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.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
And yet we may never know the kinds that we will avert—
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Absolutely.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
—if we are implementing our security systems in a proper and intelligent manner.
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes, that may well be the case, but we also need to be very clear that we are gathering relevant kinds of information and we're handling that information appropriately.
Gordon began by saying it's a balance between liberty and security. We often hear that we have to sacrifice questions of liberty in order to address security. I think that is a false proposition. I think we can always try to ensure the two, because I think ensuring our liberty is a form of ensuring our security.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
First things first, right? Security first.
9:45 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We have to look at these things carefully.
Again, going back to Ms. Stoddart's comments, it shouldn't just come down to rules and legislation. We should have a more fulsome discussion of the kinds of information we're looking for.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Sorry to catch you off guard. You moved to a different place. That's probably the problem.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We spoke about inadmissibility criteria. Ms. Gilbert, you spoke about harmonizing those criteria. It seems to me to be an important and essential point because, when it comes to issuing an eTA, these criteria will have to be harmonized. Could you please specify what type of criteria we should have in common?
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you.
I apologize, but I'm going to answer in English because my French is very rusty.
The kind of criteria that I think may move towards greater harmonization are things related to the questions they are asking on their forms, which are slightly different from the questions we are asking. For example, there may be harmonization around mental health issues. That is one clear example we may move towards. I don't know if that's the case, but that's something we need to consider.
There may also be harmonization in terms of countries that are eligible for visa waivers and countries from which we require visas. There are some significant differences between Canada and the United States, particularly for Commonwealth countries and many in the Caribbean. We don't require visas from them. Currently that is a big difference from what the U.S. requires of those countries. I think we'll see harmonization in that way.
Also, I think there will be the information sharing that happens through the information that's collected. Again, we don't know the full extent of that, and I think that's something we need to have further clarification on before we move forward.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you.
I was already wondering, but the more I hear from our witnesses, the more questions I have.
You said that a public consultation could become necessary to adopt this project. I fully agree with you, because with the electronic travel authorization, we are targeting security, of course, but is it the right tool?
There was also discussion about using biometric parameters. Could this approach not be used? We could perhaps move more in that direction. I would like to hear your comments on this. In terms of security, is the electronic travel authorization really the tool that will best allow us to live in a secure environment?
Mr. Kurland and Mr. Gordon, you are welcome to answer as well.
9:50 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
It opens the door to these approaches, effectively.
Furthermore, in my opinion, it is clear that the Americans are putting pressure on us to introduce this type of system. Is this enough justification for Canada to adopt it completely? We heard testimony from other people. It is positive overall. It could really improve the effectiveness of our two systems, in Canada and the United States. So, why not? I like what Professor Gilbert said: we need to protect people's privacy, but aside from that, why not?
9:50 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Again, I'm all for sharing. Sharing is a great principle. We're taught it from early days when we're children in kindergarten. As I've said before, sharing is good, but I think we need to know how we're going to share that information, who is going to have access to it and for what reasons, and how it's going to be used.
9:55 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
Good morning. I'm sorry, but my French is not very good.
9:55 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
I think information sharing is critical between the U.S. and Canada, because whatever happens to one impacts the other. Basically, our countries have already had a very close relationship military to military and law enforcement to law enforcement. We have the joint command at NORAD, and we cooperate through NATO together.
I think we can share information together. Anything we can do together to help keep both countries safer is going to be a good thing.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
What we are talking about is an extra tool in the tool kit to identify people prior to boarding a mode of transportation and coming to Canada. Security of Canadians is our priority. With all due respect, it trumps the privacy of foreigners. They have a choice as to whether or not they fill in the ETA before they come to Canada. If they don't want to fill it in, they don't come. Once we implement the system, that will be the system. For us and for Canadians, it is paramount that their security be protected. When we identify those people ahead of time, it facilitates the system for legitimate people, law-abiding citizens from other nations who come to our country.
Here's what Pierre Sabourin, the vice-president of the operations branch of the Canada Border Security Agency, said:
With the ETA system, we will have the ability to inform the airline, before the flight has left, to not board that passenger....
There are security advantages: people who would be deemed inadmissible would not be coming to the country. There are also advantages from a refugee perspective, which is that we will get fewer refugee claims.
I want to direct my first question to Mr. Gordon.
What do you think the consequences will be if Canada does not implement the ETA?
9:55 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
It would be damaging to the country. It's just one more tool that we have to fight terrorism and also to fight fraud. If Canada does not pass the ETA, we're going to maintain the status quo, and the status quo is that we're vulnerable. As long as radical Islam remains at war with the United States, Canada and the west, we are vulnerable. I think the ETA is going to be vitally important. It's just one more tool to help keep us safe, in both Canada and the United States.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
The Canada-U.S. border is, I believe, the longest border that two nations share anywhere in the world today. There are obviously some security threats that could result for both Canada and the United States.
Can you give some examples of people who have slipped through the cracks, which Canadian officials could have prevented if we had had the ETA in place at the time?
9:55 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
I'd say the most notorious one would be Ahmed Ressam, who I mentioned earlier. Here's a guy who came to Montreal on a fake French passport, and then when it was discovered it was fake, he just changed his story. He said that he was a political refugee. Then someone out of the kindness of their heart decided to give him refugee status in Montreal. Then he had over a decade of malfeasance in Canada, in Montreal. Then he decided he wanted to go to the jihad. He went to Afghanistan, trained in the Khaldan terrorist training camp, and came back to Canada. I don't know how he even got back in, because there was an arrest warrant for him even before he left. Here is a guy who was going to bomb LAX with a car bomb that was 40 times more powerful than a typical car bomb. This one guy could have destroyed LAX.
That's one good example. All we really need is one good example of a fact to say any measure we can take is going to be good for us.
This is not very intrusive. I've heard the privacy argument. I do agree with the one point that we should have training for the officials who are charged with reviewing this information. That's about the only one I agree with.
Yes, anything we can do to keep our country safer, to prevent people from slipping in who shouldn't be here, I think we should do.