Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was foreign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, I'm considering each of the matters that come before us on a case-by-case basis. In this particular situation, it is the chair's view that it is a motion that reflects the opinions of the committee, and indeed of some witnesses here, on that specific question.
Colleagues, I've made a decision to support the motion, to reflect this committee's position so that it can take a position, and that's the decision I've taken.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Perhaps I could have my question, through you, answered by the clerk on what the rules in committee are with respect to tied votes. Perhaps I could hear it directly from the clerk as to what the rules are with respect to a tied vote in committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Maybe the clerk can simply reply. I have no problem if the clerk wants to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Is there a matter in the Standing Orders, in Marleau and Montpetit, and in written documents that we can refer to? And if we don't have it, if we're not sure, we could certainly check it. Are you aware of any that would indicate whether or not the chair can vote on certain issues in a committee?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Richard Rumas
Mr. Chair, the chair is at liberty to vote the way he wishes; however, there has been a convention, if I can use that word, that rather than stop debate, the chair usually rules to continue debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
And the committee concurred to deal with this without debate, so I had to bring it to an end. I was aware of that, but that was the decision. It's an unusual circumstance. There was no debate because the members wanted to discharge the....
So the decision stands then. The motion carried six to five, and it will be reported to the House and it's over with.
I now want to move on to our next witnesses.
We have with us, Mr. Paul Colpitts, director of access to information, privacy, and disclosure with the policy division; Janet Rumball, director of outreach and consultation, western hemisphere travel initiative and innovation, science and technology branch; and Caroline Melis, director general, intelligence directorate, enforcement branch. All are from the Canada Border Services Agency. Welcome to all of you.
I think you have a pretty good idea from the previous witness of the interest in the issues related to transborder information and protection as it relates to the Privacy Act, as well as to the fact that I think we've concluded that it was going to take a long time to review the entire Privacy Act. Our intent is to try to look at certain areas that have been recommended to us for proposed amendments to the Privacy Act, so we could at least get a start on those areas where we felt there was significant opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of the Privacy Act.
We welcome you before us.
Mr. Colpitts, do you or your colleagues have an opening statement to make?
Paul Colpitts Director, Access to Information, Privacy and Disclosure Policy Division, Canada Border Services Agency
We didn't prepare an opening statement. We thank you very much for the invitation, Mr. Chair.
We understood the invitation was to come and discuss the framework for disclosure of information within the CBSA. We did take a look at some of the discussion you had with the Privacy Commissioner, and based on that, I asked Caroline Melis, the director general of our intelligence directorate, to address some of the questions you may have arising out of that discussion, and likewise my colleague Janet Rumball. So we're here for you.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Certainly. I'm glad to see you here today, because we do on occasion...only 10 days ago I had somebody stranded in California because they couldn't get back. He apparently left the country in good standing, but when he got down there they found his name when he went to the Air Canada desk in California. They said he was on a no-fly list. This is a list that has been made by the Americans. Are we trying to enforce that too in terms of our own people flying out of Canada and back with airlines that are coming to our country?
How do we have some sense of security that when Mike Wallace leaves here for wherever it might be, we're going to accept him back? There may be 1,000 Mike Wallaces somewhere in a computer bank.
Caroline Melis Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
You've given me the first question right off the top.
If he was on the U.S. no-fly list--and he's a Canadian citizen, I understand? Is that correct?
Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
Did he fly into the United States, if I can ask you that question?
Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
So there wasn't any activity on the part of the American authorities to deny him or to have him questioned prior to his departure from Canada, which would be how the no-fly list should be working if an individual is flying into the United States. You shouldn't be able to get there, unless the Americans have granted some dispensation for your inadmissibility for being on their no-fly list.
I can't speak for the information that's on the U.S. no-fly list.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Air Canada has written him a letter quoting a lot of different sections of different.... They have more or less apologized to him for being caught there in this particular situation.
What I'd be concerned with is that there are probably a lot of people with the same names. We're a big continent here with probably 300 million people just in the northern part. How do we know? Are you advising people if they're not on the no-fly list? Is there advice to people, or do you simply buy a ticket and then go somewhere and hope to get on a plane, and then they say they're sorry but...? How does the system work?
Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
I can't speak in any detail to how the no-fly list works because I simply don't know.
What I can tell you, though, is that a Canadian citizen is entitled to return to Canada. So the Canadian government would be taking action to assist that person in coming back to Canada, as they have a right to come into Canada. It is enshrined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that a Canadian citizen has the right to enter.
With regard to multiple persons with the name being out there, there could be many people with that name. I think Senator Kennedy was one of the people in the past who was identified on the American no-fly list, because there is a Ted Kennedy someplace who is an Irish Republican Army terrorist of some kind, and they wanted to be sure they were stopping the right Ted Kennedy.
The thing about these lists is that sometimes there is only a name. Sometimes there is a name with a date of birth, a country of citizenship, a passport number, a place of birth, the parents' names, and a lot more detail. But between the two there is often a lot of grey area. How much information do we actually have? When the person is encountered is often when you go to verify whether this is the person who should be on the list, and you have to get information and details about that.
I don't know how many names are on the U.S. no-fly list, and I'm not sure who in the Canadian public service could tell you that.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
You're saying, in terms of Canadians who might be on the list, that there has never been a filing of those names with Canadian authorities.
Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
I don't know.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
The other factor we sometimes find with border crossings is that people, mainly truck drivers, will come to the border on the American side, and they'll go to their CPIC or to their American system for identifying people who have a criminal background. It could be that they smoked a joint in 1978 and were given a warning. Well, that gets into the American system and they are told, with their rig, an 18-wheeler, which is loaded, “I'm sorry, but you can't get into the United States because you're on the Canadian CPIC as being involved in....”
I knew a guy who stole a bicycle when he was 17 years old. This was on CPIC, and he was denied going into the States until he got a pardon.
It's a very complicated process, and it is certainly to the disadvantage of a lot of Canadians. With our border information on our side, if that person had had a pardon, would he still be on CPIC in terms of having a criminal record?
Director General, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
CPIC is a system owned by the Canadian Police Association, the RCMP, those groups. Questions on the policies with regard to what information is included you would have to address to them.
