THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 11, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 8 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I am Ratna Omidvar, a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee.
Today, our committee is beginning its examination of the subject matter of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, Part 8, which deals with immigration, refugees and citizenship.
For our first panel, from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we welcome Kathryn Fredericks, Director, International and Intergovernmental Relations; and Anna Lillicrap, Counsel, Legal Services. From the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we welcome James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate. Thank you so much for joining us today.
I invite you to provide us with your opening remarks. You will each have five minutes for your opening statements, which will be followed by questions from our members.
Kathryn Fredericks, you may begin when you are ready.
Kathryn Fredericks, Director, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I’m here to speak to you today about two legislative amendments that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is putting forward through Bill S-6.
The first is a proposed legislative change to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act that would increase the availability of information across programs for which the department is responsible, resulting in more efficient service delivery by the department across its lines of business. It would provide for disclosure of identity or immigration status to federal, provincial or territorial organizations to support the administration of their laws.
Improving service delivery in this way would contribute to Canada’s efforts to remain a competitive market for top talent on which the economy and labour markets increasingly depend. The changes would improve program integrity and reduce the risk of fraud. Finally, the changes would make it easier for individuals to prove who they are to each level of government, which would be a positive step for clients.
The legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — our second change — would allow for regulations governing the disclosure of personal information to a federal institution for the purpose of cooperation when that information has a direct relevance to the mandate of that department or agency, for example, to disclose personal information with other government entities to allow the immigration department to determine employer compliance under an international mobility program.
Both of those amendments align with the work that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is leading to develop policy and regulatory conditions for a single-service Government of Canada delivery platform, or what is known as the “tell us once” approach. It would also directly support the department’s priority to bring existing processes online and enhance the client experience to make it user-friendly, reliable and secure.
The Government of Canada holds itself to the highest standards when protecting the personal information of its clients. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is committed to safeguarding client information by having strong privacy and security policies in place and continually reviewing its information management practices to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act.
Disclosure of information would only occur in instances where there is an associated lawful authority to collect that information. Any new collection, use or disclosure of personal information stemming from the initiatives would be subject to privacy assessments to ensure compliance with privacy legislation, policies, guidelines and best practices.
We have worked with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to determine how to build in appropriate privacy safeguards.
We would also develop communication material to outline the policy intent and privacy risk-mitigation plans of the proposed changes to stakeholders and clients.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will now hear from the Treasury Board, James van Raalte.
James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Madam Chair and honourable senators, I’m pleased to be here today to provide you with a broad overview of Bill S-6 and to answer any questions you may have around the context of the legislation and the context in which my colleagues here are also to provide testimony.
Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, proposes to amend 29 pieces of legislation via 46 amendments that would help keep regulations relevant and up to date by reducing administrative burden for business, facilitating digital interactions with government, simplifying regulatory processes, making exemptions from certain regulatory requirements in order to test new products or to make cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across government.
Bill S-6 is the government’s second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill, or ARMB. We affectionately refer to it as “arm bee.” Announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2018, the ARMB is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism that enables the government to make common-sense changes across many pieces of legislation at once in order to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements raised by business and Canadians.
The first ARMB was introduced and passed in Budget Implementation Act, 2019. The ARMB is one part of government’s agenda to improve Canada’s regulatory system while continuing to ensure the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment.
As such, taken individually, the individual amendments in Bill S-6 are modest in scope. Taken as a whole, they will make an impact and contribute to the government’s regulatory modernization agenda.
Grouping relatively minor legislative changes in one bill is both time- and cost-efficient. The ARMB is designed specifically to propose multiple non-contentious legislative changes at one time. These are fixes that the President of the Treasury Board can represent or sponsor on behalf of her cabinet colleagues. Anything above and beyond this threshold may be a good proposal for regulatory modernization, which should be brought forward by the individual minister responsible for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
All of the proposed 46 amendments are either stakeholder-driven — 33 of them — or in response to issues raised by Parliament’s Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations — 13.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat launched a public consultation via Canada Gazette over the summer of 2019, inviting interested stakeholders to share their views on themes related to regulatory modernization, including to propose suggestions for the next ARMB. Forty-eight stakeholder submissions referred to the ARMB. However, most of those responses were not within scope as they proposed changes to the regulations rather than legislation. However, all feedback was shared with responsible regulatory departments and agencies.
Following that consultation of what we heard, a report on regulatory modernization was published in November 2020. The following themes emerged for changes to legislation from that consultation: reduce administrative burden; increase regulatory flexibility and opportunities for experimentation; enable harmonization with major trading partners; and remove duplicative, redundant and unclear requirements.
Similarly, a call-out to regulatory departments and agencies was initiated in August 2019. The result was 174 proposals submitted, impacting 72 acts and submitted by 14 organizations. All proposals were subsequently reviewed extensively to ensure there is no negative impact on the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment.
Beyond what may be contained in Bill S-6, additional proposals were set aside from further consideration for a variety of reasons. Some were considered too broad in scope or deemed not regulatory in nature, while others were not considered, for example, if they sought to alter service fees or the proposed additional activities contributed to increasing administrative burden.
The process to develop the third version of this bill is already under way based upon COVID lessons learned, and our president has committed to introducing the third ARMB in the spring of 2023.
Moving forward, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will use its newly launched Let’s Talk Federal Regulations platform to seek input from Canadian businesses and individuals on ways we can improve Canada’s federal regulatory system, and, as such, consultations on the fourth ARMB are expected to be launched in the fall of 2022.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. van Raalte. We will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank the presenters. I have two questions, one for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Ms. Fredericks, and one for the Treasury Board.
Ms. Fredericks, you talked about the Privacy Act and the definition of “personal information.” I want to dig a bit deeper. I would like you to tell us how the amendments in Bill S-6 would change your use or sharing of that personal information.
Mr. van Raalte, so you can think about it, in terms of intergovernmental cooperation and external information — some of the sharings that are proposed — can you tell us what programs and partnerships are in development currently across Canada that might — or will — benefit from these amendments?
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you, senator, for your question. If I can go ahead and then turn it over to Mr. van Raalte.
In terms of how it would change the department’s use and the sharing of personal information, this is essentially a client-focused amendment. You probably know the government is anticipating bringing in nearly half a million immigrants in the coming year. It is essential to our continued response to our demographic challenges and labour market issues, and some of the application processing is slowed by the fact that immigration is a continuum. People may apply for a visitor visa; they may subsequently apply to come to school here as students; they might decide to stay on and apply for permanent residency. At every stage in that process, the department asks them for information, and in some cases we have forms that contain over a hundred questions. It takes them hours to complete. You can imagine the frustration if you’re an applicant.
By the time a client reaches the citizenship step — so they’ve become permanent residents and they’re applying for citizenship status — the department knows nearly 95% of those applicants because of previous interactions, yet we continue to ask them for the same information because we’re not permitted to share that personal information across programs. This could really speed things up for clients. I think we would get a very positive reaction because we certainly do hear complaints about the slow processing times.
Another fundamental piece of this is to allow us to share information with our provincial and territorial partners.
Public trust in the immigration system is dependent on the successful integration of immigrants into Canadian society and the labour market. That’s dependent, in part, on receiving access to key provincial services, things like health care, driver’s licences — things that we all take for granted in terms of our participation in society. What we’re seeing is that eligibility for those services is largely dependent on your immigration status, which must be confirmed by service providers who do not have access to the status of people unless they provide the documentation — which sometimes is a smooth process and sometimes it isn’t. If paperwork hasn’t caught up with people, they’re left standing in line at ServiceOntario, for instance, unable to prove their status.
That’s certainly an irritant to our clients and to provincial and territorial service delivery partners, and we hope this will really smooth that out.
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question. In terms of examples of intergovernmental cooperation that are likely to be facilitated through Bill S-6 more broadly — and other Senate standing committees will have heard testimony to this effect as they study their parts of the bill — there are a series of amendments that are sponsored by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that will facilitate recognition of safety inspection or commercial product authorization from other governments where we recognize the quality and the efficacy of those programs so that it reduces overlap and duplication and facilitates international trade.
There is a proposal from the Canadian Border Services Agency under the Customs Act to facilitate speedier recognition of provisions enacted under free trade agreements. That will help facilitate trade in a faster means.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to ask a question of the Treasury Board Secretariat. In the overview of proposed amendments of the bill, background information is presented about the amendments proposed in clause 159, noting that it costs an estimated $482 million a year to verify individuals’ identities at the three levels of government in Canada.
How will these proposed amendments impact these costs, if at all? It states that moving to online applications and greater collaboration with provinces and the territories would permit for faster processing of applications, and provincial-territorial labour market needs would be met sooner. Could you explain how the proposed amendments in Bill S-6 will ameliorate this process, if at all? Thank you.
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will have to defer to my colleagues from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in terms of the specific nature.
The Chair: Ms. Fredericks, would you like to answer that question?
Ms. Fredericks: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Certainly, what we know now is that provincial and territorial governments look to our department as their federal counterpart for identifying and confirming the identity of people who come in through the immigration system. While there are vital statistics agencies in provinces and territories responsible for Canadian citizens, it is Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada that has the information associated with temporary and permanent residents.
For instance, we have motor vehicle agencies increasingly approaching the federal department on issues related to identity policies on things like name changes or gender changes. It can be difficult for people to prove their identity. It sounds like a simple thing to change your name, but when your paperwork doesn’t have your new name on it, receiving access to those services is difficult. It costs clients a lot of lost time at work. It takes those agencies a lot of time in terms of interacting with those clients, and in trying to interact with our department to find out if they can get access to the validated information.
At the moment, we’re not enabled to share that personal information. So there is a lot of, I would call it “friction in the system” that takes up a lot of both officials’ and clients’ time in that cost that you’re seeing.
Your second question related to the online collaboration with provinces and territories and how it would help to respond to labour market needs. On that point, I would say the faster someone’s application to come to Canada as either a temporary resident or a permanent resident is processed and the faster their work permit is issued, the more quickly they can be employed and integrate successfully into the labour market.
It’s the end point in that immigration system of successful integration into Canadian society — which is in large part dependent on being part of the economy — which depends on that sharing of information and the quick processing of applications.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to both witnesses for being here with us. My question is for Ms. Fredericks, and it is similar or a follow-up to the questions that Senator Bovey asked at the very beginning.
In Bill S-6, there are two clauses to facilitate the information sharing in the context of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and if I remember correctly in your answer you mentioned that the processing time would be faster because of these amendments and the different status such as permanent residence and citizenship, if I understood right. But could you explain to me in a concrete way how it would make the process more efficient?
Ms. Fredericks: Sure. Going back to some of that process I described around what we ask of clients, when we ask them to apply at any point in that immigration continuum — whether it’s visitor status, a student permit they’re looking for or to be a temporary or permanent resident — we don’t ask them simply for their name, address and birthdate. There can be a great many questions around identity, around health, around economics, around their past experience. It’s very laborious for them to provide that information. It’s time-consuming. There are different forms. It sounds minor, but the developing of online forms and paper forms, the back and forth of sharing that information between offices — it all is time lost in the processing of those applications.
Ideally, if we can automatically share information provided to us the first time by a client for any of the programs that the department delivers, we speed things up.
Senator Poirier: Can you give me an example of what the time frame is now compared to what the time frame would be once this clause goes by and the sharing is available?
Ms. Fredericks: That is a great question. I don’t have a concrete number of hours to share with you. I could see if I could get some examples. If you were applying for permanent resident status, for instance, I could come back to the committee with details on how long that process is.
I can tell you there are significant backlogs and it does take more than a year, certainly.
Senator Poirier: If you could provide it to the committee, I’m sure we would appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Fredericks, we expect to get the information on service standards that are currently put in place, and I think we’re all hearing you say that as a result of this amendment, you are hoping — and the nation is hoping — for a reduction in the backlog time and greater customer satisfaction.
Ms. Fredericks: Yes, absolutely. Thank you. I will get back to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is also for Ms. Fredericks.
I’d like to see an example of the amendments we’re talking about in the definitions. When I look at the amendment to section 3 of the Privacy Act, it’s quite detailed and a lot of information can be collected, like addresses, fingerprints and blood type, but also opinions, personal beliefs, etc.
Why is this necessary? Are we looking to standardize or align definitions?
I’d have preferred to see an example. What kind of information can you collect now? How will this amendment affect the type of information you can collect?
[English]
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you for the question. I would agree with you that the definition in the Privacy Act, we are aligning ourselves in these amendments with that. We wanted to make sure for consistency purposes we would stay within that definition. Our amendments would adjust our ability to share information with certain organizations for the purposes I’ve described, but it would not change the fact that we would still be guided by the requirements of the Privacy Act otherwise in terms of the collection, use and retention of information.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Therefore, as I understand it, the objective is really alignment and this won’t change the type of information you’re looking to collect, right?
[English]
Ms. Fredericks: That’s right. It doesn’t change the terms of our program or what we collect in order to currently administer those.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is also for Ms. Fredericks.
I have a few questions. There will be limits on what personal information can be shared outside of IRCC, therefore with other federal and provincial agencies.
Why have a limit when you’re opening the door to sharing some information? What other limitations will be placed on that information?
Also, it surprised me that medical and criminal records can be shared. That information is truly sacred, so I’d like to hear what you think about this.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Fredericks, would you like to take that question?
Ms. Fredericks: I’m sorry, I missed that last comment.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My last comment was that medical and criminal records are included in the array of personal information that can be shared. I understand that is normally really sacred information. So I find it odd that it’s included with the information that can be shared with other agencies.
[English]
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you for the question. Our intention in terms of responding to what we’re hearing from clients is we have never actually heard a request for such a thing — to be able to share medical or criminal records. What we are hearing, though, are the things I’ve talked about before with respect to sharing with provincial and territorial service delivery partners across our programs. That’s what we’re really trying to respond to. But as I mentioned, our desire is to very much make sure we’re in alignment with the Privacy Act, which incorporates medical and criminal records in its list of what is considered personal information, but Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada doesn’t foresee that that would be part of what we would share.
But I would also just note that should these amendments go through to the two pieces of legislation, we would then be in a position to develop regulations around the sharing of information, and that’s a longer-term process that is really important to making sure that this is successful in terms of being responsible sharing, is useful to clients and to the public good.
The regulatory process, in its very nature, would mean consulting with stakeholders and clients, publishing what we intend to do and being very transparent about it. Should anything sensitive like that ever be intended, it would be very much subject to consultation and in the public domain. As I say, it is not something we’ve currently foreseen.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I’d like to double-check with you that some information won’t be shareable, medical records aside. Why is it so important to place limits on information sharing? You say it’s possible to have limits. Is that included in the amendments?
[English]
Ms. Fredericks: I do not actually have my clause by clause right in front of me; I can find it. Yes, I don’t believe that we are placing limits through these amendments on what information could be shared. It does permit for the sharing of personal information as defined by the Privacy Act. We are being consistent with the Privacy Act in terms of what that personal information could be.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: My question is to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. A bit of context for my question: Several senators have been working since August to try to assist extremely-at-risk Afghans to get safely out of their country.
We had a very serious privacy breach from within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada where several hundred names of seriously-at-risk Afghans who are in hiding, still in Afghanistan — or some of them just out of the country, in a third country — whose names were released by the department. This was a privacy breach that appeared to just happen through your systems.
My question is geared to the kind of disclosure, reporting oversight, scrutiny and review that needs to be put in place under the current circumstances, but my question is about the proposed changes. What kind of oversight, scrutiny and review will be put in place commensurate with these changes?
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you for that question, senator. You are raising a very serious issue that the department takes very seriously.
Senator McPhedran: Very.
Ms. Fredericks: Yes. The department is undertaking reviews to see what happened, how that privacy breach occurred and what to do about it.
Certainly, the silver lining is that the department will put in place those rigorous measures to make sure that doesn’t happen in the future. Those will be well understood and implemented if and when these changes were ever to come about.
We certainly recognize that the moment a system collects information, it’s prone to security breaches. That needs to be taken very seriously; it’s not a small matter. As soon as you’re trying to disclose information, you need to think about the security of the processes to do that.
Senator McPhedran: To make sure that I understand, the silver lining to which you are referring here is, in fact, a change that will take place or has taken place to address that particular privacy breach? But, also, is there something here in the proposed changes where there is a matching oversight or protective measures for these changes? Is the answer just yes? I want to make sure that I have understood your answer.
Ms. Fredericks: Sure. I guess what I mean is the department is undertaking a review to make sure it addresses that security breach. Those processes, changes and adjustments that it makes will be in place if and when these amendments come into force and would apply to any information sharing that would be allowed through the amendments. But the amendments themselves don’t undertake to make any changes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for that.
An additional issue that is continuing to plague application after application after application to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is the documents themselves, the documents that are online and the documents that officials of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada send. They can’t be opened. Even when a particular official sends an attachment rather than just sending a link to your website, they still cannot be opened. They are PDFs. It is tempting, sometimes, when people are trying over and over and over again — and you have four or five people trying to find a way to open a document, in a privileged situation like many of us are in — to wonder about this and to understand the incredible impediments to people who are not in a privileged situation — and who are, in fact, in highly disadvantaged situations — to be able to navigate the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada system.
This whole section of the bill seems to be about streamlining and about more effective communication. We are told that it is focused on applicants, but are you looking at some of this very practical, inhibiting reality of, for example, documents that just won’t open?
The Chair: Ms. Fredericks, I suggest we hold on to that question because Senator McPhedran is out of her time, but we can come back to it.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses. I just want to drill down a bit with respect to the data that is collected and the data that can be shared if these amendments are passed. Obviously, you collect voluminous data points if you are doing questionnaires that take people over an hour to fill out. There are huge amounts of data, well beyond demographics. You said that you are asking about beliefs, attitudes, opinions and so on, so you have a lot of data points there.
Do I understand that, after these amendments, any of these data points can be shared within your department as well as with any other federal department, provincial department or agency and presumably with any municipal government? I have another question with respect to any foreign governments. You’ve got a lot of data points. Can any of these now be shared?
I know you said that you’re not getting a lot of requests for this, but that is kind of beside the point. If you are able to share, then it can be provided by you. I’m trying to get a sense of that. If you could just clarify that for me. Thank you.
Ms. Fredericks: Sure. Thank you, senator.
You are right. In terms of data points, there are a lot we collect.
Perhaps I misspoke if I said, “beliefs.” It would be more factual than that. But the department determines both eligibility for certain programs or immigration streams as well as admissibility. So there are health data points collected, financial data points collected, criminality collected and other security issues that would be touched upon in that data.
These amendments would define “personal information” in the same way as the Privacy Act. As we have discussed, there is a fairly broad definition of “personal information,” but at the same time, that information must similarly be protected in the ways that the Privacy Act sets out.
What we want to ensure with these amendments is that they can be shared with other provincial and territorial bodies for the administration of their legislation and with other federal bodies for the purposes of cooperation. It would not permit the sharing of information that is not already shared through other legislation that might exist with foreign governments, nor do we see sharing with municipalities except if they are defined as part of a provincial government.
But any of that sharing would be subject to consultations, as I mentioned. If it could result in people being denied eligibility to a benefit, it would be subject to the making of regulations. So, again, that process requires public stakeholder consultation, the publishing of the intended regulations, further feedback on it, et cetera.
Our desire is to make sure that what we’re doing is putting into place a regime that would be very transparent about the purposes of that sharing. These amendments provide the foundation to allow us to do that further work in terms of regulations. We hope that would offer the assurance to the public about what the intent of this is.
Senator Dasko: So the protections, then, are down the road; they are not with us now? Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Fredericks: I would say that the legal and policy protections are with us now in the sense that they exist in the Privacy Act and in the requirements around regulatory development.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Madam Chair, do I have any time left?
The Chair: You have just 19 seconds left. I would suggest we come back to you.
Senator Dasko: But I have a 19-second question.
The Chair: All right. Go ahead.
Senator Dasko: Does Statistics Canada collect any of your data, Ms. Fredericks?
Ms. Fredericks: We use Statistics Canada data for policy analysis and for understanding the outcomes for immigrants. I am not aware of Statistics Canada collecting for us, but I would have to get back to you on that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: That was exactly 19 seconds. Well done, Senator Dasko.
Senator Cordy: Chair, I’m not sure I can be that accurate with my timing, but I will try.
Thank you very much for being here, witnesses.
My question is a follow-up to Senators Poirier’s and McPhedran’s on processing time and whether the regulatory changes will make processing times faster. Senator McPhedran spoke about a case. My office is working on a case of a student from the United States who wants to come to university in Halifax. His parents both worked in Halifax; I worked with his dad in Halifax. They left for higher-paying jobs in the United States. He applied a year and a half ago.
When my office phoned, they can’t even find out where he is on the wait-list. It seems like there is a waiting list to find out where you are on the waiting list. He has to start paying money to the university in about a week’s time. We have been working on it for probably about two months, and to say the pace has been a snail’s pace would be an understatement. There has basically been no forward movement whatsoever.
If they do not get an answer, and they are not willing to put down a significant amount of money before they have an answer — which, if I were a parent, I would not likely be doing, particularly when you are an out-of-country student.
Those frustrations are not limited to Senators McPhedran, Poirier and I. We are hearing about them from the people in our regions.
Will this make any difference? If it doesn’t, what will make a difference?
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you, senator. You raise a really important point.
Earlier in this session, I pointed to the importance of public trust in the immigration system. That is really dependent upon the successful integration of our clients, whether it is to be able to get here as students to study and gain that Canadian education and then move on to permanent residency and the labour market. So it is of grave concern to the department, as well, that we find ways to reduce our backlogs and our processing times.
We certainly hope that this sharing among programs — if these amendments go through — would make a difference.
Is it the sole answer? Certainly not. This government committed $85 million, I believe, recently to help to reduce processing times. There are a number of initiatives that the department is looking at, including moving more of its processes online. We know that paper processes take a long time, are geographically limited, they make for certain offices having greater backlogs than others and does not allow for the movement of applications to go where the capacity might exist.
Also, the pandemic slowed down the processing of paper because, for some months, many offices were closed. That has compounded the backlogs and the processing times.
All of those require complex solutions. Certainly, additional staff is contemplated. These amendments, again, are one piece of a complex puzzle, but one the department is certainly cognizant of needing to address.
Senator Cordy: I’m sure the MPs’ list of people requesting help is significantly longer than ours, but is there a way that we can get at least a response to say that they won’t get a response before they have to put money down, but they are likely to get it?
Being told that you cannot even find out how long it is going to take, where they are on the list or any indicators whatsoever as to what the timeline might be is very frustrating to my staff and to me. I cannot imagine how the families are feeling, and they are likely to just say, “Forget it.” This is probably a student with his background from Nova Scotia who would possibly stay in Nova Scotia.
I am just letting you know the frustration about that. We have been hearing about this not for months but long years.
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you for raising that.
The Chair: When you send us the service standards for different aspects of the immigration and refugee program, ranging from student applications to refugee applications to citizenship applications, would you also provide us with the current performance against those standards? I think you have that information. There is a gap between the service standards and the performance. I know that the senators around the table would like to see that gap closed, hopefully in part by this amendment and by other solutions.
You are right in pointing out that this is a complex matter, but we have to try to deconstruct it as best we can.
Senator Kutcher: My question is a request to help me understand something within “personal information.” It says “information about an identifiable individual.” I assume that includes knowing who that individual actually is.
Is that individual that individual? I see here that fingerprints and blood typing certainly can help with that.
But missing from the list is DNA fingerprinting, which, if I understand it correctly, is the most accurate way of establishing who an individual actually is. Is that subsumed under this phrase “without restricting”? Is it missing? Should it be there? I am just asking for that kind of information. I do not know. Thank you.
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you for the question, senator. I am afraid this is one that I would have to come back to you on. I am not aware enough of the definition to know if DNA fingerprinting is included in that Privacy Act definition of personal information.
The Chair: I have two quick questions, Ms. Fredericks, both directed to you. You spoke at length about stakeholder consultations that you had. Do you mean that you had stakeholder consultations with your client agencies, provincial governments and within your department, or do you also mean that you have had consultations with immigrants?
Ms. Fredericks: We have a lot of interactions with our provincial and territorial counterparts, ministers of immigration as well as service providers. We hear from them frequently, whether it is the ministry of transportation or the ministry of health. Once we as a department bring people into the country, they then have the downstream service provision for various provincial services, so we interact with them frequently. I can tell you they are not shy about sharing their concerns around identity management and the need to have smoother, more reliable processes to confirm identity for the purposes of program integrity on their side and client service.
We also hear very often from clients, like all of you senators. These are their lives that we’re talking about, and we hear feedback from them regularly about the irritants in the process, where things are slowed down and what they wish was better. We have tried our best to incorporate those things that we have been hearing and come up with amendments — admittedly, narrow. We cannot fix all of these, but in foreseeing ways we could address some of those problems through better, consistent and trustworthy information sharing.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fredericks.
Senator McPhedran, would you kindly recap the question that was not answered?
Senator McPhedran: Yes. Excuse my language on this, and I want to preface the question by saying I have had extensive dealings with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada since the fall of Kabul. I have had no dealings with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada before that, so my experience is very short.
The one thing I know is that people inside Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada work hard, so please don’t hear my question as being any kind of disparagement of the dedication or the attempts to respond to people in a whole range of terrible situations needing to come to Canada. That is not what I am trying to convey.
These changes seem to me to be arguably important, probably tinkering, essentially, with a much bigger, systemic problem here that hard-working, dedicated people within the department cannot find anything a lot of the time. There are systemic issues here.
I hope this is a fair question: Are we being told today that these proposed amendments will actually in any way significantly address the systemic challenges that are demonstrably there for the hard-working people within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you, senator. I don’t want to claim that this is the fix for the system. As I say, we recognize there are a lot of complexities to that system.
If you are referring to our information system management as a whole, the vision of the department is to modernize and move to a more digital platform.
One of the reasons for this amendment is that once you digitize information, it can become more available across programs. We want to make sure we are future-proofing for that eventuality, so that we are putting in place systems that make it secure and transparent about what its uses are, how that information is allowed to be used and how it will be managed. We hope that it will improve some of the aspects of the system that are difficult now, but it is not the system fix.
Senator McPhedran: Isn’t the current process that we are all trying to navigate for Afghans already digitized? What is different about these amendments for the applications that many of us are trying to help with? Isn’t it already entirely digitized?
Ms. Fredericks: I don’t believe every application is digitized from all parts of the world. I think that there is still an awful lot of paper processing that goes on.
I don’t want to claim that the sharing of information will fix the Afghanistan situation. What is going on there is largely apart from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s information system. There is a terrorist organization in place making it very difficult. We don’t have access in that country. There are problems with the processing of biometrics and identity. These amendments do not have any connection to what is happening there.
Senator Bovey: I wanted to follow up on Senator Cordy’s question and frustration. This is probably a very simple one. I’m well aware of citizenship applications for minors born abroad of Canadian parentage who have now been in line for 17 or 18 months. Are these amendments going to help move those simple applications forward, or is the resolution of those cases the hiring of more staff?
Ms. Fredericks: Thanks, senator, for the question. I do not feel that I have the background in those applications to be able to identify the challenges with those and tell you if we could see improvements as a result of these amendments.
The Chair: I will take a little bit of time to ask you another question, and it is along the line of earlier questioning about data breaches.
We are now going to potentially approve amendments that would allow for the sharing of fairly extensive personal data with other federal departments, other provincial and territorial governments and possibly other provincial and territorial agencies. The potential for data breaches becomes larger.
When you receive a request for information sharing, what assurances will you receive that the other agencies and provincial and territorial governments have a firewall around privacy concerns and the potential for breaches?
Ms. Fredericks: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that question. The amendments themselves would allow us to undertake consultations and develop regulations to take into account those very issues. They’d make sure that our partners with whom we envision sharing would have the appropriate protections in place for the sharing of information.
All levels of government have various legislative measures in place to protect information that would apply here, but when we negotiate information sharing agreements that are currently allowed under the Privacy Act, there is always a memorandum of understanding or an agreement that we work on with the partner with whom we would be sharing where we set out various roles and responsibilities, the requirements around the protection of information, the governance of that information and how it would be used by the receiving party, et cetera. It’s those kinds of protections we would still have in place here.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. This brings us to the end of this panel. Thank you, Ms. Fredericks and Mr. van Raalte for your participation. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Senators, we now move on to our second panel. We welcome from the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, Richard Kurland, lawyer and policy analyst. From Landings LLP, Warda Shazadi Meighen, partner and immigration lawyer. Thank you for being here by videoconference.
I now invite you to provide your opening remarks. You have five minutes each for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members. We will start with Mr. Kurland.
Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association: Honourable senators, we fully support the principle that the identity of a person, as well as their status in Canada, be shared with other federal departments, agencies, Crown corporations and provincial authorities. This would not only result in a cascade of savings at the provincial and federal level, removing needless duplication of the provision of information, but would also render our system more transparent and facilitates good government.
We truly have a need to identify a person and prove their status in Canada. It’s also beneficial to the applicants themselves. This will facilitate and expedite access to government services and entitlements at both levels.
Having said that and having heard the previous testimony of witnesses, three things the amendments will not do are improve processing times, reduce backlogs and affect service standards. In addition, the wording of the proposed legislation has significant unintended consequences. I’ll use my remaining two minutes to address that directly.
The need is to identify and to show status in Canada. That’s not what the wording promotes here. We need just those two things. However, the wording catches the underlying information and documents submitted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in order to produce the conclusion regarding identity and status in Canada. There is no need whatsoever to share all that personal information with other governments, both foreign and domestic, to achieve the result of efficiency by identifying individuals and their status in Canada. Those are heady words to begin, and I’m looking forward to questions.
Warda Shazadi Meighen, Partner and Immigration lawyer, Landings LLP, as an individual: Madam Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear today as you study a bill which has enormous implications for refugees and migrants. My perspective is informed by my practice as a lawyer navigating the immigration and refugee system for applicants. Some I serve are sophisticated, well-heeled multinational organizations that are savvy about which data they reveal to the government. Others are some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society. They include marginalized women, domestic workers who don’t have status and refugee claimants whose lives are in imminent danger.
Senators, it’s important to situate the current proposed amendments before you against a number of key principles that already exist in our privacy regime. I will lay out four of these principles that are currently absent from the proposed amendments before you.
Number one, there must be knowledge of the purposes for which a person’s information is collected, and that has to be identified before or at the time of collection.
Number two is the principle of informed consent. The knowledge and consent of an individual are generally required under our current privacy regime for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
Number three, the integrity of the information. An individual must have the ability to challenge both the accuracy and the completeness of the information, especially if it’s being shared between government departments that are making very meaningful decisions about that individual.
Number four, data collection must be limited. The collection of personal information has to be limited to that which is needed by that organization, and that purpose has to be explicitly identified in advance.
In the proposed amendments before you, I do not see these general principles reflected, and they ought to apply to immigrants and refugees.
The government has put forward its important stated objectives, including administrative efficiency, cost reduction, reduction of processing times and program identity, but we can achieve these objectives with a better balancing of the protection of privacy rights of immigrants and refugees.
Admittedly, there will always be tension between administrative efficiency and individual rights. These amendments do not strike the necessary balance between the public interests in data sharing among government departments and even foreign governments and the risks associated with an expansive approach here. There are almost no limits with respect to the personal information that can be disclosed. It can include, for example, religious views, financial transactions, personal opinions expressed by the subject and opinions expressed by others about the subject. It’s really broad.
With this broad approach come a number of key risks that need to be considered, including the adverse enforcement implications for vulnerable groups, the security implications arising from data transfers and the impediments to the regularization of undocumented or out-of-status individuals. I look forward to elaborating on these risks, as well as offering practical recommendations that can assist in a better balance between the government’s important objectives and the privacy rights of migrants.
The Chair: Senators, we will now proceed to questions. We are going to limit questions to four minutes, unfortunately, because we do need to go in camera for 10 minutes to discuss organizational business.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, witnesses. You’ve put an awful lot of thought on the table. I’ll try to ask high-level questions.
Mr. Kurland, you talked about the fact that while you support the amendments in principle, you don’t feel they will improve the timelines, backlog or service standards, and you outline some of the unintended consequences. I’d like to know why you don’t think these amendments will improve timelines, backlogs and service standards.
At the same time, Ms. Shazadi Meighen, you have talked about the balance of efficiency and rights, and I think that ties into the comments of Mr. Kurland. I would like you to elaborate if you can for your couple of minutes on the risk of that imbalance between efficiency and rights.
Mr. Kurland: The solution to processing times is quite simple and direct. Section 7 of the Service Fees Act, in accordance with section 4.2.4 of the Treasury Board Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities, provides the solution.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has voluntarily allowed for service standards for citizenship applications, International Experience Canada and other fees related to passports and travel documents. They have intentionally kept off the table everything else. If you want a law with teeth, that’s the Service Fees Act. All we need is to have Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada add on to their list work permits, study permits, permanent residence applications and whatnot. That’s a cure.
The Chair: Ms. Shazadi Meighen, would you like to briefly comment?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: One of the risks is the enforcement implications based on broad data that could have been obtained in an unscrutinized manner. To give you one example, there might be a letter in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada files from an estranged spouse or estranged acquaintance, and they put forward that evidence. Under the way that personal information is being defined, there is nothing that stops that evidence from travelling to the Canada Border Services Agency, for instance, for enforcement purposes.
The enforcement provisions in the immigration legislation have fairly low evidentiary standards, so it’s conceivable that that information can make its way through the enforcement channels leaving a person having to defend themselves for admissibility purposes.
Mr. Kurland: I’d like to add that I may have misheard, but Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada already has information in its possession from various clients. It’s shared throughout all of the department. This proposed amendment makes no change to that. The only change is sharing with other departments, agencies and what have you, which will not in any way — significant or insignificant — alter the fact that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already in possession of this information. There is no gained efficiency.
I’ll wait for another question, but the root cause is the systemic design failure by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in setting up its information technology system. They didn’t copy the Canada Revenue Agency, and that’s the problem.
The Chair: I think I missed the last — they didn’t what?
Mr. Kurland: Well, you see, what we need is a very simple system. You sign into your file the same way you sign into your file on the Canada Revenue Agency website. You have a menu. What would you like to do today — visit, study, work? You introduce your information one time only. When you want to upgrade and add another service, you don’t add in everything afresh. You just take the menu — now I want to add a study permit. That’s what the Canada Revenue Agency does. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada never did it.
The Chair: Okay. I get it. Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland.
Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being here. Actually, from your comments, I seem to have a bunch of questions that have popped up. If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada hasn’t done that, sir, why do you feel they are not willing to do that? Why are they not looking at this? We’re trying to fix the problem here. Why is this not happening?
Mr. Kurland: They are. It will take three to five more years, but I am aware that more than one minister and more than one deputy minister understood the problem and they are on track to fixing this. Eventually it will happen and will result in efficiencies, but it will take time. It was a fundamental design flaw. That’s why they’re less efficient than they could have been.
Senator Poirier: Okay. So this amendment that’s there now for the sharing, is that a positive step towards the solution in four or five years, or is that nothing to do with it whatsoever?
Mr. Kurland: No. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Senator Poirier: Okay. So then it’s kind of useless in a way?
Mr. Kurland: For that, yes.
Senator Poirier: Now my question is for the other witness. You said there were a lot of risks in the amendments that were there that are not going to be covered. Can you elaborate on these risks and how you see that being fixed?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: One of the risks that I mentioned was the information sharing in an adversarial context for the enforcement arm of it. Another risk would be it poses further impediments to the regularization of individuals who are out of status or perhaps don’t have status. We know that in the minister’s mandate letter there is the goal of focusing on regularization programs, but these changes will make it more difficult for highly vulnerable individuals to come forward.
If I have a client who is undocumented or out of status and wants to put in an application for permanent residency, she may think twice. And, in fact, we’ve seen this in the context of provincial sharing agreements with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. She will likely think twice about filing a permanent residency application where that information is automatically shared with Canada Revenue Agency, for example, if she hasn’t paid her back taxes, or in addition also shared with the RCMP or the enforcement arms of the government, which can show up at her door the next day with a warrant because she is out of status.
So it creates a lot of disincentives for people to try to regularize. That’s what we want people to do. We want them to be in the economy and contributing to taxes. But if there is this risk of wide information sharing, that creates a disincentive.
It’s really important for applicants that I work with to really trust the system. In a lot of ways they’re able to do that right now. I can say to a client, “Try to regularize, and chances are that we can work on a looking-forward basis.” I can’t advise them of that in this context.
In terms of managing efficiencies, we can have a process where temporary residents select to opt in to have their information shared with the permanent residency portals or the permanent residency arms of the ministry. There is nothing stopping those efficiencies, but allow the trust to be put into the system so that individual is opting in.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to thank both panellists for, I would say, a somewhat alarming critique of these amendments.
I would like to just ask you both, taking advantage of your tremendous experience in this area and your very pointed criticisms of the bill, do you have recommendations for any changes or amendments that we could make to this bill that would fix it? I know you’ve said, Ms. Shazadi Meighen, that there is no balance, no limits on the threats to individuals, especially the vulnerable and marginalized.
Mr. Kurland, you’ve said there is no need to refer to all these documents.
Can this be fixed? Can this committee fix this or do we hope that these changes will be made in the future? Do you have recommendations for changes that we could sink our teeth into?
Mr. Kurland: Yes. The changes are two. I will refer directly to the proposed wording under (c) where it begins “the contents or status of any document . . . .” No. The contents or status of any document showing status in Canada issued to an individual. Critical difference. Leaving out the words “showing status in Canada” due to the definition of “document” opens the door to an array of unintended information leakage consequences.
The second proposed wording change is at the end of (c) —
Senator Patterson: So delete —
Mr. Kurland: No, add — add, “showing status in Canada.” That’s what you need. You want the status in Canada.
Second, at the end of (c) where it goes “. . . revocation, recall, suspension, recovery or loss of such a document” — comma — recall, suspension, recovery or loss of such a document showing status in Canada, excluding the information and documents provided by an individual pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations section 10(1). That will hopefully guarantee that the only information that is being shared is identity and status in Canada. That’s all that’s needed. Everything else, off the table.
It’s private, protected and collected in the past on the understanding and agreement that none of that additional information would ever be shared.
The Chair: Thank you. We will go quickly to Ms. Shazadi Meighen for her recommendation.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: I would add language in both of the provisions that speak about the balancing mechanism I was referring to earlier. There should be language that says that the public interest will be served in sharing the information, and that public interest outweighs the violation of an individual’s privacy rights. That has to be built in. We can’t leave that limitation to regulation and leave the legislation to permit everything because governments change and we want these protections within the legislative amendments themselves.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I am just trying to situate this bill in the bigger picture of major changes that we really have to see at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I feel a bit like we have all climbed a ladder that has been put up against the wrong wall.
My question is to both of you. Are there other potential legislative changes out there that are, in fact, much more important and would be much more effective? These would be potential legislative changes — obviously not what’s before us today.
Am I correct in concluding thus far that these changes — first of all, thank you for the proposed amendments and the proposed fix — are we not just tinkering here and that the bigger issues are largely left untouched by what is before us?
Mr. Kurland: Yes, frankly, the Service Fees Act. I’m hearing of delays at every parliamentary office across this land when it comes to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: the non-existent service standards; the unpredictability of when a case will be done; when a family will be united in Canada. It’s all because of the political will to not subject Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to the Service Fees Act for all of their application services.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: Two additional improvements would be better staffing because we know Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officers are working incredibly hard. The applications are growing, so we need the department staffed very well. The second is better communications so that individuals know what to expect and what the next steps are. Those communications have to be accurate.
Senator McPhedran: Are those legislative changes that you’ve just mentioned?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: No. Those two would be operational changes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for that.
Senator Kutcher: I need you to help me understand this because when I read the issue about identity, status, et cetera, I was confused.
As I see it, there are two things — and I could be completely wrong here; it’s above my pay grade — identity of the person. That means who the person is and are they actually who they say they are. The only things that I can find are fingerprints and blood type, which are okay. Fingerprints are not bad, but blood type is useless. There’s nothing about DNA and DNA fingerprinting, which can actually tell you the identity of the person. Then the rest of it is information about the person, which seems to me when I read this to be basically unlimited information about the person.
Could you help me understand that? Are both needed? Is the thing that’s the identity of the person, which isn’t in here, should it be? I’m confused about this.
Mr. Kurland: Regarding identity, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has got it right. The biometric system identifies individuals certainly better than passports.
Also, fingerprints are taken for individuals seeking temporary and permanent resident status in this country, which means that the department is sitting on a bed of identity information through biometrics fingerprinting that is second to none, frankly. There are no screen doors on the submarine on that one.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: I agree with the implied comment that the plethora of information that’s added that can be collected isn’t necessarily helpful to the critical issue, which is identity.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for both witnesses. We talked earlier about consent; actually, I have two questions.
First, I’d like to know what kind of information is collected now; do you know? Are you aware? I get the impression that, with this bill and these amendments, we’re asking people who might be in a vulnerable situation to disclose information that we don’t usually require, or that what we’re asking might be excessive. When we talk about consent, which brings me to my second question, how can someone really give consent when they’re in a vulnerable situation and they need to go through this application process?
I don’t know if my question is clear.
[English]
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: Yes, it’s clear. It depends on what process the applicant is going through in terms of what information the government has on them. If they are a refugee applicant, then the government may know about their religious beliefs and threats they face. In most of the processes, they will know a lot about family members — biological parents, adoptive parents and siblings. All of that information is there anyway.
I don’t see these amendments requiring additional information. I see them as saying that they can share anything they have for any purposes across departments, not just Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s purposes specifically. It’s very broad.
In terms of the cost of admission being too high for vulnerable applicants, I think that’s very much a real issue. If there is a refugee claimant who needs to get through the system and is being told they will have all this information transferred for a host of different reasons, they’re likely still going to say, “yes.” But we have to have a more ethical and constrained approach in terms of whether it’s necessary and asking if it can have implications in a manner that we can’t even conceive of because the amendments, as they are currently stated, don’t specify for what purposes we’re sharing this wide array of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Kurland: When it comes down to it, the department gets handed a blank cheque to share whatever it wants with whomever it wants. There are no reasonable limits.
[English]
At Canada Revenue Agency, you can be a criminal, but you’re reporting the bank robbery proceeds to Canada Revenue Agency and paying taxes on it. It’s Canada Revenue Agency policy not to share that information. I can’t say the same for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada because nothing here would provide that kind of information sanctuary. It’s an open-book, blank-cheque scenario here.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen, just help me out here. You said, in your view, the principles of the privacy regime are not here. Yet the witness we had from the department said that the amendments were guided and were protected by privacy principles. I am trying to find out what the gap is here. Help me to understand why she would say they are, and you would say they are not.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: The reason I think they are not is because the privacy regime — both the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act — contain fair information principles. These are guiding principles, but unless they are actually within legislation — like these amendments before you — there’s no limitation on the government necessarily disclosing documents.
Yes, the Privacy Commissioner would still have oversight within these amendments, but an individual would have to issue a complaint after there has been an inappropriate sharing. If that information is already shared and it potentially endangers the applicant, the burden for going through that process with the Privacy Commissioner falls on the applicant rather than the government having to be very mindful because that information is incorporated right into the legislation itself.
Senator Dasko: I see. So the legislation has to change to make sure that there is less sharing than what is proposed? That is what you are saying, correct?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: There should be more targeted sharing. It should be very clear, number one, what is proposed to be shared. What is it that we’re sharing from this wide array of data points, for what purposes and for whom? Until we have all of those missing pieces, it is actually difficult to even engage in a nuanced analysis of what we need because it is so broad, what is being put forward here. It should have a more targeted purpose, and different types of data should be treated differently. The expectations of a person in terms of their name being shared or their status being shared is very different from a refugee claimant’s expectation of privacy when they disclose very, very personal and potentially traumatizing information.
Mr. Kurland: Yes, I could give a real-life example using a case that I’m dealing with this week. A Canadian of Iranian origin did his mandatory military service. During the Trump presidency, a directive went out from the United States banning persons like males in our Canadian-Iranian community. The child of our Iranian-Canadian — a Canadian as well — was just denied entry to the U.S. to attend a robotics competition. Why? Somehow, they found out the child is related to the Iranian-Canadian who had served in the military in Iran. Is that the direction we want to go? I have no remedy whatsoever for this family. That is the danger of information sharing on the scale that’s in this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question of my own, but we do have senators lining up for a second round, so with some forgiveness here, please. It is about consent. Both of you have talked about consent.
At what point in all of this is the individual asked for their informed consent about sharing? Is that embedded as well in the legislation?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: No, it’s not embedded in the amendments. In terms of the consent that is practically required right now of immigrants, a number of the immigration application forms have an opt-in system where the applicant consents to having that information shared with the Canada Revenue Agency, for example. But to my knowledge, there is no limitation with respect to consent in the current amendments.
Mr. Kurland: When it does come to consent, how is it enforceable? What the witnesses have omitted to disclose to date is the array — the matrix — of memoranda of understanding between various federal government departments and agencies with international counterparts.
Once one of our departments or agencies has access to information, through the vehicle of a memorandum of understanding of information exchange, it goes out to a foreign government. And from there, who knows? We left off the table the examination of the impact of the memoranda of understanding. My experience is that the information can flow overseas. You will not know. There is no recourse if the overseas government drops the ball — on your family’s head.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you to the witnesses. I shuddered a bit when Mr. Kurland talked about giving the blank cheque. I’m realizing now, that is truly what this is. Do you have any safeguards to suggest to the committee? We could recommend them as amendments, other than consent— even though there is some concern about consent.
Mr. Kurland: Yes, documents provided under subsection 10(1) are excluded—
[English]
That is under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
[Translation]
If the information and documents provided by the applicant are excluded, that protects the information delivered to the federal government through those applications. Therefore, at the same time, standards are being met and data is being shared regarding the individual’s identity. In addition, the individual’s status in Canada is revealed, since that is the goal, after all. Why go any further?
Senator Mégie: I have another question. It’s for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, but I don’t know if one of you can answer it.
I was intrigued when I saw that the costs—they claim the goal is to lower costs—were $482 million a year. Who pays those costs? Every applicant has to pay a fee. How much does it cost the government? Is it to hire people to look at information online? What is so expensive? Do you know?
Mr. Kurland: I know.
[English]
I had a special opportunity, a few years ago, to go to Ottawa for the purpose of being a special advisor to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, where I helped give oversight to immigration and international affairs.
In some services, the immigration department is making a profit — a profit on temporary resident visas and on the job offers that are required to be provided by employers. There are fees. Although it is not in keeping with the Financial Administration Act, the resources are kept within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and that’s wrong.
[Translation]
So it’s not a network issue. We’re talking about $80 million: It has to be done to reduce the backlog and all that, but that’s more about the Service Fees Act. It may not be about money, it may be about political will.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I believe that both of you who are witnesses now were also hearing the conversation we had with the previous witnesses. If I am correct about that, then you would have heard me ask explicitly if the proposed changes would have a commensurate disclosure, reporting, oversight and review mechanism. My recollection is that the answer I got back was “no.”
My question to you is whether there’s any degree of a fix of a potential amendment or some oversight of the proposed changes in Bill S-7 by incorporating the privacy principles to which Ms. Shazadi Meighen has referred. If it is not going to work, tell us. I’m trying to knit together some of the testimony we’ve heard.
Mr. Kurland: I am just looking at it from a parliamentary process, and adding wording to give life to these principles in this proposal may not be the best way to go.
However, limiting the document to a document showing status in Canada and taking off the table everything else, effectively, will lock in those privacy rights protection because we are well versed in privacy protection for a document showing status in Canada. It is clear. There is a silo of protection right now. We do not have to create another one. The problem with the wording here is it is going way beyond a document showing status in Canada and identity.
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: I agree with Mr. Kurland. To the extent that even within that information being shared so widely across departments, there is very specific language within the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. I’m happy to send that material and to propose that those provisions be incorporated directly into these amendments.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. In the panel preceding yours, we heard from officials of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and they spoke about the sharing of this information as leading to a facilitation of work permits, speedier access to driver’s licences and access to services and benefits that may be provincial. That could be a good thing; I imagine that is a good thing for many applicants.
But you are suggesting that this comes at significant cost. By limiting the information — Mr. Kurland, as you suggest, to status and identity only — would that have a spillover effect on the speed and access to other services?
Mr. Kurland: Yes. I mean, that’s all we need — precisely identity and status in Canada. It will impact, provincially, the public service to render faster, less expensive decisions. Go for it.
The Chair: Ms. Shazadi Meighen?
Ms. Shazadi Meighen: I agree.
The Chair: You agree. Thank you, witnesses, you have been very helpful to us in understanding the intended and unintended outcomes of this legislation. I want to thank you all.
Colleagues, we will go in camera briefly to discuss our next steps. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)