Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Good morning, everyone.

I will bring to order the 77th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We have for the first hour two witnesses. We have the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, represented by Mr. Daniel Therrien—I'll leave you to introduce your colleagues—and the Customs and Immigration Union, with Jean-Pierre Fortin.

Welcome to all of you. You've been instructed on the timelines. I'll let you proceed in the manner that you see as being most expeditious.

Thank you again.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am accompanied by Lara Ives, acting director general, audit and review, and by Rebecca Shepherd, legal counsel.

First, thank you for the invitation to talk to you about Bill C-21 and the entry-exit initiative.

The Beyond the Border action plan committed both Canada and the U.S. to the establishment of coordinated entry and exit systems for all travellers crossing the land border, and for Canada to establish an exit system similar to the U.S. in the air mode.

My office has held constructive and ongoing consultations with the Canada Border Services Agency, Public Safety Canada, and other various federal departments implicated in the various phases of the entry-exit initiative.

Since 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency has been collecting biographical data and travel history on non-Canadians and permanent residents principally for the purpose of immigration enforcement and border integrity.

The purpose of the bill before you is to provide lawful authority for the collection of exit information on Canadian citizens as they leave Canada, which will allow the final phases of this initiative to be realized.

The government has indicated that, at full implementation, the entry-exit data will help Canadian officials to better manage our border, combat cross-border crime, including child abductions and human trafficking, respond to national security threats, ensure the integrity of our immigration system, and reduce fraud and abuse of certain federal programs with residency requirements, such as employment insurance or old-age security benefits.

Collection of information in the land mode between Canada and the United States at a customs office is based on an automatic exchange between both countries. The record of entry into one country is considered a record of exit from the other.

In the air mode, Canada will establish a system similar to the U.S., under which airlines will be required to submit passenger manifest information to the Canada Border Services Agency for all outbound international flights.

As provided under the bill, exit information will include, first, the surname and first name, the date of birth, the citizenship or nationality, and the sex of the person. Second, the information will include the type of travel document that identifies the person, the name of the country or organization that issued the travel document and the travel document number. Finally, the information will include the date, time and place of the person's departure from Canada and, if the person arrives in the United States, the date, time and place of their arrival.

Throughout the earlier phases of this initiative, my office has consistently called on the federal government to be transparent about how it uses personal information collected from travellers and to ensure that the collection and use of this information is justified from a privacy perspective. Based on our discussions with the institutions involved and the information provided to us so far, I am generally convinced that there are important public policy objectives that this initiative is trying to address and that the personal information in question is not particularly sensitive.

That being said, there is a vast range of retention schedules being proposed across the various institutions that intend to use the information. In some cases, the information will be purged immediately where it does not meet a certain threshold. I understand this to be the case with employment insurance, for example. The biographical exit data will be shared with Employment and Social Development Canada, but will be purged immediately in instances where there is no match. However, in other cases the data could be subject to very lengthy retention periods—over 100 years, in some cases—depending on the institution receiving the information and what they are using it for. It has not always been clear to us what the rationales are behind these varying retention periods.

While we accept that collection and sharing is necessary to achieve specific public interest objectives, once these objectives are achieved, the information, in our view, should be destroyed. For that reason, I intend to carefully review retention schedules, and will request that clear justifications be provided by departments.

I am keenly aware that this type of initiative presents challenges for individuals to fully understand who has their personal information, for how long, and for what purpose. So I urge the Government of Canada to remain open and transparent, to limit the use of this information to that which is necessary, and to ensure that information-sharing agreements are in place, that privacy impact assessments, or PIAs, are conducted, and that retention periods are minimized to the extent possible.

All institutions, I'm happy to say, have committed to providing my office with privacy impact assessments 120 days in advance of implementation. We look forward to seeing more complete details of program-specific uses of the data, the safeguards, and the rationales for retention periods proposed. I also ask that we be consulted on the privacy safeguards to be included in information-sharing agreements at the earliest possible opportunity.

In conclusion, since 2013, 20 million exit records have been generated and exchanges between the U.S. and Canada now take place in “near real time”. The underlying purposes for this exchanges are reasonable, in my view, but means to ensure that information collection, sharing, and retention are privacy sensitive is very important. That is why we would expect to be consulted on a timely basis regarding the PIAs and information-sharing agreements.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

[Jean-Pierre Fortin, National President, Customs and Immigration Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as your committee reviews Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

My name is Jean-Pierre Fortin. I am the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union.

Our union represents Canada's front-line customs and immigration officers, investigations, intelligence, and trade customs officers and hearing officers, as well as support staff who work at the Canada Border Services Agency.

CIU has a long history of involvement in border security and immigration enforcement issues on behalf of its members. We seek to offer our members' operational insights to identify areas of concern and, where possible, to offer what we believe to be informed improvements.

Over the past decade and more, CIU has offered these concerns and suggestions to CBSA management and government ministers, and in appearances before both House and Senate committees. It is in that context that CIU is pleased to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with respect to Bill C-21.

As committee members are aware, Bill C-21 is the legislation that will complete the implementation of the Canada-U.S. entry/exit initiative, which was itself part of the original 2011 Beyond the Border agreement and action plan.

At the outset, it should be noted that as the national union representing front-line operational law enforcement officers, we recognize that legislative and policy changes can have an impact on our members and the public we serve. We focus on what the operational impacts will be and whether we can actually deliver what is now being authorized. We also examine proposed policy changes and consider if they support and enhance our dual mandate, which on the one hand covers security, and on the other hand trade and travel facilitation.

Also of interest to us is the clarity provided in the legislation with regard to any new enforcement authority. Our members appreciate that they are enforcing public regulation of defined activities to support the public interest. In our experience, clarity supports public confidence.

Let me turn now to some specific issues that merit examination.

As you know, Bill C-21 will create new sections in part V of the Customs Act that will expressly authorize CBSA officers to gather biographical information from all persons who are leaving Canada, including Canadians. Proposed section 94 will create a legal obligation on persons leaving Canada, in whatever fashion, to present themselves to an officer when requested to do so and to answer truthfully all relevant questions, in accordance with the officer's duties.

The actual details on how that information is collected or provided to the agency is not specific in Bill C-21. Instead, this is to be prescribed by regulation. It is unclear to us why the government has chosen this approach. It appears to mean that these potentially important details will not be subject to the same parliamentary review as Bill C-21. The committee may wish to clarify why this approach has been taken.

Proposed paragraph 92(1)(c) also appears to confine the collection of departing passengers' arrival information to the United States. The committee may wish to confirm this with the new minister and verify if the new paragraph will result in a prohibition on gathering and retaining departing passengers' arrival information to other countries, as this is an issue of enhanced importance in today's security environment.

The committee should also try to determine how—or if—CBSA intends to use the proposed section 94 authority with regard to persons departing Canada at land border crossings. Presumably, the goal is not to create lineups for people leaving Canada. Lineups already exist for those entering or returning to Canada, primarily because of continuing personnel shortages, which is another critical issue for this committee to consider.

We would urge the committee to explore the issue of how CBSA will use the information it gathers and receives under the entry/exit program. As you may recall, a previous report from the Auditor General identified approximately 44,000 outstanding arrest warrants under IRPA for persons who have failed to appear as required. Will this information now be used, as we suggest it should, to identify those persons as having left Canada so the agency does not waste scarce resources looking for people who have already left our country?

Additionally, will this information be used to create a more accurate lookout database for persons who are inadmissible to Canada in the future, especially on past criminality- and security-related grounds? We urge the committee to raise this with CBSA.

The committee should also ask CBSA for details regarding its liaison arrangements with domestic and U.S. law enforcement to ensure that the potentially important intelligence that can be gathered by the entry/exit initiative enacted in Bill C-21 is shared, as authorized under Canadian legislation, including the Privacy Act, to achieve public safety improvements. It is our understanding that the government has committed to requiring privacy impact assessments for all involved departments and agencies, the status of which the committee may wish to confirm.

Another general area of importance in Bill C-21 is what appears to be an expansion of CBSA's authority to examine goods intended for export. Deficiencies in this operational area have also been noted by the Auditor General, and CIU fully supports this enforcement mandate clarification. The committee may wish to query CBSA with respect to what operational changes it foresees undertaking as a result, and how, specifically, these will impact the deficiencies reported by the Auditor General of Canada.

The committee should also be aware of the underlying cause of these and other operational gaps at CBSA, as the issue requires immediate attention. As a result of the 2011 deficit reduction action plan, DRAP, there has been a loss of over 1,200 positions at CBSA, including those of screening, enforcement, and intelligence officers. These cuts have led to reduced operational capacity, which has resulted in the closing of ports of entry and reduced hours of operation, as well as increased pressure on officers to process more cases. An example of this is taking place in Quebec and Manitoba, where our members are being forced to screen faster the people who are illegally entering Canada between ports of entry, to avoid backlogs.

We are concerned that while Bill C-21 creates appropriate new screening and enforcement tools, the intended result cannot be effectively achieved without restoring the 1,200 positions cut under DRAP. We urge the committee to raise this issue of operational personnel shortages with both CBSA management and the minister.

In conclusion, it is my hope that this presentation will assist the committee in its important work, especially regarding the restoration of the necessary personnel who perform their duties on behalf of Canadians and whom I am proud to represent.

Thank you. I am looking forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We now move to questions.

Mr. Picard, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is always a pleasure to have you here because you provide us with insight that is very interesting and, above all, very useful.

As I understand it, this is a bill that reflects our developing relationship with the United States, especially in terms of the work we do with them.

Let me start with Mr. Therrien.

One of the fears Canadians have is about the exchange of information obtained at customs. You specifically talked about federal legislation and programs like old-age security and employment insurance. As you understand it, what are the limits on this information exchange, especially with regard to the provinces? How are you placed to assess the guarantee we are looking for, that is, to limit the exchange of information and prevent information being exchanged all over the place?

[Daniel Therrien]

The purposes for which information is gathered and can be exchanged with other departments or with the provinces are being developed.

In my opening statement, I said that those purposes seem justifiable to me. I was actually talking about the purposes that had been established previously, which, as far as I know, do not yet include an exchange with the provinces, although that may be possible in the future. What I have before me at the moment does not include an exchange with the provinces. Bill C-21 basically includes the purposes I listed: the border, immigration, national security, law enforcement, and some federal social programs.

I am aware that these purposes could evolve. It is important for the government to consult us if and when the purposes become more extensive.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

As I understand it, the information to be exchanged corresponds to the information on page 2 of one's passport, together with details of the travel logistics. Is that enough information, as you see it? Could more information be sought without in any way compromising the privacy that you are concerned with? If not, will the information be extensive enough to allow us to do the work we want to focus on?

[Daniel Therrien]

When we assess the information items, we do so in order to determine whether the proposals can be justified in terms of privacy. Frankly, we do not really ask ourselves if more information could be exchanged. We have before us a proposal from the government that, relatively speaking, limits the number of items of information to be gathered and exchanged. Our role is to ask whether that goes too far, or whether gathering that information is justified. We did not ask ourselves the question you suggest.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Okay.

At the moment, at our present stage, is it reasonable to say that the information that has been submitted to you satisfies you in terms of its quality and quantity? Given your concerns about protecting privacy, does this information seem completely justified to you at the moment?

[Daniel Therrien]

Yes. The information seems to us to be necessary and proportional in terms of protecting privacy.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortin, I have a somewhat peculiar question for you, coming out of left field. How do you define your role in border security?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

We are the country's first line of defence at our points of entry.

One of the elements that Bill C-21 seems to want to add is a role for exits. It makes our role more specific, gives us more powers of intervention, on goods leaving the country. That role is a little fuzzy at the moment.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Fair enough, let's talk about your activities involving the security of Canada with exits. Do you have any examples of cases or matters where customs agents are already acting in a security role, both with travellers and commercial goods?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

The best example I can give you, Mr. Picard, is about stolen cars. At the moment, we are playing an essential role in the various ports in terms of exports. I must emphasize that the people I represent do excellent work, because they produce a huge amount of results. I actually confirmed that information yesterday with people from the Port of Montreal. This is an export matter where we are very effective at the moment.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

How would you qualify your exchanges with the Americans about the quality of the information and the speed with which it is exchanged? What is the quality of the relationship between the men and women in the trenches and their American counterparts?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

The exchanges are good. Generally, according to the information that I get from customs officers, American authorities usually collaborate well. I myself have worked in a customs examination office with the Americans. They usually collaborate well with our officers.

One thing is for sure. Bill C-21 can greatly improve the quality of the information that we will be able to obtain. You once worked for the Canada Border Services Agency and you know that we have a lot of difficulty establishing any kind of analysis and profile of people leaving the country. This is going to help our officers a great deal and make their job easier.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

How do customs officers handle AMBER alerts these days?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

We are immediately informed when something like that happens. Once again, both on the American side and the Canadian side, we handle it with quite remarkable efficiency. It is one of our priorities. When an AMBER alert is issued, the information is circulated very quickly, to American police forces and elsewhere. An alert is issued immediately.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Has the training at Rigaud been tailored to this new reality?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

It could be a little better defined. A good part of the training at Rigaud has been adapted. The program was just revised only a few years ago. However, we could spend a little more time on it, absolutely.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Is it reasonable to think that Bill C-21 will improve our performance in protecting our citizens and our trade, precisely because we will be able to keep a better eye on what is going across the borders?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

I would say so.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard and Mr. Fortin.

Now it's Mr. Paul-Hus' turn.