What I understand from the objectives of the United States—and I did speak with American colleagues to understand the rationale, for example, behind the retention rates—is, first of all, that it is based on a very specific threat related to flying that does not exist with a land border crossing.
Secondly, in fact, they put forward—I insist, they put forward—that some of the retention periods are actually meant to be favourable to travellers. For example, the seven-year retention for a potential match, they argue, will help the traveller who has, for example, a similar name to someone on the list to not be inconvenienced each time he or she travels.
Certainly there is room to manoeuvre, we believe, and the Canadian government should ensure that it puts forward its own conditions that correspond to its values in relation to the privacy of Canadians.