Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm in favour of security. That's not a problem for me. The fact that my name is provided doesn't trouble me; I have nothing to hide. However, I get the impression that it's mainly organizations like the FBI, the CIA, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and INTERPOL that have that in hand, not airlines like Air Canada, which will transmit all that information to the Americans. I don't have any objection to my name being forwarded to the FBI. Do the CIA, the FBI and all those agencies communicate with each other? They're supposed to know everything. The last time they let one board—I don't remember in what country that was—they knew him. The problem is that some of them hadn't done their job.

They usually manage to know everything that's going on by means of these systems. They know that Roger Gaudet and Jeff Watson aren't a problem. They've known us for many years. If we were in their sights, they would know what kind of people we are. That's why I have no objection to giving my name. I simply wanted to say that I think all these stakeholders know the people who are actually dishonest.

I would like to hear your comments on that subject.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, they are the specialists, but errors can occur.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, of course. I agree with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Commissioner, I'm not sure whether I heard it right. At one point, did you mention that the secure flight program has not proven to be effective?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I was quoting—I hope accurately—Mr. Justice Major's inquiry into the Air India disaster of 1982. In that, looking at various aspects of aviation security, on one hand he noted that there has been no conclusive proof up till now that this constant and intense scrutinizing of passenger name information against watch lists has prevented further airplane disasters. On the other hand, he called for increased screening of baggage, cargo, cargo planes, non-commercial flights, areas around airports, airport personnel, and so on. It was in that context that I was quoting the Major inquiry.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay.

If we take the other approach, you said the government should play a role in making Canadians aware of this new legislation and the new requirements that are coming into effect. Would it be better if the government took the no-fly list and contacted those people to inform them beforehand?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Well, many people have called for that, but the government replies that it's the nature of national security not to tell people if they're on the no-fly list. I believe even if you're stopped in the airport, as my colleague just said, you will not be told exactly why you are stopped or why you can't take the plane. From what I understand from national security experts, to tell the person who has been stopped why he or she is being stopped is to reveal how much the government does or doesn't know about what they may or may not be doing. So it's all very secretive.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But that's what bothers me. As your colleague mentioned, and you repeated, the government should not disclose why that person is being stopped at the airport. So then there should be no redress, because if this person does not know why they are being stopped or are not being allowed to fly, how can that person come in their own defence to redress those situations?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, that's absolutely the problem, and this has been pointed out. It has happened that people who have gone through the office of redress in Canada have not had a very satisfactory experience, from what we understand.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Basically, then, you feel that there will be no redress for the people who are being stopped at the airport?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

We are not aware of significant cases of correction under the Canadian office of redress, but I'm not quite up to date on that. We're doing an audit of that next year—we did one last year—so I'd be able to tell you a bit more in the future about how that's working. It had just started to work when we audited it, so I don't remember that there were conclusive results on that particular issue.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

There was also one member of Parliament who was on the no-fly list. So those people will be the victims of these new requirements then?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Some of them, as was mentioned, may be able to, certainly in the case of a false positive. Many of us have the same name as somebody somewhere else in the world. If you can clear that up, then you can obtain redress. But if it's something that has to do with your actions or your associations or something, then you may never be able to clear it up.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned that there were some unsatisfied redress issues. Are there two or three a year of those, or one or two? I know you just started, but you just said there were a couple.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I don't have them in mind right now. I'd have to get back to you.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just curious. Is it less than ten?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes. It's a very new program. I can't answer your question now, but I will get back to the committee.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I wanted to identify that issue, though, because my understanding is there were less than ten, there were a couple. And that's out of 100 million people who fly in Canada every year. It just seems like a--

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes, my recollection is there are so few that it's hard to draw clear conclusions. There is some anecdotal evidence, including a study done by some unions and civil liberty groups, that people of certain ethnic origins have been stopped so many times that, to all intents and purposes, they avoid flying now. As I say, that's anecdotal. Those are individual interviews, so you don't know what percentage. Even people with a certain type of name or ethnic origin have been stopped.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Of course that will not be tolerated by anybody in this place, so certainly we would appreciate hearing any kind of information that would suggest this, because that would not be tolerated in Canada, generally, by anyone.

I do understand you oversaw a number of investigations. There are a couple that I was interested in because I shop at Winners sometimes, and HomeSense. But you oversaw the investigation in relation to the U.S. retail giant TJX. What did you find that fell down there? Because I liken it to the same thing. I would much prefer trusting the U.S. government with my information, with all of their checks and balances, than Winners, for instance. So what was the fall-down on that?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Very simply, the issue was that T.J. Maxx, the parent company in the United States, took a business decision not to move to the industry-mandated higher level of encryption for its transmission of personal information around the use of credit cards because it didn't think it was a huge risk. Well, it was a huge risk, and I think the bottom line was it cost them $35 million in redress, particularly to banks.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand the U.S. has spent a lot of money on this new system that they have. In fact, my understanding is they're using the latest technology in relation to their encryption data and all of their other collection of data for this particular system we're talking about.

You're nodding your head affirmatively.