Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2017

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In other words, based on what Bill C-21 suggests, the fact that my information is already in my passport, information that I give to every country I visit is pretty much basic information with not that much impact. Is that right?

[Esha Bhandari]

My understanding is that if the bill were to lead to more complete databases, by which I mean both the U.S. and Canadian governments would have a complete picture of a traveller's entries and exits over time, that could certainly paint a very detailed picture of a person's life. That information existing for a lengthy period of time can pose privacy risks, both because of the risk of the information getting out—being stolen—and because it could be shared with other government agencies for whatever purpose it may be.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Ms. Gallant, you have five minutes, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the witness, with the crossing of goods do you see the ability for data on Canada-U.S. exits to be cross-referenced in almost real time? For example, you could have a truck crossing the border at Thousand Islands, pulling in, dropping something off, and then doing a U-turn and coming back over. Will the border agents on the Canadian side know the answers to the questions that the trucker gave to the U.S. border agents going into the U.S.?

[Solomon Wong]

Through the chair, in terms of capabilities under Bill C-21, that particular scenario may be a little outside the scope of the bill. But the scenario you describe is a long-standing issue that has been documented about in-transit movements through the other country, so a Canada-to-Canada movement through the U.S., or a U.S.-to-U.S. movement through Canada.

In terms of what makes for a logistical flow, the ability to make that transit movement, which is basically a domestic movement through another country, as seamless as possible is important in making sure both CBP and CBSA have the right mechanisms to deal with that data.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Where, if at all, do you see any vulnerabilities in bringing goods across the border? Where might they go undetected or might there be things on a manifest that are not matching what is actually in the back of the truck?

[Solomon Wong]

On the question on the integrity of the borders, there are mechanisms to make sure that the trusted trader programs are properly supported, such as the free and secure trade program, as well as the U.S. customs trade partnership against terrorism, and the Canadian partners in protection program. The more those kinds of programs are supported and expanded, the better that scenario will be addressed. We're dealing with the ability for supply chain security all the way back to the factory, if it's a manufactured good, through to the destination, rather than just the transaction at the border. By then it's too late.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

In terms of pre-clearance and exit information, are there any additional provisions you're aware of that should be put into place for radioactive substances?

[Solomon Wong]

I know there's been a lot of attention particularly with CBRN, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear, in terms of detection, but certainly the ability to install detection portals is one approach that has been taken. There have been tests on the Canadian side. CBP has wide deployments. At this stage that's as much detail as I have for this committee off the top of my head.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

In terms of exits, some countries have an exit fee. In order to implement the system, do you see any fees as being required on the part of the people and companies actually crossing the border?

[Solomon Wong]

If I can clarify, are we talking about the air mode or other modes, or just in general?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Other modes, like land.

[Solomon Wong]

Through the chair, it is our expectation in the deployment of this that there would be no fees added on a transaction or other basis to pay for any kind of data system. Based on the way that Bill C-21...and the implementation to date, and in terms of information sharing, the idea is to reduce duplication and reuse data that's already available: exiting Canada as the entry record to the U.S. and exiting the U.S. as the entry record to Canada. Those are the efficiencies that would be gained from that as opposed to a transactional fee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

For the final five minutes on the evening of the commencement of the World Series, Mr. Spengemann is batting the cleanup.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Thank you, both, for being here today and providing your insights and expertise. I want to take the opportunity of your presence to ask a fairly general question for the benefit of the committee and the benefit of Canadians.

Both of you have professional engagements on both sides of the border. You understand Canada and the U.S. very well. Could you outline for the committee the differences that you see in the way that Canadians and Americans think about the issue of privacy? Feel free to be anecdotal in your answer or as general as you wish. I think it might be helpful for the committee to see if there are any fundamental differences in how the public reacts to privacy legislation, to the collection of data, all in the context of a very tight, intermeshed relationship on the leisure, education, and business side.

Ms. Bhandari, perhaps I could get you to start, and then I'd like to hear from Mr. Wong as well.

[Esha Bhandari]

Thank you.

Once again, I want to thank the committee for inviting me to testify.

I would urge you, Mr. Chair, simply to consider in any new policy or new information sharing agreement to not discount the very real privacy concerns, and in fact, simply to weigh them in the balance. I think travellers to the U.S. and travellers to Canada undoubtedly value their privacy. There's no doubt about that. I don't wish to undercount the importance of the trade and the travel between the two countries, and the necessity of making their profits easier for all, which I think is a benefit, but I do think it is important for the committee to simply consider the steps or the changes that can be made that would ensure that the privacy interests are adequately balanced. I think that people increasingly are aware of the existence of massive quantities of data on them that are held not only by governments but by private parties. We've seen a rise in people taking steps to protect their privacy, to minimize the data that they put out into the world. I don't think this is any less true of travellers between both countries, and I think that people are increasingly concerned about such things as hacking of information and hacking of databases, of which even governments are vulnerable. I would conclude simply with that: the privacy considerations should be weighed.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I may interject there for a moment. Ms. Bhandari, in your work, have you run across any appreciable differences in the way that Canadians versus Americans act on privacy legislation?

[Esha Bhandari]

I have not run into any appreciable differences. I know there's currently a large debate happening in the United States very much focused on data privacy. I'm less familiar with how that debate has concretely taken place in Canada.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Wong, how about you? Have you noticed any differences?

[Solomon Wong]

I have two points. Both countries are going through the same phenomenon in terms of the expectation of privacy from the public overall, particularly with the very same mechanisms we spoke about earlier in the committee. The social media mechanisms, the habits of publishing photographs, posts, anything in the public domain have certainly shifted the way privacy is perceived in both countries, and the expectation of privacy, I would argue, compared to a discussion like this 20 years ago, would be quite low.

Specific to both countries and the approach on topics like this, the IRCC testimony before this committee, Mr. Chair, homed in on a key term, that there has been an examination on using privacy by design. I know that just from the standpoint that at Can/Am BTA, we've had speakers present on privacy by design. It is encouraging that this is being looked at early on, in addition to the requirements of the privacy impact assessments that are required. In the previous administration, in October 2010, the privacy commissioners around the world all endorsed privacy by design as a new standard to aspire to in terms of developing programs. That is integral for the fidelity of any idea that uses big data going forward, because at the onset, there is thinking around the issues of retention, who has access, and those kinds of things built right into the development of systems, rather than simply the submission of an impact assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both Ms. Bhandari and Mr. Wong for their contributions.

I just remind colleagues that we will be going to clause-by-clause consideration next Thursday morning at this time, and if there are amendments, to submit those amendments by five o'clock this afternoon.

There will also be a subcommittee meeting where we'll be organizing for the indigenous corrections study. For those who want to get witnesses in, my preference would be that we do it through the subcommittee so that we can organize efficient hearings starting a week from today.

Again, thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.