Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

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

Does the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act contain a provision that would allow for the participation of a special advocate who would have access to sensitive information and the evidence? Is that set out in the current bill?

[Sophie Beecher]

No, the use of a special advocate is not set out in the bill. I believe that special advocates are specific to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This mechanism doesn't appear anywhere else in Canadian legislation. In the absence of this possibility, the court always has the choice of using a friend of the court, who can study the evidence and help the judge, and support the judge in his or her duties.

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

If I've understood correctly, someone whose passport is revoked for reasons not related to national security may have access to a special advocate or may benefit from the involvement and assistance of someone else. But, someone whose passport is revoked for a reason relating to national security under this legislation would not have the same privileges or the same opportunities, at least.

[Sophie Beecher]

I think the use of a special advocate is not at all provided with respect to passports. The use of a special advocate is a measure included in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for security certificates.

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

Thank you.

It has also been mentioned that when judges have to make their decision, they will have to take into consideration all the information available, but set aside any information that has been withdrawn by the minister. If I've understood correctly, judges will not necessarily have access to all the information on the case.

[Sophie Beecher]

Judges will have access to the information on the case—

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

—that the minister deems relevant to provide to them.

[Sophie Beecher]

No, judges will have access to the information provided by the individual and the individual's counsel. So, they will have access to all the information before them.

However, the government reserves the right to withdraw information that it deems too sensitive and that needs to be protected at all costs. In such a case, the judge will not be able to base a decision on that information. It's a way of protecting—

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

The judge will be able to read the information, but will not be able to take it into account.

[Sophie Beecher]

That's right. The judge will have seen the information, but will not be able to consider it if the government has withdrawn it. This provision is found in other Canadian legislation, including the Canada Evidence Act.

Normally, we would use the Canada Evidence Act. However, we are opting out of the Canada Evidence Act with this legislation, and we are using the specified mechanism.

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

Is it at the minister's discretion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Our time is up.

We will now go to Ms. Ablonczy.

You have five minutes, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

My friend Mr. Easter raised my eyebrows yet again. He served as a minister and I served as a minister, yet he says the government is the government is the government, suggesting that every minister knows everything about every other portfolio and that in no department has the minister a particular area of knowledge and expertise that they apply in the course of carrying out their duties.

Can you explain for my colleague, and maybe for me, the differences in knowledge and expertise between the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that would give them different responsibilities under this act?

[John Davies]

For the Minister of Public Safety, the portfolios of the RCMP, CSIS, and even CBSA are all very relevant to dealing with the issue of high-risk terrorist travellers. It's their information that probably 99% or 100% of the time will back or underpin passport decisions linked to national security, just as it is for decisions related to specifying someone under the passenger protect program or other administrative, law-enforcement, or investigative actions.

I think there's a clear accountability chain there. There's a clear comfort level in dealing with sensitive information, storing that information, discussing that information, and acting on it. In terms of symmetry or coherence in the system, the decision will help a lot.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm interested in the whole concept of a passport, period.

What is the purpose of a passport? Is it a right of every citizen to have a document? What responsibilities does it confer on the government? Does the government have some discretion as to whether to provide those services or protections to a travelling citizen?

[Sophie Beecher]

The passport is an internationally recognized instrument to verify identity and citizenship of an individual to allow for foreign travel, as you all know. In Canada, we don't guarantee necessarily the right to a passport. We have the right to mobility under section 6 of the charter, which grants Canadian citizens “the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The courts have recognized that a passport is a very important instrument in doing those things.

However, there are circumstances where a passport may be denied that are reasonable; the purpose must be valid. In this case, we're talking about national security, which has been recognized as a sufficiently important objective such that a passport may be denied.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I am a former minister of consular affairs. As part of what the government provides, if a Canadian citizen finds himself in distress while travelling abroad, the Government of Canada provides assistance and some services to a travelling Canadian.

If a Canadian is travelling abroad on a Canadian passport to fight with ISIS or to engage in other terrorist activities, how does this interface with the responsibility of government to bail them out if they get injured or get themselves in trouble?

[Ritu Banerjee]

I'll start.

It is important to recognize that Canadians do have a right to come back home, so the government would have an obligation to facilitate that return. In many instances an emergency travel document could be issued, in that particular instance, if the individual wants to return home. But after that, further deliberations would be required on what to do with that person's passport as to whether it would be cancelled or revoked.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Having some discretion about who actually gets to travel as a Canadian on a Canadian passport not only prevents individuals from harming others and our country but also protects the government against really unreasonable obligations to these individuals.

[John Davies]

Maybe I would add it's also to live up to our international obligations. Canada has signed on to a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions on controlling travel in regard to foreign fighters and terrorist travel, and obviously to other international agreements not to be exporting our extremist travellers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ablonczy, your time is up.

Before we suspend for a change of witnesses, I would just bring to the committee's attention a budget issue on Bill C-637. The chair would like a motion to pass today so that we can cover our witnesses under Bill C-637. I bring that to your attention. The chair will be looking for a motion on that before we adjourn today.

At this point, I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. Certainly, your time was well spent.

We will now suspend for a change of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, welcome back. We now go to the second half of our meeting.

We have, from the Privy Council Office, Ms. Isabelle Mondou, assistant secretary to the cabinet and counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, and Mr. David Vigneault, assistant secretary to the cabinet, responsible for security and intelligence.

Welcome, both of you.

Before we go to opening remarks, just briefly, the chair mentioned that he would appreciate a motion for the budget for Bill C-637. Could I have a motion on the floor?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. The chair appreciates that courtesy.

We will now go to opening statements with Mr. Vigneault.

You have the floor, sir.

[David Vigneault, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak today about division 10 of part 3 of Bill C-59. This division proposes amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act in order to establish the parliamentary protective service.

My name is David Vigneault, and I am the assistant secretary to cabinet for Security and Intelligence in the Privy Council Office. I am appearing today with Isabelle Mondou, who is the counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council Office.

At the outset, I would like to explain that the Privy Council Office has been closely involved in the drafting of the legislation being studied today, in collaboration with legal counsel from House of Commons and Senate administrations, the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and Justice Canada. Isabelle and I are here today to speak to this bill.

I would like to highlight, however, that the Privy Council Office is not directly involved in transition planning or operational decision making to establish the Parliamentary Protective Service. This work will be led by the incoming director of the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP, in close cooperation with representatives from the Senate Protective Service and the House of Commons Protective Service, under the auspices of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate. We are aware that transition planning is already under way, and that joint working groups have been established.

Our presentation relates to the bill, which is why we have been invited here today.

In terms of background, I would like to highlight that this legislation was drafted in response to the express will of Parliament. Following the terrorist attack on Parliament Hill on the 22nd of October 2014, the House of Commons and the Senate passed motions to invite the RCMP without delay to lead operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities, and power of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of existing and respected parliamentary security staff.

In April the economic action plan 2015 also highlighted the need for an integrated security force to ensure a seamless response to threats and stated that the government would bring forward legislative amendments to implement this integrated security force. Notably, the direction to integrate security forces is consistent with recommendations made by the Auditor General in June 2012 that the House of Commons and Senate administrations should examine “the possibility of moving toward a unified security force for the Parliamentary Precinct.” The Auditor General's report noted that unifying the security forces for Parliament Hill under a single point of command would make it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively.

I will now turn things over to my colleague, Isabelle.