Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

The negative concern is probably for my colleague beside me here, because most of the people I spoke with have concerns with regard to the information that's being shared, but in terms of practicality, on a day-to-day basis, yes. As I mentioned prior to this, right now, I think it's about what our members need to have to do a better job. The level of analysis that their job will require is going to be way more precise, in order for them to spend more time on the people who need their attention than on the others.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

What about with regard to the business side?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

With regard to the business side, we haven't heard any major concerns—not at my level.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

You indicated in your presentation, sir, that you already have some resourcing challenges with respect to what you're doing now in terms of the functions and responsibilities you have now. How do you foresee the inspection of goods leaving our country being conducted by CBSA officials? What logistics have to be adjusted or put in place to make that happen?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

Again, the thing is that if we're not getting the proper level of resources.... It's that balance between the facilitation of the public versus the national security that could be compromised. Again, I think everybody around this table understands the level of importance of what the officers are doing to maintain the integrity of our borders and the security of Canadians.

What we've been saying since 2016, and as a result of the DRAP initiative, is that there are a lot of people who have not been replaced. The way the government had proceeded was that people who were leaving were not automatically being replaced, to the point that, right now, we're flying in people. Because of what happened last summer with the asylum seekers, officers were on travel status from across the country, from B.C. and from the Prairies. We're saying that the core amount of officers is too low right now to have more duties.

I've been pointing out things like the exports. We don't pay that much attention right now, but if the intent of Bill C-21 is for our officers to spend more time and actually search travellers or even companies that are leaving the country to make sure that the goods in their possession are okay, that's a concern that I have. Even though the minister actually highlighted the fact that this is mostly electronic, I disagree with that. It will be more work for our officers, and the level of officers right now is way too low in Canada.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

My next question is for both of you. Unlike many witnesses who come before committees, neither one of you, really, is answerable to a government department. You're not bureaucrats, necessarily. I'm going to ask you this because I asked the last witnesses and got a very measured response. I'm expecting something different today.

We will be going through Bill C-21. Generally we all support this particular legislation, because we think it has some value for us as Canadians. We will be going through clause-by-clause relatively soon. This is your opportunity to tell us where you would make changes, which is really why you're here. Where should there be clarification? Where would you make adjustments to the language that's here now to help us do the responsibility of this committee well?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, that will have to be in less than 30 seconds.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Chair, if we can't get the answer completely, is it possible to get a summation of what that might be in writing?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

We certainly can, but very promptly what I can tell you is that our concern right now is more about the level of staffing and the workload that there will be for our officers. That's where I personally have a huge concern: it's for the officers out in the field. If we have more responsibilities, we need to have more officers. Again, the level of officers is way too low right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'll have to ask Mr. Therrien to work that response into another question.

Mr. Ayoub, welcome to the committee.

You have five minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here.

Indeed, this is the first time I have been on this committee.

National security and border security is a very interesting and topical subject. Privacy protection is also an important topic. We are faced with two important principles that we must reconcile.

Mr. Therrien, the first two phases of the entry/exit initiative were to exchange information with the United States. These phases began with foreign nationals, permanent residents of Canada, and lawful permanent residents of the United States. In the third and fourth phases, information sharing will be expanded to include all other travellers.

What is the motivation for this kind of approach? Do you think it's appropriate for reducing the risk of the invasion of privacy of Canadians?

[Daniel Therrien]

The bill allows for the collection and sharing of information for different purposes. In particular, information about Canadians may be used for national security purposes. For example, it is conceivable that radicalized Canadian citizens would want to leave Canada to carry out terrorist activities abroad. I would put that in a category where the public or national interest of Canada is at stake. In that case, the public interest justifies the gathering of information about citizens.

Where the bill crosses a certain boundary is when it permits the collection of information about Canadians for the purpose of the integrity of social programs. Preventing fraud related to these programs is a public policy goal that is important, but may not be at the same level as the goal of national security.

Should Canada collect information on the exits of its citizens to ensure the integrity of its social programs? We have examined this question carefully. The issue is more for social programs than for matters of national security and law enforcement by police. Given the limited amount of information collected and the sensitivity of the information collected, we believe that, even for the purpose of the integrity of social programs, the collection and sharing of information is justified with respect to privacy protection. However, it is less clear in these cases than when national security is at stake.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

The entry/exit initiative has four phases. Now that phases one and two are being implemented, the next steps are to collect information on all Canadians, rather than a limited number of people, including permanent residents. Does this approach better protect the privacy of Canadians?

[Daniel Therrien]

The primary objectives of the government and the departments were national security and border security. They started by targeting those, which is understandable. Gathering information about Canadian citizens for the purpose of social program integrity is a different story. That is understandable, but it's more difficult than collecting information about Canadians for national security purposes.

As I said earlier, a few decades ago, the government did not collect information on the exit of its citizens to ensure the integrity of social programs. In any event, for the reasons I've explained, such purposes seem justified to me.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

As far as the task is concerned, Mr. Fortin said that a staff shortage is ongoing. Does seeking more information for the purposes of social services or the Canada Revenue Agency add to the burden?

[Daniel Therrien]

Officials will certainly have to do additional analysis. The question will be whether this additional work will achieve important public interest objectives. It is up to the hon. members to decide on these issues.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie, you have the final question.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panellists for being here.

Mr. Fortin, you and I go back a long way. I have a great deal of respect for the people who do the job your members do.

Being one of those people who have certain addictions—my wife thinks it's an illness that I collect cars, collector cars—I note that one of the things in here is the export of vehicles, particularly in terms of making sure there are no liens and they're not stolen and so on. I would expect that this would not be an additional workload. You're already doing that.

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

We are, but until we get to see the refined details of Bill C-21, I'm not in a position to make more comments.

As I mentioned, I do have concerns about the level of work that it will require. I keep thinking that if we need to actually check not only cars, but everything that may leave Canada, particularly certain goods—drugs could be one of them—we want to make sure that we have enough people to do those inspections. Right now, we don't.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

When I look at the mechanics of crossing the border both ways, which I do frequently, I've never been stopped and asked by Canadian authorities questions about issues such as how much money I am carrying, what is the intent.... It's always at the other side where I'm asked the questions. I see most of this on entering, when I'm coming back into Canada. Do you see that this will now impose more responsibilities on the average person leaving the country?

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

The answer, we suspect, is yes. It will be more work for our officers to pay attention to export merchandise.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But for individuals...? As people leave the country—

[Jean-Pierre Fortin]

Probably.