Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Marie Bourry, Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

With respect to retention of personal information, the standard is set out in the privacy regulations, and it's two years from the last administrative use. It's in relative terms and not absolute terms. So the information may be collected on day X. In terms of the last administrative use, it's use by the department in order to make a decision. The decision can happen shortly after the application is made, but there can be some other interaction throughout the life cycle of the information. With respect to the 15 years, that's not a standard that is set out in the Privacy Act or the regulations. Usually when you deal with retention of personal information, it's set out in what we call a retention schedule. There are usually discussions with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as to what is an appropriate retention period with respect to this type of information.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So to say that the information is going to be retained for 15 years is somewhat premature at this point.

[Marie Bourry]

I think that would be subject to discussion with the OPC. The retention period for personal information collected for a temporary resident visa application would be set in relative terms.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

One of the other points she made was that:

For example, from an oversight perspective, it would be important for members of the Committee to understand precisely how Canada's newly expanded API/PNR program under CBSA, Public Safety Canada's Passenger Protect Program or the recently launched Canada-U.S. Exit-Entry program would work with the eTA program.

Obviously she's asking how we are going to make sure that all of the additional programs—safety programs and travel safety programs—that have been implemented are going to work consistently and on a regular follow-up basis to ensure that we aren't serving a lot of duplication and that we are working with each other from a cross-government perspective rather than in silos.

[Les Linklater]

That's right, and in fact in terms of security screening around immigration applications, whether for temporary or permanent residents, CIC applies indicators, but we work with and rely very much on our Public Safety and security partners to assist with the screening of individuals, CBSA and CSIS being the critical partners with the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

I have a quick question about accessibility. From what I understand, if someone doesn't apply for their eTA online in advance, you're planning on having the airport kiosk or whatever, which is great. So people who don't have access to the Internet—those in rural remote communities from already visa-exempt countries—basically have to pack themselves up, go to the airport, and then hope they're going to be able to go through. Is that how it works?

[Maia Welbourne]

I think our advice would always be that individuals, at the point where they're even contemplating travel to Canada, make the application for the eTA at whatever location they can get to. Essentially, they can make the application anywhere there's Internet access. That would definitely be our advice. Even before booking a ticket, ensure you have your eTA. The idea is that it would be valid for up to five years, so it has a long duration. Get that first.

We recognize there will be situations where individuals have to book last-minute travel for whatever reason. In this case, we're saying—given that we are assuming the vast majority of applications will be approved automatically within minutes—it could be done at an Internet café at the airport, en route to the airport, what have you. It's not what we would recommend, but we recognize there are such cases.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

If I had a mobility issue, for instance, if I lived six hours away from the closest airport or in a community that doesn't have Internet cafés, then I would have to make that special trip to an airport kiosk six months before I even bought my airplane ticket. I would have to go, apply, wait that one minute to find out, and then drive another six hours, or hire somebody to drive me back for another six hours, to know whether I'm going to be able to qualify to buy my airplane ticket. Is that basically the situation?

[Maia Welbourne]

Well, it's like an individual who's working with a travel agent, for instance. If they don't already have their eTA, they could work with a travel agent, who would certainly have Internet access to apply for the eTA at that time.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's an extra cost and an extra burden for somebody who may have a mobility issue, or seniors, elders in the community, who may not be computer literate, or even young people who may not be computer literate. It just seems unfair for those people.

Moving on to the exemption, how will public scrutiny or government transparency be ensured if the service fees for eTAs and biometrics are exempt from the User Fees Act?

[Les Linklater]

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.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Right, but it just seems that if it's exempt from the User Fees Act, that public scrutiny piece seems to be missing.

My supplementary question would be, how will Parliament know what the fees for these services will be? You said it will be some nominal fee. Australia charges around $20. Ours would probably be less, but it's not in very certain terms. If it's not going to be under the User Fees Act, then how will Parliament know? How will Parliament know what the user fees will be, what the government is collecting, what the performance standards are, or whether the fees are comparable to those in other countries if these service fees are actually exempt from the User Fees Act? You've said it's going to be comparable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to finish. Please answer the question.

[Les Linklater]

I would say that the fees will be set in regulation. Of course, that process is subject to parliamentary scrutiny as well as public scrutiny and input.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Welbourne, you said you spoke to the Americans and the Australians. Did they indicate the success or lack of success of their programs?

[Maia Welbourne]

Generally, they were both very satisfied with the effectiveness of their programs. They certainly didn't express any regrets in having set up the programs in the first place. With the U.S., as I say, we got into a little bit more of the detail of their program, but certainly there are no regrets, and the Americans feel very strongly that it's an effective tool.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We start all over again.

Mr. Weston has up to seven minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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?

[Les Linklater]

The minister has put in place a public policy that allows Border Services officers who encounter.... Let's use your example of an American with a DUI who is at the port of entry. If such a situation arises and the individual is determined to be inadmissible by virtue of that offence, subject to certain requirements—that they have not done jail time and that there was no significant harm as a result of their infraction—what the public policy allows is that the individual will receive a temporary resident permit to enter Canada to overcome their inadmissibility, but the fee for the permit, which is $200, is waived one time only.

The individuals are then counselled that if they wish to return to Canada, until deemed rehabilitation can take place—which is 10 years, I believe, for that type of offence—they would then need to be documented with a TRP and they would have to pay the fee. It does facilitate some of that last-minute issue that arises, particularly at remote ports, when people are making trips, say, to northern Ontario.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Has there been any advantage in terms of getting advance notice understanding of the impact of such a problem under this policy?

[Les Linklater]

Well, I think it has been helpful for certain sectors in the tourism industry to understand that if this does happen, then the whole party may not necessarily be affected by this. The individual in question can be allowed forward subject to the parameters that I described, for that one time. They are then counselled so they know that if they wish to return to Canada, they need to be properly documented. So it has removed an irritant that we've heard about from certain sectors in the tourism industry.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I know that the minister heard that irritant at Whistler and has heard about it from the Canadian Tourism Commission. I'm really pleased that the government and our officials are responding to those very practical needs as we implement some of the same higher-level issues as well: security balanced with flexibility.

One of the things you mentioned in your discussion was that a person won't necessarily have to get a new eTA every time he or she comes to Canada.

[Les Linklater]

Right.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I assume that is in answer to the possible impediment of creating unnecessary cost to people. Do you want to come back to that again? How does it enhance the ability of tourists to come to Canada—or visitors—to have what is basically a multi-entry eTA?