Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay.

You know, one of the challenges I have as a citizen in this country is this. I appreciate the work you do at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. But by executing your job, you actually are minimizing my freedom to make a choice.

As was said earlier, I have the freedom to say, “Okay, I'm willing to give up information so I can fly this airline directly to my sun vacation.” And I don't think you....

I don't really want, as a Canadian, to give you that privilege. I want to be able to make that decision myself, thank you.

Can you answer that?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Yes.

I take issue with this, because what we're looking at is an exemption from an existing law. PIPEDA exists. It has been passed by parliamentarians, and it recognizes that, indeed, there is value in protecting the privacy of Canadians.

We didn't come here to say that you have no opportunity. We came here with the view that this bill should be limited, and we suggested some amendments. I think we're taking the position that it can be improved to better reconcile the interests of privacy in the long term, in terms of a model for Canadians.

Once you've had a free trade agreement, and you are encouraging the mobility of Canadians throughout the world, it's kind of bizarre to now say that's it's now completely your choice. People take flights not only because they want to but because they have to for travel, because they have to for employment, because they have to for family reasons, and so on.

In a way, I think we're beyond the idea that it's a choice, solely a choice. I think they rely on their elected leaders to ensure that they're not unfairly subjected to statutes that work badly, and that's our claim about the no-fly list in the States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the National Airline Council of Canada.

As Ms. Brown mentioned, a lot of passengers are infiltrating into the U.S. economy right now. I think it's just because of our “not open skies” policy. We can improve that if we have input from you on the economic perspective.

Look at the Singapore example in Vancouver. They had to leave because we don't have open skies. Look at the UAE conflict with Emirates. If we do not let them in, we lose millions of dollars. It has created a lot of inconvenience to many passengers who want to travel. Would you also suggest something about that?

You're concerned about the economic downturn in the tourism industry, so could you comment on that issue?

[David Goldstein]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Again, this is maybe not for today's discussion, but we would welcome the opportunity to come before this committee and discuss the cost structure of air flight in Canada, which is eroding our competitiveness. In fact, we are launching an economic white paper on that very subject.

To us, the route to increasing inbound tourism to Canada is actually through appropriate competition that can exist within the current routes that are provided for but simply aren't affordable.

Part of my job is to go around and ask foreign carriers if they're prepared to increase their flights to Canada in order to create better value for the inbound consumer. Aside from the Emirates issue, there are a lot of airlines who either have the capacity or could easily get the capacity who aren't coming to Canada, not because of an open skies issue but because of the cost structure in order to land a plane here. That's a bigger issue that we need to get around before we even begin to have a discussion.

These gentlemen have fair opinions, but I think a lot of this debate has been centred around open skies, and what we're looking for is a more competitive situation where we can actually benefit from the routes that already exist.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My question now is to Madame Des Rosiers.

I was listening to you carefully. You said that the information we are going to share with the U.S. can also be transmitted to other countries where there is no public safety, and that can put Canadians in danger. Can you give me an example, and then how it might be avoided?

[Sukanya Pillay]

Yes, you're right, one of our concerns is that if we....

We're not saying we're not going to share information. We're saying let's share it with some safeguards. One of those safeguards would ask, are you going to share this information with third countries? We're hoping that the answer is no. It's up to Canada to say we'll let our airlines share it with this or that country. That is sovereignty, to decide where our information goes.

Our concern is that if the information is passed on to a third country that doesn't have the same human rights or civil liberties democratic values, would it endanger a Canadian. We have seen examples in our recent history where Canadians, because of the misuse and troublesome sharing of information, found themselves stuck abroad in very difficult circumstances and were unable to return to Canada.

This is the sort of thing we'd like to guard against.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Yes, people can be detained based on this information. That's the concern. They can be detained in foreign jails, and that's a concern.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My concern is that by bringing this legislation in, we are not only allowing this information to be given to the U.S., but tomorrow another country. For example, North Korea might ask for similar information.

Do you see that there should be some safeguards around that?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Our position is there's a way in which a process of exemption should be curtailed, and you keep control over when and how you give the exemption. You should certainly have parliamentary oversight about which countries you're allowing the sharing to be with. You should also demand some assurances. We do that all the time with countries. We ask for assurances. You keep monitoring, because sometimes the assurances are not always adhered to.

So there are ways in which you can recognize that; we want to be in an environment where there is free access and so on, but we want to preserve some control over the process of exemptions.

To answer further, the EU is a really good model, but it's a model that has privacy at its forefront. If we are going this route, we're quite happy to go this route as it has a much stronger support for privacy. I think that's something to do, to look elsewhere in the world where they have protected privacy. That may be useful as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Did I hear Mr. Dhaliwal say that the U.S. was going to share information with North Korea?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think it was an example.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Oh, okay. I just thought maybe something had changed in the news since I last checked that one out.

I was wondering, first of all, have you had any protestors? Has Greenpeace been at your office lately? I was just curious, because I'm from Fort McMurray, and we get them every once in a while hanging off the scaffolds and stuff. I just think with the environmental impact of this legislation not being passed and airplanes using four more hours of jet fuel to go around the continental U.S., they're going to be at your door soon. I hope they don't find out about that, because Greenpeace hangs off everything; I'll let you know that.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Thank you for the advice. As I said, I think our position is quite clear that it is your responsibility to ensure that there is privacy protection in this legislation.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's just a little bit of a joke.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

Yes, I got it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I do understand why they don't publish the no-fly list, if I can just make this comment. I mean, to me, speaking as a lawyer, for $25 in Alberta, I think, at Vital Statistics, you can go and change your name. So if my name is Bill Smith and I find out I'm on the no-fly list, I can tell you that I'm going to go the next day and change my name to Joe Jones, right?

So obviously they don't want to share those million names and let people know they're on the no-fly list because they're just going to change their names, and then what use is the no-fly list? That's just a comment, because I think that's the reality.

A lot of people in this room, believe it or not--probably 20% of the people in this room--have changed their names through some sort of adoption or something. There's a large percentage of people who change their names. I just wanted to make that comment.

I want to talk to Mr. McNaney about this. First of all, how many people in Quebec are employed directly or indirectly by the airline industry? Do you have that statistic? I know it's one of the largest concentrations in Canada.

[Joseph Galimberti]

In Quebec, certainly for Air Canada, it's well over 5,000.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Direct employees?

[Joseph Galimberti]

Direct employees. The head office is in Montreal, in Dorval, so the bulk of our management staff is there. We also maintain engine maintenance and crew bases for flight attendants and pilots. So in addition to those you see at the airport, anyone who's properly employed there, there's a large population base that you wouldn't necessarily see in--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So we're probably talking 20,000 or 30,000 people directly or indirectly employed in the Quebec area--

[Joseph Galimberti]

Well, 5,000--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

--with Air Transat, with Air Canada?

[Joseph Galimberti]

Yes, if you add in Air Transat's employee base, which would again be predominantly in Montreal. I think the sum totality of Transat's a little over 5,000 employees, so easily you get into the tens of thousands, just in that one particular area of Quebec.