Transport Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

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

I was just going to say, Mr. Guimond, I actually asked it in a question, and I said, “Isn't it...?” But I have been to the Dominican Republic and they didn't ask for a passport. I thought now that the new laws were in, most countries were, but I stand corrected. I'm not sure of the state of the law, but I understood that this was the case. But certainly I was asking a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington, do you want to follow up on that or are you okay?

Dennis?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I think what we we need, really, is to have these witnesses examine the testimony given at the last meeting and report back to us so that we can actually get some clarity on this particular situation. Quite clearly, if the information is available to the Department of Homeland Security in another fashion, then we are giving them the right to that information unless we clearly state what information it is that this government and the Canadian people who overfly the United States are required to provide, and nothing more.

That, I think, is the point we were getting at with all the testimony we got from the privacy people. Without some clarity on the part of the department about what kind of information actually will be transferred with each passenger who overflies the United States, I can't really make a decision about anything here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I was just going to respond to something Mr. Dhaliwal said. If what he's saying is that it makes sense to be able to not fly over the U.S., then I think he's right, because the difficulty is that if we don't adhere to U.S. law, we're not going to be flying over the U.S. It's clearly indicated by the officials that if we don't, it's likely that they won't allow us to do so. If we adopt this amendment, then we're not going to be able to. From one side, I understand, as I think Mr. Bevington said, that what we should provide to them in this law is only what U.S. law requires. Is that what you were saying, Mr. Bevington?

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

That's what I said.

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

It's what Mr. Dhaliwal said.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Also, I have an amendment to try to deal with the issue of general information that commercial air--

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

That was my question. If that's fine, I would have to speak to the officials. I'd like to hear from them in relation to this, but is it a difficulty to say that we will provide only what U.S. law requires and nothing more? Would that be a possible amendment so that it complies with what the U.S. is requiring but also protects the personal data we do not want them to get? I wouldn't think they'd want any additional information because, bluntly, I can't imagine how much information that would be on a daily basis.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Just to clarify that point, why are we concerned about this information? Why are we concerned about any information given to a foreign government? It is because of the process of profiling through data mining. That's clearly been identified by the European Union as a huge concern. What we are attempting to do here--and I'm sure that this committee has talked about it and has discussed it--is limit the volume of information provided to any foreign government because of the processes that are used with that information.

We have no ability to ensure that our passengers are not subject to data mining and through that process to profiling based on data rather than on actual events in those particular passengers' lives or on their particular circumstances. The European Union has clearly identified this process as something we have to avoid, so if we do not address that issue within this law, we are opening Canadians to that process, and we haven't narrowed it down to the point where we can keep the information to precisely what the U.S. wants.

I have another amendment. I know that probably we'll have some difficulty with this amendment.

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

Can we talk about it later?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

We can talk about it later.

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

My question here is to the officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I want to ask the officials to respond, and then I have a list of people who want to comment.

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I can offer two comments. The first is that it would be fully the government's intention to prescribe by regulation exactly the type of information that would be permissible for air carriers to share with the U.S. government. It would be fully our intention to state exactly what type of information that would be, and it would be identical to what is being requested pursuant to the U.S. secure flight program--no more, no less.

I think the other point I might offer, Mr. Chairman, is that in our discussions with the U.S. government leading up to their finalization of the U.S. secure flight final rule, they have been quite clear with us that the purpose of this program is for aviation and national security and that the information they collect is for that purpose. They run it against their no-fly list, and where there is no match against their no-fly list, that information is not retained after seven days. They don't keep it. They dispose of it.

I recognize that there are potentially concerns about the length of retention periods, but I think it's up to them to defend their retention periods and the reasons that they feel they need to have a certain length of time. What they've indicated to us is that they feel that it gives them sufficient time to do what they need to do from the perspective of aviation and national security.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like the witnesses to clarify the mandatory information that will be required to be communicated to you. The airlines will have lots of information about every passenger. As Mr. Jean mentioned, they will have the choice of meals, the passport number, their address, their seating arrangement, and their companion. All that information is available to the airlines through frequent flyer programs. I would like to know what mandatory information would be disclosed under the regulations you are proposing and the law that the U.S. wants us to make. That is clearly what should be enshrined either in this legislation or in your regulations.

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. secure flight rule indicates that full name, date of birth, and gender are mandatory elements that must be provided. The rule also goes on to state that if certain types of information--and we read that out earlier--are possessed by the airlines, then that too must be provided. It's not “should” be provided; the rule specifies that it “must” be provided if it's within the possession of the air carriers, but it does not include information such as seat selection, meal preference, and that type of information. It is information that relates to redress number, passport number, passport country of issuance, expiration date, and the information that was read out previously by one of the committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have probably two or three questions to ask on this. We have been talking about a lot of information here. Just so I understand, does amendment BQ-2 match what the U.S. law or the final rule currently requires an airline to provide, or is this amendment more restrictive?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

It is more restrictive than as described in the rule, Mr. Chairman.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If this is passed and the limitations are placed in law, if an airline then does not provide the information requested by the United States, they are in non-compliance with U.S. law and could be denied overflight. Second, if they provide the information in order to gain overflight, they are contravening Canadian law.

In terms of airline non-compliance, if something is spelled out in regulation as opposed to legislation, I'm presuming there's less of a concern if the United States changes their information requirements and an airline is suddenly contravening Canadian regulation as opposed to a Canadian law. Do you follow where I'm going with that? Is that clear?

[Kristina Namiesniowski]

I think, Mr. Chairman, that as government officials we would be concerned also if the airlines did not follow the regulations as prescribed.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm looking at outcomes. Obviously, at some future point the Americans could require more information in exchange for overflight than they are currently asking for. I'm just trying to get at what situation the airline could find itself in if it is in contravention of Canadian law versus contravention of a rule. I suppose I'm looking at a penalty or an outcome for contravening a Canadian law versus a regulation. Presumably it would be non-compliant in some fashion. Either a law or a regulation would be out of step with the United States.

I'm not suggesting that neither is unimportant. Is it a fair degree worse if we have restrictive law and they're now non-compliant with Canadian law? Would that be a much more egregious situation? You guys are not going to answer that, are you?

[Caroline Fobes]

I can just say that a regulation is a law of Canada. Whether it's in legislation or regulation, you would hope that they would meet the requirements.