Transport Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Peter Coyles]

There are two things. Number one, yes. Also, the requirement for sharing information is limited to when an applicant applies. For example, if they're a new arrival in Canada and want to get a job and need a security clearance for that, there is a requirement to show some type of history, at which point there will be some work between the department and the applicant to understand what that applicant has provided as information. We may need to go to another country to seek out information. There may be a police record check that needs to come from another country, and there may be elders' letters, or whatever, depending upon the country of origin.

This would prohibit us from being able to go out with the consent of that individual and share any information, whose consent we must have prior to sharing information under the Privacy Act, as is included in the application form, etc. If we are not able to share any information, then that individual would not be able to be considered. That's its impact.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

So when an individual is crossing the border and the officials on the other side of the border, the customs, excise, or immigration officials, ask for particular information that may not have been included in the FAST program, and which may be consistent with the requirements of the U.S. authorities for homeland security purposes and which they expected would have been part of the licensing process, does our driver have to wait until Transport Canada advises the American authorities that the driver is in possession of a clearance? Or do they share the information?

[Peter Coyles]

Right now, if they receive a FAST card clearance, they have access to the United States marketplace. The example I was trying to provide is of a case in which, if I arrive from any country in the world and am recent in Canada, and after a year or two in this country decide I want to be a truck driver who transports dangerous goods and want to apply for a security clearance—one to replace the FAST card through enablers in this bill—then I would need to provide some history. That history is outside of Canada, and it is this that we would have to be able to share to understand that applicant's time in another country. We would need to perhaps go to that other country and ask for a police record, or an elder's letter, or whatever it is that is needed to fill out the application form. It is at that time that there is a sharing of information.

However, once the person has the clearance, the intent is that the clearance enables them to go across the border, and there would be not this notion of CBSA or the American counterpart suggesting that they want more information.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I was a tourist in my previous life in another department, which used to require all that information in order to grant the PR card, the permanent residency card. Are you asking for something more than that?

[Peter Coyles]

I'm not familiar with that PR card, but what we are looking at—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, you can't stay here unless you get clearance as a bona fide individual someplace else. If you have a criminal record someplace else, you're not allowed into the country.

[Peter Coyles]

Exactly. You wouldn't be able to get the clearance, therefore.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I don't mean to put you on the spot. That's why I said maybe Ms. Wilson can answer part of the question.

Last week we had two groups of people who were specifically concerned in their business with security issues. One of the groups represented a company that did some pre-checking for all individuals through a fingerprinting process. In your view, would this particular clause make it mandatory for those people to submit to that kind of pre-clearance clearance?

[Peter Coyles]

I guess I don't understand your question, and I'm sorry, but—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, if they want to be part of the transport of dangerous goods business, would they be obligated to submit to that kind of fingerprint verification system, as demanded by the Americans?

[Peter Coyles]

They would be doing it here in Canada. The enabling authority is to bring that responsibility back to Canada. Right now, under the FAST program, you apply in Canada, and you have to provide your fingerprints, and so on. At that point, Canada makes a decision concerning the security clearance of that individual.

Then it is over to the United States, and the Americans do a parallel type of review. The Americans then have the opportunity to say no to this individual, and there is no right of recourse for the applicant; there's no right of appeal to a foreign country. What this enabling authority does is bring it back to Canada, so that it is the Canadian government and only the Canadian government that is providing that review. And it provides an appeal process for that individual, should they not be satisfied with the process, to come back and challenge the government, either providing more information about who they are and where they've been and what they do or providing an understanding of why there was perhaps misinformation and getting an opportunity to clear it up and provide new information in the process.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

If I understand this correctly, what you really mean is that the process here is to go through a thorough check of Joe Volpe, applicant. Then you advise the American government that Joe Volpe, the applicant, has passed your stringent test, but you do not share what you have found about Joe Volpe. If the Americans decide to run their own test and come back and say they're not going to accept your assessment, then I can appeal to you and ask, what did you tell these guys?

[Peter Coyles]

No, we wouldn't be going to the United States. If you remember, Mr. Gregoire talked about the work under the former SPP. He was going to go back down to Washington to talk about re-invigorating that process under a new administration. But we are looking at having a policy to understand that the Canadian security clearance background program is acceptable to the Americans, and therefore you do not have to duplicate it—as you do now, under the FAST card process: there's a Canadian and then there's an American review.

Under this bill, under the regulations that would come forward, it would be a Canadian solution that is then acceptable across North America with our partners—Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and whoever else may join and accept that allegiance.

That's what the intent is here: to say that this security clearance, granted to a Canadian by the Canadian government, is acceptable in those other nations, and they should be able to proceed; whereas currently, we've given them a security clearance, but now you must do the same to allow that person to continue.

Should the Americans, under the current system, decide not to accept this individual, that individual has no recourse. He cannot go knocking on our American counterpart's door and ask, why are you turning me down? He or she would have, under this enabling legislation and then the regulation that would follow, the ability to pursue an appeal process to clarify to the government what it is that we're maybe lacking so that we can provide the security clearance, to correct any information that perhaps is not correct, and to provide us with the appropriate documentation that may come from a foreign country to enable us to make the proper assessment. So a worthy applicant can receive a security clearance and continue to operate and work.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Finally, just to make me feel a little bit better, while you're negotiating the harmonization of the two systems or the mutual, reciprocal acceptance of the two systems, are you not going to share anything personal that you found out about me? Do you just have to convince the other partners that your method of finding out who I am is as thorough as anything they could do, and that's it?

[Peter Coyles]

Yes, and if you look at the end of the bill, this is the only provision that doesn't come into effect immediately, under royal assent, in the sense that we want to have this all worked out prior to using this authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I want to understand this clearly. Once it is in place, your security clearance would also be valid in the United States?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

That is what we are trying to achieve.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You are telling me that the Americans will not be able to demand information.

[Marie-France Dagenais]

When we have reached agreement with the Americans about the research and the investigations to be conducted, they will know that we have done the appropriate checking. When a security clearance is given to somebody, they will know that the person meets our requirements. They will accept the card at face value. So there will be no exchange of information.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

There will be no exchange of information and they will not be able to ask to be sent information on anyone.

[Marie-France Dagenais]

No.

[Peter Coyles]

That is what happens under the FAST program at the moment. If someone applies to transport dangerous materials to the United States, he fills in a form with the Canada Border Services Agency. Once CSIS and the RCMP have examined the request, the information is given to the United States, and they then do another check.

We want the entire process to take place in Canada. Under the bill, a request would be investigated in Canada and the approval of that request would be accepted by our North American partners. We are working with Mexico and the United States to convince them that our application or investigation process is similar to theirs and that it should be sufficient to allow people to transport dangerous goods.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If it is automatic, why are you opposed to Mr. Bevington’s amendment?

[Peter Coyles]

The amendment stipulates that we cannot share information. Let us say that you arrive in Canada from Mexico for a year. You submit a request under the new authority in the bill, but you only have one year’s experience in Canada. We require at least five years, so you are four years short. In that case, we are going to have to ask the Mexican police…