on the part of the minister here, in my view, to respond to somebody who's concerned. You can have a discussion, but there should be an obligation for the minister to respond within 30 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Give a brief response if you wish.

[Sophie Beecher]

The only response I can provide is that the courts have provided us with plenty of decisions on procedural fairness, so the government will be following the guidance provided by the courts on that topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Now we go to Madame Doré Lefebvre.

You have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses who came here today to discuss various provisions of Bill C-59 relating to public safety.

I have a number of questions about the new powers that have been given to the Minister of Public Safety with respect to the revocation of passports. I don't know if you can answer this question, but I'd like to know who determines whether a case falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Safety rather than the Minister of Immigration.

Who makes that decision?

[John Davies]

Thank you.

The Prime Minister decides.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay.

There was discussion of what constitutes terrorism or a threat to security. I would like to know whether this definition includes what is in Bill C-51, which covers a threat to the Canadian economy and infrastructures.

Is that part of what is being proposed here?

[Sophie Beecher]

No, this definition was not explicitly included. We are using a much shorter format in this case. We're simply talking about national security, as in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for example. The expression “national security” will therefore be interpreted based on the facts and context. In this case, we're talking about passports. Therefore, there must be a link with the use of a passport in order to talk about national security.

I think that some parts of the definition of Bill C-51 would not apply to the use of a passport. However, we can't rule out the possibility that the definition influences how we interpret national security in certain contexts. In the context of past legislation, the courts have found the use of the simple expression “national security” to be reasonable. In fact, they acknowledge that this concept is fluid and truly depends on the context.

[Ritu Banerjee]

It's important to point out that it is the agencies in our portfolio, including CSIS and the RCMP, that will support this process. There should be a direct link with their mandate with respect to national security.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

That's excellent.

It's really a question that a number of members and a large part of the population are asking: Why are these amendments or proposals in a budget implementation bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James, you have a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't think that's a question that should be directed to the officials who are here to talk about two specific divisions in the BIA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The bill has been referred by the finance committee. The reality is that it is here at the expressed will of finance due to the fact that the requirements, of course, of expenditures would be a matter of fact in order to enact the legislation, so I think it's pretty specific under that. Otherwise, it couldn't be referred to this committee.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

This is one of the suggested questions in the official briefing notes. That's why I asked it. I think it's a question that is important to answer. I am disappointed to see that we will unfortunately not get an answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madam Doré Lefebvre, it's not a question of having an answer.

I would allow the witnesses to state whether or not there is any cost to the Government of Canada for implementing any of these measures. If there was no cost at all for implementing anything, then it could not, of course, be referred from finance to this committee. I will allow a brief response on that to assure that there is an accordance of cost involved with implementing anything.

[John Davies]

There is no cost involved with implementing this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Then carry on. You have the floor.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Are there any costs related to implementing these measures?

[John Davies]

There's a cost with implementing the proposals. The Department of Public Safety will absorb those costs in implementing the proposals. There's no new funding associated with this proposal.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If I've understood correctly, it is not tied directly to the budget.

[John Davies]

Again, as the chair said, the government made a decision to put the act into the budget....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

To be fair, Madam Doré Lefebvre, I understand where you're going with this, but obviously every department has its costs and if there were costs incurred whether it's Public Safety, whether it's Defence, whether it's Finance, obviously it's referred to that department. That is a reality. Government is not free. Departments do not operate freely, so I think that question is pretty straightforward and clear. But you have the floor.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would it be possible to know what the true benefits of these changes are? Why not simply let the Minister of Immigration have the power to revoke passports instead of sharing those powers between the ministers of Immigration and Public Safety?