Public Safety Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I wonder if you could help me out with this. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Why are we sharing this information with anyone else—other countries—if it's only aimed at people coming into Canada? This amendment is aimed at people coming into Canada, so if it's to protect the Canadian public, why are we even sharing any information that we get with other countries?

[Kristine Stolarik]

I'll defer to Sharon, because she basically is the expert on the API/PNR file.

[Sharon McKeen]

The reason we would share with another country would be to mitigate an international risk.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm sorry; I don't quite understand. Let's say that someone is leaving England, flying to Canada. When this bill passes—and this amendment, I'm assuming, is going to go through—you would get advance information, perhaps 96 hours in advance, about who is on that plane and the information that you've indicated here. They would come to Canada. The whole point is to protect the Canadian public.

So why would you share any information that you have for someone coming to Canada with anyone else? I mean, I don't know how that mitigates risk for other countries—citizens in other countries.

[Sharon McKeen]

The individuals who are coming to Canada are seeking entry onto Canadian soil. If they are already deemed to be a threat—they are terrorists, or maybe they are human smugglers, or they are involved in serious transnational crime—that's what we're talking about here; we're talking about mitigating terrorism and serious transnational crime.

In the case of serious transnational crime, you may reside in another country but you may pose a threat to us. It's in our best interest, from an international forum, that we share information in order to protect the airways, to protect the Canadian public, and to ensure that we are identifying a threat.

In the case of somebody coming from England, if we have the information early and we have analyzed that they're a threat, it's in our best interest to share information with the authorities—

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So you're collecting this information, and then you share it with other countries. This information is really CBSA's responsibility.

How do you ensure that other countries use this information—that you pass on to them—in a proper manner? How do you ensure that they use it as it's intended?

[Sharon McKeen]

Let me be clear: whenever we share with another country, we have an agreement or arrangement in place. The specifics in the sharing—the use, the retention, all of the privacy safeguards—are itemized in the agreement.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So it would be unlikely that someone would arrive in Canada, or just pass through Canada, for example; land in, let's say, New York; get taken off the plane; and be put into a Syrian prison for a year—that sort of thing?

I'm just trying to understand how others will use this information.

[Sharon McKeen]

Again, we don't share outside an arrangement or an agreement. The essential information and the privacy safeguards—access, collection, retention.... Use of that information is outlined in the arrangements.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So you can't guarantee that other countries are going to use it as intended, then. You have an agreement, but there's no real guarantee.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

You can't guarantee it—

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have a question for you, Mr. Champagne. I hate to see—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Mr. Rafferty. You have 20 seconds.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Oh. I'm sorry.

CBSA is losing lots of staff. This whole thing sounds quite labour-intensive. It may not be, but maybe you can explain that to me.

If you're losing staff, aside from front-line staff—other staff—how are you going to sort out the extra work that's required with this amendment? Or perhaps it's not extra work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Ms. Stolarik.

[Kristine Stolarik]

Basically, we have existing resources that will be doing this, and a lot of it will be automated as well. The computer systems will be doing a lot of this for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Rafferty's line of questioning with perhaps the opposite take on it. These questions might sound a little rhetorical, but I'll ask you to answer anyway.

Ms. McKeen, why wouldn't we share information with allies with whom we have long-standing agreements? Can you think of any reason why we would not do that?

[Sharon McKeen]

No.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I didn't think so.

[Sharon McKeen]

If it's in our best interest and to protect the Canadian public, absolutely, we have everything to gain.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If we have information earlier about somebody who is boarding an airplane in London's Heathrow to come to Canada, and we could prevent that person from boarding and potentially blowing up the airplane with Canadian citizens on board, doesn't that make sense?

[Sharon McKeen]

Absolutely.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, I think so.

What guarantee do our allies have, from whom we are getting information, that we are going to use it properly? What guarantee do they have?

[Sharon McKeen]

A written agreement—