Evidence of meeting #52 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I have gone to Arizona to witness the use of the AVATAR program. Nogales, Arizona, is a city that's actually cut in half by the U.S.-Mexico border. I've also spoken to both American and Canadian border agents, basically, about the use of biometric technologies.
I'm not a scientist; I'm a social scientist.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
But that machine you referenced is in trial stages right now. It's not deployed.
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
It has been in trial stages. Well, it is now being used in that instance. It has been trialled in Europe for two years already.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
What about a roll-out? Is it rolled out or is it still on trial?
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
It's being used in the SENTRI system right now, so the interview you do for SENTRI—the U.S-Mexico equivalent of the NEXUS program—is currently being done in that location by the machine.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I do.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I actually got it as part of the research I did in 2008 at the Border Policy Research Institute in Washington State.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have one as well, and I find it's worked quite well. It's biometric: they take the eye scan, they take your fingerprints, they take a photograph. So they do understand who it is that is coming and going through that particular system. I would suggest to you, sir, that this is relatively reliable overall, and it does provide a certain convenience of travel for travellers and others.
How long do I have, Madam Chair?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay, good.
You also referred to human intelligence as an option to biometrics, or an augment. How is human intelligence gathered in this case, or HUMINT, as it's often called?
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I'd say two things. First of all, on your NEXUS point, yes, it's convenient. It also doesn't prevent fraud. In fact, some suggestion is that it can in fact enhance it because the breeder documents required to get to NEXUS are no more secure. The document you then receive on the basis of potentially fraudulent documents is then assumed to be more secure, and we then operate according to that assumption.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes, but you're not just giving this based on that alone. You're still getting an interview from both sets, Canadian and U.S. To your point, there is a human being also making a determination. But let's leave that alone.
Let's go to human intelligence. How is human intelligence gathered, in your view, for use in immigration and border crossings?
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I think for me the issue is that even in the case of NEXUS, once you have the card, your human interaction decreases.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
That's not gathering human intelligence. How do you gather human intelligence?
4:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
It's by talking to people. I think assuming that a technology is going to take that place, and then making assumptions that these individuals who now carry a card or have participated in a program are more secure on the basis of the fact that they've put their fingers and retinas up for digitization—there's simply not data to support that this in fact enhances security.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes, but that's not entirely human intelligence. Human intelligence is gathered. For example, if you're looking at criminal groups trying to infiltrate a particular country, human intelligence is gathered through the discussion of groups in those countries. You can get that information through refugees. You can get that information through travellers and others. And it's a compilation of intelligence that's built up. Talking to an individual across a kiosk is not human intelligence, sir.
4:25 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
Right. But these programs that are being suggested are based on a variety of interoperable biometric data, and then creating a profile of an individual, based on their movement according to your entry and exit and so on. So there is an extent to which that is going to take the place of what you just suggested.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
I think we can all agree that nothing is 100% infallible, for sure, but I think biometrics will allow an ability for our country and others, with shared data use and shared intelligence, HUMINT and otherwise, to protect our country. I think these biometrics...even if it's a 90% solution, or a 97% solution, it is valid in making sure, or helping to make sure, that people who have infiltrated our country in the past and have been deported for criminal acts don't get back in.
Would you agree that this is a valuable tool in terms of biometrics and being able to protect our security and our families, as Mr. Menegakis referred to earlier?
4:25 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I'd agree that it's potentially a valuable tool, but statistics like 97% and so on...that is not what data demonstrates.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
The thing is, you didn't provide any data today. You're saying studies show this and studies show that.
4:25 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, King's University College at Western University, As an Individual
I listed two recent studies, one by the University of Notre Dame and the other by the National Science Council in Washington, D.C., both showing issues, false positives in the neighbourhood of 150%.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you very much.
In order to let our guests know, I don't mean to be rude, but we do have very specific time allocations for each MP, and we want to make sure that every MP gets their turn.
So that the committee is aware, as a result of us starting a little bit late with this, the clerk and I did split the time difference, so that both segments today would have equal timing.
I would now like to go over to Sadia.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our two witnesses for joining us today. My question is for Mr. Tyndall.
You have presented the IFHP as a necessary safety net when it comes to public health and said that limiting health care would be a disaster. We fully agree with that opinion, especially since preventive health care is both more humane and more economical than curative health care.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that everyone is entitled to the best physical and mental health status they can achieve and that states have a non-discriminatory obligation in the fulfillment of that right.
What do you think about those provisions? Do you think they can be ignored within the framework of public health?