Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Part 3, division 15, section 168 of Bill C-59 would create a non-exhaustive, open-ended list of applications subject to collection of personal biometric information for “verification purposes”.

Our amendment seeks to point out how much Bill C-59 opens up the possibility for collecting biometrics, and to point out the possibility of mission creep, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called it in the Senate committee.

The government could easily use this as a grab for the personal and private information of anyone coming into Canada, and use it for virtually any purpose. In fact, the Prime Minister is announcing today that all people requiring visas will need to give their biometrics. There are some legitimate reasons to collect biometrics, but we need to be cautious and need to be transparent.

This change within Bill C-59 came as a surprise and after no serious public study. We feel this is potentially quite dangerous. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Is there any further comment on amendment PV-34?

We'll go to Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government does not support this amendment because it would undermine the purpose of this new measure, which is not only to prevent and detect fraud, but also to confirm the identity of legitimate travellers, both when they make an application to come to Canada and when they arrive. It is to facilitate their travel to Canada.

The expanded collection and verification of biometrics will strengthen identity management, enhance security, assist in informed decision-making, and facilitate the processing of genuine travellers. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to amendment PV-36, Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you.

A centralized database can often be easily hacked. When you combine this massive collection of personal information with the information sharing provisions of Bill C-51, what will prevent Citizenship and Immigration from sharing all the personal information they're collecting with many or all other departments?

Biometrics contain extremely sensitive and personal information. We have received no information about how this enormous database will be structured, or what kind of privacy protections it will have.

We're concerned about mission creep. It's a big concern. Biometrics are intrusive.

This amendment will seek to ensure that the legal standards, values, and rights established in Canadian privacy law for the treatment of personal information are not eroded, and that any sharing of personal information with other jurisdictions or states complies fully with Canadian standards of protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

We'll go to Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The government does not support this amendment because the proposed amendment is already covered through existing Government of Canada policies and directives, including the Treasury Board Secretariat policy on privacy protection, which requires that the Privacy Commissioner be notified of any new policies and programs that deal with personal information.

Including this requirement in one particular clause would appear to indicate that other clauses and actions are not subject to privacy assessments and consultations, when that is not the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I want to speak in favour of Green Party amendment 36. It simply requires the minister to consult with the Privacy Commissioner before making regulations. As Mr. Hyer has said, the issue here is the very sensitive information that biometric information constitutes in Canada. It's among the most sensitive personal information.

I am pleased that Mr. Hyer also made reference to Bill C-51, with the enormous information sharing web that that statute has created, or will create if we ever pass it through this place. I hope we don't.

Mission creep is what the Privacy Commissioner has talked about in virtually every annual report since that office was established. If ever there were an example of why we don't need it, it is here.

Mr. Adler said don't worry—he didn't use the words “don't worry”—that it's already covered by directives and Treasury Board policies. Well, that's exactly the problem. Put it in a statute. It doesn't bother me, because biometric information is such a sensitive category of personal information that it doesn't cover other things. That's precisely why we should put it in a statute, for everyone to see and to give comfort to Canadians as this government begins to invade our privacy like never before.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Rankin said “invade our privacy”. This is directed to those people coming to Canada with visas. This is not directed at Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

All those in favour of clause 168?

Mr. Côte, on clause 168.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like to discuss all the clauses amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will be very brief.

I have been a member of the House of Commons for four years, but I am definitely not tired of repeating that a bill of this nature does not belong in an omnibus bill on the budget. It is really appalling.

Mr. Chair, by working hard on the appropriate committee, we probably would have been able to come to an agreement with the government on many aspects concerning this bill. I am personally very uncomfortable with its speedy passage when we have not even been able to have an independent and comprehensive review with the representatives of our institutions. That is why I will vote against it. This deserves a societal debate. That should have been done, but, as usual, the government shied away from it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Clause 168 agreed to) )

(Clauses 169 to 173 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 174)

We'll go to clause 174. We have PV-37 and PV-38 and they are identical so I'll ask Mr. Hyer to speak to PV-38.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This amendment was a suggestion by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland in the citizenship and immigration committee on May 28. We concur with his opinion. We need to place some limits on what can be shared with the RCMP.

Mr. Kurland said the following in committee:

The way it's stated biometric can be collected and then at some point-in-time related personal information is on the table. As the committee members, I'm sure, well know family composition forms are part of the immigration process. Their equivalent for temporary status is also part of the visa process and that means that your family tree and all the personal information in immigration databases can go out the door to the RCMP and travel to points abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

May I ask a question to clarify the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am trying to understand why “at any one time” was included.

In English what does “at any one time” mean legally, and why was this added? I'm just curious.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

May I converse with my staff for a moment?

We're not certain we understand the question, never mind the answer. Maybe he could repeat his question; I'll try.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I wanted to know why the amendment includes “at any one time”.

Why was “at any one time” added? What does it mean exactly in your sense?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I think my simple answer is I'm not sure.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Adler, do you want to speak to this?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I do.

The current legislative provision is a regulation-making authority only, therefore requiring associated regulations. The government does not support this amendment because it would be duplicative and conflict with the language that already exists in section 13.11 of the immigration and refugee protection regulations, which provide specificity for which limited data elements may be used and disclosed by the RCMP, and for what purposes. The proposed change to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is an editorial change to the already existing regulation-making legislative provision. There is no intention to change any of the existing regulatory authorities or practices that have been in place since April 2013.