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.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
That’s a tough one.
The principles are there. The principles are right. What we can do moving forward is take the benefit of expert witness testimony and move it forward at the regulatory phase. Maybe some meat is here, but I suspect the freezer is full when we come to the regulatory process.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
The regulations can be changed at whim. This is a cooperation agreement between the President and the Prime Minister. We want to make sure that the two countries are happy with the security of our perimeter moving forward. If the parameters we're setting are set in regulation and the minister changes and then on a whim decides to change the regulations, how comfortable do you think both countries would be in the perimeter security?
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, no person is safe when Parliament's in session, of course. What Professor Gilbert pointed out is that the key in this is what questions are going to be asked. What information is going to be stored? Would it be mental health issues? That's something that would be prescribed by regulation, that type of form, and that's where the problem is. The only thing at this level is the User Fees Act fiasco.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Professor Gilbert, you touched on the same issues that the Privacy Commissioner outlined as well with the very personal nature of some of the questions, for example, mental health disorders.
If I suffered from depression sometime in my life, now I need to disclose that to a foreign government of a country I would like to visit. What impact would my bout with depression have? Depression is classified as a mental disorder. We were looking at questions on the U.S. application, and it says “ever” in the past. If Canada is trying to harmonize with the U.S. and we ask the same type of questions, how would that impact on somebody's ability to visit family here in Canada?
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It could have a huge impact. It may have an impact depending on how you answer it. The question is framed on the ESTA on whether you might pose a threat. If you say no, but you have a history of depression, that may be used in terms of inadmissibility in the future because you seemed to be fraudulent on your application even though there is no harm. It could have all kinds of layers, both in the first visit and return visits. I think we have to be very careful about those kinds of questions. I think there would be big implications around them.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
The last point is about the need for cost savings all the time for building efficiencies. The Auditor General's reports time and time again since 2008 or 2007 have been calling for harmonization and integration of resources, training, and solidifying the agency's ability to enforce the existing legislation. That's harmonizing and integrating CBSA and CIC services. Would that help with cost savings?
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
There may be some cost savings brought about by more interoperability around those kinds of things, but I think we have to be careful about what is also lost by those forms of deeper integration. We have to be very clear that it's not just about cost; it's not the only bottom line, but also we have to look at other questions raised here about privacy issues and so on in those kinds of agreements as well.
Conservative
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Chair, I'll give my spot to Mr. Dykstra to follow up with his question.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thanks.
Ms. Gilbert, I think we were coming to the same conclusion in a way, that it is critical and important to understand what questions are going to be asked, based on what the purpose of the ETA will be over the next number of years. I and I think everyone would acknowledge that.
As a ministry official, Mr. Linklater made it painfully obvious to all of us that not only had the ministry met previously at great length with the Privacy Commissioner, but as we move forward in this process, they are going to continue to meet with her and her office. The process upon which we will come to our regulations will be in close consultation with her and with her office. I know that doesn't necessarily change your opinion.
I don't know whether you had a chance to see the committee hearings yesterday, but the ministry has gone to great lengths, not only to meet with the Privacy Commissioner, but in terms of detailed research and understanding how this program would work, to meet with officials in the United States as well as Australia.
You mentioned statistics, and I think it's important to relay a couple of them. There have been questions regarding what's going to happen to tourism and how tourism is going to be impacted. Are fewer people going to come to a particular country because an additional piece of, and yes, we'll call it security, has been implemented? What is the impact on tourism?
The World Travel and Tourism Council did an impact assessment of the visa facilitation on job creation, and also with the ETAs. It's fascinating, and perhaps you'd like to comment on it. Obviously, I'm not expecting you to have read this, but there are some really good statistics here:
The ETA program was rolled out to qualifying origin markets over several years beginning in 1996. 21 source markets for which data were available were examined and outcomes were observed over the three year period after ETA was rolled out for each origin market. Actual arrivals averaged growth of 7.9% per year...over the respective three year period following the roll out of ETA for each country....
From an overall perspective, we do have Australia, for example, post its implementation in 1996, which experienced an increase between 8.9% and 9.8% in tourism. There is some proof there may actually be a connection, at least according to the World Trade Council, between a foreigner's visit to a particular country and that foreigner or tourist having a clear understanding that because of the ETA program the country actually may be safer to visit, and therefore, it moves up on their list as their first or second choice for destination sites.
I'd like to get all three of your comments on that, in terms of the overall potential of how that further feeling of security may enhance someone choosing our country as a destination.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm happy to start.
That's an interesting figure, but I'd like to unpack it a bit.
I can't remember what year Australia had the Olympics, but that would also have been conducive to a rise in tourism. There are other things that also impact on increases. It's good that their travel authorization would maybe not impede those kinds of growth, but I think we have to be careful. I think we would also want to see if the increases were across the board, from all countries, as they had been previously, or if some people from some places no longer had similar kinds of access.
Tourism is one piece of the puzzle, but everyone keeps coming back to the question of security. What is our real interest here? Is it trying to ensure security, or are we talking about tourism now and the consequences there?
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
If you look at the data from travel and its variations, there are only two things that cause people to go or not to go to a place. It's money and time.
An electronic system is timeless. There will be a fee involved. Will that impact? The experience says, yes, it's going to impact, but will it be a significant impact? Probably not.
Senior Communications Advisor, Center for a Secure Free Society
I would agree with your premise, MP Dykstra. It could increase tourism in Canada. As we saw in the example of Australia, when they implemented their program, which was similar, tourism did increase. I think that with tourism, perception is everything.
Professor Gilbert mentioned that this ETA had nothing to do with the Toronto 18. Maybe it didn't technically, but with tourism, perception is everything. If people in the United States are worried they're going to get blown up in Canada because of what's going on there, they're not going to want to go. If Canada is taking visible steps to have an ETA to increase their security, to make sure they know who's coming to their country, who's leaving, when they're there, that perception is going to make a big difference. They'll say that Canada has taken steps to address a problem, so it's a good place to go and they're not worried about it.
To the extent that you've mentioned how Australia actually benefited from the ETA, I think Canada could see the same type of benefit.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I know it's interesting from my perspective. I agree, Ms. Gilbert, that in every decision that is made and in every result, a varying degree of factors have to be taken into account. You wouldn't have to be a mathematician to figure that out. One of the concluding remarks of the council was that these results show that the ESTA program did not have a negative impact on tourist arrivals from visa waiver countries, despite the perception of a more restrictive policy.
I think about that in a very pragmatic way, as I'm sure many of us do around this table. When I decide to get on a plane to visit a destination, time and money are two of the priorities I think about, Mr. Kurland. Another is that there are countries in this world that I have not travelled to and will not travel to because I'm concerned about my and my family's safety. I'm sure all of us make those same determinations. I would like to think we put ourselves in a stronger position as a country when we tell those who are visiting here that we are very concerned about Canadians' safety, but we're also concerned about their safety when they are here.
What we're trying to accomplish here isn't just a vision or a decision based on adding a line of bureaucratic detail. It's a very pragmatic and practical way of inviting people to our country, saying they are welcome to come here. On the other hand, if folks are going to visit this country, there's a very minimal amount of research or filling out a document.
Heck, every time I travel anywhere else in the world, I need to fill out a form as I sit on the plane coming back to Canada. When you look at that, especially from the United States, I find those questions to be extremely detailed and personal. Did I buy any cheese? I wonder whose business that is as I'm responding to this. I fill out the questionnaire and I hand it in. It goes to the CBSA official. I don't know what happens to that document. I don't know how long it sits there, five years, four years, three years, or two months. I think I have a sense of security when I fill that out. I understand no one is bringing anything into the country that could harm me or the country.
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
I apologize, Mr. Chair, but I must add that I would feel safer in that plane knowing the occupants had been pre-screened.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
We will move on.
A couple of the areas of concern brought forward, and Ms. Gilbert highlighted them, are the four recommendations made by our Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. The first recommendation is that a PIA of the ETA program be conducted well in advance of implementation. Our officials acknowledged yesterday that would definitely happen. They said it on more than one occasion. The second recommendation is, “as public transparency is a critical principle for such a broad-based program, we recommend that specific data elements, uses and retention periods for the program be codified in statute.”
As we discussed yesterday with ministry officials, I understood that process would be ongoing. I don't know if that's going to satisfy every one of your concerns. You have highlighted them as questions that we definitely should pay attention to from a regulatory perspective. I wonder if there are perhaps one, two, or three that you would highlight for us that you think we need to pay attention to on the regulatory side.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
You are asking me specifically?
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Sorry, not to put you on the spot, but you have highlighted areas of concern a couple of times. I wondered if a couple stood out for you. Ministry officials are obviously listening to these hearings as well. Their ability to understand what witnesses think should be included would be extremely helpful.
Associate Professor, Director, Canadian Studies Program, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Again, the extent of the information sharing with the U.S. is something that needs to be clarified. Also, the U.S. does not have a privacy commissioner comparable to ours and they are figuring out how those discussions are going to take place. If we have recommendations coming from Canada, how will those be addressed in a situation where the information is shared? I would like that to happen, as well as some more clarification around appeals and redress if there are mistakes around identification and so on.
It's true that we have heard a couple of people say that as we are Canadians our first responsibility is to Canadians. We also are responsible for protecting human rights that extend beyond Canadians to people who are coming into Canada who have been denied access to Canada, maybe for very good reasons. We need to be clear about why that has happened and then make it clear that if a mistake has happened, there is a mechanism for appeal or redress.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Professor Gilbert.
Ms. Sims and Ms. Freeman, go ahead.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I just want to follow the line of questioning that Mr. Dykstra started a few minutes ago and pick up on a comment made by my friend, Richard.
Richard, as you said, this particular piece of legislation is not a magic bullet to solve any fears of terrorism. First, as you know, we don't even really know what data is going to be collected. We presume name and birthdate will be the minimum.
The other big concern we have is that, as you said, that which we desire for ourselves we also want for others, especially when it comes to our liberty and freedoms, and privacy is one of those issues. I'm one of those people who travel a lot and don't have an access card because I don't want to share a lot of my data, not that I have anything to hide, but I don't know where else it is going to go.
For me, one of the major concerns we have around privacy issues is that first, we don't know what data is going to be asked for, so it's hard for us as parliamentarians to go one way or the other. The second one is ministry officials who were here were very informative and upfront with their responses. Every time we asked whom this data would be shared with, they said that it would be shared with nobody at this time. You know that whenever you hear “at this time”, it's going to go somewhere fairly quickly. That remains as a major concern because other people will ask why you can't share a name and a birthdate, but we don't know if that's the only information that's going to be selected.
I'm also hearing a lot of confusion about citizenship fraud and all of those things. This piece of legislation is not going to address citizenship fraud. None of us wants to see citizenship fraud. We all want to see that cleared up.
For me the question always goes back to what we are trying to achieve with this piece of legislation. If it is simply to have that biodata, birthdate and name, don't we already have that on the passports? A person cannot enter our country without a passport. If it's somebody entering without a passport, ETA isn't going to stop them. What is it we're trying to achieve here if everything we need is on a passport, can be read off a passport, can be stored and is stored?
Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual
We're doing a favour for our best friend in the world to the south. That's what's going on here. There's nothing wrong with that. We're harmonizing the layer of information exchange as a favour to the United States of America, and presumably, it's not a one-sided deal.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
That is the only reason you can see for doing this. It just boggles my mind.
The other bit that I really like, and I want to thank you too, Mr. Kurland, is for your appreciation of the workload in my office. I can tell you that about 95% of it already tends to be related to immigration, and you know where my riding is, in Newton—North Delta. I really want to thank you for that because whenever you have pieces of legislation that don't have things specified in the statutes, that are left over in the regulatory stage and to the whim of others for interpretation, we do get that confusion.
I am going to pass it back to Mylène.