Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Do I have any time, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We always have time for you. You have about two minutes.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

My big concern would be accessibility to these applications. For me, an electronic application in an electronic kiosk at the passport office isn't extremely accessible. Would you share that concern? Doesn't it keep out of the loop people who aren't very electronically literate? How can we solve that problem?

[Dr. Emily Gilbert]

In the U.S. version it is possible to get a third party to enter your information, so that's both something that could help people, but also a danger to be concerned about if that is going to be happening. Who gets to register? Is it only individuals who are travelling or can you register a group as you can with the ESTA? That's a big issue. In the U.S. version as well there's a payment of $14 attached that has to be paid by a credit card. That's another impediment, not only the access to the computer, but having a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or other credit card.

[Richard Kurland]

These are some of the safeguards. What about mischief? What if someone puts wrong information into that system using your name? Occupy something or other will put in the names of a lot of people if they want to disrupt the system. We need safeguards against that.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That's exactly where I was going to go next. How can we prevent third party fraudulence?

[Richard Kurland]

It can be done by introducing the User Fees Act and stopping all those problems from appearing on the desks of members of Parliament like you.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Following from that, I think yesterday it was the Citizenship and Immigration officials who said they were taking out the user fees in order to make it more flexible.

Would you have something to say to that to finish up? I think the chair is telling me I'm done.

[Richard Kurland]

Flexible for whom, is my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. We've come to the end.

Mr. Gordon, thank you very much for your presentation and comments. The same to you, Professor Gilbert.

Mr. Kurland, as I think the Beatles once wrote, don't ever change. You bring life to our committee.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will continue with Bill C-45. There have been no amendments that the clerk has received from any member of the committee, but that does not preclude members of the committee from giving us an amendment now. If there are amendments, we'd have to give time for Mr. Méla, who's going to advise us as to whether the amendments are appropriate or not. Even that's a little strange, because ultimately, only Mr. Rajotte can determine whether an amendment is in order because he's the chairman of the finance committee, so we'll play that one by ear.

However, if we're going to communicate with the finance committee, that must be done by four o'clock today. We have Ms. Welbourne and Mr....

[Alain Desruisseaux, Director General, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

It's Desruisseaux.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Desruisseaux and Mr. Oommen are here, not to make presentations, but to answer your questions about amendments or any last-minute items that we haven't dealt with. I would prefer it be only with amendments.

Those are my introductory comments.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

First, Mr. Chair, let me start off by saying how much the opposition appreciated the government side facilitating the hearings we've had over the last two days. It was an example of how, when the will is there, both sides can really work together. It is why the committee stage is so very critical to the parliamentary process. I mean it sincerely that this was much appreciated. I say a big thank you to everyone for facilitating that.

As you've said, the NDP has submitted no amendments, and we don't plan to submit any during the meeting today. We've raised specific concerns about privacy and the impact on tourism of the proposed ETA in the omnibus budget bill. We've also raised concerns about the fact that so much of the stuff is going to be in regulation and the fact that the fees are excluded from the parliamentary oversight they need to have. Our amendments will be going directly to the finance committee. They will reflect some of the concerns we have expressed here.

It was an unusual process we went through here, where one advisory committee asked other advisory committees to discuss this. Even though we could deal with amendments here, they would have no power, because the only committee that has the authority to deal with amendments to the omnibus budget bill is the finance committee. We thought that rather than have duplication, that's exactly where the amendments should go, so that's what we are doing.

Once again, I cannot express enough how much we all appreciated the ability to discuss and debate and to hear witnesses. I'm hoping it's a sign that we're going to continue to work like that on this committee.

The chair, as you know, takes suggestions at his will. My suggestion would be that the chair report to the finance committee that we have undertaken a study, outline what we heard, and inform them that amendments will be submitted by the official opposition, because we don't plan to bring them forward here.

With that in mind, if nobody else has amendments, we would be quite prepared to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think, Ms. Sims, that others may wish to say something.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

That's why I didn't move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To a certain degree, I appreciate that we have been able to deal with one aspect of the budget bill. It would have been a horrendous mistake had we not had the opportunity at least to review what we have a responsibility to study.

Having said that, I also believe that it was a mistake for the Minister of Finance, working with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to have put this in the budget bill. I believe it would have been better as a stand-alone bill. That way, we would have done much more due diligence. There would have been more accountability and transparency about what the bill was going to do.

We need to recognize that this is going to have an impact on hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world, and I'm not convinced that the due diligence that's necessary has been done. That is a message that should be communicated.

We heard some fairly strong statements on incorporating the User Fees Act into what the ETA is all about, thereby guaranteeing a standard of service that would be much more acceptable. I'm thinking specifically of those individuals who will be denied. We're talking about tens of thousands of individuals worldwide who would be denied. We learned that from committee presentations.

I was quite concerned when the department officials came before us and they were not able to provide what I thought was basic information. We should have a sense of how much this is going to cost to implement. We are walking away from this committee not having any sense of those costs. That is the reason we don't know what the fee is going to be. We are going to allow passage of a substantial piece of legislation. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be collected, but exactly how much we don't know.

I'm not convinced that's the best way for legislation to pass. We know that now because we had presentations at the beginning of the committee and those types of questions were not answered. One would have thought that those types of questions would have been answered.

In the dying moments of a presentation, one of the presenters asked a profound question: what about those individuals who might want to create mischief for others? We are underestimating that aspect. The potential for mischief is phenomenal, yet we have had no discussion or dialogue on that issue.

As opposed to trying to talk at great length, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that much has been lost by our not doing the type of job we should have done had the bill come before the committee as a separate piece of legislation. It is a very dangerous road the government is taking, incorporating so much legislation that should be stand-alone legislation. It is not healthy for democracy. It's not healthy in many different ways. From my perspective, those types of comments need to be brought to the floor.

Realizing the politics of things, I hope that if these comments are not brought to the floor, my committee colleagues from all sides of the House will recognize the importance of what I have attempted to say and bring it up within their own caucuses.

With that, Mr. Chair, the Liberal Party will also not be introducing any amendments at this stage.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Through you, Chair, I have a couple of questions for our officials. They came all the way down here and it's not only for that reason, but the fact that they're here allows us to ask a couple of questions. I don't intend to take very long.

At the outset, I want to say that I do agree with Ms. Sims' comments in terms of our ability to undertake a specific study for a period of time about an impact that our ministry is going to have on the budget and is going to have on those who travel to this country. Obviously it's a step in the direction with respect to some more advanced security.

I do, however, disagree with Mr. Lamoureux's comments. This is our ability to process an issue that was directly in the budget. I've been here for seven years. The process that we undertook over the last two days was as in-depth of a review as I've ever done on a piece of legislation that was included in the budget. Clauses 308 to 313 are a very small part of the budget bill, and yet we allocated six hours' worth of committee time to reviewing five clauses.

There was mention about the politics, and there's always going to be disagreement from a political perspective on the government's decision to move forward with a budget and what is included in that budget. I understand that. I agree with that. It's part of the Westminster model of Parliament.

The other part that I acknowledge is our ability to study this regardless of which party to which we belong. This actually came to committee and we were able to review it to this extent. The officials were engaged in this process. This will give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a better understanding of how important this issue is to the committee members and members of Parliament regardless of which party they happen to come from.

I'm glad they're here at the conclusion of this study for a couple of reasons. They were able to listen to the observations that many of us made and also to the testimony of our witnesses. I also want to get a response on a couple of things.

From a privacy perspective, we received the letter from Ms. Stoddart. I heard both Maia and Les speak yesterday at great length about the care and concern they have around privacy issues. Perhaps, Maia, you could reiterate the importance of the work that you will do with the Privacy Commissioner and how you will proceed in terms of next steps.

[Maia Welbourne, Director, Document and Visa Policy, Admissibility Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

As we indicated yesterday, we've made a commitment to work very closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We will do so recognizing that we're not planning to implement the ETA until 2015. There is a significant amount of time to work to develop the responses to her concerns and we will certainly do so.

I would note also that it is a requirement to produce a privacy impact assessment as part of the project and leading towards regulatory amendments. We will certainly do that in close consultation with her and her office. I would also note that privacy impact assessments are made public. All of our responses and how we are intending to address the concerns that have been raised will be public.

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

I don't want to say the other two are minor points, but I don't think they will take as long.

Yesterday, Mr. Linklater indicated, and you may have as well, the cost of this has not been determined. The process of going to Treasury Board is not unlike any other standard budget item. The budget gets passed. The allocation of funds as to what is going to happen is passed through that budget. How those funds are actually spent with respect to implementation must all go to Treasury Board to be passed to ensure that every ministry is spending each of the dollars exactly as outlined, and that gives the process.

While the fee isn't outlined in the budget, certainly the process upon which the fee will be determined is not unlike other ministries that have to go to Treasury Board for approval to spend the money that they've been allocated.

I did hear Les say yesterday, and I thought you did as well, but perhaps you could confirm that the costs are going to be similar to what other countries are expending in terms of what the charge is.

[Maia Welbourne]

Yes, in terms of the fee established, we expect that to be very competitive with what both the U.S. and Australia charge. It's correct in terms of the Treasury Board process. We are still going through that process, and until that process is complete, we don't, in essence, have final costs and therefore the ability to set the fee.

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

Part of the reason you are going there under this process is that you are determined to make this a cost recovery item versus an expense in another budget line.

[Maia Welbourne]

That's right. Our intention is to fully cost recover.