Evidence of meeting #35 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm really missing what you're trying to say. I don't understand what the problem is with sharing information with a police authority when you voluntarily decide to enter their country.
I'm out of time. I'm sorry.
November 23rd, 2010 / 11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a very interesting discussion.
How's your day going so far, Ms. Des Rosiers?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I love coming here. I think we're doing this for public service.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
One of the things that I struggle with is the notion of the grassroots of what privacy is all about. It's a fundamental protection. Also, I recognize the fact that in the absence of a convention of procedures, let's take a situation where there's not a no-fly list, there is no pre-screening before a Canadian traveller or an international traveller gets on board. A Canadian citizen goes to not only Washington but, say, goes to Jamaica or some other jurisdiction without any pre-board screening, and then finds themselves in the jurisdiction of Cuba, or Jamaica, or wherever, and then finds out that they're not eligible to fly home because the Jamaican authorities decide they're not eligible.
Wouldn't it be better to actually have the screening done in advance and have a procedure in place? Wouldn't you agree with that? Or is it better for a Canadian citizen to be in a foreign jurisdiction with, all of a sudden, their rights stripped from them?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Indeed, what is interesting is that's one of the issues with the no-fly list in the U.S. Some people have been allowed to fly and they are not able to go home. Essentially--
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
You say “some”. How many would that be? I've never heard of that.
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
That's part of the lawsuit that's in the States. There were at least 17, I think, who were in that context.
What we're arguing for is a movement to better protect the privacy of Canadian passengers and passengers around the world. I think the idea of trying to raise the level of expectations toward the U.S., in terms of protection of privacy of individuals, is something that we should share as a human rights value throughout.
The more we frame this issue in terms of insisting that there be more privacy guarantees is not to say we're abandoning the idea of flying, but it's to recognize that we should all be part of protecting privacy.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
It didn't sink in with me, the chain of liability on this. Where does the chain of liability extend if the act were passed now? Is it strictly borne by the federal government, or are third parties and the airlines themselves potentially liable? What's your understanding?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The way the bill is framed now, it is completely at the discretion of the airline. So the exemption from PIPEDA is not given to a process by which somebody would apply for an exemption, it's completely discretionary.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
So you're implying that there's clear liability on the part of the Canadian airline industry, should a Canadian citizen or one of their passengers be mistreated or taken falsely. There is a liability issue that's borne by them.
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I think that will be one issue. There will also be the issue of whether the bill, abilitating this, raises the liability under the charter, for example. That's unclear territory at this stage.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Mr. Chair, I'm going to share my time with Mr. Dhaliwal.
Before I do so, I want to ask one question of the airline industry. How do you feel about that liability? Is that a risk you're prepared to accept? If not, why not?
11:55 a.m.
Board of Directors Member, National Airlines Council of Canada
I think I'd agree that any liability that exists, in terms of the airline, is probably pretty questionable. You know, we are simply transmitting data at the request of a foreign jurisdiction. We are not a law enforcement agency. I mean, this is contingent on you being allowed by that jurisdiction to board a plane.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
If your liability were proven to exist, would you be as enthusiastic about this bill?
11:55 a.m.
Board of Directors Member, National Airlines Council of Canada
I wouldn't think that we would enthusiastically embrace any liability for something like that.
We are not an immigration authority. We are not a law enforcement body. We are executing a security process on behalf of a foreign jurisdiction.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is to Madame Des Rosiers.
In Canadian law, there is no provision that asks that a Canadian passenger's information be shared with U.S. authorities, just as Mr. Jean said. Now it can be shared with police. It can be shared with immigration authorities or any other countries.
Do you see that there should be a provision in the law that should inform Canadian passengers?
Noon
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
My understanding is that one of the cornerstones of privacy protection in law is that the information can only be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. To the extent that an agency acquires information for its purposes, it cannot share it with other agencies, no matter how interesting it would be. That's one point.
Second, there is the ability to create some consent. The consent has to be in a context in which we don't expect people to consent to unreasonable aspects, such as unreasonable searches. Our problem is that this bill, to facilitate one process, seems to challenge fundamental issues in our privacy arrangements. It's not the owner of the information who decides when to give it. It's usually a supervised.... There's no monitoring. There is no time limit or space limit. That's our concern.
Noon
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
I will be sharing my time with Mr. Mayes.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you all for being here today.
This bill concerns me, particularly since we've also examined the no-fly list on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what I understand of this bill, we are going to provide the Americans with information such as the names, dates of birth and gender, as well as flight details, I believe, of Canadian passengers, so that the American authorities concerned can check to see whether any of those Canadians appear on their no-fly list. However, having studied this as part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I know that these U.S. lists are really poorly done. And the Canadian list is no better, as it includes the names of minors. Go figure.
Those people were not even able to tell me on what criteria they added someone's name to a list. The biggest concern in this matter is that, when you want to remove your name from the list, you face a real Tower of Babel.
Mr. Goldstein and Mr. McNaney, I was struck by the fact that you spoke at length about the economic aspect and that human rights seemed to be the least of your concerns. Nor do you seem concerned by the fact that this information could be used for good or bad purposes. We don't know since we have no control over it.
Do you have any solutions to suggest to us, apart from voting for this bill? Perhaps you don't think there's a problem.
Noon
Board of Directors Member, National Airlines Council of Canada
As I said in my opening comments, we recognize that there are other issues on this beyond economics. Our purpose in coming here today was that we had heard comments in the House and whatnot that the inconvenience to the industry would be another 60 minutes or 30 minutes flight time. So what we want to do today is point out to you that, no, the economic implications of it are far broader.
That does not mean, and we are not suggesting, that our economic conditions must trump the other considerations that you as legislators have to look at, but I certainly think it is a consideration that has to be put on the table as you factor in what you're going to do with this legislation.
As far as suggestions and whatnot, at the end of the day you have to keep in mind....
Mr. Byrne was asking how your day had started off. The first five minutes sitting here, I was being told I'm going to be sued.
The air carriers collect this information because we are told by regulatory authorities to collect it. We spend millions of dollars on our IT and our reservation systems to ensure we do not run afoul of any of the regulations in any of the jurisdictions we fly into.
So there is an inherent extremely large cost to us on an ongoing basis. I could make the argument that this cost is directly related to ensuring privacy and regulatory compliance by air carriers, so yes, we certainly are interested in it. We ensure that the information we are providing is only in the context the regulator has asked us for.
In terms of what that information is and in terms of how it should be used or should not be used, that decision is made by regulators in various jurisdictions and at this table here. So yes, we are concerned about it, but we are also very concerned about the economic impact and the jobs impact that will occur if this legislation doesn't pass.
