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.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there any instance that you can think of in which the information that has been presented by the traveller to any jurisdiction, the U.S. or another country, has been shared publicly with any other organization? Is there a “for instance”?
12:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
By publicly, do you mean between public entities?
12:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think, Mr. Chairman, the classic case is Maher Arar, who was flying back to Canada from Tunisia, as I remember, and changing planes in New York, where he was detained and eventually sent to Syria on the basis of his personal information, which had been shared with the American authorities.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a legal question that occurred to me. If a Canadian flight were flying over U.S. airspace and there was a terrorist aboard who took control of the plane and brought the plane down and there were damages and fatalities, would the American citizens who had losses be able to sue their government because they didn't do due diligence to ensure that their airspace was safe? In other words, if we didn't pass this and the Americans told us to just go ahead and that they weren't going to worry about it, are they taking on the legal responsibility and liability of not protecting their airspace?
12:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think I'll ask my counsel to answer.
12:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't think I'll be of much assistance. I'm not an expert in U.S. law, U.S. civil liability, or the liability of government, so I'm not sure that I can help with answering that question.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The question really is, do Canadians' rights to privacy trump the American right to security and safety? That's the issue. I think there's an obligation on the American government to ensure the safety of their airspace to their citizens, and I don't think they're asking something that is unreasonable.
12:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Given the American legal system and the facility of litigation in the United States, in comparison with Canada, I'd venture to say that there would be nothing to stop a court case in the United States, if there were some failure of airline security. But how it would end up, I couldn't predict.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sitting here thinking of the irony of all this. We're looking for three pieces of information to give to the U.S. When I book my ticket with Air Canada, they get considerably more information than the U.S. government is looking for and they keep it for considerably longer than seven days. They know everything: my flight details back to whenever I enrolled in Aeroplan. So I have to say I think there's a certain irony there. We're more concerned about what the U.S. government is going to do with this than we are about the information held by Air Canada or other airlines, which, while well-behaved, are more vulnerable than other organizations.
Let me make a suggestion that could meet people's privacy needs. I think only the rare individual would concerned about this. I believe most of my constituents would be more outraged about paying an extra 50 bucks, 100 bucks, or 200 bucks on their flights to the Caribbean than they would be about giving up three pieces of information.
What do you think of the suggestion that airlines be required to notify passengers—they could do it on their tickets—of what information is being given away and where it is going? There could be a website where people could follow up if they had more questions. There would be almost no extra cost if they put it at the end of an electronic ticket. It would be a few more words to type up, a cheap little website, and then it's user beware.
Would something like that satisfy your concerns? Again, knowing my constituents, I'm sure that 99.99% of them are going to be more worried about a rise in fares to the Caribbean. It's going to be one in a thousand who will actually be concerned, because of ethnic history, background, or personal circumstances. Would something like that satisfy your concerns and still not change the cost structure?
12:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't think it goes to the heart of my concerns, which are about giving information to a government database in another country. That's the basic issue.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
But they're getting less information than Air Canada and using it for less time.
12:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
But there's a difference in power. Air Canada doesn't have the same power over Canadian citizens that the United States may have over Canadians who find themselves in the U.S., or flying over it, or even being extradited. Air Canada doesn't have that power.
But to answer your question, I think it would be an excellent idea. I think transparency is always the best approach in dealing with people's personal information. I would favour telling them when they purchase tickets that these elements of information are going to be disclosed to such and such country that they will be overflying. For the moment, it's only the United States.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. That concludes the round of questioning. I'd like to open the floor for one more four-minute round.
Mr. Bevington.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the chance to have a little more time on the question side. I'll just refer to my notes, because you got ahead of me on this.
So what we see is that the U.S. government will analyze passenger data and respond to airlines with no-board decisions or requests for extra screening. Has the government explained to you what this extra screening would entail and which direction it could go in?
12:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Perhaps my advisor has received an explanation as to what that would entail, not me personally.
12:30 p.m.
Strategic Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No, it hasn't been explained to us by the Government of Canada what that would entail, and perhaps, in fairness, it wouldn't be the Government of Canada that would be doing the extra screening. But one of issues that arises is the extra screening could involve questions in order to determine whether or not the person trying to board an aircraft or acquire a boarding pass is in fact the same person who is on a watch list or a no-fly list. That could include asking questions that would help determine whether or not, to use the famous example, this is the Edward Kennedy that's on the watch list, or is it in fact the late senator, who experienced significant problems.
There is a historic problem with the American no-fly list of confusion over names, and some of the additional screening would be to resolve that. The screening could also be questions about where you intend to travel and what your future travel plans are.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
So we've determined that the U.S. can use this information in any way it wants. Would the U.S. be within its rights to refuse an overflight to a person, under its zero tolerance laws in the United States, where any person in Canada who has a drug offence is therefore subject not to enter U.S. space? Would that mean that those people would not be able to get on that plane to overfly the United States?
12:35 p.m.
Strategic Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I know that, for example, in our no-fly list there's a process by which names are added. I don't claim to know what the process is in the United States to add people to the no-fly list. There is some scrutiny of this list, and this may or may not provide you with some comfort, but there is a study that was done by the Department of Justice in the United States in 2007 that looked at the no-fly list. The positive thing is that there is some scrutiny. When they looked at the no-fly list in 2007, it had approximately 70,000 names on it. They found that a significant proportion, roughly half, shouldn't have been there. So there is some scrutiny. There are some checks and balances.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
My question would more within the law as it exists. With a plane flying over the United States, under this law and under their law, would the U.S. need to identify the reason why they took a person off a plane?
12:35 p.m.
Strategic Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
My understanding is no. And that is the same as Canada's no-fly program, that there is no requirement to identify why, merely that you cannot board the plane because you're on the list. They will not give you a boarding pass. There is no requirement to explain why they will not give you a boarding pass.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative