Evidence of meeting #34 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 privacy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
It could be from 3:30 to 5:30, perhaps. I'm not fussy as to time, but I think we need some action on this front, because the time is passing by. I'm suggesting that a Wednesday supplementary meeting might be a reasonable proposal.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
How many meetings have we had so far on this--four or three?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Prior to coming back, I think we had four, and I think we've had three since.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So we've already had seven meetings on this particular issue. Maybe what we could do is deal with this at the steering committee and talk about it, because I'm not sure what witnesses you would have come forward and what additional information they could provide to us. Is this some sort of follow-up you're suggesting? What witnesses are you recommending? We have had seven meetings. We only have how many in a year? How many meetings do we have in a year with this committee usually?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think what I'm going to do is perhaps call a subcommittee meeting for early next week to iron this out. We do have our guests here, and I think we can do a subcommittee meeting and make those arrangements that are suitable.
Mr. Jean.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just ask Mr. McCallum to actually provide an idea of who he would like to call so we have an idea of where we're going to go from here, because I thought we had exhausted that topic already.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. With that, I'm going to invite our guests to join us at the table today. We'll take a two-minute recess while they make themselves comfortable and then we'll move into the next order of business.
11:23 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, and welcome back after that brief recess.
Just for the advice of the committee, business order number two, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 26, 2010, is Bill C-42, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
I will advise the committee members that this is being video-recorded, just for your information.
Joining us today from the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner.
Welcome, and please proceed.
11:23 a.m.
Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy to come before you today on this important question of use of personal information in airline security.
I'm accompanied by two people who have very relevant expertise. To my right is Carman Baggaley, a senior policy advisor who has worked for a long time in this area. To my left is Maître Daniel Caron, who is our legal counsel on this issue. I also have two other people accompanying me who have relative expertise in this area.
Honourable members, Bill C-42 is a very deceptively simple bill. It's certainly a short one. It only contains two sections and it does only one thing. It amends the Aeronautics Act to allow the operator of an aircraft that is scheduled to fly over a foreign state to provide certain personal information about the passengers on the flight to the foreign state when required to do so by the laws of the state.
Aviation security has always been important, but for reasons that we all understand it has become a priority in Canada and for countries around the world.
Since the terrorist attacks of 2001 and subsequent aviation-related incidents, we have witnessed the introduction in Canada of numerous aviation security measures, including the Public Safety Act, the implementation of the advanced passenger information passenger name record--recognized under the initials API/PNR program--and the passenger protect program, commonly called the Canadian no-fly list.
All of these measures give rise to privacy concerns. They have resulted in the creation of massive government databases, the use of secretive no-fly lists, the increased scrutiny of travellers and airport workers, and greater information-sharing with foreign governments.
However, the bill before you, Bill C-42, differs from the measures listed above in that it will not result in the introduction of any new domestic aviation security programs, nor will it involve the collection of additional personal information by Canadian government agencies. Rather, it will allow American or other authorities to collect personal information about travellers on flights to and from Canada that fly through American airspace. This in turn will allow American authorities to prevent individuals from flying to or from Canada.
Bill C-42 raises important sovereignty issues. We are not questioning the American government's authority to implement its secure flight program. International law is clear that a state's sovereignty extends to its airspace. However, the Canadian government has a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens. Thus it's important that we understand how the secure flight program may affect Canadian travellers.
Before commenting specifically on Secure Flight, I would like to remind the committee that we have just had an exhaustive study of aviation security in Canada. The Major Inquiry into the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 devoted a whole volume to the subject.
The inquiry made two general recommendations that I think are germane to the subject: when selecting equipment and procedures for passenger screening, consideration should be given to individual rights, including privacy rights and the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given the importance of the "no search, no fly" rule and the potential impact of security measures on individual rights, Transport Canada and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada should collaborate to devise tools and criteria to evaluate proposed security measures.
The Major Report also identified gaps or vulnerabilities in aviation security and it recommended that efforts to enhance security should focus on three areas: air cargo; airport security, particularly access to the airside and restricted areas of airports; and fixed base operations and general aviation—recreational and business aircraft that often operate in close proximity to major airports.
From our perspective it's noteworthy that the Major Inquiry did not recommend greater focus on passenger screening or collecting even more information about travellers. In fact, the report states that Canada's no-fly program has not proven to be effective.
With that context, I would like to highlight some of the significant aspects of Secure Flight, the American no-fly program. Air carriers, including Canadian carriers flying through American airspace, will be required to provide the Department of Homeland Security not only with basic identifying information—name, date of birth and gender—but also, "if available", additional information such as passport information and itinerary information. Since this information will always be available for international flights from Canada flying over the U.S. airspace, that full information will always be provided.
Although the Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Impact Assessment is somewhat unclear on this, our understanding is that information collected can be disclosed and used for purposes other than aviation security, such as law enforcement and immigration purposes.
DHS will retain this information for as long as seven days after the journey has been completed even for individuals who are not on the no-fly list. That period will be seven years for potential matches and 99 years for confirmed matches.
One important difference between the U.S. secure flight program and the Canadian program is that under the U.S. program the responsibility for checking passengers against the no-fly list rests with the Department of Homeland Security, not with the airlines as in Canada.
According to DHS, this will result in greater accuracy and therefore fewer false positives--for example, a similar name, but the wrong person. However, this means that DHS will collect personal information from Canadian travellers. The Canadian government attempted to have all Canadian overflights exempted from the secure flight program. It was unsuccessful, although overflights between two Canadian cities, like Montreal and Halifax, which may pass through American airspace, were exempted.
If Bill C-42 is passed, we believe the Canadian government has an important role to play in working with the American government and Canadian airlines to minimize the impact of the secure flight program.
These are our suggestions:
Ensure that the minimal amount of personal information is disclosed to American authorities. The secure flight program requires only three pieces of information. In particular, Transport Canada should work with the airlines to avoid excessive disclosures of personal information. On this point we note that the Aeronautics Act currently allows the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the type or class of information that may be provided to the foreign state.
The government should also question the retention periods of seven days for no-match and seven years for potential matches. The U.S. is committed to collecting only personal information necessary for airline security.
The government should also negotiate robust and accessible redress mechanisms with the Department of Homeland Security for Canadians who are prevented from flying as a result of the secure flight program.
It should also make Canadians aware of the U.S. secure flight program and our passenger protect program to minimize the confusion that may result from the operation of the two programs.
These are my initial remarks.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make these observations on this legislation. I would be happy to attempt to answer any of your questions.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you for being with us today.
In respect of the minimal amount of information being passed to the U.S. government, are you suggesting that the Canadian government can have regulations to ensure that only the three basic pieces of information—name, date of birth, and gender—can be transferred to the U.S.? Is that what you're suggesting?
11:30 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. I understand that this can be specified under the Aeronautics Act. My understanding is that they would have to specify whether they want Canadian planes to continue to fly over airspace in harmony with what DHS is asking for.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I think there's a distinction between things under Canada's control and things under U.S. control. That aspect would appear to be under Canadian control, and we can pass regulations to limit that transfer. But with respect to what the Americans do with the information, that is far less under our control. You seem to have concerns with the seven-day, seven-year retention periods, but what can we do about that? Once the information is transferred, they have it.
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
They do. I'm simply recommending that the government take a position going forward that DHS attempt to shorten its retention periods of Canadians' information.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
You also talked about the redress mechanisms. This is a question I asked the minister, and I didn't really get an answer. It's my understanding that the U.S. Privacy Act does not apply to Canadians. Are you aware of whether that's a fact?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
That is my understanding. Would you like to hear the details of how this applies?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Allow me to ask our legal counsel.
11:35 a.m.
Daniel Caron Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Effectively, the U.S. Privacy Act does not apply to visitors or aliens, so it would not apply to Canadians. However, with respect to the secure flight program, the Department of Homeland Security has stated that it will mesh together the personal information of foreigners and Americans. This would seem to allow the U.S. Privacy Act to apply to non-Americans.
However, the Department of Homeland Security has also issued a final rule exempting a number of provisions of the Privacy Act in the light of the secure flight program. This rule applies to U.S. citizens as well as to Canadian citizens on an overflight. So the short answer, for all intents and purposes, is that the U.S. Privacy Act would not apply.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Does that not imply that the redress mechanisms in place are pretty weak, inadequate?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, certainly they are.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Where does this leave us?
I think these are important concerns. I guess you're not recommending one way or another way that we pass the bill. Or are you? Do you think these concerns are strong enough that we push back? What are you recommending that we do?
11:35 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Well, I'm recommending that you follow up on my own recommendations about how the government can mitigate this. Obviously, the recommendation of whether or not you adopt this bill goes to other considerations, such as economics, travel patterns of Canadians, and so on. But we must put this also into the context of a world in which increasingly a lot of personal information will be given out in order to board an airplane, either to the airlines or, in the case now, to DHS.
I think this is a pattern that is going to become more acute as time goes on, with the European Union looking at these kinds of measures, and with Canada itself having its own requirements for people who fly into this country, in terms of personal information, and so on. So the decision whether to push back or not I think rests with this committee, and on a variety of issues, as I understand.
From a privacy point of view, if the bill were to pass, there's still a very dynamic stance that the Canadian government could take in relation to this.