Evidence of meeting #33 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
We're talking about the number and other passport-related information. We're talking about information on travel itineraries. Is that right?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
My understanding is that if that is available to the airlines, that information you specifically indicated will be transferred.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Usually, passengers aren't required to show their passports, as photo identification, to board a plane.
I have another question. We are acutely aware that...
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
I'm sorry, I missed that. Was that something you wanted me to comment on?
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
No, I was just thinking out loud.
Minister, you gave examples of terrorist acts during takeoff or landing. At takeoff, that's understandable. The U.S. authorities are asking that information on passengers be provided for all flights travelling over United States airspace, even if they don't necessarily stop over in the U.S. Let's consider a Canadian flight—for instance, from Montreal to Cuba—which must fly over U.S. airspace. Previously, information on passengers was provided only for stopover flights. It made sense because the plane would physically be in the U.S. However, now we're talking about a Montreal-Cuba flight crossing over U.S. airspace at an altitude of 33,000 feet.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Yes, those are all concerns we've raised with the American government, and the law is very clear. They made a small exception for us—a very important exception—in respect of a flight going from one Canadian city, such as Montreal, to Toronto; if it crosses American airspace, they have not required that, and they've made that exception. But in any other situation, such as going from a Canadian city to another foreign destination and crossing over United States airspace, it is their sovereign right to require that information. Whether we agree with it or not is another issue. If we want to fly over their airspace, that will be a requirement at the end of this year.
We have tried our best to see if there are any exceptions. The only exception we were able to obtain was for crossing American airspace while going from one Canadian city to another.
November 16th, 2010 / 12:25 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for attending our transport committee meeting.
A number of issues come up from what you've said. In your speech you mentioned there were three requirements for information, but from the background document we received, the Secure Flight program actually can ask for much more information, including reservation control numbers, record sequence numbers, passenger update indicators--a whole number of things.
As well, under the Patriot Act, once a passenger's information is given to the U.S. government, they have the right to access many files that are carried by airlines, most of them located in the United States. You say that passenger information should not be vetted against any other list. Where is the guarantee from the United States?
Under their Patriot Act, they're allowed to look at many other sources of information on any person entering the United States. They have that. Above their privacy act, they have the Patriot Act.
How do we protect Canadians' privacy when the U.S. is using an act like the Patriot Act to access any other kind of information they want on Canadian passengers?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Well, I'm not an expert in American law. I can only say what the law will require of us at the end of this year, and the law will require a name, date of birth, gender, and other information, if it is available.
As I indicated in my prior answer, I believe to Mr. Guimond, American law indicates that Secure Flight is a program designed for a specific purpose, for aviation security and for terrorism purposes. That is the American law, and the American authorities will have to implement that law in accordance with the applicable statute.
There is an alternative, and that alternative is to fly around American airspace. Quite frankly, that would cause an immense hardship on most air carriers, if, to use Mr. Guimond's example, we were to fly from Montreal to Cuba by skirting U.S. airspace, or from Winnipeg to Puerto Vallarta, for example.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Fair enough that this is a problem, but the United States has hundreds of overflights of Canadian territory every single day.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Are we asking for any information from the U.S. on their flights over Canada?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Are we at this point? I'm looking for a yes or no, basically.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
At this point, Canada does not have in place any kind of similar overflight provisions.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay.
Now, I'm really curious about threat assessment here. We have a situation where the U.S. has decided that we can fly domestically and go over their airspace, and we will do this hundreds of times a day in different locations across the country. The people on those planes will not have passports. They will have a lower degree of security clearance than the people who are on international flights flying from Canada to Mexico or to any other place.
Where is the logic in what's happening here? Where is the logic that says those people on the domestic flights are less of a risk to the United States in some fashion than those people flying overflights of their country?
Surely this is a tremendous breach of any kind of logic.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Well, all right, if you're advocating, then, that we should also be supplying them--
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What I'm saying is, look, where is the threat assessment? Has Public Safety actually done a threat assessment of the kind of information you can achieve through this process?
We've had 19 terrorists identified on airplanes in the last 10 years. Is there any way we can profile terrorists by way of information that can be provided through this? Is there anything that logically follows from what we're doing here, or is this simply another knee-jerk reaction to aviation security that will cost us a lot of money and will not make anybody flying any safer?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Bevington, those are all discussions that we have had, all issues that we have raised. Our contention is that we want to have an effective, efficient transport system that is a secure system. We have raised those and other arguments with the Americans. The Americans have ultimately landed up with the final rule that they have come down on, and that is the rule that is going into place at the end of this year.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Maybe we don't need arguments. Maybe we need to institute the same system on those planes that are flying over our space--so that the U.S. understands what they're doing to our passengers--with their passengers.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
If you want to set up that kind of system, I suggest you bring a bill into the House and do that. I quite frankly--
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
You're willing to give up the rights of Canadians rather than standing up for them. Is that what you're saying?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Just because I don't agree with one situation that we might be compelled to do doesn't mean we do something similar in Canada. My intention with the Americans is to work closely with the Americans, to work on legitimate security and trade interests. I want to see open borders between the United States and Canada. I want to see trade continue. I want my constituents to have jobs, and I want them to be able to travel from southern Manitoba to Puerto Vallarta in the wintertime.
Coming from the Northwest Territories, you understand what it's like to be cold a couple of months of the year.
