:
Good morning. I welcome you to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 59.
This meeting will last from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. This meeting is televised.
Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), are to study clauses 308 to 314 in the budget implementation bill, Bill .
We have with us today familiar faces—Mr. Linklater, the assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and his colleagues.
Good morning to you, sir, again. You can make a presentation to the committee of up to 20 minutes.
Thank you for coming, sir.
I will introduce my colleagues: Maia Welbourne, who is the director in admissibility policy responsible for the electronic travel authorization, and Marie Bourry, our senior general counsel.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about Bill , the , and more specifically the subject matter of division 16 of part 4 of the act. I will focus my remarks on one particular element of this piece of legislation: a measure that will bring valuable improvements to Canada's immigration system.
[Translation]
As members of this committee are well aware, the Government of Canada has made the reform of the immigration system an important priority. Recent initiatives in this regard have helped to foster an immigration system that can fill significant labour shortages across the country and help us meet our economic needs more quickly and efficiently—a system designed to give newcomers the best possible chance to succeed.
As it does so, the government is implementing policies that safeguard the integrity and security of our immigration system. Taken together, all of these initiatives are helping to deliver transformation changes to the immigration system.
[English]
Not only is that system central to our economic well-being and our social cohesion, Mr. Chair, it is also an important piece of Canada's international relations agenda. And in the area of international relationships, our partnership with our closest ally, the United States, is of paramount importance to Canada. Indeed, the United States is—by far—Canada's largest trading partner. In a typical year, more than $500 billion worth of two-way trade takes place between our countries. Also, about 400,000 people cross our shared border every day, by all modes of transport.
[Translation]
As you know, last year, Harper and President Obama launched the action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness. This agreement signaled a mutual desire on the part of both Canada and the United States to work in partnership to enhance the security of our borders and facilitate the flow of people and goods between our countries. Passage of the will help fulfill one of Canada's key commitments of the action plan.
[English]
That's because one of the measures in this bill would enable the implementation of the eTA, an electronic travel authorization.
The eTA is a measure that will bring valuable improvements to Canada's immigration system. We will be able to screen individuals before they board a plane to visit our country, in order to determine whether or not they pose an admissibility or security risk. In other words, we will be able to determine whether they have a criminal record or something else on their file that shows they present a risk to Canada. This will apply to foreign nationals who do not require a visa to visit Canada; the only exception would be American citizens.
With the passage of this bill, visitors to Canada who are nationals of non-visa-required countries—with the exception of the United States, as I mentioned—will be required to apply for an eTA in order to travel to Canada. This new system will be in place by the spring of 2015.
[Translation]
This is a notable development in the reform of our immigration system and in our partnership with our southern neighbour. Consistent with our beyond-the-border commitments, the new system will address threats to North America and help ensure security in the continental perimeter we share with the United States.
[English]
It will establish a common Canada-U.S. approach to screening travellers before they depart their home countries by plane to travel to North America. The U.S. already has a similar system in place: it's called the “electronic system for travel authorization”, or ESTA. The U.S. system has proved to be a great success since it was established in 2008.
Working together, our travel authorization systems will not only help to address possible security threats to North America, but they will also help to ease the flow of travellers who do not pose any potential risk to our countries. That's because we'll be able to identify and screen out inadmissible individuals while they are still overseas, instead of dealing with them once they arrive at a Canadian port of entry.
Here is how it will work. Eligible foreign nationals—individuals who don't require a visa to enter Canada—will be required to make online applications for an eTA before they board a plane to Canada. Our system will then check the traveller's information against applicable databases.
[Translation]
In the overwhelming majority of cases, we will be able to grant travellers an eTA within minutes of applying. A small minority of applications will require additional scrutiny by Canadian visa officers. If a visa officer determines that any given applicant is inadmissible to Canada and therefore ineligible for an eTA, that individual will not be allowed to board a plane to this country.
[English]
The beauty and efficiency of this new system is self-evident: it gives Canadian officials the ability to identify and screen out inadmissible individuals overseas instead of dealing with them only once they've arrived at a port of entry. This will have benefits in terms of reduced costs and resources required to process people in Canada. It could also speed up the process of entering Canada for low-risk foreign travellers. Once it is up and running, the eTA should also act as a deterrent to those inadmissible individuals who won't want their information verified before travelling; it will deter them from even attempting to travel to Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, it's important to stress, once again, that the eTA will only apply to those foreign nationals from visa-exempt countries. For travellers to Canada from visa-required countries, we will continue with the current process of requiring them to apply for visas before they can come to our country. Also, the eTA will not apply to U.S. citizens traveling to Canada, just as the requirements of the U.S. ESTA program do not apply to Canadian citizens.
It's also very important to note that all collection, use and storage of personal information in the administration of the eTA will fully comply with Canada's Privacy Act and the Canada-U.S. privacy principles.
[English]
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the government has demonstrated a strong commitment to strengthening the immigration system to make it truly proactive, targeted, fast, and efficient in a way that will contribute to Canada's economic growth and help deliver prosperity for the future. It has also put in place policies that safeguard the integrity and security of that system.
Thank you. We'll be pleased to answer questions that members of the committee may have.
Mr. Chair, it is important to understand how the process works now for individuals who travel to Canada who don't require a visa. They are able to board flights from points of embarkation coming to Canada with very little scrutiny before they actually travel. The CBSA does receive advance passenger information, but only once, in common parlance, “wheels are up”, so once the plane has taken off, and then manifests with information, tombstone data, are provided to the CBSA so that they can have a good understanding as to which passengers are coming to Canada. Of course, they can only deal with the individuals once the plane has landed and they can see the individuals in front of them at the port of entry.
At that point, if there are issues of inadmissibility, individuals will be examined by the CBSA. Individuals may choose to make a refugee claim, at which point they are into the system and would be allowed to remain in Canada for that claim to be heard if they are found to be eligible. If there were serious criminality or security issues, they would be found ineligible for a refugee claim but still would be entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment and they would go into the system for that. In certain cases, if they posed a significant danger, they might find themselves in detention and the review processes that take place in front of the IRB.
What we are proposing with the eTA is to push the threat and risk of those types of cases offshore so that those individuals would not be able even to make it to a port of entry, unless of course they had been screened through the eTA prior to departure. Essentially, what will happen is that individuals will go online, they will put in some basic information with regard to their name, date of birth, country of citizenship, and that sort of thing, and the system will, I would expect, in more than 90% of all cases, be able to turn around a decision electronically within minutes. This is what happens under the U.S. system. It's what happens under the Australian system as well, where the information is fed back almost instantaneously.
With that eTA, then, airlines will be able to check before people board the plane, as people are checking in: “Do you have your eTA?” “Yes, here's the confirmation.” The CBSA's migration integrity officers could check again prior to actual boarding of the plane that individuals have a valid eTA. Essentially, we will have the assurance that there has been that level of screening taking place before individuals actually board a plane, let alone before a plane takes off or lands at a port of entry. We feel that for the population this will be focused on, in those countries where there is no scrutiny now because there is no visa requirement, this will help reduce costs and make the experience that much more helpful and efficient for legitimate travellers, while keeping any additional threats to be dealt with offshore.
:
Isn't that our goal? Our goal is to keep out risks, to keep people away from our communities who would pose a risk to our communities. Identifying them before they even board the plane to come to Canada would seem to me to be a very prudent exercise.
Let me just restate something that Pierre Sabourin said. He's the vice-president of the operations branch, as you well know, at the Canada Border Services Agency. Here's what he had to say, “With the eTA system, we will have the ability to inform the airline, before the flight has left, to not board that passenger.”
It's important that we reiterate this. Someone who has a criminal record, who can pose a problem before he comes here, is identified before he even gets on the plane and the airline takes him off that plane. We've eliminated that risk factor plus what's involved in dealing with him when he arrives here.
Let me ask this. What if someone forgets to fill out, or isn't aware there is a need to fill out, the eTA, once we have implemented the system, and arrives at the airport without one? What would be the process?
I really appreciate the fact that you're here bright and early on a Monday morning. It's brighter for some of us who are just switching time zones than it is for others.
First, we have previously made it clear that the NDP supports the principle of electronic travel authorization systems. We know that these have been successfully implemented by many countries already. That being said, we have some concerns about privacy, about the impact on tourism, and about the capacity of CIC and CBSA to implement such a significant change.
A headline in the Vancouver Sun a month ago, when the budget implementation act was tabled, read “New rules for visitors raise privacy [concerns]”.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada echoed that concern in a submission to our committee. Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, had this to say:
One of my Office's concerns about the eTA program is its lack of transparency and the degree to which the details of the program are deferred to regulation. Fundamental questions about the eTA program such as which data elements are to be provided to CIC, how this information can be used, and how long it is retained are not set out in statute as we believe they should be. To a large degree, these matters have been shaped behind closed doors...rather than through open and public debate.
Obviously, as departmental officials, you won't be in a position to comment on some of the political questions this statement raises about the level of secrecy and about why these changes aren't set out in statute. We are disappointed that the minister declined the committee's invitation to testify today to answer some of these important political questions.
However, the commissioner does make a number of recommendations, one of which I would like to get your take on. She says:
...CIC should implement proactive privacy training and policies for the proper controls on access and use of the new eTA system.
Given the cutbacks we know are affecting front-line services at CIC, do you feel your department would have the proper resources to make sure privacy training and oversight are in place with this new system?
I would say, Mr. Linklater, that this is actually the appropriate level of consultation for this topic. We've scheduled six hours for essentially four paragraphs, and this has been referred to us from the finance committee. Because this is televised and public, I would suggest that this is a pretty transparent process.
In regard to the question of tourism that was brought up, I would just state that I think the offsets gained for the Canadian taxpayer by keeping out criminals, bogus refugee claimants, and others that would commit harm to this country far outweigh any potential impact there, if there's any at all. I would just say that.
Ms. Welbourne, I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on and clarify some of your discussions with the Privacy Commissioner in a little more detail.
:
As I said initially, the User Fees Act is one aspect of the fees regime. The Financial Administration Act is also very clear about departments' abilities to levy fees that cannot exceed the cost of delivering the service.
Essentially, as we look at biometrics, as we look at eTA, we are taking a longer-term view around cost recovery to ensure a fee that's going to be competitive with other countries, like the United States, the U.K., Australia, to ensure we are not pricing Canada out of the market, while at the same time ensuring we're able to roll out these programs to help protect public health, safety, and security. We can't look at these as opportunities to add to government revenues. We are very much restrained by what the FAA says.
In terms of the User Fees Act, there's the flexibility, the ability to adjust in response to growing demand, that sort of thing, but also recall that under the current fees regimes we have, the Government of Canada provides a significant subsidy in delivering visa services overseas to foreign nationals and not necessarily to Canadians. Again, there's a strong rationale here: because these fees are being applied to non-Canadians or permanent residents, additional flexibility is helpful.
First, I'd like to step back from what you're talking about to the fact that we are talking...and I'm thinking of the people in the tourism industry who really care about these issues, to whom I can send the transcript of this discussion, who can even watch it on TV. I think the level of transparency in what we're doing here is really significant. Whether you're a Canadian or whether you're comparing it to what happens in other countries, we've drilled down to the very specifics, to the cost of these things, which we haven't yet determined, and you've been very open in saying that we've embarked on a process to serve Canadians and Canadian interests as best we can, consistent with the priorities our government has set out.
Again, I applaud you for being here, and for being here for an hour and a half this morning, and for coming back, and for being available to us. I think it's really important for Canadians to know that this is how we do things.
You mentioned in passing, Mr. Linklater, a reference to people who have DUI issues and other things that won't necessarily be touched by the eTA if they're coming from the United States, but we have made significant improvements in screening those people as well in recent times. That's in direct response to concerns from people in the tourism industry who feared that people were being wrongly turned away or who thought people might not get access to Canada. Do you want to just expand on that part?
:
We will reconvene the meeting.
We have, by video conference from Vancouver, from the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, Mr. Martin Collacott; and as an individual, Mr. James Bissett, who is on the board of directors for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.
Both of these individuals have appeared so many times before that I'm beginning to know them better than I do members of the committee.
We welcome you back to the committee to give your views on these sections of Bill .
We also have, from NextgenID Canada Inc., Robert L. Bell, who is the senior vice-president of corporate and business development.
You too have appeared here before, Mr. Bell. I welcome you on behalf of the committee.
Each of the three of you will have up to eight minutes.
Mr. Bell, you can go first.
:
Mr. Chairman, honourable committee members, I'm pleased to appear before you on the subject of the proposed electronic travel authorization.
As someone who has been active in the field of securing and modernizing borders for close to a decade, I'm pleased to offer my observations and the advice of my colleagues at NextgenID on the merits of the eTA.
Essentially, the eTA provides a means to know who is coming to our country as soon as possible, and if a traveller is not admissible, to deal with this before the person gets on the plane. The eTA, when integrated with the processes of the travel agents, airlines, airports, and government, should yield security benefits to all stakeholders, including travellers.
There are, however, costs to set up and operate the eTA process, and these will fall largely to Canada and the service providers, including airlines and travel agents.
We believe the eTA is an important step in securing our border.
I'll talk about the legislation. I suspect there are many lawyers here. I am not a lawyer. That said, I have read the proposed legislation and will provide a lay interpretation of it and its relationship to the border action plan.
Division 16 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide for an electronic travel authorization and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply to a fee for provision of services in relation to an application for an electronic travel authorization. These amendments support the border action plan, which commits Canada to introducing an electronic travel authorization program to establish a common North American approach to screening travellers.
The eTA program will be similar to the United States' existing electronic system for travel authorization and will permit the Government of Canada to examine most visa-exempt foreign nationals at the earliest opportunity prior to their travel to Canada by air. Essentially, this is an electronic visa for most people travelling to Canada who are currently exempt from applying for a conventional visa. This division amends section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by creating a requirement for persons seeking entry to Canada from visa-exempt countries to complete advanced electronic screening prior to departure for Canada. This will necessarily involve enhancements in several security area sectors, including database integration technologies and database analytical software technologies. There was considerable discussion about that with the earlier speakers.
Near real-time response for most eTA applications will be essential for the success of the process. This initiative will be self-funded through user fees also authorized under the amendments to this division.
What are my comments on the legislation? The eTA will implement screening based on the name of a traveller. This is good; however, name checks do not detect the people who are travelling with false documents or assumed identifies. This is a known and continuing problem. However, there is a solution. A number of countries have successfully introduced biometric checks to address this problem. In the U.S. ESTA program all electronically authorized travellers carrying passports issued after 2006 are required to have e-passports. I would expect Canada to have the same requirement.
Each e-passport has a digital photo encoded on the chip in the passport, and this enables effective biometric identity confirmation. A live face image can be captured and compared with the image on the chip, thus making identity confirmation quick, easy, and accurate. This will catch the person travelling on a borrowed passport. The same live image can be compared against the face watch list to determine if the traveller is a person of interest. This will catch the “bad guy” travelling under an assumed identity.
Who are the bad guys? Again, a previous speaker talked of that. They are domestic and international security risks. They are domestic and international fugitives for serious offences. They are international criminals. They are inadmissible for human rights offences. They are criminal deportees and they are failed refugee claimants. Those are the major classes. These people are generally not caught by the current screening if they have good documents for their assumed names.
Inasmuch as the stated objective of the eTA is to detect and prevent entry of persons who are inadmissible to Canada, we recommend that this ETA screening be augmented by the deployment of face recognition biometric technology at points of departure for Canada and at ports of entry to Canada.
Again, there was some discussion earlier about two main models out there: the Australian and the U.S. systems. Australia's has been operational since 1996, and that of the U.S. since 2010. The U.S. ESTA and the Australian ETA are similar in many ways, but differ in the details, primarily, I expect, because of the larger number of visitors to the U.S. Both seem to work well.
Both countries do biometric identity checks at the border. The U.S. does watch-list checks based on fingerprint and face images. Australia compares the face image on the chip to the live captured image. Canada will need to implement biometric checks, as we cannot continue to depend on name searches only.
The U.S. ESTA issues a token: a document that you print on your home printer that reflects that you are a holder of an ESTA. We would question if this is necessary and would suggest that it opens a weakness in the system. The Australian system does not require a token and depends on the reliable electronic record. Canada should consider this alternative.
Earlier, there were discussions of fees. Both countries charge a fee for the ETA. The U.S. fee is $4 for processing the application and $10 for the issue of the ESTA. For Australia, the fee is $20.
These fees have caused some reaction from the EU. The European Parliament has criticized the United States for imposing an ESTA fee on foreign visitors, thus raising the possibility of levying a similar fee on American travellers to the EU. To my knowledge, that hasn't been done. Australia has entered into a no-fee reciprocal agreement with the EU and has recently introduced an e-visitor equivalent to the ETA, which applies to short-term, non-business travellers from EU countries.
We support the eTA initiative. We would not anticipate that the eTA process or the eTA costs would be a factor in a tourist's or a business person's decision to visit Canada. Hence, we would expect enhanced perimeter security with no measurable economic impact on Canada.
I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The proposed electronic travel authorization makes sense, particularly if it provides screening for nationals of countries that are visa-exempt and who plan to travel to Canada. At the moment we don't have anything to cover them.
It helps to identify individuals who may pose a problem in terms of being allowed entry before they get on a Canada-bound plane, and it therefore saves both them and us a lot of money, time, and trouble.
It also speeds up the entry of persons who do not have a problem.
The system will not be perfect, since it's based on name recognition and leaves open the possibility that someone may gain entry by using a false identity. It will be more effective when biometric screening such as face recognition is available, and I think Mr. Bell just made that point.
One of the reasons for putting in place the electronic authorization, EA, system is that this is one of the commitments we made under the Beyond the Border action plan we agreed upon with the United States in December of last year. It will be part of more extensive arrangements with that country to facilitate the movement of people across our mutual border and identify those we need to keep out.
I would mention in this regard that the implementation of this agreement with the U.S. would bring with it substantial benefits to Canada.
A Fraser Institute paper released three months ago noted that that there had been a substantial decline in travel by Americans to Canada since the events of September 11, 2001, when the U.S. began thickening the border in terms of security measures. While some of the decline in travel by Americans might be attributed to the less favourable exchange rate of the American dollar as well as the economic crisis beginning in 2008, both of these developments started long after the decline in the number of U.S. travellers to Canada had begun.
The Fraser Institute paper estimated that roughly $7 billion per year in tourist-based receipts had been lost for the Canadian economy as a result of this decline in cross-border travel. Much of this might be regained if we implemented the screening arrangements provided for in the Beyond the Border action plan. The paper's authors also noted that the implementation of the action plan would result in savings to Canadian taxpayers of somewhere between $600 million and $1 billion annually, although they weren't able to identify how much of this amount would be due to the implementation of the eTA and related elements of the plan.
I would like to raise a couple of issues that have been mentioned in connection with the electronic authorization plan and other elements of the plan. One entails the exchange of information with the United States and whether such measures will be consistent with Canada's privacy requirements. In this regard, the federal Privacy Commissioner will certainly be consulted when the various measures are being considered
In the past, there has been some fairly robust debate in Canada concerning how much information about individuals should be made public or shared with the United States. In 2003, when the government of the day revealed that it was looking for 59 suspected war criminals who were wanted on Canada-wide warrants, the then Minister of Immigration told Ontario law enforcement officials that it could not provide the names and photographs of the individuals because to do so would violate their privacy rights.
This sort of situation occurred again in 2005 when the government was looking for 115 missing war criminals and the Canada Border Services Agency refused to reveal their names out of concern for their privacy rights. It did not, however, recur in July 2011 when the federal government released the names of 30 suspected war criminals it said had entered the country illegally and had since disappeared. With the help of the public, eight of these individuals were located fairly quickly, and by August 2011 three had been deported. The government thereupon published the names and photographs of 32 permanent residents who had committed acts of serious criminality in an effort to locate them. This indicated that while the previous government felt it was bound by privacy rules in releasing information about criminals who had gone into hiding, their reluctance apparently was unfounded.
While privacy concerns will definitely have to be taken into account when specific arrangements are drawn up on the sharing of information with the United States, it should not be assumed that we are limited by privacy restrictions in releasing information on individuals, as government authorities had assumed was the case in 2003 and 2005.
Moreover, in the event that the effective implementation of sections of the action plan that clearly benefit Canadians and enhance our security entails a review of the adequacy of our existing privacy legislation, we should be prepared to consider amending that privacy legislation. That, of course, would have to go for debate before Parliament.
Chairman, I'll conclude by flagging two other issues that have been raised in connection with the implementation of the agreement with the United States. One is the contention that in adopting the various measures provided for in the action plan, there be no discrimination between the treatment of citizens and of permanent residents in either the United States or Canada. The fact is, however, that if non-Canadians, and that includes permanent residents, are war criminals, are involved in or support terrorism, or have committed serious crimes, we do not have the same obligations to them as we do to Canadian citizens.
This is supported in international law. International consular agreements do not provide for access to non-citizens. Under domestic law, of course, permanent residents don't have voting rights or passport rights. I think we cannot automatically extend exactly the same rights to non-citizens, just because they're permanent residents, as we do to citizens.
The second issue is whether full due process has to be accorded to everyone whose right to enter Canada has been denied by the implementation of the electronic travel authority regime or by any other measures provided under the action plan. Were we to allow full due process to individuals refused entry into Canada, we would be in effect allowing any non-Canadian in any part of the world to challenge negative decisions. This might be a field day for immigration lawyers, but it would be a disaster for the Canadian legal system and a serious erosion of control over our sovereignty.
When I spoke before the committee two weeks ago, I mentioned that we already had a problem with people in Canada who weren't Canadian citizens. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was badly drafted. As a result, a Supreme Court decision in 1985 made it possible for failed refugee claimants to delay their removal from Canada for years and even decades. So we already have a problem with non-citizens on our soil having a degree of due process that no other country allows. We certainly don't want to extend that to non-Canadians who aren't even here yet.
I just flag those two issues because they've already been raised and they'll likely come up for further discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we're talking about the electronic travel authority provision in the legislation, I think it's critically important to remember the underlying reason why this legislation has come forward. It stems, of course, from the tragic events that took place on 9/11 with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
That horrendous event, some have said, has changed the world. One of the things it certainly did was make both the United States and Canada suddenly realize they were vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Both countries moved quickly into action to try to do something about it. They were forced to enact a series of measures. A number of these have taken place since 9/11.
Perhaps the most important one was, in both countries, the passing of new legislation that enabled them to provide their security and intelligence forces with wider powers. Another was legislation that restructured the bureaucracy. Government departments were restructured so they could focus more carefully on security matters. They also provided security agencies with more power, particularly in the areas of surveillance and intelligence gathering.
But the events of 9/11 also led to more cooperative arrangements between Canada and the United States in recognizing that they had to work together to combat terrorists. The first of these took place two months after 9/11, in December of 2001, when both countries signed what was called the smart border action plan, which outlined a broad program of measures designed to develop, as they put it at the time, a “21st century approach to border management”.
It focused primarily on the secure movement of low-risk personnel and low-risk goods passing between the two borders. It also introduced a pre-screening of low-risk passengers and introduced the so-called NEXUS system, in which pre-screened people could enter back and forth between the two countries with minimum examination. It also involved the improvement of marine and highway infrastructure, such as new bridges and new facilities at ports of entry, and, more importantly, the sharing of intelligence and enforcement activities. It established four integrated enforcement teams, with Canadian and U.S. officers operating on both sides of the border.
All of this sounded good, and these were essential steps, but unfortunately they were not working very well, so that by 2009 it was realized that instead of facilitating the travel of goods and services across the border, the border had been militarized, in effect. We had customs officers armed, electronic and mechanical surveillance, and aircraft flying across the border. It became increasingly difficult indeed for goods and services to pass back and forth.
Mr. Collacott has already mentioned the damage this was doing to trade and to tourism. In 2009, for example, there were 21 million fewer same-day visitors to the United States from Canada. Also in 2009, on the U.S. side, the number of overnight travellers to Canada from the United States was at an all-time, 24-year low. There was a realization that something had to be done about it, as the border that we used to boast about as being the longest unprotected border in the world was beginning to look like the border at Checkpoint Charlie between East and West Berlin.
To address these concerns at a high level, and President Obama met in February 2011 in Washington and issued a joint declaration entitled “Beyond the Border: a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness”. The declaration was essentially a reaffirmation of what had been announced in the smart border plan, but this time it had high-level political support. More importantly, it committed both countries to the implementation of a common security perimeter.
A joint action plan on perimeter security was developed, and a Beyond the Border working group was established to study and to implement measures that were aimed at keeping the border open to legitimate trade and travellers and closed to criminal and terrorist individuals.
The eTA is part of the Beyond the Border initiative, and it deserves the support, I think, of all Canadians. Australia, as we know, has had the system working for many years, and it seems to be working very well. The United States introduced it in 2009. Fortunately, Canadians and Mexicans were exempt from having to comply with it, but it also seems to be working well.
It's a very simple concept: to try to identify and prevent people who are inadmissible under the law from entering Canada, because if they enter, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to remove people.
There are many reasons for this. One, of course, is that anyone who gets here does have charter protection and therefore is entitled to due process. Another reason is that very often to return a person you have to have their country supply them with passports, and very often the countries are not that keen to get them back. You can wait for months, if not years, to get a passport for someone who has already been ordered deported.
In addition to that, it's extremely expensive. The department estimates that to remove one individual, the cost ranges from $1,500 to $15,000. There have been cases where one individual cost over $300,000 for removal. If you have a very dangerous individual, you have to charter a flight to take the person back, and that is extremely costly.
The department also has estimated this year that they need $540.7 million over a five-year period to remove simply failed asylum seekers—not others, just failed asylum seekers. That's a lot of money.
So it's sensible to go ahead and try to stop the people who are inadmissible under the law from boarding aircraft and getting here.
Some people have expressed concern that sharing a security perimeter with our southern border involves a loss of sovereignty. I think that fear should really be put to rest. I mean, sovereignty is an expression of a state's ultimate power to decide for itself what should be done by the state in matters affecting national security and the national interest. Entering into a mutually agreed arrangement with another country that enhances security and gives more protection to Canadians is certainly not a threat to sovereignty.
So I'm all in favour of this very simple measure. As we heard this morning from my colleague Mr. Bell, it will have to lead on to biometric surveillance. The name check alone is a first step, but it's not very effective.
One other advantage, I think, of going forward with this measure is that from the very beginning of September 11, the Americans have thought of and looked upon Canada as being soft on terrorism—
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today. I was certainly very encouraged to hear in your testimonies your support for this very important measure. Over the course of doing a more complete study, we've heard things from several witnesses about the electronic travel authorization. Our primary objective of course as a government—and it is paramount for us—is always to ensure the security and the safety of our citizens.
If I might, I will quote Mr. Linklater from this morning. He is the assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. He called it an additional tool in the tool kit to help us identify people before they come into Canada and to keep out risks. Certainly we've heard some comments from members of the committee about how it might be difficult for some people to travel to obtain an eTA or how it might affect tourism and so forth. Of course, our primary objective is the security of Canadians. The privacy matters that have been brought up, particularly as they relate to foreigners, may be of some concern or of primary concern to some. For us, the safety of Canadians comes first.
I do want to ask you a question about travel, because it seems to be an ongoing theme, particularly for members of the opposition. Some who travel may be affected. Are you aware of any studies that have been done on the impact of tourism after an eTA system has been implemented, particularly in the U.S.?
Perhaps I could start with you, Mr. Collacott.
:
Thank you very much to all three of you for your presentations.
I'm going to return to the privacy issues that were raised by the Privacy Commissioner in the written submission she sent in. She questions very seriously the new system, its implementation, etc. Specifically, Ms. Stoddart says that the personal information from individuals coming to Canada, whether it's for tourism, business, or to visit family, will be retained for 15 years.
On the other hand, we're hearing loud and clear that eTA approval could be for two, three, four, five years—indeterminate yet—and yet we're going to collect people's personal data and keep it for 15 years, which seems exorbitant to me.
She also goes on to say that the Government of Canada should be more transparent about how it uses this personal information collected from travellers, and that there should be careful scrutiny of the new system.
If you were listening to the testimony earlier from the department, we did hear that they're working on questions on a form, but it hasn't been determined yet. They haven't decided. Right now there are no plans to share it with anybody, but clearly they're only saying “at this time”, and that could change any time.
My question to you specifically, Robert, is what recommendations would you make, given your technical expertise, to protect privacy and ensure proper oversight and scrutiny of the new system?
I think of the individual sitting there over in Europe who maybe has a brother or a sister that they want to visit here in Canada. The government tries to give the impression that it's no problem: just go to the Internet and plug in a few fields, and out will spit an approval within a matter of minutes.
I don't quite understand how you do criminal background checks without having access to European computer data banks, or the whole issue of misrepresentation and things of that nature, which are quite often done when a visiting visa is required.... There seems to be very little thought in terms of thinking through this whole process.
Mr. Bell, you really intrigued me when you indicated that the whole idea of biometrics needs to be incorporated. It supports what I'm thinking; that is, the government has this idea, and it has an agreement with the United States, and now it's feeling obligated to fulfill that agreement, so here's a budget, and let's kind of sneak this thing through here. We haven't really thought it through, but we're going to put it into this budget document, bring it in and pass it, and then we'll worry about it in terms of the regulations.
Here's my question for you. Do you believe that what we can see today, what we know today, is going to be effective in terms of screening out people? In other words, are there people outside of Canada who are still going to be able to come into Canada? How much of a barrier is this, really, unless we put in measures like biometrics? Is this going to prevent people who are really determined to come to Canada from coming to Canada from countries that don't require visas?
:
Well, clearly, I think the system Canada is going to introduce initially is not on a biometric system completely, and therefore what you're saying is probably true. I mean, there is the possibility for fraud, and there is the possibility that you can answer questions falsely and still get in. I think those are the weaknesses that Mr. Bell has already pointed out.
In addition to that, of course, very seldom is a well-known terrorist who might be on some sort of lookout note going to travel under his own name. He's going to travel under a false identity and probably with a false passport. Unless you have face or eye biometric recognition, the system is surely inadequate, but it's the best first step forward, I think. You know that biometrics were always assumed in the border plan, right from the beginning.
In addition to that, I think that even though the system has its flaws, it does act as a deterrent. I know that a lot of people are reluctant to apply if they have a criminal record, because they assume they'll be caught out. On the other hand, I don't know about other people, but if I'm travelling to a foreign country, I always feel much more comfort if I'm guaranteed beforehand that I'm going to get in when I arrive. That, I think, is a big benefit of this system.
:
So there aren't really any surprises in this part.
Mr. James Bissett: No.
Ms. Roxanne James: Correct.
Mr. Collacott, I am going to address the next question to you.
I'm glad you did speak of this, because sometimes in this committee we hear from members of the opposition who imply that citizenship in Canada has the same benefits as for people who are non-citizens, or even those who are trying to come to Canada as visitors.
You actually mentioned something and I wrote it down. You said “non-Canadians who are not even here yet”. I'm glad you mentioned to the committee that citizenship does have its value in Canada, and that when we talk about privacy issues, or even applying the charter, it applies to Canadians differently from those who might be trying to come to Canada for a visit, for business, or for whatever.
Could you comment a bit more on that, please?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I entered politics, I travelled a lot on business to over 30, 40-plus countries. I find that this eTA or even the visa is an entirely reasonable measure because it does facilitate entry. But there are two points I wish to address to Mr. Bell and perhaps to Mr. Bissett.
As we go to a more internationalized world, where people have different surnames and there's a question of whether we use the right Chinese character or whether we use the right Arabic spelling, as in “al” or “el”...I find that the eTA is a much more simplified tool to address these issues, because now you're not relying on the standard tombstone data and how someone, whether they came from a French background or an English background, translated your name as you entered the country. That's one point.
The other point is that in the entire Asia-Pacific area—Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong—I think there's heavy reliance on these types of biometric data. I wish to actually confirm that this is in fact true, that we are totally culturally sensitive to these issues.
Also, once you're a business traveller, as Mr. Bissett mentioned...I would certainly want to know that I can enter a country before I'm met at the doorstep and someone says I cannot enter. Some of the questions I have been faced with answering have been: Have you ever been refused visa entry to any other country? Do you have a communicable disease? Are you bringing any commercial goods in? Also, another question might be, have you ever been refused entry to this country? Those are pretty standard questions. I would have no issue with any of those questions being asked of me, as a business traveller.
Mr. Bell.