Special Advocates Program Evaluation

Appendix B: Interview Guides

Interview Guide — Program Representatives

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases, and professional development to those persons on the list who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates in the closed hearings constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding or their counsel in order to meet the Charterconcerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for a person involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.
Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities in relation to the management of the Special Advocates Program?

Relevance of the Special Advocates Program

2. Considering the legislative framework included in the IRPA and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions related to security certificates, how would you describe the current relevance of the Special Advocates Program? [Q3]

3. Based on your experience to date, what factors could, in your view, affect the future demand for special advocates? [Q3]

4. How does the Special Advocates Program relate to the strategic objectives of the Department of Justice Canada? [Q1]

5. How does the Program relate to the broader governmental agenda on national security? [Q2]

Performance — Effectiveness and Efficiency

6. At this point, the list of persons who may act as special advocates includes 22 names (16 from Ontario, 5 from Quebec, and 1 from Alberta). Considering the purpose of the Program, how would you describe the appropriateness of this roster? [Q5]

7. The list of persons who may act as special advocates was created through a Request for Expression of Interest process, whereby Justice Canada invited those wishing to be considered for the roster to submit an application. [Q5]

8. Paragraph 85. (3) of IRPA states that the “Minister of Justice shall ensure that special advocates are provided with adequate administrative support and resources.” [Q5]

9. Considering the limited number of procedures to date that have involved special advocates, what do you consider to be the most appropriate strategy to maintain both the interest and the capacity of those included on the list of individuals who may act as special advocates? [Q5]

10. Please describe the role that you play once the court appoints a special advocate. To date, have you encountered any administrative or procedural challenges that could have limited the ability of special advocates to efficiently fulfill their role? If so, could you describe these challenges? What changes, if any, could be done to address these challenges? [Q6]

11. Without addressing any specifics related to individual cases, how would you describe the overall effectiveness of special advocates in protecting the interests of permanent residents or foreign nationals involved in proceedings under the IRPA? [Q5]

12. In your opinion, is there an alternative process to the special advocate scheme that could achieve the same results more efficiently? If so, please describe. [Q6]

Performance – IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative

13. The following questions relate more generally to the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiativeand assess the effectiveness of the Initiative as a whole.
To what extent has the Initiative facilitated or hindered the use of classified information in security inadmissibility cases?

14. What challenges/risks and opportunities in the past five years have had an impact (either positive or negative) on the achievement of the Initiative’s overall objectives?

Conclusion

15. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.

Interview Guide — Special Advocates

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases, and professional development to those persons on the list who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates in closed hearings constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding or their counsel in order to meet the Charterconcerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for a person involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities? In which security certificate processes have you been involved?

Relevance of the Special Advocates Program

2. Considering the legislative framework included in the IRPA and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions related to security certificates, how would you describe the current relevance of the Special Advocates Program? [Q3]

3. Based on your experience to date, what factors could, in your view, affect the future demand for special advocates? [Q3]

Performance — Effectiveness and Efficiency

4. At this point, the list of persons who may act as special advocates includes 22 names (16 from Ontario, 5 from Quebec, and 1 from Alberta). Considering the purpose of the Program, how would you describe the appropriateness of this roster? [Q5]

5. The list of persons who may act as special advocates was created through a Request for Expression of Interest process, whereby Justice Canada invited those wishing to be considered for the roster to submit an application. [Q5]

6. Paragraph 85. (3) of IRPA states that the “Minister of Justice shall ensure that special advocates are provided with adequate administrative support and resources.” [Q5]

7. Considering the limited number of procedures to date that have involved special advocates, what do you consider to be the most appropriate strategy to maintain both the interest and the capacity of those included in the list of individuals who may act as special advocates? [Q5]

8. [For those who have acted as special advocate] Once the court appointed you as special advocate, have you encountered any administrative or procedural challenges that could have limited your ability to efficiently fulfill your role? If so, could you describe these challenges? What changes, if any, could be done to address these challenges? [Q6]

9. Without addressing any specifics related to individual cases, how would you describe the overall effectiveness of special advocates in protecting the interests of permanent residents or foreign nationals involved in proceedings under the IRPA? [Q5]

10. Based on your experience, what challenges, if any, have been encountered with regard to the special advocate scheme as established in the IRPA? As applicable, how could these challenges be addressed? [Q5]

11. In your opinion, is there an alternative process to the special advocate scheme that could achieve the same results more efficiently? If so, please describe. [Q6]

Conclusion

12. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.

Interview Guide — Public Counsel

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases and professional development to those individuals on the list of persons who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates in closed hearings constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding or their counsel in order to meet the Charter concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for a person involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.
Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities? In which security certificate processes have you been involved?

Relevance of the Special Advocates Program

2. Considering the legislative framework included in the IRPA and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions related to security certificates, how would you describe the current relevance of the Special Advocates Program? [Q3]

3. Based on your experience to date, what factors could, in your view, affect the future demand for special advocates? [Q3]

Performance — Effectiveness

4. At this point, the list of persons who may act as special advocates includes 22 names (16 from Ontario, 5 from Quebec, and 1 from Alberta). Considering the purpose of the Program, how would you describe the appropriateness of this roster? [Q5]

5. The list of persons who may act as special advocates was created through a Request for Expression of Interest process, whereby Justice Canada invited those wishing to be considered for the roster to submit an application. How would you describe the adequacy of this process? What changes, if any, could be made to improve this process? [Q5]

6. As applicable, what were the key considerations that lead you to request that a particular person be appointed as special advocate? (in accordance with paragraph 83. (1.2) of IRPA)

7. Once the court appointed the special advocate, did you encounter any administrative or procedural challenges related to his or her role as special advocate? If so, could you describe these challenges? What changes, if any, could address these challenges?

8. Without addressing any specifics related to individual cases, how would you describe the overall effectiveness of special advocates in protecting the interests of permanent residents or foreign nationals involved in proceedings under the IRPA? [Q5]

9. Based on your experience, what challenges, if any, have been encountered with regard to the special advocate scheme as established in the IRPA? As applicable, how could these challenges be addressed? [Q5]

Performance — Efficiency and Economy

10. In your opinion, is there an alternative process to the special advocate scheme that could achieve the same results more efficiently? If so, please describe. [Q6]

Conclusion

11. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.

Interview Guide — Minister’s Counsel

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases, and professional development to those individuals on the list of persons who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding, or their counsel, in order to meet the Charter concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for a person involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities? In which security certificate processes have you been involved?

Relevance of the Special Advocates Program

2. Considering the legislative framework included in the IRPA and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions related to security certificates, how would you describe the current relevance of the Special Advocates Program? [Q3]

3. Based on your experience to date, what factors could, in your view, affect the future demand for special advocates? [Q3]

Performance — Effectiveness

4. At this point, the list of persons who may act as special advocates includes 22 names (16 from Ontario, 5 from Quebec, and 1 from Alberta). Considering the purpose of the Program, how would you describe the appropriateness of this roster? [Q5]

5. What challenges, if any, have been encountered in including special advocates in IRPA proceedings? [Q5]

6. Without addressing any specifics related to individual cases, how would you describe the overall effectiveness of special advocates in protecting the interests of permanent residents or foreign nationals involved in proceedings under the IRPA? [Q5]

Performance — Efficiency and Economy

7. In your opinion, is there an alternative process to the special advocate scheme that could achieve the same results more efficiently? If so, please describe. [Q6]

Performance – IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative

The following questions relate more generally to the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative and assess the effectiveness of the Initiative as a whole.

8. In your opinion, has the evolution of the Initiative over the past five years been an appropriate response to the changing national security context? Please explain.

9. To what extent has the Initiative facilitated or hindered the use of classified information in security inadmissibility cases?

10. In the past five years, how has the level of capacity to manage disclosure obligations changed? What practical measures or best practices have been put in place to reduce or manage disclosure obligations?

11. What challenges/risks and opportunities in the past five years have had an impact (either positive or negative) on the achievement of the Initiative’s overall objectives?

12. In the absence of the Initiative activities, what impacts are likely to occur? Please describe.

Conclusion

13. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.

Interview Guide — Courts Administration Service

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases and professional development to those individuals on the list of persons who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates in closed hearings constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding or their counsel in order to meet the Charter concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for persons involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada, as well as representatives from the Courts Administration Service and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities?

Services Provided

2. Please describe the range of services you provide to special advocates involved in IRPA proceedings.

3. What challenges, if any, have you encountered in offering this support?

4. What changes, if any, could be considered to better support your current role and responsibilities relating to special advocates?

Performance – IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative

The following questions relate more generally to the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative and assess the effectiveness of the Initiative as a whole.

5. To what extent have the Initiative activities facilitated or hindered:

6. What challenges/risks and opportunities in the past five years have had an impact (either positive or negative) on the achievement of the Initiative’s objective to provide balance between managing risks to Canada and providing fairness to individuals in admissibility assessment processes?

7. In the absence of the Initiative activities, what impacts are likely to occur? Please describe.

Conclusion

8. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.

Interview Guide — Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

The Department of Justice has hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program. Justice Canada established the Program in response to the 2007 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Program’s purpose is to support the Minister of Justice in providing administrative support and resources to special advocates appointed to cases and professional development to those persons on the list of persons who may be appointed by the Court as special advocates. The participation of special advocates in closed hearings constitutes a substantial substitute for personal participation by the persons involved in the proceeding or their counsel in order to meet the Charter concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. Special advocates are an important tool in support of national security efforts undertaken by the federal government.

The evaluation includes interviews with Minister’s counsel, public counsel for persons involved in an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)proceeding, special advocates and program representatives from Justice Canada, as well as representatives from the Courts Administration Service and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The evaluation covers a four-year period (2010-11 to 2013-14) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections and/or additions. With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Please note that the evaluation of the Special Advocates Program is part of the 2014-2015 Horizontal Evaluation of the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative. As such, some of the information gathered through interviews will be used to address questions covered by the horizontal evaluation as well.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to your work. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction

1. What are your current roles and responsibilities?

Services Provided

2. Please describe the range of services you provide to special advocates involved in IRPA proceedings.

3. What challenges, if any, have you encountered in offering this support?

4. What changes, if any, could be considered to better support your current role and responsibilities relating to special advocates?

Performance – IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative

The following questions relate more generally to the IRPA Division 9 and the National Security Inadmissibility Initiative and assess the effectiveness of the Initiative as a whole.

5. To what extent have the Initiative activities facilitated or hindered:

6. What challenges/risks and opportunities in the past five years have had an impact (either positive or negative) on the achievement of the Initiative’s objective to provide balance between managing risks to Canada and providing fairness to individuals in admissibility assessment processes?

7. In the absence of the Initiative activities, what impacts are likely to occur? Please describe.

Conclusion

8. Do you have any further comments relating to this evaluation?

Thank you for your participation.