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.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We have been furnishing advance passenger information and passenger name record information to the United States for quite some time now.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
You say in here “our understanding is that information collected can be disclosed and used for purposes other than aviation security, such as law enforcement and immigration purposes”, the information given to the United States under this program.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In something called “the rule”, there is quite an extensive list of possibilities for DHS to share this with domestic and foreign governments of various types, international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, and so on. This is in American legislation itself.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
So they could share it with any country in the world? So you have 25 points of information with the passenger name record, you have visa records, you have access to all kinds of information. Is that not correct?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
And you can share this with anyone. The Department of Homeland Security can share it with anyone. Let's just get that established.
The minister said: “We indicated that passenger information should not be vetted against any list other than those used to maintain aviation security.”
Certainly law enforcement and immigration don't seem to fit under aviation security, do they?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
No, they don't.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What we have is the minister saying that we should not be vetted. So the minister is really only mouthing words here, because the reality is that this information can and will be shared with all kinds of people within the U.S. government, and also with any other foreign government they choose to share it with. Is that correct?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
My understanding from reading the rule is that it can be shared. They have the power to share it widely, but the extent to which it will be, I can't speak to that.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
We've been told there were three points of information. Now we're up to 28 points of information, and maybe some more, and maybe some linkages to other information through the passenger name record. Not only can it be shared with Homeland Security but also with the FBI, CIA, and any other agency of the American government, plus any other agency of any other government in this world. That's what we're giving up.
Were you privy to any threat or risk assessment done by the Canadian government to determine whether this information, this breach of Canadian privacy, actually has any basis in an assessment of what's going to happen on those aircraft?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Not to my knowledge.
The thing I am aware of that most recently has been made public is the assessment of Mr. Justice Major at his commission, who has said generally that in the testimony he received about aircraft and airline security, the usefulness of passenger protect or do-not-fly lists or the use of personal information has not been established.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Are you familiar with the Congressional Research Service report to Congress on data mining in Homeland Security, produced in December of 2007, indicating that there are many issues with data mining for determining a threat from passengers? The report indicated that most of this was not correct and would not produce results, and had the additional problem of what they called “mission creep”, where the data collected would be extended to many, many other points of concern for the Canadians who are protecting their privacy?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, this is a problem generally with the gathering of huge amounts of data. Its usefulness has not been proven, and it is likely to be used again and again, often inaccurately.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay.
On accessible redress mechanisms, what would you suggest the Canadian government do for a passenger who wants redress? If you have a person going onto a plane and all of a sudden they get pulled off because of some information that is incorrect or inappropriately used by the American government, how would you suggest the Canadian government respond to that? Are we going to have a 1-800 number going directly to the foreign affairs department? What is it that we need?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think the Canadian government has the experience to look into that. I really can't say from my perspective what would be the most useful. Simply informing Canadians of the possibility of this happening now, if and when this law goes into effect, would certainly be one step, and perhaps giving them a place they can call. But they have to go through the American redress system, which is through the TRIP program. I understand this possibly takes from four to six weeks. I see no evaluation of what the overall outcome is in those cases. The problems can be serious.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Stoddart. It's most interesting, and I look forward to reading this brief that's being presented to us.
I think first and foremost we all agree that the Canadian government is committed to airline security and that we want to ensure that safety and security are foremost. We also recognize a responsibility for ensuring privacy of information. But I do want to just read into the record a quote from 2001, from the then Liberal Minister of Transport, Mr. Collenette, who recognized that, and I quote:
Any sovereign state, whether the U.S., Britain or anyone else around the world, has a right to know who is coming into its country, whether by land, sea or plane. As you are aware, under the Aeronautics Act, carriers are obliged to operate under the legislation of another country once they enter its air space....
The reality is, the United States has made the decision to implement this. We have had several extensions over the last little while, and they have decided that January 1 is going to be the day that this gets implemented. So either Canadians are going to agree that we have to provide this information, or we are facing a very different set of circumstances as far as where our airlines are able to fly. Airlines that are headed to the Caribbean, for example, if they're coming from the west, are going to have to fly eastward across Canada, and then south, adding a tremendous cost to tickets. Individuals are going to have to make the decision whether or not that is what they are going to pay, rather than provide the information to the American government.
So I look at this and I say that as an individual I have self-identified. I have gone to the United States; I have applied for a NEXUS card; I am the recipient of a NEXUS card. So I have self-identified. My information is now, according to my NEXUS card, with the American government until 2016. I just received my card this year, and it's made things very, very rapid for me getting through the airport. Do you have any comments on that process?
When I shop at any store, many department stores today when I go in and I purchase something, they ask for my telephone number, and I give my telephone number willingly. Out of that information, if they do a reverse look-up, they know exactly where I live. They know fundamentally if I'm in a certain subdivision what my income level is. They are directing marketing information towards me all the time. So if I'm prepared to give that information there, or through my NEXUS card, why would I not want to give this to a government because I'm flying over their airspace and they have the right, if I want to fly over their airspace? Do you have any comment on that?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I would just say, honourable member, that in your comments you've illustrated the wide variety of views on privacy and how personal notions of privacy are. Some people will not, now, go to the United States because they are worried about their privacy. Other people in fact take the kind of course that you do. Some people will not give their phone number when they purchase something; others will. So there's a variety of approaches to this, and I think that's one of the challenges that you have before you, that views on the effect of this legislation can differ widely.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
But certainly we have an agreement with the U.S. on how this information will be used. If we are looking at saying no to participating in this legislation, what impact is that going to have on our travel industry? What impact will it have on our airlines, for instance, in increased costs?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm not particularly qualified to answer that, but I think an ordinary citizen could see that there would be a huge change not only in costs but in time if we have to fly around the United States to get elsewhere in the world.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
So we all do agree, though, that the United States has the right to put this in place. The United States has the right to recognize its own sovereignty. If we don't participate, are we disadvantaging our own society?
