Evidence of meeting #50 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was using.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chris Gregory  Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Brenna MacNeil  Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Bruce Grundison  Executive Director, Strategic Projects Office, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Richard Kurland  Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

9:35 a.m.

Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Brenna MacNeil

Certainly through the implementation of programs like eTA and express entry, we have consulted our counterparts around the globe who have implemented very similar systems. For eTA, for example, the U.S. has a very similar system, as I've mentioned, so there have been consultations there.

Australia has a very similar system for low-risk travellers, and there has been extensive consultation with Australia, which uses automation quite extensively throughout their temporary resident lines of business as well as moving into their permanent resident lines of business. They also have a comparable program to express entry. In developing the legislation, we also looked at legislative examples that exist internationally, so that does include Australia. It also includes New Zealand, which uses automated processes on specific visa extensions. They've started in this world as well, using automated processes, and in fact, have committed publicly to making further applications.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I'm sorry, Mr. Aspin, your time has expired.

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you now have a chance to ask your questions that we cut you off on before.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick.

I think I demonstrated that it's not true that biometric screening will definitely facilitate travel for genuine travellers, since it's already making things much more complicated for legitimate travellers.

First of all, I'd like to know this. Are you aware of parts of the world where citizens are required to submit to biometric screening when coming to Canada but do not have nearby visa application centres?

9:40 a.m.

Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Chris Gregory

Thank you.

As I said earlier, we now have over 185 visa application centres. It's a good rollout and it's certainly consistent with countries like the U.K. It's a lot of locations in over 94 countries. We're not in every country in the world and we're not in every city in every country, so in reference to the story from earlier I am sympathetic to that particular case.

As we roll out, we will be working hard with our international region to make sure that the visa application centre coverage is as broad as it possibly can be within reason. Also, as we roll out we will only be requiring a biometric enrolment from clients once every 10 years. The story that we heard earlier would be something that would only happen once a decade. If those particular travellers wanted to come back and visit in a couple of years, that same trip before the trip would not be required.

We also currently have age exemptions—below 14 and above 79—but I guess the particular travellers we heard about a little bit earlier aren't quite at that age yet. As we roll out with an expansion, we hope to improve what I think is pretty good global coverage already of the 185 locations globally, plus another 135 locations in the United States, because we do share that concern.

There are some countries that currently require biometrics where there is no visa application centre in that country.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Which countries, please?

9:40 a.m.

Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Chris Gregory

Syria and Iraq do not have visa application centres, simply because it is too dangerous for us to staff those centres.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Are there other countries than those two that you have just named?

9:40 a.m.

Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Chris Gregory

Yes, there are.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Can you name them?

9:40 a.m.

Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Chris Gregory

There's Syria and Iraq. South Sudan might be one. There are a few where the country's condition is currently not such that we would feel comfortable sending a Government of Canada employee there to verify that all of the provisions are in place. That's unfortunate, but those conditions are monitored on a regular basis. We have monthly meetings, in-house, to talk about our network and the locations.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Sorry for interrupting.

But I realize that there are countries where the safety of our officers can't be guaranteed. By the same token, you need to understand that it's not any safer for citizens of those countries to travel in order to provide their biometric information. That's another consideration we need to look at. If it isn't safe for our people, it isn't safe for the people who live in those countries to cross borders in order to provide biometric information just to apply for a visa.

Have you looked at other options for collecting people's biometric information? For instance, would it be possible to request biometrics only from those whose applications had been approved as opposed to all applicants? If, after initial processing, the person's application seemed acceptable, at that point, we could require the person to travel in order to provide their biometric information. That would save applicants from having to travel and incur costs if their application was incomplete or rejected for reasons not related to security or identity.

Would that be feasible? Have you considered that?

9:40 a.m.

Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Chris Gregory

It's not something that we're pursuing at this time, but we've looked at all the models that we were able to examine in the world. It is valuable getting the biometric at the application stage to confirm that identity for future visits and then to allow future visits to happen within a 10-year period without the re-enrolment. But at this stage we are not moving forward with a system that would take biometrics from certain people but not other people within the same country.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

I'm talking about people whose application is approved. We don't need biometric information from people whose application is denied for health reasons or out of fear that they won't return to their home country.

A number of criteria can be used to prevent a person from entering Canada as a visitor. I don't mean picking and choosing those we request biometric data from. All I am saying is that we should look at another option that you haven't considered—and I'm not pointing the finger at you—in other words, requiring biometric information only in cases where, after initial processing, the individual's application seems to meet the requirements for a visitor visa.

I'm not asking what you think of the idea. You said you weren't looking at that option and had chosen another approach. I am simply saying that it may be possible to ensure public safety and border security without necessarily imposing the biometric requirement on individuals who won't be granted permission to enter Canada as visitors regardless.

I have another question related to privacy.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I've given you a lot of time. I think we'll have to end there. Thank you very much. We're over, even though we started late.

I want to thank the three of you, Mr. Grundison, Ms. MacNeil, and Mr. Gregory, for coming in and helping us better understand these proposed amendments.

Thank you very much. We will suspend. You are excused, of course.

9:49 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We will reconvene.

We're discussing the proposed amendments of Bill C-59. We have one witness, the very popular Mr. Kurland. We've made him well travelled over the years, it seems.

I thank you, sir, for coming in and giving us your thoughts. We had originally scheduled three witnesses, but it's just you. Unless the committee objects, I'm going to shorten the last hour somewhat, by perhaps half an hour. My colleagues may want to talk to you longer, but that's what I'm proposing.

Sir, as usual, if you could give us some of your thoughts on these proposals, we would appreciate it.

9:50 a.m.

Richard Kurland Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

It's an honour and a privilege to be here today.

There are two provisions of the proposed law that will have dramatic positive impact upon the Canadian immigration system for the applicants. The second area that I'll discuss is rather technically dry, and for the sake of time I'll read in proposed wording amendments to perhaps tighten the intent. The third aspect may be slightly controversial. The committee should be aware of the breadth of power offered to the RCMP by the current wording of the provision.

In terms of applications from within Canada, finally foreign nationals with temporary resident status may apply for a visa during their stay in Canada. This is a paradigm shift. Until now, foreign nationals were locked into Canada and could not apply while physically present on Canadian soil to adjust temporary immigration status, and that caused genuine hardship for individuals as they would have to leave Canada.

It was also a well-known visa office dodge. They would say, we may grant you a work permit, we may grant you a student permit, but show up in our office—often in the United States. The person would find the door locked behind them as they left Canada. Those days are now gone with this proposed law.

Second, it may seem technical, but I can assure you from the viewpoint of immigration practitioners that the dramatic change to allow for electronic documentation and electronic signatures brings, perhaps screaming and kicking, the immigration department into today's information technology world. The struggle of being required to provide original signatures on immigration documents is legendary in the immigration practitioner community. Again, that ship has sailed into the mists of history.

Allowing electronic signatures and electronic production of documents will dramatically improve efficiency in the administration of Canada's immigration program. It reduces the costs for applicants seeking temporary or permanent status. It enhances the efficiency of information retention and use within the immigration department. It's a money saver.

Now here are the dry and somewhat technical aspects.

The wording of proposed subsection 186.1(1) is:

The Minister may administer this Act using electronic means, including as it relates to its enforcement.

No. It's too narrow. Instead it perhaps ought to read, “The Minister may administer this Act using information technology, including as it relates to its enforcement.”

Swap out “electronic means” and put in “information technology”; that will be in keeping with proposed subsection 186.3(1).

The next one is shorter. Where subclause 169(1) says, “Subsection 11(1.01) of the Act is replaced by the following”, under the rubric “electronic travel authorization”, in proposed subsection 11(1.01), replace the words “Despite subsection (1)” with “Notwithstanding subsection (1)”. “Notwithstanding” is not an evil word, even if it has charter connotations. The word “despite” simply needs review.

Finally, after “Paragraph 32(d.5) of the Act is replaced by the following”, in clause 172, I will simply read in the proposed modification, “(d.5) the requirement for an employer to provide to a prescribed person the prescribed information in relation to a foreign national’s authorization to work in Canada for the employer”.

That's the housework. Here's the important segment.

Clause 174 reads, “Paragraph 150.1(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following”. This is serious stuff. It says:

(d) the retention, use, disclosure and disposal by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of biometric information and any related personal information that is collected under this Act and provided to it for the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province;

I need to point out the strategic importance and impact of these words.

First, today we're looking at a snapshot in time. Today we're discussing the collection of biometric information from individuals seeking temporary status in Canada from a relatively small number of countries. A witness suggested that this category may absorb 20% of the volume of visas today. That's not an insignificant number, considering that we're issuing more than a million.

Where is Canada headed with the border vision package? Five years down the road, seven years down the road, passports will begin to be a thing of the past. We are opening our strategic doors to biometric information collection in order to access Canadian soil, and not just from foreign nationals, not just from permanent residents. Without a Canadian passport in hard copy, biometric information collection is Canada's strategic vision—correctly. We use it now as part of the entry system to the United States—airport scan, retinal scan.

What this provision does, perhaps with unintended consequences, is hand over the keys to Canada's immigration database system to the RCMP. What can they do? They can not just use and retain, but disclose and destroy. I'm concerned about the disclosure aspect.

I have recommendations. I realize the clock is on and I realize our time is short. The disclosure aspect is pertinent, because the RCMP has a matrix of information-sharing agreements with foreign and domestic intelligence agencies as well as with regular law enforcement of other countries. I will just read into the record, in the event that we may have another agenda here, version B—

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Excuse me.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

I just want to clarify that we won't have any votes. It's just because the House of Commons is sitting now—

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Yes, the bells are just.... The House is starting, so we have lots of time for Mr. Kurland.

9:55 a.m.

Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

Richard Kurland

Okay, thank you. My heart was racing.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

No, we don't want that to happen. Proceed, sir.

9:55 a.m.

Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

Richard Kurland

Thank you, sir.

I'm not clear, based on the English and French versions of the proposed change, whether the intent is to hand over to the RCMP the biometric information as well as the related personal information taken at the time of collection or whether there is a division. Is it biometric information and any related information that's in the system, past, present, and future? I don't know. The way it's stated, biometrics can be collected and then at some point in time related personal information is on the table.

The committee members I'm sure well know that family composition forms are part of the immigration process. Their equivalent for temporary status is also part of the visa process. That means that your family tree and all the personal information in immigration databases can go out the door to the RCMP and travel to points abroad.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Kurland, you know that I always bend the rules when you come, but we're already two minutes over for your presentation.

10 a.m.

Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual

Richard Kurland

Oh my, thank you, sir.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Do you have any concluding remarks?