Evidence of meeting #61 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 around.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Gordon, I wonder if you could indicate if ESTA, which is an American program, requires any form of biometric information.
9:35 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
It does not at this point, to my knowledge. To my knowledge, the ESTA is similar to what you're looking to have here in Canada. Australia has the same program.
As far as the point about tourism and whether it's a barrier, I don't think it would be a barrier. I don't really think you can equate an online form with getting a whole passport. Getting a whole passport is somewhat cumbersome. The online form doesn't appear to be cumbersome. I don't really think you can equate it to a barrier.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Do you anticipate that the American government is going to be incorporating biometrics into the ESTA program?
9:35 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
I haven't had any indication that they would at this point, though biometrics are being used right now by the United States for non-U.S. citizens when they enter at ports of entry. There's a camera. They take their picture and fingerprints.
Biometrics are very important to the United States. We're starting to use them, but I don't have any indication that they are part of the ESTA program or will be part of the ESTA program any time soon.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Can you provide a copy of the information you actually collect with regard to the ESTA program? Mr. Chair, maybe it could be provided to you. Time is of the essence, because we're expected to pass this legislation which is being brought in through the back door in the budget bill sometime in the next 24 hours. I would be very much interested in what kind of information you collect from people through the ESTA program. Could you make that information available to us sometime in the next number of hours? Would that be possible?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Ms. Gilbert, I'm wondering if you could provide some comments in terms of what you feel would be appropriate information to be collecting, given that we are going to have an ETA. What would provide you with some level of comfort?
9:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Around what we should collect around an ETA?
9:40 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. There's information that we already collect around name, all the stuff that's included in both the advance passenger information and passenger name record. I think that information is appropriate: the date of birth, citizenship, nationality, passport number, and other identification information that's being provided, I think that's fine.
My question is, how does it get used? There has been a big concern with people, particularly those of dual citizenship, whose place of birth is not the place where they reside and they have full citizenship in the place they reside. There are people who are falling through the cracks because of that. That's an instance where it may be appropriate to gather information around someone's place of birth. How it gets used may raise questions if they are treated differently because they've been born in a place that's considered a country that's suspect, whereas they might live today in the U.K., for example. I think that's a big question about how the information gets here. It's not that we shouldn't be collecting information, but it's the use of the information, who gets to use it, who has access to it, how it's shared between Canada and the United States, and how it becomes carved in stone, as we heard Richard Kurland say, around how the profiles that are gathered around those people get construed.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Finally, Mr. Kurland, I share the very same concern that you've said in terms of how this is going to be a massive make-work project for members of Parliament and their offices.
In the U.S. they seem to have a central depository government office that processes the appeals. We're talking about tens of thousands of potential individuals who are going to be turned down. Having said that, I wonder if you could comment in terms of the overall numbers that will be rejected through the system and how we can get them through a fair appeal.
9:40 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
The way to do it cheaply, effectively, without oversight, without monitoring control from this institution, is to connect this operation up to the User Fees Act because the service standard is set by law. If the affected department fails to deliver 90%-plus on the service standard, the law causes a loss of budget to that department and the department reports annually its production, its operational work. That's how you do it. That's how you can motivate departments to do this the right way within a specified timeline. That service standard is a political question, what's acceptable to Canadians to fix a file. It's really that simple. It's elegant.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Is there a specific amendment that you can suggest that would actually put that into place? I'd be interested in moving the amendment.
9:40 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
It may be late in the game, Mr. Chair, but--
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes, it is late in the game. I'm sorry, but time's up. I gave you 30 seconds, too.
Mr. Weston.
November 20th, 2012 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think it takes a British Columbian to come before our committee and say the right thing. Defending the rights of parliamentarians the way you've done this morning is astounding. We're all very happy for you. Thank you very much.
What you said, Professor Gilbert, just a minute ago, which is that it's not a bad thing to be gathering information, it's how you use it that's important, really struck me. That reminds me of C. S. Lewis, who wrote about first things first, and how a good thing in the wrong priority becomes a bad thing.
I'm going to direct my question to you, Mr. Gordon. If security is the most important thing that a government could provide its citizens and knowing that we all care about privacy, wouldn't you say that it's important to detect inadmissible people at the first available opportunity and ideally overseas before they even contemplate coming to our country or taking advantage of some of our programs and our legal rights in Canada?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
Yes, sir, I would agree with that very much. I think that pre-screening is vital. If you look at the recent case where we had Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis in Bangladesh, here was a kid who basically got a student visa, came over to the United States apparently in good faith, but then he planned to blow up the Federal Reserve.
I looked at the website the U.S. embassy has in Dhaka and I saw the requirements for student visas. Basically they were the same as in Chile. My wife is Chilean; she came to the United States on a student visa. I looked at the U.S. embassy website in Dhaka and the U.S. embassy website in Santiago, Chile, and they were exactly alike. Basically the only requirement we have is economics. That should be our last line of defence, not the first line of defence.
I think both the United States and Canada have to have a mechanism where we pre-screen people overseas. By the time they're getting on a plane in Islamabad for the United States if they have bad intentions towards this country, it's too late. I think pre-screening is very important, sir.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
In fact, we heard from witnesses yesterday that in terms of pre-screening we're likely to be improving our tourism. That's something that's certainly important to West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country where I'm from, Whistler and that part of the world. If we could make our identification more predictable so that the problems, even problems that would be wrongly pointed out for people, could be first pointed out overseas and dealt with, we would have a smoother kind of tourism cycle. We would avoid letting in people who cost literally millions of dollars in terms of our country's processing fees after they're found to be inadmissible when they're onshore.
Would you comment on the economic side of having something like an electronic transport authorization?
9:45 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
Yes, I would agree that there is an economic benefit. People in the United States are concerned about terrorism. I think people were very alarmed about the Toronto 18. Back in 2006, we had a group of young men, homegrown terrorists if you will, and they were plotting to blow up Parliament Hill, blow up buildings in Toronto. They even said they wanted to behead the Prime Minister.
That really scared a lot of people in the United States. They wondered what was going on in Canada. People weren't used to that kind of thing from Canada.
If you can screen people better, and ensure that people in the United States know that Canada's really paying attention to the threat of terrorism, that will only increase your tourism. My wife and I went to Whistler in 2010, and to Vancouver and Victoria, B.C. We had the time of our lives. It's a beautiful place.
I think more Americans would go if they understood that Canada was very serious about who they let into the country.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Professor Gilbert, you've rung the bell. We've heard the concerns about privacy. I think we all share them. We also have to acknowledge that the sophistication of people who have malevolent ideas toward Canada is improving and increasing as well, so we ought to be improving our own detection methods as we go.
Do you think, if we can manage those privacy concerns, we're on the right track? The NDP has said that they agree with the basic principles of this ETA. What are your thoughts?
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I come back to the two points that it depends on what information is being gathered and how it's being used.
If the information that is to be gathered is exactly the same that's being gathered already, but being brought together through an electronic system, that seems to be straightforward enough.
If there will be additional information built into it at a later date, whether it's biometrics or other kinds of other information, I think that is a concern. I think there are questions around, for example, the U.S. form, which I have looked at online. It does ask questions around mental health issues. How will someone answer those kinds of questions? Will we be asking those kinds of questions on our ETA as they do on the ESTA? What will be the implications for those individuals as to how they answer those questions? Are they relevant questions?
I think it comes down to what information we are gathering, and then how that information will be used.
On the example that was just given, about the Toronto 18 as homegrown terrorists, this has absolutely nothing to do with that kind of situation. I think what we're doing is pretending to be more secure by doing our pre-screening offshore in an attempt to show the United States that we are being more attentive to terrorist issues without actually looking at some of the clear ways we could deal with these things.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Let me interrupt and challenge you, Professor. I think we've all said that knowledge is power, and power in the wrong hands can be evil. The trick is to make sure we accumulate the knowledge or the information. With respect to offshore, clearly if we can stop the bad guys before they get here, there are advantages. Your point is well taken that meanwhile we have to apply the information correctly and properly.
Are we on the same page, then?
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes, I think so. I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't blur the two issues. The kinds of terrorism that have been identified in the previous comments are not the kinds of things we're dealing with in an ETA. That's off the table as far as this is concerned—