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.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Kurland, would you not agree that currently there's a limited capacity to screen individuals travelling to Canada from visa-free countries?
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
It's a key point. I certainly agree and more. T
his is the new group. Visa-free countries don't require contact in advance of arrival to Canada. This system will effectively put a semi-visa on people who are travelling visa-free. It pushes the enforcement border from our ports of entry at the airports back across the sea.
10 a.m.
Conservative
November 20th, 2012 / 10 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Gordon, as we know, there are a lot of financial costs as well as other costs associated with the entry into Canada of inadmissible individuals. When Pierre Sabourin, the vice-president of the operations branch of CBSA appeared before this committee on a security study, he said:
The average cost of a removal to CBSA is about $1,500.... If we have an escorted removal where we need to have CBSA officers and sometimes medical attention, that can go up to $15,000.
Could you tell us, from your experience in the U.S., how ESTA has cut down on the costs of admitting inadmissible people to the United States? Can you talk about the cost savings in terms of the resources needed to deal with inadmissible individuals who have entered the U.S.? Would you say that the ETA will help CBSA officers to do their jobs better and guard our shared borders?
10 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
Yes, sir, I would agree that the ETA will help in reducing costs. I think you've made the point about the high costs in Canada of removing an individual. When it's a forceable removal, the costs skyrocket. I think the U.S. has had a parallel type of cost.
It's much more inexpensive to keep a person out at the port of departure, whether that's in Pakistan or anywhere around the world. It's much, much cheaper to keep them out rather than have them get in and wind up in trouble or associate with people like the homegrown terrorists we talked about. I think it's much cheaper at the point of departure than it is at the point of entry.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Sir, do you have experience with these types of systems in other countries?
10 a.m.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
Not a lot. I have been to Australia, and I'm a little familiar with what they do there. They have a system similar to the ESTA in the U.S. and to the ETA. I would say that I'm familiar with those systems in the U.S. and Australia. I've been to about 100 countries. I was a commander in the navy. I lived overseas for 10 years in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, but I'm not as familiar with their systems.
Clearly, the U.S. and Canada are at the forefront of screening mechanisms. I think we're doing well, but I think there is room for improvement. I think the ETA will improve the systems for security in both countries.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Kurland, to my friend Costas' point, I think he's absolutely right that the safety and security of our people trump the privacy concerns of foreign individuals who want to come to this country, because they do have choices and they can decide whether or not to come here.
Notwithstanding that, I've had constituents who have been caught on lists because they had similar names and birthdates. Going forward as this process expands, do you think that introducing biometrics and other data like that somewhere down the road will help resolve a lot of those issues?
10 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
I think Mr. Menegakis is bang on in his analysis. It's Canada first. We still have a duty to strangers. To paraphrase prophet Ibrahim, remember, you too were a stranger in a strange land. Our obligations do extend beyond our borders to protect strangers. The protections will be there. The law as framed will allow us to protect all of us if we're properly resourced.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thanks.
I want to pursue that a little further. One of the anomalies that has been pointed out, and Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned this, is that there's no acknowledgement of what the cost savings have been. I'd like to think that most of us are safe drivers, but it doesn't mean that we can quantify how much money we've saved the insurance companies because we've been safe drivers.
Part of prevention is also looking back in terms of what the general acceptance and safety levels are, and how people are feeling psychologically about whether they're safer today or whether they were safer 10 days before September 11, 2001. I'd like you to clarify and perhaps explain that quantifying these types of issues isn't necessarily all that easy.
10:05 a.m.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes, I would agree absolutely, which is why we need to discuss them and talk about the ramifications of the kind of information being gathered and how it's being used. That's the only way we will know how these security measures are impacting us in terms of security. If we leave it to bureaucratic decisions and legislation, we won't know.
With cars, we've implemented different kinds of security mechanisms, like seat belts, that were not required before, but there's a limit to what people will endure before they decide not to drive their car. It's harder to understand that in terms of these kinds of security measures, which is why we need to discuss the details around what information is being gathered and how it's being used, so we can make knowledgeable decisions about that.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kurland, you were the only one who mentioned the user fees, so I'd like to ask you a question. What do you think is the purpose of exempting services for the ETAs and biometrics under the user fees?
10:05 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
For me, when I first read it, it was straightforward. This is a way for Canada's public servants to foist the heavy lifting onto someone else: members of Parliament. It's as simple as that.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Following up on the User Fees Act, how will parliamentarians be able to scrutinize these fees if they're exempt from the ministerial reporting requirements through the User Fees Act?
10:05 a.m.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
The fees will be reported. It's the service standard that's at the heart of evil for public servants when dealing with the User Fees Act. The User Fees Act will allow for the normal collection, reporting, and monitoring of the funds for this service. That's not the issue. It's not about profit or loss, or amount of the fee. It's the service standard. It's a one-page law, a very rare, private member's bill that went the whole nine yards.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Does it make sense to have the meat of the ETAs in regulation rather than in legislation?
