Evidence of meeting #37 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 airlines.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, so my perspective on what we've heard so far is that no matter what we do as a committee at this stage, they're still going to have access to all the PNR information anyway.
My first question is this: how long has the U.S. government been collecting PNR data? How long have they had the data available to them? Mr. Salter, do you have information on how long they've been collecting these data?
12:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
I don't, not specifically. They've certainly been empowered since the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act.
I think the question is whether the government wants to make this easy for the U.S. government or make it difficult--that is, whether or not it wants to send PNR data to the United States with our direct blessing for them to use this commercial information for security purposes. We don't have to say it's nefarious; we only have to admit that their security culture is different from Canada's, as the case of Maher Arar attests, right?
12:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
The only question is whether we'd give it to them with a bow on or whether or they'd have to go through the GDSs.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Quite frankly, I think Canadians want us to keep them safe, and they want to stay safe when they fly. For me, that's the only issue. I don't care about bows; Christmas goes by in my family pretty quickly.
How many years that you're aware of have they been collecting these data, and what has happened as a result? Did anything that you're aware of happen negatively to any people as a result of the collection of PNR data? Has it been years? It's not been a decade, obviously, but it's probably been seven years.
12:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
Yes.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
They've been collecting the PNR data for seven years. We've known they've been collecting Canadian customers' PNR information for seven years, and what's happened as a result? Have there been any negative consequences that you're aware of?
12:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
Yes. We can document the restriction of the ability for Canadians to legitimately travel because they have been put on the U.S. no-fly list in a way that prevents redress. What we are doing is adding to that potential population of restricted Canadians, because they are now submitting data not only if they fly directly to the U.S., but also if they overfly it.
12:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa
There's another question you have to ask: what is the security that's been provided? That's not clear to me.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand, but it's already happening. It's been happening for seven years, so no matter what this committee decides at this stage, the U.S. government is going to continue to have the legal right to collect the PNR information. That's what I'm getting at.
I'll give the floor to Ms. Brown.
November 30th, 2010 / 12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lennox, my question is to you, if you don't mind.
You spoke earlier about the economic impact that we're going to see at our major airports if this bill is not passed. Specifically, I have a lot of people in Newmarket-Aurora who work at the airport, and a lot of people in my riding make use of Toronto Pearson International Airport. I suppose I'm looking at the three major airports that I would consider would be impacted the most--Vancouver, Toronto, and, I expect, Montreal.
People who would be seeping over the border to take advantage of American airports such as Buffalo, Seattle, or Plattsburgh already have to give this information to the American government regardless, so at this point it's a matter of inconvenience for my constituents if they have to either travel to Buffalo or take a flight that is going to go out to the Atlantic or to the Pacific and head south when they want to go to the Caribbean. Have you any estimates of the impact that will have on the economy in the Toronto area?
12:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Fortunately, I haven't really had to look into that abyss.
You're exactly right, and it's not restricted, by the way, merely to those three airports: 75% of the Canadian population live within 200 miles of the Canadian border, so any airport within that distance that is offering any kind of service that would be impacted by this is going to suffer a leakage across the American border, and it will happen very quickly. Right now roughly 10 million passengers are flying out of Pearson airport to the United States, and another slightly more than 10 million are travelling internationally. We include the Caribbean when we calculate that. It would also include central and....
To my way of thinking, if you're flying directly to the United States, those 10 million people are probably not really at risk, because you're already providing the API information because you have to land there. Where I get concerned, and where our greatest opportunity for growth lies, is in the traffic that is going to South America, Asia, and Europe. You just simply make it easier for Canadians to go through the United States to do this because you've distorted the air routes over something that really doesn't have anything to do with aviation. As a result you're bolstering Buffalo, Bellingham, and Burlington.
I would say that airports across the country are threatened by leakage. It's something that would be happening across the country, not merely at the large airports, but I take your point.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you very much.
With that, I will thank our guests for being here today. To our long-distance guest, thank you. We appreciate your input, and hopefully you'll see some of that reflected in what we're trying to do here. Thanks very much.
We're going to take a three-minute recess while our guests clear the room. Then we'll get back to the committee business on the docket.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We will resume.
Before I recognize Mr. McCallum, I want to note that I have passed out the calendar. I want us to make sure to note that on Wednesday, December 1, the extra meeting from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. will be with Transport Canada officials with regard to noise and issues related to ACPPA.
The minister will be here on December 6 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on supplementals, and there will be other witnesses on Tuesday, December 7, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. I'm suggesting one hour with Air Canada on ACPPA and one hour with Nav Canada on airport noise.
I know it is a tight timeframe, but originally I think we had discussed that we would do clause-by-clause consideration on December 2. Some amendments are in, and we're asking you to get amendments to the clerk as quickly as possible.
I'm really not going to entertain much discussion until the end of the meeting, because we have Mr. McCallum's motion to deal with. It's on the order of business.
I put that out there for you to look at. We can have this discussion at the end.
Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, you raised the issue of these amendments, and I'm concerned that the timeframe of the meeting may leave us no time at the end for discussion. We've had witnesses here today. I think we're looking at some other amendments that might come forward out of these witnesses, so we do need some more time for amendments.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, we'll have to have a subcommittee meeting to decide that, because I think we have determined that we would move into clause-by-clause study on December 2.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
You've also got December 7 there for civil aviation security as well.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
If there are extra amendments required that can't be dealt with in this timeframe, with the agreement of the committee we could bring them forward for that meeting.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think we can have that discussion as a subcommittee. I just wanted to put it out there for people. I know that we're pushing a deadline with amendments and with this clause--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative