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
Again, I can only tell you what the privacy implications are, and they are quite significant. I think other witnesses could tell you what would be the implications, what would happen if you didn't implement this legislation.
But on the right of the United States to do this, could I ask our legal counsel just to talk briefly about the international convention on which the United States is basing its actions?
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We're not questioning the ability of the United States to put in place the secure flight program. I think it's international conventions, and international law recognizes that a country's sovereignty does extend to the space above its territory. International conventions recognize certain freedoms, the first being the freedom to fly over a sovereign country. That freedom is affected by the secure flight rule, but there are, as with many rules, exceptions. One of the exceptions to the freedom is that a sovereign country is able to make laws with respect to its territory.
So we're not questioning the fact that the United States has thought it wise to put into place a secure flight program. From our perspective, it's just that a U.S. program will have an incidence on the privacy rights of Canadians to overfly the territory.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Just as a comment, I know that many of the constituents of Newmarket–Aurora already travel to Buffalo in order to access other travel patterns and sometimes lower tickets. So they are already providing that information when they are getting on a flight in Buffalo. I think it's probably the same from Montreal down to Plattsburgh. So many Canadians are already providing this information and I think we need to take that into account.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, sir.
I would like to welcome Madam Privacy Commissioner Stoddart and your associates here.
Madam Commissioner, I don't think any Canadian disagrees that safety and security is foremost to us as Canadians and citizens of the world. But on the other hand, to you, the commissioner who takes care, on behalf of Canadians, of the privacy rights and civil rights of Canadians, these are equally important. Not everyone is as fortunate as Ms. Brown and I, who are able to carry this NEXUS card, who are able to provide that information to the U.S. authorities. We're concerned about ordinary, innocent Canadians who can be a target of these laws. I can see that.
You mentioned that similar names will be an issue. When we talk about seven days and redressing the issues in four to five weeks, I don't think, personally, it's acceptable. How would you feel if you were in that lineup and you, being an innocent Canadian, are denied the right to travel? I'm concerned about that. Are you concerned about people?
November 18th, 2010 / 12:05 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm very concerned about that, and there are many documented cases of people who have been denied the right to fly at Canadian airports for reasons that they have never understood.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
On the other hand, now we're seeing that we're passing this law here for a secure flight program. The airline should be able to share this information with the U.S. Do you suggest that we should have a law here in Canada, that we should be able to control the destiny of Canadians when it comes to that information and those privacy laws?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. Well, I think we do have a general law for the commercial context, as we're talking about airlines giving information. This is PIPEDA. What we are looking at here is an exception to PIPEDA for clarity for the business world, which really doesn't know how to interpret some sections, particularly in the case of overflying rather than landing in another country. We do have that law. It's generally recognized as a basically appropriate law, and what we're looking at here is a specific exception where there would be no consent. The airlines would not have to get consent.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
The other issue you raised is that today we are talking about states--you know, it's a democratic state; but tomorrow it might be another country that might be asking for similar information, where there's no public safety, no democracy.
Are you concerned that the current legislation might cause problems in the near future?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The only states I have heard of that are moving to this overflight information request are the United States. There's some talk about it in the European Union. These are two entities that have very robust democratic institutions. If a non-democratic country were to ask for that information, I believe either the regulations would be changed or the act would be changed, depending on what is necessary. But for the moment, as I understand, that's hypothetical.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
You mentioned the European Union. They are trying to renegotiate with the U.S. when it comes to the secure flight program. Do you believe Canada should follow a similar path to renegotiate with the U.S., to make sure when we put this law in perspective the privacy and civil rights of Canadians are our utmost priority?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. On my recommendations, I basically suggest that Canada keep making representations--strong representations--to the American government about issues such as the length of time for keeping Canadians' information, the efficacy of the redress system, and so on. I hope this will be an ongoing point in the Canadian and American dialogue in the future.
Conservative
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the witnesses as well.
Explain to me why the Americans want this act.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Sir, I'm not an air security expert, but, as a citizen, I understand that the Americans think there is currently a threat to the integrity of the United States' borders stemming from aircraft that avoid inspection by U.S. authorities since they leave foreign countries and are supposed to land in a foreign country.
For example, U.S. security officials fear that such an aircraft may be forced to land in 2011, or may constitute a bomb that could explode anywhere in the United States, particularly near large cities. I believe that was the plan of the individual who was carrying a bomb in his underwear and who was aboard an aircraft that was to land in Detroit last year. I believe that's the model for—
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
What's important are airport searches, where a person shows up at customs. They have to know that my name is Roger Gaudet, that I'm going to... What are the three pieces of information they require?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
They request the name, date of birth and gender.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
That's it. For me, it's May 26, 1945, and I'm a male. If they don't do the right checks at customs, what's the use of having my name? Usually, all those who have been arrested because they wanted to commit wrongful acts at an airport were not known. I have no objection to them knowing my name, but why do they want to know that? It seems to me that most of those who kill themselves at the same time don't give their names and don't have a very long criminal record.
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm not an air security specialist. We're told that people's personal information is being gathered, among other things, to establish travel patterns and links between individuals. They're trying using increasingly sophisticated mathematical formulae to profile potential terrorists. However, as I told your colleagues, there is no proof that will be effective.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
When will that information be transmitted to the Americans? When tickets are purchased or when passengers go through customs?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I don't exactly know, but my colleague might perhaps be able to answer that question.
It's before they take off.
Strategic Policy Advisor, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, that's a very good question.
Aviation security is always explained in terms of having different layers. There are several layers that already exist. As you quite rightly point out, you're screened before you get on the airplane. Your baggage is checked. In addition, there's already a program that provides that information is provided to American authorities if you're landing in a city in the United States. The secure flight program is layered on top of that.
It's a fair question to ask whether this additional layer will add any additional security. But as Commissioner Stoddart has pointed out, it's difficult for us to make the judgment about whether this new layer is providing any additional security. The American government believes that it will provide additional security. It's not readily apparent what that would be, but we're not aviation experts.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today.
That's a very interesting position on this, and I understand why you've taken that position, because of course that's your job. You're to lean one way, whereas reality leans the other way, in my mind. And this reality, of course, is about the Americans, the United States, having sovereign airspace.
If I had an acreage on a lake, and people wanted to go to the lake, and they had to enter onto my private property to go there, I would say to them that they could go on my private property and go to the lake, but they would have to provide me with their name or their phone number, or whatever information I decided, because it's my property. That's fair to say, isn't it?
Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
