Little or none.
Evidence of meeting #59 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 eta.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #59 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 eta.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
Little or none.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back to all of our guests.
Hopefully, I get the opportunity to ask each of you a question. My first question is to Mr. Bissett. In your speaking notes, at the front, you mentioned you were in favour of this simple measure. I'm looking at the changes that are included in Bill C-45. Really, it's just a couple of pages—not even two pages, a few paragraphs.
Why do you refer to it as a simple measure?
12:40 p.m.
Board of Directors, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
Well, I think it's a simple measure in the sense that it's a benefit to the country to make sure that inadmissible people don't get into the country. It's a tremendous benefit to people who are travelling to know that they can enter once they've been pre-cleared abroad. In that sense it's a simple solution to what has been a tremendous problem for the travelling public, particularly after 9/11, when all countries are more stringent about who they let in and who they don't.
Sometimes it's very time consuming and difficult to apply for a visa—you have to go in; you may have to be interviewed. A lot of countries require visitor visas. The only ones that are exempt in Canada are western European countries, or mainly most of the European countries and the United States. Most of the other countries require visas.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I know it's a simple measure. I agree with you. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
All three witnesses today, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bissett, and Mr. Collacott, mentioned the importance of biometrics and proceeding with that. Really, the electronic travel authorization is just one part of the puzzle we're trying to solve, a significant problem and a potential threat to Canadian soil. Would you agree that it's one part of the puzzle we're trying to solve?
12:40 p.m.
Board of Directors, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
Yes, indeed.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I believe we have already mentioned the Beyond the Border action plan; this is an agreement between the United States and Canada that was previously signed. So the changes we're seeing here, that we're discussing today in committee—I don't want to say it's a housekeeping measure—are really to ensure that that agreement goes forward and that we have the proper mechanism in order to apply that agreement in law and to implement it here in Canada.
12:40 p.m.
Board of Directors, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
Yes. I see it as an enabling provision. It enables the government to go ahead and do what we're committed to do by this agreement and by the meeting in Washington between the Prime Minister and the President.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
So there aren't really any surprises in this part.
12:40 p.m.
Board of Directors, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
No.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
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?
12:40 p.m.
Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform
Yes. To some extent, we have blurred the difference between full citizenship and simply living here and having permanent residence status. In fact, the 1977 Citizenship Act reduced the residency period from five to three years to make it easier for non-citizens to become Canadians.
We have to welcome and protect, particularly permanent residents in Canada, but we have to recognize that they do not have the same rights as Canadians until they are full citizens. That is in international law. As I mentioned, the consular conventions don't allow countries access to their non-citizens just because they're permanent residents. I think there will be efforts to blur that distinction for the purposes of criticizing the implementation of this act. And I would agree with the other witnesses that this is a very first stage.
Incidentally, biometric sharing is part of the action plan. That's supposed to be introduced by 2014. I'm not sure they'll be able to meet that deadline, but this is a first step. It's enabling legislation, and I'm sure the specifics will be discussed in committee when the government decides on what databases they will use and the privacy issues.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us.
Mr. Bissett, reading from the briefing we have from our analysts, and from what you said earlier, we know that “Beyond the Border: a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness” was established by the Canadian Prime Minister and the U.S. President. What I'm learning from what the analysts have included is that the subsequent action plan includes joint priorities in areas of cooperation, such as establishing a common approach to the screening of travellers. That's kind of along the lines of what you said earlier as well.
Following from Ms. Sims' question earlier about Australia, you said that our questions on the eTA will probably be similar to those of Australia rather than the U.S. Since our cooperation agreement to have similar screening is with the U.S., wouldn't our questions be—clearly this is all speculation because we don't know for sure—closer in line with the U.S., since we're trying to streamline and harmonize our process with the U.S.? It will be the more stringent questions.
12:45 p.m.
Board of Directors, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
I think you're probably right.
I haven't seen the questions the U.S. asked on their eTA. I have seen the Australian's questions, and those are very simple. Basically it's who are you and what are the—
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Right.
Mr. Bell, do you have anything to add to that?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
I do. I did actually look at what information is required for the two, and the U.S. does require more information. They really are looking at the kinds of questions they ask when they travel. They're asking for contact information, travel information, address while in the U.S. Those seem to be the additional questions, other than just the personal information.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
From the Privacy Commissioner's submission, we also learned that the U.S. asks highly sensitive questions about exposure to communicable diseases, physical or mental disorders, substance abuse, criminal history. All that is apparently in the U.S.—
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
I think that's correct. I was unable to get the exact form.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'm going to trust the Privacy Commissioner on that.
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
I would think so.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Ours will probably be more in line with the U.S. Earlier you were mentioning it is far more stringent than Australia's.
Changing gears a little bit, we know that the new section 11 of IRPA, after the changes from this bill go through, states that the traveller will provide data online or by other means, and this information will be assessed by the system or by an immigration officer. Do you know what conditions will determine if the eTA will be assessed by the system or by an officer?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
As I would understand it, the automatic system would go first. If there were any anomalies, it would go to an officer.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Okay, so we don't know.
Do we know what the other means are? It says “will provide data online (or by other means)”. Do you know what “other” means?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Business Development, NextgenID Canada Inc.
The way I understood that was you would have the information provided by the individual, or by the travel agent, or even by the airline. It's interesting, when you look at the Australian example...there are maybe eight countries that allow citizens to actually do it online themselves. Otherwise they're looking for a service provider to do it, such as a travel agent.
