Transport Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Let's view “temporary” in the age of computers. Let's view seven days in the age of computers. We have computer information on the Sabre system in the United States and in the Galileo system with the Department of Justice in the United States. There is information on someone's name. How quickly is it possible to collect all the information attached to the name of a Canadian citizen who is travelling on an overflight of the United States? How quickly, in this modern day of communication and integrated computer systems, can a complete profile on an individual be created?

[Caroline Fobes]

You have to remember the purpose of the collection of the information. It's been documented. Ms. Namiesniowski has talked about her discussions with the U.S. It is collected to be matched against certain watchlists and certain health lists. That is the purpose for which it is collected. When we are assisting them by changing our laws, all we're doing is lifting a privacy restriction that's in PIPEDA so that the airlines can comply with the law of the foreign state, the U.S. That's all we're doing.

The airlines will be sharing information so they can continue business. That information is only going to be shared for specific purposes. If there is a potential match, it will be saved longer, and if there is an actual match, it is up to 99 years, but this isn't throwing information holus-bolus into the web of systems they have in the U.S. This is for a specific purpose. It's for overflights and it's to know who is on that plane.

As to why they ask for these data elements, one of the purposes is to reduce the number of cases of mistaken identity. Mr. Guimond was talking about people with certain names and racial profiling. This is actually to guard against that. They want to have certain information so they can be sure that person is the person they have on their list.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Why then is the European Union so worried about profiling through the collection of data on individuals? Why is the European Union, in many documents produced by noted experts in these fields--documents that deal directly with the nature of the agreements being ironed out between the U.S. and Europe--saying that this is a concern ? Your argument just doesn't follow in the context of what is happening in the world of information. That's the problem we have.

We've had evidence in front of this committee that French journalists have been put on a list because of publications they have put out. We have a situation that is of grave concern to a lot of Canadians. We need to understand exactly how this information is going to be used. That is the basis of what all the privacy people have told us. They don't like this bill. They don't think it's appropriate. They don't think it gives enough safeguards to Canadians, and I don't understand where you see these safeguards being added.

Is your department dealing with the privacy concerns of Canadians? How are you guaranteeing that what you're doing is going to keep those privacy concerns in line? You haven't shown me anything.

Were you privy to the negotiations with the United States over this? Are you one of the people in the department who would have been sitting with the U.S. officials to negotiate this arrangement?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, I can offer that over the course of the last four years we've had a number of discussions with the U.S. government. I think, certainly, that it is the view of the government that one of the ways to protect the privacy rights of Canadians is to be explicit in the regulations about the type of information that would be provided, and to be explicit that it would be no more and no less than what is required on the part of the U.S. government as prescribed by their law.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

To be more specific, were you engaged in the negotiations that gave us the exemption on domestic overflights?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, I was part of the discussion that led to the exemption that Canada received for domestic overflights.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Can you give us some information about why the U.S. position changed on that particular aspect of this deal, and why they would not give us a complete exemption, as they are empowered to do under the final rule of their particular law?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, I think you have to go back to the beginning about why this rule was put in place in the first place.

There was work done by the 9/11 commission. That commission came out with decisions that called for the repatriation of the no-fly lists from the hands of the air carriers into the hands of the U.S. government, because up until that point air carriers around the world were running the U.S. no-fly list, making a determination as to whether individuals who potentially would be boarding that aircraft would be on the list or not, and then trying to resolve the situation if there was potentially a match with the U.S. government. This led to various people missing planes, false positives, and that sort of thing, so there was a decision on the part of the U.S. government to accept the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and repatriate the no-fly list into the hands of the U.S. government.

They went through their process to develop the final rule. There was a notice of proposed rule-making that came out. It provided people with an opportunity to offer representation around the content of that rule. Canada did do that. We had various discussions with the U.S. government about seeking an exemption to the application of the rule. The decision at the end of the day was to provide an exemption for Canadian domestic flights, i.e., flights that fly within Canada but fly over U.S. airspace.

Further to 9/11, as individuals will recall, it was airplanes that flew into the World Trade Centre. The U.S. government was very concerned about that sort of activity happening again. The rule applies to the continental U.S. They worry about having planes that fly over major population centres, but domestic flights in southern Canada that go over the northern United States do not fly over major population centres. This is one of the reasons they gave us the exemption for Canadian domestic flights--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You did not answer—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to interrupt. There are others on the list. We can come back if you like.

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

--and that's why they didn't want to go for overflights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll put you back on the list.

Mr. McCallum is next.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

If we go back to the amendment proposed by the Bloc for a minute, I think the origin of it is very clear. In his speech the minister only mentioned those three things—name, gender, and...what was the other?

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

Birthdate.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes, it was birthdate. Naturally the Bloc took that as gospel, but the minister, it seems, neglected to say that airlines are required to provide passport number and country if they possess it, and they will possess it.

I think the only difference of substance between Mr. Guimond's list and the required list is the passport information, plus the redress number, which is to the benefit of the passenger. I don't think it's worth being out of compliance with United States law for the sake of a passport number and country.

I'd like to make one other point and ask for confirmation from the witnesses.

I have here a list of the items of information that will be required in the regulations, which have not yet been officially drafted. It's that list you read earlier. My assumption is that the items you will include in the list will be the minimum required to be compliant with U.S. law. Is that correct?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

It's the minimum and the maximum, Mr. Chair.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So will it be illegal for airlines to provide any additional information beyond what is on the list?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

We would prescribe by regulation the information that airlines would be required to provide, and it would be identical to what is contained in the U.S. secure flight program.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So if an airline had something else, such as a Visa card number, it would be illegal for them to give it to the U.S. if it wasn't on the list in the regulations? Is that correct?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It would.

The last point I'd like to make is that if that we pass one of our Liberal amendments, it would say that before any regulatory change is made, it would have to have parliamentary oversight and approval. Our intent originally was that it would not be possible to add some third country, some country other than the U.S., by order in council. It would have to come back for parliamentary scrutiny and approval. My understanding is that if the United States were ever to change its list of required information—let's say it added something—that could not be done by order in council, by regulation; that amendment or addition to the list would have to come back to Parliament.

Is that your understanding of our amendment, which is on page 11? If that is true, it would give me more comfort. I wouldn't want to see a whole lot of new information added to the list without the need for parliamentary scrutiny.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I let you answer that—in fact, I'm not going to let you answer it today—I think you should look at the amendment and maybe make comment on it.

Seeing that it's 1:30, I'm going to adjourn the committee, and we'll resume this debate. I know there's a question about minimum and maximum and definitions. We'll take it from there when we resume on Tuesday.

Thank you, everyone. Have a nice weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.