C-17 Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

¹

1545

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.))

Mr. Stephen Markey (Vice-President, Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs, Air Canada)

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal (Assistant General Counsel, Litigation, Air Canada)

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. James Moore

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. James Moore

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

º

1600

Mr. James Moore

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Brian Racine (Manager, Facilitation and Domestic Regulatory Affairs, Air Canada)

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. James Moore

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

º

1605

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

º

1610

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ)

º

1615

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

º

1620

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. John O'Reilly

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

º

1625

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Mr. Brian Racine

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

º

1630

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

º

1635

Mr. Brian Racine

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC)

º

1640

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

º

1645

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. Brian Racine

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stephen Markey

º

1650

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mr. Brian Racine

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Brian Racine

º

1655

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Stephen Markey

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Markey

The Chair

---

CANADA

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

---

NUMBER 016

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)): I'd like to call our legislative committee to order.

    Appearing before the committee this afternoon are three representatives from Air Canada.

    To Mr. Markey, vice-president of government relations and regulatory affairs for Air Canada, before making your introductory remarks you might want to introduce your associates. Then we'll hear your testimony and follow with questions.

    The floor is yours.

    Mr. Stephen Markey (Vice-President, Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs, Air Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Joining me today is Louise-Hélène Sénécal, our in-house senior corporate counsel. She has had a long history on a lot of the issues you're talking about in this legislation related to data and data provision post-9/11.

    Brian Racine is manager of regulatory affairs and facilitation at Air Canada. Again, Brian has spent most of the last two years intimately involved in issues related to data and data provision to governments and government departments, either here in Canada or abroad.

    I've asked my colleague Fred Gaspar to join us at the table as well. Fred is the director of government affairs for Air Canada here in Ottawa.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, we do have a few remarks to make. We'll keep them fairly brief, because we know you'd like to get to the questions as quickly as possible, but we thought it would be helpful to give you a bit of a perspective, from our point of view, on some of the issues pertaining to the legislation. We'll take you through that as quickly as we can.

    Let me say at the outset that our cooperation with the federal government, government departments, and security agencies on the issue of safety and security has been, from our perspective, at least, and we hope from the perspective of many of our interface departments, without question from the morning of September 11.

    That same spirit of collaboration and concern has set the tone for a lot of the actions that we as a company have taken since. We've expended a huge amount of effort to date in implementing many security initiatives across the board. We've tried to comply promptly with new rules and regulations, and we've tried to cooperate with agencies of the government, airport authorities, and law enforcement agencies at every level, as we've been challenged to do in this post-9/11 world.

    Bill C-17 builds on much of what has already been accomplished in government and in the industry, and we support its direction. It enlists information and information technology as a modern, efficient, and effective tool for dealing with terrorist threats. There's no doubt that information and intelligence gathering are the first line and, from our perspective, the best defence in the war against terrorism. We believe Bill C-17 places the emphasis squarely on assessing known--and I underline “known”--threats rather than the often futile quest for the unknown threats.

    That said, the questions we face as we proceed with this legislation are logistical and, frankly, financial. To be blunt, we need to share a clear idea with government of how this legislation is going to work: who is going to share information with whom; how it will be shared; and perhaps most critical to the ultimate success of this bill, a clear idea of the total cost at the outset--and who, of course, ultimately will pay.

    At this point in time, I have to say that cost is a central and unavoidable issue for airlines. And I use that term to include the whole industry, not just Air Canada. The industry in Canada and in the United States is currently operating under extreme financial hardship. Since September 11, in Air Canada alone we've incurred over $60 million in one-time security-related costs, directly as a result of new regulations, time delays, and other material consequences to 9/11. That's in addition to an estimated $40 million annual cost that we will see reappear, year in and year out, as we go forward. And that's based on essentially the existing regulations, not a series of new regulations if they become stronger and tougher.

    These expenses involve such measures as advance passenger information systems, known as APIS; requirements from various countries; the development of new protocols for dealing with disruptive passengers; and the cost of aircraft downtime to modify cockpit doors. I should add that the actual cost of the cockpit door modification was paid for by Transport Canada, by the Government of Canada, but the fact of the matter is, the planes were out of service for a significant period of time during that process. The expenses also involve many other initiatives. It's a list that's pages long.

    There's no question that the costs associated with new security measures continue to increase. They are cropping up in almost every department of Air Canada, from information technology to airport operations, from customer service to cargo. There just seems to be no end to the level of complexity, detail, and security we're needed to provide in the post-9/11 world.

    Collectively, we've defined them as being creeping--and in the long run, in our view, unsustainable--financial burdens for the airline, particularly for Air Canada, at a time when we can least afford it.

    It's for these reasons that we believe--and I think I can speak on behalf of all airlines in Canada--all new measures implemented in the interest of public security, including preventative and pre-emptive measures outlined in Bill C-17, must come under the financial aegis of the federal government. We think that is a legitimate responsibility of government, not a fair and reasonable cost for the airlines. We're having enough of a time just coping with a lot of the other change in the industry. This cost is not one we can continue to absorb.

    We'd also like to suggest that the federal government, in the context of this new legislation, introduce the concept of sustainable security. We believe it's an important concept, one that is forward-looking and pragmatic right from the start. It will ensure that there's a direct link between cost and effectiveness. It will enshrine the link between what the airline customer is willing to pay for and what the customer is willing to accept in terms of screening, information disclosure, and travel inconvenience.

    We'd like to make a couple of very specific points, Mr. Chairman, if we may.

    We'd like to work with the government as intimately as we can on a fast-track, team-to-team basis in order to define some of the terms and definitions in the bill.

    For example, it may seem pretty basic, but we need to define what a “reservation system” is, and arrive at a common understanding of all the terms relating to reservation system and ancillary operational systems. This will allow all of us to much better understand the operational and cost implications of the legislation.

    We make the point because at Air Canada, for example, our reservation system is known as RES III. It's a unique and comprehensive database of all passenger bookings on Air Canada. RES III, however, may not be the best source for all of the information, or for some of the information, such as day-of-flight passenger lists, which the government could request. In this case, access to our reservation system might not be the best tool for gathering information. Instead, it would be something we call our airport departure control system, or DCS.

    So the number of systems we have has to be introduced into the debate so there can be some coordination and planning between government, government agencies, and airlines, and specifically Air Canada.

    On a similar note, we'd like to propose that a consultative process be launched from this point so that government and carriers and ATAC can work together on the regulations to accompany this bill.

    We appreciate that this is generally not a process that is conducive to a lot of public input, but in this circumstance we feel that the regulations represent a major challenge. In many ways, their workability will be determined by the level of coordination and communication in the drafting of those regulations. So if this bill sinks or swims, we believe it could do so on the basis of the intelligent drafting of the regulations.

    In the interest of integrity, both for our operations and for our customers, we also support a single point of access for our reservation system to all government departments. Many people in the room here are from various government departments. They know our views are very strong on this issue. We simply cannot be a multiple-stop shopping system for a whole variety of departments, many of whom have different issues and different information requests.

    Our IT specialists and reservation experts agree that a single entry point is the best way to go to ensure operational integrity, reduce system crashes, and enshrine an orderly and accountable means for all government departments to access the data they might need.

    Conversely, we feel it needs to be understood that extensive and frequent access to Air Canada's reservation system necessarily puts the system at risk. It makes it vulnerable to breaches and crashes and opens the door to substantial financial liabilities. These are issues we'd like to see addressed and resolved.

    In the interest of clarity and fairness, we also would respectfully request the federal government to disclose concrete information about fines, the fines proposed under the legislation and the timeframe for their implementation. I would like to urge you and your colleagues to provide the industry with a reasonable adjustment period and recognize that those airlines that are showing good faith in compliance need to be given a reasonable period of time to comply.

    This timeframe should be part and parcel of the bill so that carriers are given a heads-up and airlines are allowed to allocate the time and resources to get done what is a huge job.

    Moreover, we would urge the government to recognize that many other governments and agencies have been introducing new security-related requirements, such as the U.S. government for APIS and cargo information, all of which requires similar access to our systems but with differing requirements, differing data. The lack of coordination could result in a lot of duplication and a lot of additional cost and strain.

¹  (1550)  

    In the United States, for example, the security standard is a requirement for APIS data, which provides for the transmission of passenger information immediately after takeoff. In Australia they have a different situation. Their government requires compliance with advance passenger processing standards, or APP standards, which require the transmission of passenger data post-boarding but pre-departure and requires us to await an approval message prior to takeoff.

    Before we came down here, Louise-Hélène and I were talking about the variety of other requests we're getting at this point in time. We can take you through some of those in the course of the question and answer period, because each one is different. Each one requires yet a different financial and organizational response.

    So we would recommend that the federal government, working with other governments as well as IATA, establish a harmonized set of standards for data that minimizes cost and produces the level of security that people in the industry and travellers want.

    As we move forward with this legislation, Mr. Chair, we intend to continue taking proactive measures to enhance safety and security throughout our airline. Through our corporate security risk management department, which is a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we're an active participant on the committee called Prevention of Crime in the Industry. We're active on many fronts and will continue to be.

    We also work on a regular basis with police forces to prevent and detect criminal activities that could affect our clients, employees, and the Canadian public in general. In January, for example, Air Canada organized a meeting in Toronto with the police forces from eight major Canadian airports, CATSA, and Transport Canada to discuss and review issues of mutual interest. So that kind of dialogue is one that we will either lead or participate in and continue to give a huge amount of importance attached to it.

    Ultimately, we believe it's important for us to work together, with you as regulators and legislators and with the industry, to ensure that these security measures are sustainable, as I said earlier, practical, and viable over the long term.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd be delighted to take your questions.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Thank you Mr. Markey.

    Mr. Moore.

    Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much to all of you for coming today.

    I particularly want to mention that Mr. Markey and Mr. Gaspar have been very effective in helping to explain the concerns of Air Canada, not only here but also in private meetings. You guys have shown due diligence.

    I have a couple of questions outside the scope of what you mentioned. One is that at this committee we have often heard concerns about privacy, and obviously privacy concerns are issues that Canadians are increasingly concerned about.

    Has Air Canada or has the air industry collectively perhaps done an impact assessment on what may or may not happen with regard to consumer confidence if the government doesn't give proper assurances that these sorts of databases are secure, if this information is collected in what seems like the pretty shotgun manner that's being proposed in the bill?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I invite my colleagues to join me in responding to your question, Mr. Moore, but my sense of the situation is that the industry has not done that. Industry has been engaged in an almost constant effort to respond and work with government departments in this country and abroad on a wide range of fronts related to the provision of data.

    Nobody has had the time to sit down and look at what all of this means, but it is enormously complex, it is enormously costly, and in the long run we should be keeping that in mind.

    Louise-Hélène, do you want to add to that?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal (Assistant General Counsel, Litigation, Air Canada): IATA and ATAC had a code of conduct even prior to the enactment of the privacy legislation, which provided protection of the data. You have a provision in the Canadian CRS rules, adopted pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, that specifically prohibit a carrier from disclosing information in the PNR, the passenger name record, to a person other than a person that's involved in the booking. You already have that legislation, and we've been complying systematically.

    As well, there's a misconception about the amount and the extent of information we have on a person's reservation record. Sometimes all we have is that passenger's name, origin, and destination, and that's it. We have nothing else. It is not a mine of data, not a treasure chest. It sometimes can be just a segment that comes from somebody else's reservation system, because there is a segment on Air Canada, and that's all we will have.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: And for 10% of our reservations, there would be very little, if any, information on them because they're not reservations we've booked.

    Mr. James Moore: As the phase-in period could potentially fluctuate--a lot of this, of course, is dealt with in regulations, not expressly in law--have you estimated the cost of compliance? Or is this still predicated on the degree of regulations in terms of the imposition of the specs?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: It's predicated on what exactly is the data that's going to be required, in which timeframe, and under which condition.

    Mr. James Moore: I understand that anywhere from three to six different groups of information data sets are collected by air carriers on their passengers, depending on where they're coming, where they're going, etc., and this legislation doesn't spell out precisely what it...and it's APIS and PNR that seem to be the principal concerns of the government, but that isn't spelled out in the legislation.

    I think it would be helpful, certainly for the government members, to highlight that point, that you guys do collect a lot of data sets and that this legislation isn't clear on precisely what it is they want, what the security reasons are, and how you can facilitate that transfer. Because it's not an easy thing to do, to just hand over data.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Basically, if we know exactly the elements of information needed, we will take them from the system and find ways, working with the government, to transmit it in the best fashion. That is why we invited the government to define a reservation system, to choose a single point of entry, because, as we said, when dealing with different government agencies, the requirements are different.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. James Moore: Speak to the committee, if you could--to the extent that you may or may not be aware--of the problems of software compatibility between yourselves and other air carriers and whether or not they have the same sorts of concerns, or what software the government is anticipating using. Or has that conversation even been entertained by the governments so that you guys can even start to think about preparing for the costs associated?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: We've had extensive discussions with the different government agencies on the parameters of the government.

    I think Brian can better address that, because he has been sitting at all those meetings.

    Mr. Brian Racine (Manager, Facilitation and Domestic Regulatory Affairs, Air Canada): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting at a number of meetings regarding data from a number of agencies, both within Canada and externally.

    The challenge, as you indicated, is that there is a number of different systems, and the systems aren't designed, in their origin, to talk to each other to start with. For example, for PNR data, which is the data that pertains to a particular passenger--when they made their booking, where they're flying, what their complete journey is and so forth--for about 80% of our bookings we would not get all that information. Those bookings are made by travel agents or other carriers--and that would be true of every carrier in the world--and we only pull over the information required to move that passenger from the A to B point that we have within our system. That's the first challenge.

    Another challenge, clearly, as you indicate, is that there are a lot of different systems out there, a lot of reservations systems. So that's a very valid point. We're working with the various agencies to figure out exactly what they can get from us, as Air Canada, as opposed to what they would need to get from other carriers.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: We also have internal problems; some of our own systems are not compatible. So there are both external and internal dynamics to this issue that make it a challenge and very expensive.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Just as an example, the departure control system, or DCS, as Steve was explaining earlier, is present in all of our Canadian airports, but in our foreign airports it is not present. One of our big stations, in Paris, is not linked to the DCS system, which causes problems if, say, the information is a passport scan; you can't just have the same passport scan software attached, because you attach it to different systems.

    Again, when we started these systems, we did not have in mind having to provide all this information to the government. We understand the need to do so, but we have to work with the system we have.

    Mr. James Moore: The government is requesting, or potentially could request through even further regulations, a complex data set. Tell the committee, if you could, the number of avenues by which one books an Air Canada, Jazz, Tango, etc., flight. Because it can come from travel agents, it can come from phoning a 1-800 number, it can come through websites, etc. What difficulties are associated with that? You don't get the 100% complete data set that the government is asking for all the time, let alone even the majority of the time, given the diversity.

    How will this impact your ability to offer tickets in different mechanisms, such as travel agents, websites, and so on? How will this impact that diversity?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: For example, another airline can book travel on Air Canada; somebody may call one of our Star Alliance partners, Lufthansa. If they're flying out of Munich wanting to go to Calgary, they will take Munich to Frankfurt on Lufthansa, Frankfurt to Toronto on Lufthansa, but take us from Toronto to Calgary. Therefore, we will receive only that segment. That's a way of getting a booking.

    It can be a booking made through our call centre. It can be a booking made through an accredited IATA travel agency, which will go through different systems. They may be a Sabre subscriber, Sabre being a GDS provider. They may be a Galileo subscriber. We may get the booking from our online website, from online travel agencies.

    These are all mechanisms by which a reservation can be made. Again, these systems eventually feed into our system, but at a different level with different information.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much for your presentations.

    I understand Air Canada's concerns with regard to the costs and with regard to ensuring that the objectives of the legislation and the means of achieving those objectives are clear, and ensuring that Air Canada is brought into the negotiations to operationalize, to develop regulations, etc.

    Did you have an opportunity to look at the transcripts of the presentations made by RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli, or Mr. Elcock of CSIS, where they specified the kind of information they would want?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: No, we have not seen those transcripts.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

    The information we see listed in the proposed legislation is much more extensive than what they mentioned. They basically mentioned name, sex, date of birth, nationality if that was available, and citizenship. That was it. So if you have an opportunity to sit down with these two services, obviously you'll be able to work on that.

    On the issue of cost, you talked about the amount of money Air Canada has had to invest to date for directly one-off security measures or systems. You also mentioned a figure that would be ongoing, annualized, in terms of increased costs for security-related measures.

    There's another piece of legislation that's been tabled by the government, the Transportation Act. Have you established whether that is going to increase costs if it goes through the way it is? And with this legislation, have you been able to determine, if it went through exactly as is, whether it would increase, or to what extent it would increase, the operational costs of Air Canada?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: There are several questions in there.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, there are.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: We probably won't do them all justice.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's a bad habit of mine.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: No, no, they're all important questions.

    I invite Louise-Hélène to add her thoughts on any points I miss.

    Yes, we talked about a $60 million one-time cost and a $35 million steady-state, ongoing cost, but we see that starting to creep up now beyond that range of $30 million to $35 million. We have no idea what the top end is. It depends very much on the stability in the international community and how events play out over the world stage. But we are fearful, as we said in our submission, that these creeping costs are creeping in only one direction, and that's up.

    On the other hand, we support the principle of what is being done. In the world we live in today, it is, as you said, an important piece of legislation from that point of view.

    What we have not been able to do, Mrs. Jennings, is quantify the impact of the bill, because it is only a broad framework. We don't have any detail on the regulations. We don't have the benefit of extensive consultations. We think there are wide-ranging opinions on what should or shouldn't be in the regulations. All of that needs to be worked out with the industry.

    So we would suggest to you that the cost is probably very significant given the cost of doing anything involving information technology around the world as we operate.

    As far as the other piece of legislation goes, if you're inviting comment, that legislation adds yet another burden to an industry at a time when the industry is probably least well equipped to deal with it. That's not to say that some of the things in that particular bill don't have some merit, but I think, in broad strokes, I'd have to say that it's going to be more expensive. It's going to increase the regulatory interface costs with agencies of government very significantly.

    Many of Louise-Hélène's colleagues in her profession will benefit, but I'm not sure it will enhance the airline or the economics of the airline.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Do I have any more time? Oh, one minute.

    In one minute, then, would my assurance that I, as a member of Parliament and as parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General, would be more than happy to advocate on behalf of the airline industry that the government work closely with the airline companies, Air Canada included, to actually develop clarity in the legislation...? Because it's going to go through. There will be amendments, but it may not provide the kind of clarity you would need; it would come through the regulations. Would that assurance to work closely with the airline industry give you some sense of reassurance?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Yes, absolutely, but I don't want to create--

    A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I said there would be amendments.

    Excuse me, I'll change the formulation: I'm confident that this legislation will go through, mostly likely with some amendments.

    Does that satisfy you, Ms. Desjarlais?

    The Chair: Mr. Markey.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We would appreciate that, absolutely. I think it's in everybody's best interest to have a system that works.

    At the same time, I don't want to leave the impression that there is not a lot of consultation. We have people at the table. We have people in the company who are literally working full time with Mr. Proulx' colleagues in the department, and other government departments, and other countries, trying to make all this work. The difficulty is, it's just an enormous amount coming at us all at one time when we as a company of course are struggling with other issues.

    So it's a very complex issue. It's a very expensive issue, and frankly, it's one we would appreciate help with and guidance on.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Legally, we would welcome clarity around identification of the information that's going to be requested, to have it clearly marked in the legislation.

    As you know, we are not a government agency, and therefore it's PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, that applies to us. And CRS rules apply; we're not able to disclose information without the consent of the individual. Collecting consent in a world where everything is done electronically may be complicated. One exception is if it is provided by law.

    So we would welcome if whatever is being requested is clearly identified in law as opposed to a blanket, general authorization to seek general information.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would just add parenthetically that international coordination and Canada's leadership would be critical. For instance, recently Louise-Hélène got a request from another country--I won't mention the country, unless you want to--for yet a further series of information requests that we can't provide.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: And information that is very rarely on a PNR for any reservation. We were asked to provide “profession”, the occupation of a person, but the only way we can do that is collect it manually--go around the cabin and ask people.

    The Chair: With the indulgence of our witnesses, while we have quorum I have a housekeeping matter I would like to dispose of.

    On the agenda there's a motion at the bottom, and I would refer you to it.

[Translation]

    Would you kindly move the motion, Mr. Proulx?

[English]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Absolutely, Mr. Chair, thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, the motion would read as follows:

That notwithstanding the motion respecting the submission of amendments to the Bill adopted on Tuesday November 26, 2002, amendments to the Bill be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee by Wednesday April 2, 2003.

    (Motion agreed to)

[English]

    The Chair: I apologize for the interruption, but it was a housekeeping matter we had to deal with.

    Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, thank you for coming here today. I totally agree that you should not be responsible for costs, particularly as the RCMP and CSIS weren't able to convince us that they were only involved in fighting terrorism. They are out to target all persons who have committed offences. We've leave it up to the lawyers to handle that. However, terrorists weren't their only targets and you should not have to pay for work that the RCMP and CSIS aren't able to carry out. I think we understand each other and I hope the government understands your position as well.

    However, there is one thing that I want to discuss with you, something on which I hope you can shed some light. Aside from the RCMP and CSIS, of all the witnesses who have testified, you are the only one who said: “Bill C-17 builds on what has already been accomplished and we wholeheartedly support its direction.” I have a problem with that statement.

    Let me give you an example. The Shipping Federation of Canada testified that it supported Part 12 of the bill, but had no comment about the rest of the proposed legislation. Please tell me that you don't support the bill in its entirety when you say:“We wholeheartedly support its direction”. That statement poses a problem. On the one hand, we have the RCMP, CSIS and the Department of Transport, and on the other hand, we have the Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Canadian Association of University Professors all telling us to proceed with caution because this bill seriously jeopardizes some of our freedoms.

    Enlighten me then, if you will. Do you fully support the bill, even though it jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of your clientele? You mustn't lose sight of the fact that yours is the only industry affected by the proposed legislation. Your customers are the ones who will suffer if their freedoms are eroded. Therefore, I ask you the question: do you wholeheartedly support the bill, or just a particular section, as was the case with other witnesses?

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: On page 2 of the English version of our submission, we refer to the spirit and intent of this legislation. We do not talk about the content as such. Subsequently, we discuss the kinds of changes we would like to see made to the bill. As I understand it, the spirit and intent of this legislation are to fight terrorism and to guarantee and enhance in-flight security. That's why the same legislation includes some very helpful provisions respecting rowdy and aggressive passengers. These are new measures and in some cases, they will make our job easier.

    Therefore, we make it very clear that we are not supporting the bill in its entirety, but rather the spirit and intent of the legislation, as presented.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Would you be in favour of amendments aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Of course. Moreover, that's why I stated earlier that we would like the bill to stipulate clearly the kind of information that would be requested. We must comply with the federal Privacy Act and with legislation respecting electronic documents and without a provision of this nature, we'll find ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place because we'll have neither the passenger's consent, nor a clear legislative provision authorizing us to disclose the information. We'll be in a bind and for that very reason, we want the legislation to be clear. After all, we're merely the ones applying the legislation.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Earlier, you were asked if you had read the comments made by RCMP and CSIS officials and you said you hadn't. Did you have an opportunity to review what the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, or others may have said?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: No.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you very much for appearing. We're working our way through this gradually. I'm not sure we'll ever get to the end of it...but I'm sure we will; by that time maybe we'll all understand just exactly how it's going to come together.

    I have a problem with the systems. I'm trying to envision exactly how you think the computer system should work. Do you envision it being accessed by RCMP and CSIS and Canada Customs? Should the integrated system management be part of the regulations that will be brought in, or do you think they should be part of the act, although I don't think they can be?

    At the present time, not all government systems are integrated. That's from various departments building their own little towers and so forth. Trying to get something just from within government is a chore.

    In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was late today because I had the computer guy in trying to figure out why my system wasn't compatible with anyone else's. We found out they'd disconnected it somewhere along the line.

    So there's all that frustration. If the government systems presently aren't integrated, and your system isn't compatible with other airlines, and your booking system comes from almost all parts of the world that your alliances operate in, how do you envision these systems being integrated? Should they be just compatible with law enforcement agencies? Once you open this up....

    I don't know what your thoughts are on privacy information and freedom of information. I see a lot of information on passenger bookings--the type of meal ordered, for instance--as a way to profile someone.

    I just wondered if you had any information or insight into that.

    Thank you.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I can give you a few thoughts, but I'd invite my colleagues to add to them.

    The short answer to your question--how we envisage all of this coming together--is this: with great difficulty and at enormous expense. The reality is, the government is not a monolithic entity, and one of the issues we've been talking about with some of the people at the back of this room and other departments is exactly the point you've raised, Mr. O'Reilly, which is finding one channel with which we can deal. Trying to deal with multiple channels domestically and/or internationally is just fraught with financial peril, from our point of view.

    So we have strongly recommended--and I believe there is a willing ear within government--the bringing together of various departments, whether it's Solicitor General, CSIS, Transport Canada, or CCRA, there being a whole host of departments who are around the table on this issue, to try to coordinate this to make it as easy and as reasonable as possible for any airline, let alone Air Canada, to dialogue computer to computer.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: From my own estimations, I have it as somewhere in the area of 24 departments. And some of those departments are actually split into different areas. Some look after certain things and some look after others. Even those departments are not on the same computer system.

    So it baffles me, how this is going to work. If I can't download information from the Library of Parliament now, because they're on a system that they don't want anybody to have access to, I don't know how you would be able to be compatible with the various agencies.

    I mean, if you look at the Canada Shipping Act, you realize there are two agencies involved. Ships of over five tonnes are looked after differently from ships of under five tonnes, and there are seven law enforcement agencies within that group, not with the same computers. So it baffles me, how we think....

    I keep looking at this, wondering whether we should maybe be reviewing the regulations and not necessarily the bill, because I don't see how this is going to work.

    So I just wondered if you could comment. Or am I the only one who...?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: No, no, I think you've found the nail and hit it rather precisely. Compatibility is a critical issue. We're not at all clear on how all of this could or should play out.

    What we've tried to do is to be open-minded to the principle, as Louise-Hélène was saying, because we recognize that in the world in which we live today, there's a certain requirement to do this. On the other hand, there has to be some coordination and effort expended in making a system work that is somehow going to make sense and can be paid for. If everybody wants all of the data all of the time, it's just too convoluted a scenario to try to contemplate.

    Now, we have said right from the get-go with many of the federal departments that each one of them wants a different piece of the pie. We've said strongly to them that we believe it's critical that they group together and provide one channel, one pipeline, for that data exchange, because absent that, we're going to be left trying to figure out what to provide to whom. And it's all going to be at our cost, which is a huge issue.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I've found that if it's at your cost, and you're left at the end of the line, you'll also get blamed if it doesn't work. That seems to be something that happens in government.

    I know, Madam, you wanted to comment.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Just to summarize the issues at hand, there are three different aspects--the data that's going to be requested; the data that we have; and the form in which it's going to be transmitted.

    The data requested may be different from different agencies, and they may want it as well in different forms. And some data we have, some data we don't.

    We have to work at these three aspects, and it's not a simple task. It is a rather complex task. If you compare it to a meal, we can say, well, here is my system, it's like a buffet, eat what you want, when you want, and as much as you want. Or we can say, well, you can have access to this kind of data only.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: And just to give you some idea of the order of magnitude, you're talking several thousand flights a week and in the order of 100,000 passengers a day. If you just keep rolling that, you can appreciate the kinds of issues that emerge.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: We imagine that the government doesn't want it in paper form, by fax.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, there's your entry.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Add to that the 220,000 outstanding warrants that they wanted to be able to check your passenger lists for and then we'll have a real hodgepodge.

    For my first question, has anyone from CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of Transport, or the Solicitor General's office ever approached Air Canada to ask them what type of information they have available?

    Mr. Brian Racine: Yes. I have met, on behalf of Air Canada, with all those departments, and the Air Transport Association of Canada. The association has met with them as well, because it's a different set of challenges.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So they're quite aware of what information you have available and what you don't have available.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: We were proactive in anticipation of this legislation. We called a meeting of everyone last fall, saying this is coming, and we urge you to work together; these are the limitations to our system, so please help us help you, or please make sure that your requests are coordinated.

    At that meeting we had called Transport Canada, CSIS, RCMP--

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So basically they know that pretty much all you have is the person's name.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Pretty much.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Well, in certain cases that's all we have.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You don't necessarily have the age, the credit card stuff, or anything like that. It's just the name.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: It's different.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, okay.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: The age is something we'll have only if it's relevant to the fare they paid.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Now, I'm not sure if you're able to answer this one, and I don't mean to create a hoopla with anybody here, but what was the airline's policy relating to hijackers prior to September 11? What action was your staff directed to take on an aircraft if someone was either hijacking or something along those lines on an aircraft? What direction was the staff given?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Prior to September 11?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, prior to September 11, what direction was given to staff on an aircraft? Were they to comply with the hijacker? Were they to put up resistance to the hijacker? What were the operational requirements?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I don't have an answer for that, I'm sorry, Bev.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: There wasn't any policy in place?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Oh, I'm sure there was; I just can't give you the answer.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: We have training. We don't necessarily disclose exactly what we do with our employees.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm talking prior to September 11; what was the policy?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: There's no strict compliance...strict compliance with the hijackers. But I don't have the exact determination; maybe we could provide you with excerpts from the old training manual.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I guess the point I wanted to make was that probably after September 11 there's been a change of approach to someone trying to carry on, on an airplane.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: Well, it depends; carrying on....

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Without saying what it is, has there--

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: If it's on the disruptive passenger, what is very different as of September 11--

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Such as a terrorist or a hijacker.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: The difference is that if someone is disruptive or becomes violent on a flight, you no longer can have the intervention of the pilots and first officer, because they're now behind a locked cockpit. So that has changed some of the policy.

    Even before September 11, our policy on handling violent passengers involved trying to recruit able-bodied passengers to assist. We do have restraints, which look like zip-lock or tie-wrap. I was surprised to see, in the war footage, that they use the same tie-wraps we do. The prisoners being marched were tied with it.

º  (1630)  

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You were talking about compatible systems as well. We've heard from different police associations over time, province to province as well as federally, that they also don't have systems that are compatible, and that's been one of their complaints. Again, we're adding another sort of mix to this whole concept.

    Do you believe there are other ways that would better address this issue? Have you had any thoughts about other ways that would better address this issue than requiring airlines to provide additional information?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Frankly, no, we haven't, or at least I haven't had that conversation. Since 9/11, as I said earlier, we have been engaged in literally a 24/7 kind of exercise to deal with the changing world in which we live. We haven't had a chance to sit back and say, well, if we were to go to a white piece of paper and reconstruct this, and do it differently, this is how we'd do it.

    There's probably merit in that kind of approach, but right now, you know, we're in an environment and in a government system and an industry system being driven by the imperatives of security and safety. The responses being put forward by public policy-makers, whether it be Transport Canada or other departments, are all designed to try to get you there. So you work along in the hope that you're all going to the same end.

    There may be a better way of doing it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that this is the right way of doing it. God knows, it's complicated enough.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: We're just a piece of the puzzle. If CSIS or the RCMP are looking for a specific individual, because they've heard it from somebody from another agency they deal with, we would not know that. That is not at our level.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Do I have time for one more?

    The Chair: One more.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

    I've forgotten what my question was. I'll have to ask it next time around.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

    Coming to the information, you said you weren't clear on the kinds of information that the RCMP or CSIS or Transport Canada may require. I can point you to page 104 of the bill, which lists the schedule and the different kinds of information that may be required.

    That's a lot of information. However, if one goes to proposed subsection 4.81(1), it says:

4.81 (1) The Minister, or any officer of the Department of Transport authorized by the Minister for the purposes of this section, may, for the purposes of transportation security, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide the Minister or officer, as the case may be, within the time and in the manner specified by the Minister or officer, with information set out in the schedule

(a) that is in the air carrier's or operator's control

So it means that the information has to be within your control. You've just explained that there is a lot of information in the schedule that may not be in your control; that you may only have in certain circumstances, or in a lot of circumstances, only the first name and last name of the person. Well, in that case, that would be the only information that you would provide, according to the way in which proposed section 4.81 is set out. It says, in your “control”.

    Then, if one goes to proposed paragraph 4.81(1)(b), it says:

or that comes into their control within 30 days after the requirement is imposed on them,

So if further information came into your control, then you would be required to forward that information.

    Does that clarify a little bit?

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: [Inaudible—Editor]...and make it clearer. I'll give you a perfect example.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, please.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: If you look at numbers 30 and 31 on the list on page 105, you have, for example, information as to the means of payment of a ticket, and if another person paid for it. But as to the means of payment, if the coupon is on another airline's ticket stock, for example, I will not in my reservation know that, but the credit card number will appear on the coupon when I get it. It's not something I can easily retrieve at a later date. It's not something that will necessarily be input into my system afterwards.

    So would that mean, if I'm requested, that I need to control every coupon of every passenger, afterwards, and, to build up my data, to ask that, because it came into my control 30 days after? That would be a problem.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Brian Racine: If I may, we have gone through, with the various agencies, all 31 items in terms of what type of data we would have. As you referred to, quite correctly, at 4.81, it has to be in our possession. And a lot of this data is sometimes in our possession or it is....

    The other thing I'd like to emphasize is that the data is contained in a number of different data sets that are independent of each other. They're collected independent of each other. APIS information is passport information, and it is in a system totally independent from our reservation system.

    So we in fact are not in possession of that information. The information is collected on behalf of Canada Immigration, Canada Customs, and given directly to them. We actually do not have a record, only they have the record.

    That's just a simple example, without boring you with all 34 examples. But those are challenges, definitely. And not all the stuff is definitely in our possession.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

    The other point, and it deals specifically with this kind of issue, is that when CSIS and the RCMP came and testified here, they seemed to believe there would be a continuous feed of data between the airlines and their data banks or data systems. Now, what you're saying is that some or all of the information set out in the schedule may at one point come into your control or your possession, but it is contained in different data systems that do not necessarily talk to each other.

    So there is a major technological challenge. Even if there were not issues being raised about privacy, etc., and everybody was on board, technologically, in order to be able to provide the information that comes into your possession but is contained in different databases, it would require a major financial investment to make those systems all compatible.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: And sometimes impossible.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Or it would require several feeds, which means there would be a feed from your data system into, say, the RCMP's. If there's a hit, then the RCMP would make a request for you to check your other databases but would have a specific name to provide to you.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: I don't want to bore you, but I can give you another example. We have a system called “ticket usage”. Because our tickets are valid for one year, it explains the use; some of the fares you pay may allow for some changes, and you can use your ticket at a later date. So even though you have a reservation record--that says, for instance, Madam Jennings is going to travel from Ottawa to Toronto on such a date and come back on such another date--you may call up the call centre and say, no, I'm cancelling my reservation, and I'll use it later. You may use it in a year.

    So you will make another booking. You will say, I hold a ticket, although I don't have it with me, and I'm making a booking for Ottawa-Toronto. Then, when you get to the airport, that's when you show up with your ticket. And all of that is fed into a different system.

    That is a good example of problems, or false leads. We may have a reservation record on someone who will never travel.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. I'll come back, if necessary.

    Mr. Barnes.

    Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. I've been catching up on some of what was presented.

    I will say to you that I've always said, from day one, that if the Government of Canada is going to implement changes for the good of the security of the country, then of course the Government of Canada has to put their money where their mouth is. You can't expect businesses to come on line unless there's a deal worked out. Of course, in your brief you mentioned that you'd like to work with government but government hasn't really listened to the airline industry.

    The feeling all across the country, from a lot of the documentation and the public record, is that government hasn't listened with regard to the financial hardships that airlines had when the air travellers security charge was put in, a charge that was, and is still felt by many people to be, a tax grab for the government. And there was no way of knowing where this money was going, if it really was being put into security, as was said.

    The other thing in your brief that I read with great interest was that “Air Canada was called upon by the Government of Canada to assist in a series of extraordinary measures including the safe and orderly shutdown of airports across Canada”. That caught my eye; I thought to myself, now, why would they that put into this brief? Was there a deal struck with the Government of Canada? If there wasn't a deal, why was this so important? Was it a financial hardship that the government felt was there, with Air Canada?

    I'm wondering what your feelings are on that. I'm just taking things out of your brief for a second.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I hope I answer your question, and I apologize if I don't. Your point on cost is an important one. This industry and this company in particular are under enormous pressure on cost. The industry has said this is a cost crisis in this country right now.

    The simple reality is that costs--and costs of a wide variety, not just security costs but costs related to airports and other services--are making it extremely difficult for the industry, when the revenue lines are relatively flat or declining, to find healthy ground to stand on. So this is an enormous issue for us. The industry, either individually through Air Canada or through other companies or through the association, will continue to pound away on it, because we believe a lot of these costs should be costs that are borne directly by government as opposed to an airline, particularly when we're the only mode that seems to face a lot of the costs being attached on airlines. Other modes don't, and we've never understood why. We don't think it's particularly fair.

    The point with respect to post-9/11 we made simply to underscore the fact that there is a huge amount of integrity in the Canadian aviation system; that the commitment to safety and security is paramount; that Canada for 65 years has put an industry and a product in the world market that is second to none and seen as a highly safe and secure system. So we made the point in the submission just to show the partnership that has evolved with Transport Canada and other departments. It doesn't mean, however, that we're not quite capable of saying that there are cost issues these guys need to deal with, because there are cost issues they need to deal with.

    Mr. Rex Barnes: Right.

    As well, Mr. Chair, people across this country have always felt that Air Canada had a great record with regard to security within their own company. It seems as though we all blame everything on 9/11. That's the big thing--blame it on 9/11. Now it's going to be the Iraqi war--blame it on the Iraqi war, with one war after another.

    I'm just wondering, what's so different about the security today versus what it was back then? Was there a big change in the way the security was being done? There's a big change in the way we do business, but has there been a big change in the way we do security?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Yes, an enormous change.

    Go ahead.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: One extremely costly measure is that we did not have a provision or regulation that required that we carry bags on domestic flights on the same flight as the passenger. In practice, on domestic flights, if you arrived early, it would be possible for your bag to arrive before you did. If you booked in at 10 o'clock for a 12 o'clock flight, and there was an 11 o'clock flight, we would dispatch the bag as quickly as possible. Under the new regulations, post-September 11, we have to ensure there is a passenger-baggage match for domestic flights, not international. It was there before for international.

    So on this issue, ensuring that our system allows that, monitors that...and if we find out for one reason or another that a passenger hasn't shown up for a flight, then we need to get his bags out of the aircraft and removed. The cost for every minute of delay, just in operations, is $70. Every single minute of delay costs at least $70, not counting the trickling effects. If you delay a flight for even ten minutes, there are passengers who may miss their next connection, and therefore you have to accommodate them and so on.

    So that measure alone is enormous.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Stephen Markey: There has been a huge number of changes. Some of them have been positive, and we shouldn't take that away from Transport Canada. For example, we asked for them to take over passenger screening, which in fact has been done. We feel that the mandate, however, for CATCA is too narrow, and should be expanded to include many of these other functions that we're talking about in part today.

    But if you looked at the pile of security regulations that Brian and his colleagues in the company have had to deal with in the past year, I'm sure it would be several inches thick--not several feet, but several inches thick. It's a hugely complicated business, and it has filtered through everything we do.

    So it has changed dramatically in the post-9/11 world.

    Mr. Brian Racine: Another clear example would be the screening process. It is much more aggressive than it was before. For example, some of the things we thought were safe to take on an aircraft are being looked for and excluded. Computers are being turned on as a matter of course. Cellphones are being turned on as a matter of course. If you walk up with a coffee cup, they ask you to take a sip of coffee.

    All this slows down the throughput, but on the other hand, it enhances the security of the aircraft, as another typical example.

    Anything that slows down our throughput process causes us to readjust things, and that has a cost. There's a downline cost if we can't process the bags as quickly, or if we're going to inspect every bag that goes on the aircraft. It slows down our connectability between aircraft. And this is an industry-wide phenomenon. I'm not saying it's unique to us. We have it around the world now.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barnes. We'll come back in the second round, if we have time.

    Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I'm going to try to follow up on my colleague Mr. O'Reilly's comments. We've sort of touched on it. It comes back to the ability to match data with the various federal agencies and even internally, the cost that Air Canada is going to bear in doing this.

    I understand that when this bill becomes law, your systems are going to have to be able to transfer that data electronically over to, I should point out, one agency, hopefully.

    That's what I see us trying to do in this bill, breaking down where it's going to fall apart, where it's not going to work. Because clearly, CSIS and RCMP, when they were here, envisioned you transferring that data to them on a regular basis on every flight. Now, whether that's an hour before or a day before...but sometimes you may not get that data until an hour before. They then want to electronically match it to their various databases. And I'd like your comments on this.

    My perception from going through this bill is that we haven't dealt with that issue at all. There needs to be a way where your data...and all airlines, not just Air Canada. There has to be a simplified system so that all of these computers are going to talk to each other, else it's simply not going to work. I think that's going to be the huge bottleneck.

    As a second part to that, have you budgeted for these increased costs? Because I think they could be enormous. I know we're not hearing the greatest numbers from Air Canada. You're having a tough time, and I listened to some of your reasons.

    I mean, we fly back and forth across the country every week, and we see examples. When a passenger checks in, and they get to security, sometimes there's up to an hour delay. You have to hold the flight and wait for those people. Do you wait for the people to get through security or do you say, no, you're too late, and then spend the same amount of time pulling their bags off? It's a catch-22.

    So have you thought of these costs? Are you going to be able to manage them? And is it going to work?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: It's a very important question for us, particularly in our current circumstances, but even in a steady-state, relatively buoyant economy, these are huge costs that have to be dealt with. So we haven't said, “Fill your boots, guys, let's start passing data around”; we've said we need to work with the departments. We need some cohesion, coherence, and communication between departments. We need to manage the data size and data requests to what is reasonable for us to provide, given the vast disparity within our own systems.

    And this is not easy to do. This is going to take some time, and it's going to involve huge commitments of cost.

    So there are big issues. What we've tried to do is to work with the departments, because we have a very close relationships with all the departments you've mentioned and others, to make sure that we do deliver on the spirit. What we are perhaps a little deficient on as a group, them and us, is figuring out how to make it all work at a reasonable cost.

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: And just saying, “Here's access to our system, pipe in and take what you want”, is not a solution, because it impairs our system.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: Could impair our system.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: It could seriously impair our system. The more points of entry in the system, the weaker the system gets, and the more vulnerable to crashes.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: To pick up on the point Louise-Hélène is making, what we have said to the government is that there is live, real-time access, and then there is passive access--the way, for example, many of the U.S. agencies do it. They don't have live, real-time access, as I understand it, to airline data back in the States. They have access through filters.

    In our case, we've said, look, first of all, if you want to have one line of access, one pipeline, that's an issue we need to deal with. But secondly, we need to have something done to indemnify the airline against a collapse of its reservation system. If you have agencies all over the country accessing the system on a fairly frequent basis, that hasn't been done before; it hasn't been designed. And we can't afford, given our current financial situation, to be an experiment. This has to work the first time and it has to work well.

    Mr. Brian Racine: If I may, there's a whole set of parameters that we have started to discuss with the various agencies. If you take a look at the data that's been outlined here in the act, the question is, in what range do you want to see the data? In plain English, do you want to see the passengers that have booked on a certain flight a month out, two weeks out, on the day that they're about to board? In other words, are you looking for people who intend to fly? Are you looking for people who have flown? Are you looking for people who are in the air? What type of information are you looking for about those people?

    The two things that will be a real challenge and could well be of significant expense, of very significant expense, is, one, sending in a search engine to find “Is Brian Racine going to fly on Air Canada in the next 360 days?”, which would conceivably be millions of records, or alternatively, going in and pulling out in some fashion all the data we have about our flights for the next 30 days.

    Those are all options, but they are all options that will require safety nets for our stuff, because we don't want to bring our system down; safety nets in terms of the security of the data; and safety nets in terms of cost.

    The Chair: Do you have a short question, Mr. Lunn?

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Just following up on the same line, it seems that the whole thing could crash, from what you're describing to me, and that we have a major weakness in this bill that maybe we need to address.

    Just to share with you what happened with other witnesses at this committee, I think CSIS and the RCMP envision this data coming down literally hours before flight departure, because if it's days before, the people who you're trying to pick up, the flags you're trying to identify, will know that's the system, and won't purchase tickets until hours before a flight.

    Again, I think we need to deal with the way that we standardize the data so that you deposit it on a regular basis in a central federal place where the agencies can retrieve it and in a standardized system and format for all airlines.

    Those would be my thoughts, but I'm interested in your comments.

    Mr. Brian Racine: The issue, I'm afraid, will ultimately come down to money, to cost. Most of the technological things we're looking at probably can be done with technological solutions and backups. Our main concern is, again, to protect the viability of our systems and our data and to not have to duplicate--for instance, to buy another computer, or buy another mainframe. The technological solutions are probably out there between the providers of the various systems, but our big concern is that we could be talking very significant costs.

    We know what we spent on some of the systems last year, so we're talking literally millions of dollars, potentially. And that's really a starting point for us, I guess, to find out exactly what data the various people want.

    We have told them what we have and what we don't have, and where it exists. That's probably the position of our dialogue at this point, with all respect.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

    Ms. Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Jennings mentioned that only information that's there, that you have on your systems, would have to be provided. But is it possible for the government to bring in regulations after this legislation that says, in new Transport Canada regulations, you have to provide this, this, and this information?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: In my experience, the government has the prerogative to do what it wants, but it has to be consistent with the spirit and the intent of legislation. You know, there's still room within that purview--

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So within the regulations, they can change the information that you have to require.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I'll defer to Louise-Hélène on that.

    Ms. Louise-Hélène Sénécal: They can limit it and they can define it provided it doesn't give more rights than what the law contemplates.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So if there was an intent--and it certainly is an intent that I got from CSIS and the RCMP--to use your passenger list as a “treasure chest”, to use your terminology, I would fully expect that the government would bring regulations in to promote that. Therefore, you would then be required to provide more information.

    Would that not increase your costs significantly as well?

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I think we'd better read the testimony.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, I would suggest wholeheartedly that you read the testimony. I think it was an eye-opener to even a good many of us on the committee who were already concerned about the information that we thought was going to have to go.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: I probably shouldn't comment, Mr. Chairman, not having read the testimony, and I apologize, but I will simply say that, yes, there are cost issues. At the same time, we're trying to work very closely with the Solicitor General and the RCMP. I can't account for the commissioner's statements, but I know that at the working level within those departments and within the force we're in very constant contact with them.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think you were fair in your statement, in the “spirit of cooperation” wanting to address the problems. I think everybody feels that way. Everybody around this table generally supports the spirit of putting in place good security measures. But I certainly have the impression that we've gone beyond the balance of good security measures to just a search and seizure kind of approach. It's somewhat disappointing, because I think we all do support the spirit and intent of working against terrorism.

    That's it.

    The Chair: Other questions?

[Translation]

    On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses Mr. Markey, Ms. Sénécal and Mr. Racine, along with our other invited guest. Thank you for testifying here today.

    Mr. Stephen Markey: You're very welcome.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.