Evidence of meeting #71 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was passport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
NDP
9 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's right.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
That leads me to the question, then, of what definition of “national security” is used in the process of applying for the revocation of passports. Given discussions we had on Bill C-51, what definition is it that's before us for—?
9 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The passport order does not spell out in detail the definition of national security. That definition is pretty much the same as it has been since 2003. There are a lot of definitions for national security in various acts—in the CSIS Act, in the security of Canada information sharing act, and so on. Just as is the case for the Investment Canada Act and the Canada Evidence Act, there are a number of other acts that spell out national security as one of the rationales for taking an action, in this case refusing or revoking a passport.
May 26th, 2015 / 9 a.m.
Ritu Banerjee Director, Operational Policy and Review, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Maybe I could add that the departments and agencies that would be engaged in investigating individuals and putting forward information for either revocation or cancellation would be CSIS and the RCMP. We would be relying on their mandates. In the case of CSIS, they investigate threats to the security of Canada, so that would be one basis, one point of consideration. For the RCMP, it would be meeting a criminal threshold related to a wide swath of terrorism offences that are articulated in the Criminal Code.
That gives you a bit of a sense of what we're looking for in terms of national security.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Does either of those have a broader definition of national security than the other?
9 a.m.
Director, Operational Policy and Review, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act goes beyond terrorism, if that's what you're alluding to.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I guess the prevention of terrorist travel act is really a bit broader than that. It's the prevention of threats to national security.
9 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Again, the act itself is only about disclosure. When you look at it, it's very similar to the passenger protect program, the secure air travel act sections on protecting sensitive information on an appeal or judicial review.
The Canadian passport order goes into more detail, essentially on the machinery changes, the threshold changes, and so on.
The important thing is that as the agencies bring cases forward they do so, as Ms. Banerjee said, under their own mandate but knowing full well that the case's threshold has to be seen and considered by a judge as reasonable and proportional.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Would the Canadian passport order have been brought forward as a regulation?
9 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
9 a.m.
Director, Operational Policy and Review, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It's an order in council.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Orders in council have to be under a piece of legislation.
9 a.m.
Sophie Beecher Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
No, actually, in this case it's an exception in law. The authorities come from a crown prerogative and they are codified in the Canadian passport order. It's important to mention that there are sections in the Canadian passport order that say that these ministers may exercise crown prerogative. Therefore, the codification is in the order but it does not constitute the whole of the prerogative. The prerogative exists independently.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Being an exception in law, the Canadian passport order wouldn't appear before Parliament in any form?
9:05 a.m.
Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
No. Crown prerogative is part of the common law.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
If it occurred as a regulation under a piece of legislation it would be subject to review in Parliament. Is this then not subject to review?
9:05 a.m.
Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Well, as an order in council, it's under the Governor in Council's prerogative to codify, but the authorities themselves exist in the common law at this time.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I understand that, but when we have regulations under a piece of legislation, we have a committee of Parliament that can review those regulations. I'm simply asking if this passport order is subject to any similar process.
9:05 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Not that I'm aware of.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
That raises a number of concerns but those are not for you to deal with this morning. We'll have to address those in another way.
In terms of the administrative process, which is really the focus of this, do I understand correctly that people will have an administrative process they go through first, which is actually an improvement over where we are in the sense that the only recourse people have under the current regime is to go directly to court? Is that true?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. I think we're again talking about cancellation of the passport. You're correct. If they get a notification, they will have 30 days to apply for administrative review and then there's a reconsideration process. There's a back and forth exchange with the individual. They have an opportunity to present new information and so on, and then there's a discussion or a decision on whether to uphold that decision or to give them back their passport.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.
For the next round we'll go to Mr. Norlock, please, for seven minutes.