Bill C-42 (Historical)

Strengthening Aviation Security Act

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act

This enactment amends the Aeronautics Act so that the operator of an aircraft that is due to fly over the United States in the course of an international flight may provide information to a competent authority of that country.

Strengthening Aviation Security Act

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to sponsor Bill C-42 for third reading.

I want to preface my remarks with the observation that our government appreciates the importance of the legislation before us today. Along with our government, I want to personally thank the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which heard testimony from a wide range of witnesses including Canada's Privacy Commissioner. I also thank many of the members who are in the House today for their hard work on the bill in seeing it come to fruition.

I have followed the debate in the House as well as at committee with a great deal of interest. I believe we have arrived at the appropriate balance between protecting our security while also protecting the civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians, which is a balance that our government has been committed to achieving since first elected in 2006.

I am sure all hon. members would agree that the debates so far have engaged comments from a number of organizations, media outlets and individual Canadians, and it is good to have that debate. Some of these comments have been very helpful and have influenced some of the helpful amendments agreed to at the committee stage.

Some comments shared at the committees were, however, less helpful and may, in some cases, have generated some confusion. We certainly do not want Canadians or our counterparts in the United States to be confused. I therefore appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of fronts and to clarify what Bill C-42 would and would not do.

First and foremost, Bill C-42 will in essence do what was done by the previous Liberal Government of Canada in 2001 as part of our country's response to the tragic events of September 11. It will amend section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act so Canadian airline companies will be able to comply with enhanced aviation security measures that have been introduced by the United States strictly in relation to its sovereignty rights.

In 2001 the then Liberal government amended the Aeronautics Act so Canadian airline companies could provide the U.S. government with passenger information for all flights scheduled to land in that country.

Bill C-42 proposes to amend the exact same section of the Aeronautics Act so Canadian airline companies can provide the U.S. with information for flights that overfly U.S. airspace on their way to destinations such as Mexico and the Caribbean. This is in accordance with the U.S. government's secure flight final rule, which was published in 2008 in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act passed in 2004. Indeed, this directly applies to keeping the United States secure and keeping Canadians secure.

As all members already know, there are obvious security reasons why this is very necessary and why this government has moved forward with this initiative. As the final rule itself notes, flights which overfly the United States have the potential to cause harm due to their proximity to locations that may be potential terrorist targets, such as major metropolitan areas and critical infrastructure in the United States.

All countries in this world, including Canada, have the right under international law to determine who enters their borders, including who enters their airspace. Our counterparts to the south of the border have the legal right and obligation under international law to know who comes into their country, whether by land, air or sea. Canada has the same right and this Conservative government will do whatever it takes to enforce and protect Canadians and our legal rights of sovereignty of state. That point was put forward by the then Liberal transport minister in 2001 to pass the original amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which I would like to point out was accomplished in less than one month, and this holds true today.

As I said, the truth of the matter is international law recognizes a state's right to regulate aircraft entering its territory.

The Chicago convention to which Canada is a signatory requires compliance with:

The laws and regulations of each Contracting [state] relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory.

The legal basis for requiring passenger information for all flights which fly over U.S. airspace is therefore very secure in international law and domestic law and the rights of sovereign states. This point was stressed by many witnesses during committee hearings.

What would Bill C-42 do? The bill would allow Canada to comply with international and U.S. law and it would provide Canadian airline companies with continued access to southern destinations without forcing them to fly around U.S. airspace. Imagine how expensive and difficult it would be or how many hours of additional travel it would be for Canadians travelling to southern destinations or even through Canada itself from point to point. In some cases, Canadian aircraft do overfly U.S. airspace.

The bill proposes to build on a number of initiatives already under way with our international partners to further improve aviation security, because this is a global issue.

Let me now turn my attention to what Bill C-42 would not do, or what it would not require Canadian travellers to do. Most Canadians watching today will be interested in this part.

I heard a discussion during committee deliberations related to the impact on airlines if the bill was not passed. If Bill C-42 does not pass, it could result in a devastating impact on airline companies in Canada, potentially killing jobs from coast to coast and jeopardizing the financial security of hard-working Canadian families in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, right across the country. This Conservative government will not let that happen.

As the National Airline Council of Canada noted in committee hearings:

—being denied access to U.S. airspace for overflight would be an unmitigated disaster for Canadian air carriers and our passengers...undermine the economic strength of the industry.

No one could be more clearer than that. This bill needs to be passed.

Bill C-42 has economic as well as security implications that would be very critical to our country if it did not pass.

Some suggestions were made during committee hearings that compliance with the U.S. secure flight program would force Canadians to give the U.S. government personal information such as race, religion or ethnic identifiers. The testimony from these people is pretty scary. In other words, there were suggestions that Bill C-42 might result in passengers being forced to give the United States information that could be used for racial profiling. That is wrong. That will not happen under this government's watch.

The U.S. final rule is very specific as well. It stipulates that airline companies must provide the U.S. government with a passenger name, date of birth, gender, redress number and certain passport and itinerary information only if it is available.

For passport information the final rule is very specific and states that air carriers must transmit to the Transportation Security Administration, the TSA, the passport number, the country of issuance and expiration date of the passport. Itinerary information includes non-personal information such as flight number, departure time and arrival time.

The fully itemized list is on page 64,024 of the final rule for those hon. members who do not believe me and who want to check it out for themselves and want the source of this information. I encourage members of the NDP to look at the rule so they can quit fearmongering and scaring Canadians because it is not helping the debate at all.

Nowhere in the final rule is there any mention of any requirement for airline companies to provide information such as race or religion. Quite frankly, this government and the Prime Minister would not stand for it. Nor is there a requirement to provide information such as addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, frequent flyer numbers or meal or seat preference.

The second thing Bill C-42 would not do is force Canadian airline companies to provide the United States government with access to large amounts of passenger information which is personal or private in nature.

As U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson outlined in his recent letter to the committee, the only personal identifiable information being shared is name, gender, date of birth and, if available, a passport number. I thank the ambassador for that letter. It was very helpful indeed.

Let us move on to another issue to further provide clarity.

During committee hearings, I heard that Bill C-42 would require Canadian airline companies to pass along passenger information which could then be matched not only against the no-fly and selectee lists, but also arbitrarily and indiscriminately forwarded, for example, to police or immigration officials.

Again, the final rule, the U.S. rule, is very specific. It is laid out in black and white. It says that the purpose of collecting passenger information is to guard against possible aviation and national security threats. That is it. It is very clear. In fact, the Canadian government has asked for and received written assurances from the United States administration that passenger information will not be forwarded to other agencies except in extremely limited circumstances and then only for an aviation or national security purpose.

In his recent letter to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Ambassador Jacobson states:

Secure flight information is not shared widely for law enforcement or for immigration purposes--

The letter went on to say:

Any information shared is limited to an individual or limited group of individuals for a specific investigative purpose related to terrorism or national security.

The ambassador points out in his letter that since the inception of the secure flight program, the transportation security administration has provided information about a traveller to federal law enforcement officials on only three occasions “to further a terrorism or national security investigation”.

How many people travel in our country or in North America? Hundreds of millions of people every year. Since its inception only three people have had that information passed on. This is after hundreds of millions of passengers have flown under the secure flight program.

Our government is committed to work with our international partners to help strengthen aviation security and to help strengthen the security of all Canadians to keep them safe. That is clearly our job and we are doing that job. We are committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians and to crack down on terrorists wherever they may be, wherever they may live and wherever they may hide.

However, we are also committed to upholding the values and the beliefs which have made this the great country it is today. I believe even the NDP and the Bloc would agree with that.

We need to stay safe but we also need to uphold and strengthen the vital cornerstones of our way of life, such as due process, the rule of law and the preservation of individual civil liberties as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and privacy rights. However, it is a balance. We will protect these rights. We will uphold these Canadian values. Bill C-42 does exactly that.

I also note the amendment to Bill C-42, supported by the government, that will mandate a review of the legislation after three years. That is not a bad idea. It is certainly one that the government thinks has some positive aspects to it and one that it will support.

I also want to highlight the amendment supported by the government that stipulates in the act that passenger information will not be passed to any government other than the United States government for overflight purposes.

Parliamentary approval, meaning that everyone in this place has to approve, is required should another country request passenger information for any overflights. There will also be a mandated review of these particular pieces of legislation.

Bill C-42 is very necessary. I think every Canadian agrees it is necessary. It is vitally important to our national airline carriers, the Canadian public and to our tourism industry.

I know that all hon. members understand how important it is for Canada to continue to work with our international partners to further strengthen aviation security, so all members of the House and all Canadians can travel the world in safety and comfort with an expectation that our privacy rights, our persons and our families are going to be protected and kept safe.

I therefore urge all hon. members to give speedy passage to Bill C-42, as we did nearly 10 years ago for the previous Liberal legislation to amend the Aeronautics Act. This would ensure that Canadian airline companies can continue to access destinations such as Cuba, Mexico and South America in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Liberal members who helped so much on the bill as we arrived at some good compromises. As well, I want to thank the Bloc members and I especially want to thank the NDP who have not, up to this point, filibustered anything and who have actually had some contributions which I would consider valuable.

We will see what happens later on, but I encourage all members to pass the bill so that we can move forward with the safety and security of Canadians in an efficient and cost-effective way for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind comments about the co-operation on this bill by the opposition.

I would like to mention a statement made in the House in answer to a question by the Minister of Public Safety. He was talking about Bill C-42 and he said:

For our part, we have worked closely with the Americans to ensure this is implemented in a way that recognizes our security interests and the privacy concerns of Canadians.

Now it is up to the Liberal-led coalition to stop playing politics and support this needed bill.

Given what he said about our co-operation, it sounds like the last comment by the Minister of Public Safety is something taken out of one of the crime bill folders or something of that nature.

There is a clear contradiction. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with the statement that the Liberal-led coalition should stop playing politics and support this needed bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his help in relation to getting the bill passed. He was very helpful, indeed. The member sees the need for this piece of legislation and I thank him for that.

Our expectation at all times, for the most part, is that the NDP will filibuster and waste everybody's time, and the Liberals will oppose everything we do. In this case, they saw the light and I appreciate them seeing the light and for not playing politics.

As is so important, we know that in a minority government we cannot get anything passed without the help of the opposition parties, in some cases all of them and in some cases one or two of them. I would appreciate the NDP coming on board to help us out with this legislation. If they do so without filibustering, I would thank them doubly.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has gone through a long process. One might ask why that is. The privacy and rights of Canadians are probably the most important issues we deal with in the House.

The parliamentary secretary said there was a lot of confusion created at the committee by various people.

I would like to point out that when the Minister of Public Safety spoke to us about the bill, he emphasized that this particular information would not be used in the United States for any other purpose. Since then we have had countless amounts of information including from the ambassador, as my hon. colleague pointed out. In his letter he said that this information would not be “shared widely for law enforcement or for immigration purposes”. Certainly that is not a denial of the use of it for those purposes. It says they would not use everyone's name and information for those purposes. Quite clearly, the minister himself created that confusion.

The parliamentary secretary said that in negotiations if we could have convinced the U.S. we had proper security in Canada it has the ability within its laws to provide a full exemption for Canadian information on overflights. The parliamentary secretary said it would cost billions of dollars to accomplish the extra security required to get up to the standards of the U.S.

Where did the parliamentary secretary get the information to say that the costs to create a security system that would match up to the United States would be immense?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is like the NDP to suck and blow at the same time. On one part the members want us to stay away from the U.S. as much as possible and now they want us to integrate exactly the same security measures that the U.S. has.

This government is a Canadian government for the Canadian people. We are not going to take lessons from the NDP to make us more Americanized.

We are going to have a made in Canada solution and that is what this is. It is a made in Canada solution to protect our sovereignty and respect the sovereignty of our neighbours to the south.

The member for Western Arctic is my neighbour from my constituency to the north. His constituency is north of the oil sands. He is a hard-working member. He has been on my committee for some time and I appreciate his work. I wish he could get his priorities more in line with the priorities of Canadians because his are skewed. As long as he looks for those black helicopters and wears tinfoil hats that are so popular in the NDP, he is going to be dissuaded from the realities of life.

In this case, the reality is the information on three people out of probably a billion or more has been passed on to U.S. law enforcement agencies. Three people out of a billion. I would take those odds any time.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the member simply rolled over for the Americans.

In any normal negotiation if the Americans were asking for us for information, it would be logical to say that reciprocity would be in order.

As the numbers indicate, there are 2,000 American flights over Canadian air space every day, but only 100 Canadian flights over the United States airspace every day. That would indicate the Americans have a lot to lose in this negotiation. I could see them backing off.

Imagine what the American airlines and public would do if they found out they had to provide that information to Canadian authorities in order to fly over Canadian airspace. It would have been dead in the water. The representatives of Congress in the United States would be getting calls from their constituents wanting to know exactly what our demands were and the exemption would have been given immediately. The government, as usual, rolled over for the Americans and said whatever they want, we will give it to them.

These are all secret agreements and we do not know exactly what is being required. We only know based on similar agreements with other jurisdictions, for example, the agreement between the European Union and the United States, there is a different set of requirements.

Clearly, if we are involved in transferring any information involving a PNR, it is information that goes beyond what we should be providing.

The Canadian requirements for use of the PNR in the Canada-E.U. agreement have specific time periods for the disposal of data, and it is not 40 years. It limits the use of the data, limits the individualization of the data and renders the information anonymous. Therefore, security services can do what they want. They can build the profiles they are looking for without attaching it to any one individual. That probably would be acceptable.

We have global standards for international treaties on PNR agreements and Canada is signatory to that. If the government is going to sign an agreement, those are the kinds of provisions to put in the agreement, but the government did not do that.

Why are the Conservatives so poor at negotiating on Canada's behalf?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh at that. The evidence is clear. We heard this in committee. It is very clear. We have received exemptions from the U.S. that are unprecedented. This government has done extremely good work and I give my compliments to the minister in charge of that particular case, because we have received more exemptions than any other country.

However, let us talk about what would happen if that guy were in charge, if the NDP were in charge. The first thing that would happen is that the NDP would close our borders. We would go back to living in caves, back to the stone age. That is the reality of the NDP. It does not want to talk to international partners. It does not want to work with international partners. It just wants to close the borders.

The member proposed a bill of rights. If a plane were late by a couple of hours, passengers would get $25,000. For the rest of my life, I would just travel the Air Canada system and wait to get a couple of $25,000 hits a day. If that guy were in charge, we would not have an airline industry. The reality is that our borders would be closed, we would be living in caves, we would go back to the stone age. We would not manufacture anything because nobody would buy anything as they would have no money. That is the NDP way.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a revelation from the parliamentary secretary. I did not know he necessarily believed in the stone age. This is all new to me and something that is helpful to some of the constituents he apparently represents.

In Parliament we are being asked to vote on an agreement with the United States, which has its own interests as a country, and so be it. However, it is an agreement that the government will not show us. It is an understanding in a set of agreements about our privacy as Canadians and our sovereignty as a country, which the government will not display. We are supposed to trust the government.

How can Canadians trust the current government after selling out to the U.S. so many times?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. My allergies are acting up; any time I get around the NDP and start hearing its members sucking and blowing, they start to happen. I do not have any Kleenex but this, hopefully, will be my last question.

Speaking of beliefs, I am a Christian. I am very proud of it. I am proud of my belief system, and I respect his belief system in the same way.

However, I will tell members what I do require, and what I think this government has required, from the United States. We have required that the Americans uphold and strengthen the vital cornerstones of our Canadian values, such as due process, the rule of law and the preservation of individuals' civil liberties, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and privacy rights. The NDP will never stand up for those things.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Status of Women; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Correctional Service of Canada; and the hon. member for St. John's East, National Defence.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak about Bill C-42. I think that all the parties have shared their positions on this bill with the House.

Today, I would like to comment on some of the statements made by the Conservatives and New Democrats that I believe are incorrect.

I will start with the case of the Minister of Public Safety. I mentioned already to the parliamentary secretary that notwithstanding the fine words of praise by him regarding the healthy co-operation of the opposition, the minister said on Monday in regard to Bill C-42 that:

For our part, we have worked closely with the Americans to ensure this is implemented in a way that recognizes our security interests and the privacy concerns of Canadians.

Now it is up to the Liberal-led coalition to stop playing politics and support this needed bill.

I take exception to that language. As the minister's own colleague, the parliamentary secretary, had made clear, we in the Liberal Party and other parties, I believe, did work constructively from the beginning on this bill to make sure it was passed after an appropriate amount of scrutiny and several important amendments to strengthen the bill.

If I turn now to the New Democrats, in an attempt to scare Canadians about this legislation, they made numerous statements that I do not believe to be factually true. The first point I would like to mention is the statement made by the member for Vancouver Kingsway that this bill would allow the secret negotiation of data transfer with multiple countries. That is absolutely false. That member said in the House:

What information would be forwarded is determined by requirements laid out, and it is fair to say, in hitherto secret agreements with other countries. Details of those agreements have not been released.

That is untrue. The agreements are not secret. I can refer the member to part two of the U.S. Federal Register of October 28, 2008, which sets out the information and states:

For passengers on covered flights, TSA requires covered aircraft operators to request a passenger’s full name, gender, date of birth, and Redress Number (if available)—

It goes on to state that:

—passengers are only required to provide their full name, date of birth, and gender to allow TSA to perform watch list matching.

Airlines will also be required to provide the TSA with itinerary information about flights, but only so that the TSA can prioritize these flights in its matching process.

I would encourage the hon. members on the New Democratic benches to read the final rule so they can have a clear understanding of what the secure flight program actually is.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway was also wrong when he referenced other countries. This was one of the amendments that we made to the bill, which I think made it stronger. Originally, the bill would have allowed other countries to be added, along with the United States, to obtain information about overflights. However, we amended the bill so that only the United States was included. If any other third country wanted to receive this information, the whole thing would have to come back to Parliament and Parliament would have to amend the legislation further. It is totally wrong to talk about countries other than United States, because only the United States is covered in this bill.

Some members of the NDP also mentioned that the data would be held for 40 years. That again is wrong. For 99% of flyers, the data will be held for no more than seven days. If there is a potential match, it would be seven years, and for confirmed matches to the terrorist list, the data could be held for as long as 99 years.

Before I wrap up, I want to touch for a moment on the question of sovereignty. My education is in economics, not political science, but I am fairly certain that the control of U.S. airspace is not a matter of Canadian sovereignty. I can assure members and anyone else who is listening that if the U.S. government attempted to decide the rules for Canadian airspace on the grounds that it was its sovereign right to do so, nobody would be more upset than the NDP. Indeed, I would be as well. Therefore, how can New Democrats demand control of U.S. airspace?

I am not a big fan of this bill, far from it, but I do understand that the U.S. has sovereign control of its airspace. That is a question of international law. It has put these rules in place and Canada must now respond. It is not a pleasant duty, but we have to recognize international law. We are governed by law, and under international law a country has control over its own airspace.

There are important issues, but I want to make sure the record is set straight so that all members of the House and the members of the Senate who will soon receive the bill can debate it with the facts before them, rather than the imagined facts constructed by the NDP.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to any questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did bring up the issue of the regulations that the U.S. has for the information it wants to collect. That is correct.

However, what we are talking about is the agreement between Canada and the U.S. regarding the use of that information, the sharing of that information, the keeping of that information and all of those things. We have had no indication from the government of what those agreements are, how they are held in place, and what kind of surety Canadians have that their information will be used in a correct fashion. In fact, the only information we received at committee was that once this information were given to the United States, it would have the ability under its laws, under the Homeland Security Act, to use the information from foreigners as it saw fit. In fact, its privacy law does not apply to foreigners, so the information collected by foreigners does not apply.

When we talk about handing over the passenger name record, the U.S. government also has the ability, through the Homeland Security Act, to use that number to get all the information held on file and collected in computers in the United States.

Where is the agreement that limits the use of the information that Canadians are passing to the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this is not a law that I particularly like, because it does raise concerns about privacy and issues such as those raised by the hon. member. However, for practical purposes, I think we had little choice but to pass the bill, and I think we made three substantial amendments that improved this bill.

I do believe as well that in the U.S. documentation it does state the length of time this information will be held, and it does state the limitations on other U.S. agencies that it will be shared with. The ambassador also gave certain assurances in this regard.

The member may simply say that he does not believe the Americans, but I think we have to have some faith in them, and when the U.S. ambassador makes commitments and commitments are made in U.S. texts, then I think we should believe them.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary simply ducked and escaped my question about what efforts the government made with the Americans to look for reciprocity.

The fact of the matter is, there are far more American flights flying over Canadian airspace. A sensible negotiating approach would have been to ask the Americans to provide us with the same information we are providing them. Clearly, if they have some security concerns about airplanes going over their airspace, surely we, who share the continent with them, would have similar concerns and would want to be able to process their information.

Had the government done this, we might have been looking at getting an exemption because of all the blowback the Americans would have received from their airlines and American passengers, because there are 2,000 flights flying over Canada versus only 100 over the United States. I just think that reciprocity would have been something the government would have asked for, if it were negotiating properly.

The parliamentary secretary says that we could not afford to process the information. How he knows this, I do not know, but it will cost the Americans half a billion dollars in computer systems to handle all of this information that we will be giving them. By extension, we could not afford the computer system to process their information because there would be so much of it. That was his answer.

In direct response to my question, he did not answer it at all. He simply attacked the air passenger bill of rights and misrepresented it. He could not even remember what was in that bill when misrepresenting that part of it and not answering the question.

Maybe the hon. member could fill in some of the missing answers the parliamentary secretary could not give.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my role or function to defend the parliamentary secretary.

We did receive a briefing from transport officials, and it is true that the United States has said that it would not require us to provide this information if we had our own equivalent system that would take that information. According to the transport officials, to develop the same kind of system that the Americans have would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent a lot of time downplaying this bill, saying how bad it is, and I get the sense from my Liberal colleague and from them in general that it is some sort of awful necessity. They are going to vote for it, however, even though they do not like it. They are going to vote for it for practical purposes even though they are worried about it.

The fundamental point here is the sovereignty question. How can Canadians protect their own information? How can we protect the privacy of Canadians we represent here in the House of Commons?

The member pointed to one alleviation of concern that we can somehow control what the U.S. will do with this data once it gets it. There is nothing that we have been shown that says that is true. One has to imagine a future where Canada's Parliament will tell Congress that we do not want it to pass on any of our information. We will not even get in the door and my hon. colleague knows that. The Americans have had a slow and serious downgrade in their own civil rights over the last dozen years, certainly since 9/11.

We have to imagine a future where all of the information on passengers on a flight from Vancouver to Toronto, or from Montreal to Halifax, that flies over U.S. airspace will be in the hands of our American colleagues.

The problem that many Canadians will have with this is that the Americans need to know who is on the passenger list a full 24 hours in advance. Some people will want to get on a plane that same day. Can my hon. colleague imagine a future in which Canadians are denied access to a plane not going to the United States but another Canadian destination because the Americans insist on 24 hours notice? That is in the agreement.

I just do not know why the Liberals are so trusting of the Conservatives on such a Canadian fundamental and sacred right as privacy.

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

As usual, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is confused on questions of fact. They talk about giving this information to the Americans on flights that go over American airspace between Toronto and Vancouver. That is false. That information is not required to be given for domestic flights within Canada even if they do pass over the United States.

The second point I would make is that the reason I do not particularly like this law is because I would rather we did not have to give the information to the United States.

What the member keeps forgetting to mention is that under international law, every country has sovereignty over the airspace above it. We could ask for the information. The U.S. could ask for information. The UK could ask for the information. Every country has legal sovereignty over the airspace above it.

We cannot deny that the Americans have the right to request this information. They have the right to deny access to their airspace if we do not comply. This would create huge problems, huge costs, and much inconvenience for millions of Canadians who want to take flights to Mexico or to other places that require flying over U.S. airspace.

That practical reason is the reason why we did in the end support the bill, even though I would be happy if there were no such bill. That is why at the same time we strengthened the bill in three specific ways to alleviate concerns that others, including us, were having.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak to this bill again because I am deeply concerned about this whole issue.

Clearly, the history of aviation security since 9/11 is one of continual movement toward more authoritarian structures and continual movement toward less privacy for Canadians. This is the movement that took place and we are all part of it. This Parliament has been part of it over the last decade.

I have seen a break in that, though, in the last week where we finally saw some rationality applied to one particular segment of our aviation security. It is not a rationality that is popular with everyone. People are concerned about it. Of course they are.

However, we do see that the dam is starting to break on the whole issue of aviation security and what is actually required by Canadians, by international travellers, what is useful to do, and what is something that makes sense in this age rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction to perceived incidents that may occur.

Why do we not want to support this bill? It is because we do not think the government has done enough to deal with the issue of sharing information with the United States. That is quite clear. We feel that what has happened here is invading Canadians' privacy, invading their rights in a way that we cannot completely understand. We do not know what the impact of this information is. We have not been given assurances. There are no provisions within the bill that outline how this information is to be shared. None of that was part of this bill.

This bill was very simple, a few lines changing the Aeronautics Act. It is a few lines. It is really very limited. With the negotiations that took place and what we heard in committee about the negotiations, there certainly were a number of issues that came to light. One of them was that the U.S. could provide a complete exemption for Canadian flights. If we matched equivalent security, the U.S. would provide that exemption.

Another one was the issue of reciprocity, which we have talked about quite a bit. That was not brought to the table. That was not used as a lever in the negotiations, quite clearly.

Then we talked about the famous exemption that was given. This exemption, domestic to domestic flights, that was provided by the United States for Canadian flights leaving one destination in Canada and going to another was given by the U.S. That raised even more questions about security. Of course, with any flight that goes domestic to domestic, the security requirement for the information is simply a photo id, something that could be forged by the simplest of techniques and which really does not provide the same layer of sophistication in terms of the information that a passport on an international flight provides to any airline that is dealing with a particular passenger.

We saw the U.S. give an exemption for flights that would pass over the United States that had less security on them than international flights. This did not make sense. The exemption did not stand up to rationality. That always brings something into question. When rationality does not apply, what are the reasons?

Did we understand the reason last week when the Prime Minister went down to Washington to work on a perimeter security deal? Was the reason for an exemption on domestic to domestic that we are going to see traveller information shared completely within our countries, between intelligence agencies for the two countries? Is that what is going to happen? How are we going to determine the nature of that information? How are we going to determine how that information is going to be used?

We can see quite clearly that there is no control over the information we are giving out right now. There is none at all. It is simply give the information and let it be.

That information does include the passenger name record. When it includes the passenger name record number, the U.S. government has access to the information on the computers, the Sabre and Galileo servers that are held in the United States. That is information that was also given at committee.

Whatever information airlines have on passengers would be instantaneously accessible to the United States intelligence service through the beauty of computers. The seven day requirement that the information will be taken out after seven days really is quite meaningless in our computer age. There is plenty of time to do whatever we want with that information, the data mining that the European Union was so against, the data profiling was the real harmful thing that could go on with that type of information.

So, we have no recourse and no limitations on the information that we are giving. For Canadians falsely accused of something in the United States, there is no recourse. One of my colleagues talked about that with the existing system. It is not going to get any better. Many witnesses spoke in front of the committee. Many witnesses indicated their disquiet with what was going on here, with the impacts on the invasion of privacy.

We proposed some amendments. I put forward an amendment for a drop dead clause, as we did in the early part of this decade, where with contentious invasions of privacy through things like the Terrorism Act, we put in drop dead clauses. We said if there is a perceived need for information that goes beyond what is normal, if there are considerations that we put on the Canadian population that go beyond what we expect as our basic rights, then let us put a time limit on it.

I put forward that amendment. The support for that amendment was not there from the two opposition parties and that amendment died. That actually has brought us to the point we are here in debating this bill.

In the last days since the Prime Minister's trip to Washington, the Liberal Party adopted two positions on information. One position was that it was going to vote to support the bill. The other being when, publicly in question period, the Liberal leader says things like: “Why is the Prime Minister even contemplating the surrender of Canadian privacy rights to U.S. Homeland Security?”, “What biometric information on Canadians will the Conservatives surrender to the Americans?”, and “When will the Prime Minister tell Canadians and Parliament the truth?”

Yes, we are after those answers, as well, on this particular bill. We wanted to see the agreements. We wanted to understand the safeguards that should be in place for any Canadian information shared with another country.

Did we get it? No.

What do Canadians think? There was an interesting online poll in the Globe and Mail, which is not terribly reliable, but 67,000 responded to that online poll. The question was: “Should Canada and the U.S. collaborate more deeply on surveillance and data-sharing in the name of a so-called North American perimeter? Ninety-two per cent of those respondents said no; 92% of the 67,000 Canadians who had the opportunity to see the poll and to respond to it said no. That is a fairly significant margin of Canadians who are concerned about their personal privacy rights vis-à-vis information.

This is why the Liberal Party right now is quite conflicted on this issue. It is voting for a bill that is not tolerable to Canadian values, for whatever reason, perhaps the perceived threat to the Canadian aviation industry.

Members were told there was a great need to bring the bill forward and get it completed by December 31 of last year so the U.S. would not stop the overflights of Canadian planes. That has not happened yet, and we are still a ways away from completing this bill. The NDP will continue to work on trying to get opposition members to come onside and recognize that the bill does not provide for a safe and secure use of Canadian information.

There are many other issues that tie to the bill. My colleague spoke of one that was really never mentioned, which is the inconvenience of the bill and the information shared according to the 24-hour requirement of the U.S. government for any of these overflights. If, for instance, Mrs. Jones is in Cuba enjoying the sunshine, her husband dies at home or becomes very ill and she has to return very quickly on a flight that day, what will happen to her? Will she be blocked from taking that flight?

This is a very important point. If the government had talked about putting in some reciprocity on the U.S. 2000 flights through Canadian airspace and the U.S. understood it would have to give 24 hours notice for any passenger on that plane, we would quickly be in a much more advantageous negotiation position with the United States.

Quite clearly, the government did not think this information was required when it went into the negotiations because it did not want to do this. It said in committee that it did not want to do this. The Minister of Public Safety said, “I didn't want to do this”. If he did not want to do this, then he must understand this is not required for security.

What is it required for? Is this simply more of a knee-jerk reaction to the events of a decade ago and we cannot get our heads out of the sand and recognize that we are in a different time when we can look at security rationally and work with our neighbours to ensure the security we provide is useful, functional and it does not take away the rights of Canadians or Americans?

The NDP wants that. We want security that works for Canadians, not security that takes away the rights of Canadians.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the member.

He said something at the end of his speech about not wanting to take away the security of Canadians. By not passing this law, is it not fair to say that we are actually impeding the ability of the Americans to guard their own sovereign space? The opposite would be true. If we do not respect the rule of law and the Chicago convention in relation to the right of Americans to have sovereignty over their airspace, how can Canada then say that it has a sovereign right over its airspace?

By not passing this law and filibustering, as NDP members seem to be doing, though I am not certain of that, is it not fair to say that they will impede the ability for Canadians to remain secure? It seems to make a lot of sense. If they cannot respect the U.S. law, how will the U.S. respect Canadian law?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I defer to the perceived logic of my hon. colleague on this issue. I think that the logic may not be particularly well expressed by the member.

At committee, the minister said quite clearly that the government went into this saying this was not a security issue. It did not see the need for the U.S. to have this and that it obviously did not need the information for itself. Its determination, as Canadians, through Canada's security services, said this was not required. However, the U.S, it was required and the government submitted to the demands and that was what happened in the negotiations.

This was the evidence presented to us in committee. If the parliamentary secretary wants to change that evidence, he can come up with something else, but that is what we heard and I will leave it at that.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of privacy is certainly a key element in any free and democratic society. Each week, we receive warnings on television, from our banks or from our credit card companies about the importance of not giving out our personal information because of the high incidence of fraud.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Since September 11, 2001, paranoia has become prevalent, and it seems that the fear of terrorism has led us to take things too far. Under this bill, personal information would be given not only to the United States but also to other countries. Is the hon. member not concerned that giving out this information could lead to situations of abuse and could take us in a direction that is not at all in keeping with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with my colleague in any way. Whenever we, as a country, as a government, provide information to another country where there is no security to that information, where there are no treaties that have been signed that say quite specifically how that information is to be used, then we put the information of our citizens at risk. If the agreement is in a letter, in a form that the government cannot even share with the committee, what is it?

When we saw the letter from the U.S. ambassador, it was hardly comforting when he said, ”This information will not be widely used for other purposes”. What does that mean? Does that mean that 90% of the information will not be used for any other purpose, but 10%, or 99.9% or 0.1% will? This is hardly a thing that confidence is built on.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to rise, but I did hear a number of trigger words that piqued my interest.

In my earlier life I also was the chairman of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police aviation security committee and worked widely with police leaders and security executives in this country and internationally, including the United States.

I am afraid that talking about paranoia that emanates from an event that happened 10 years ago is basically putting blinders in front of our reality of today. It is absolutely critical that today we work co-operatively across borders and jurisdictions to ensure the travelling public, especially those who are actually travelling and those involved in the aviation industry, have every reasonable opportunity to be protected from what in fact is an active pursuit of terrorism. It is a reality and it is global in nature. If it is a small compromise to the entrenched rights and entitlements we all have, to be protected from unreasonable abuse or unreasonable sharing of information, it begs to say that we need to ensure we do all we can to make the aviation industry safe.

I do not understand how any of this could be a knee-jerk reaction, certainly not from the world I come from where I can speak directly to the kinds of information, the kinds of investigations and the kinds of issues that not only Canadian security agencies work on and are very concerned about but are equally co-operating and working with our international partners because of this being an international threat.

I just do not think there is a reality happening here when we hear comments that portray what we are trying to do in the interests of Canadians is as a result of paranoia. It is an absolute legitimate responsibility governments have, given rise to the very serious threat that exists today, to engage in these kinds of activities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured that my colleague has asked me that question. However, I would like him to know as well that through forum that we organized during the prorogation on aviation security and through the work the transport committee has done, we did make some changes this year, and I referred to those. What we heard from the witnesses who presented to us, and people from places that have gold-plated security like Israel, was that we were not necessarily doing all the things we should be doing and we may be doing many things that we did not need to do. That is the purpose of review and of anything we do.

I know after 9/11 there was an incredible angst in North America about the nature of security. It is funny that did not come after the Air India tragedy, but it did not. There were some things that happened after it, but 9/11 was an enormous personal affront to almost every North American. We have to recover from that and we have to look at our lives rationally because Canadians are the true north strong and free. We want our Canadian citizens to have the kind of lives that we all envisioned when we were younger, when we had freedom, the ability to travel and to work in many locations. Canadians were respected around the world for our openness. We do not want to lose that. Canadians are not about that.

I am willing to work with anyone to reduce the impact of world events on Canadians when it comes to their personal liberties and freedoms because I believe in those so strongly.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-42, which we examined carefully at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would like to begin by congratulating all of my colleagues on the hard work they did in an effort to strike a fair balance between two conflicting yet fundamental notions. I was going to say “to get at the truth”, but that would not have been the right expression.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Board of Internal Economy, we took a very similar approach. There we talked about the safety and protection of people and goods. In this case, this bill is about aviation security. At the time, following the tragic events of September 2001, we had to ask ourselves what kind of security was needed within the parliamentary precinct, here on the Hill. What kind of security check should pedestrians be subjected to? For vehicles, it was pretty easy, but for pedestrians, it was a different matter.

On the one hand, the people watching us here this evening, our fellow citizens, my colleagues and their family members must have access to the place that exemplifies democracy. On the other hand, security measures must be in place to protect people. It is not just parliamentarians who need to be protected, but also pages, security staff and everyone who works in the parliamentary precinct. That is enough of the analogy I wanted to make with security here on Parliament Hill.

I will not say that I suffered terrible insomnia or that I woke up at night in a cold sweat from anxiety, but I did put a lot of thought into this bill. I sometimes have the opportunity to go home to my riding by car. It is a 475 km drive from my office on Parliament Hill to my house. I usually use that time to decompress and reflect on many things.

When we studied this bill, we heard from opposite ends of the spectrum. We heard from those defending civil liberties, who stand up for the protection of personal information. There is a strong temptation, for a government or organization that receives personal information about people, to use it for inappropriate purposes. We joke about Big Brother watching you.

One of the fundamental elements of this bill is that it would have Canada provide the Americans with certain personal information about passengers on board aircraft flying over American territory. Those who defend civil liberties are very level-headed; they were not on a witch hunt. They told us that parliamentarians, members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, should think about the type of information that would be provided to the Americans.

As I mentioned in a previous speech, since the unfortunate events of 9/11 at the World Trade Center, no one has been crazy enough to say that the Americans got what they deserved. Anyone who says that has serious mental problems.

The young woman who worked for Xerox Corporation on the 85th floor, who was about the same age as our assistant clerk—the one who notes what we say off mike—and who was typing a report for her boss, did not deserve to have a plane hit her. She did not ask for that. She went to work that morning to support herself and perhaps to support her family.

Since that event, the Americans have been seized by panic, a phobia, a psychosis about terrorism. I am not an expert on terrorism. However, we should ask ourselves whether we believe that terrorists will again use the exact same tactics they used on the World Trade Center.

The planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were American planes making domestic flights. In addition, the terrorist pilots were trained in American flight schools in Miami, Florida. Since that time, the Americans have developed such an obsessive fear that they see terrorism everywhere. It is true that protection is needed and that we must always be vigilant.

Supporters of individual freedoms and civil liberties asked the committee to ensure that there were certain protective rules. Apparently, the information that we will be providing to the Americans under this bill could potentially be given to 16 other American agencies that do not necessarily need it. Supporters of individual freedoms and civil liberties expressed another concern: what guarantee do we have that this information will be destroyed?

I spoke about Big Brother. Personally, I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think that our information is put on file and that we are monitored. That is being paranoid. I watched the Super Bowl and, when members of one team formed a huddle, I did not think that they were talking about me. I knew that they were planning their strategy. We must not think that Big Brother is always watching us. However, this does not change the fact that the Americans will have our personal information. What guarantee do we have that this information will not be shared and that it will be destroyed after a certain period of time?

The Minister of Public Safety testified before the committee. I asked him, without getting angry—a rarity—what guarantee we have that the Americans will destroy this information after a certain period of time.

He replied that the Americans had told him so. How reassuring. What guarantee do we have that our hair will grow by the end of the week? The dermatologist said so. The Americans told him so. What a great answer.

The committee members were split between two approaches. We met representatives from Canada's tourism industry and representatives from airlines. We organized a meeting with Air Transat, Canada's leader in vacation travel. When I was elected in 1993, I was the transport critic. We had Canada 2000, and since we were getting close to the year 2000, I think it became Canada 3000. They realized that the name would be outdated. Later, the company went bankrupt. Then we had Nationair, Nordair, Intair, which all shut down. Now, the number one company in vacation travel in Canada is Air Transat, a company whose head office is in Montreal, whose primary language of work is French and which has an important base in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and a lot of pilots and flight attendants who are able to provide services in two, three or even four languages. Quebec is very proud of this.

We met with these people and they told us that, because the U.S. is a sovereign country, if we did not pass this bill, the Americans would prohibit us from flying through their airspace. Charter flights to the south or flights to London or Nice, for example, that leave from Halifax and take the Atlantic route do not fly through U.S. airspace. I am not picking destinations off the top of my head. Those are all destinations served by Air Transat. To go to Mexico or the Caribbean, for example, via the south corridor or the Atlantic corridor, the plane does not need to fly through American airspace. It is the same for Vancouver. Via the Pacific corridor, there is no need to fly through American airspace.

The people from Air Transat told us that if this bill is not passed, it will no longer be able to serve central Canada. It will no longer be able to offer flights from Calgary to Cancun, from Winnipeg to Puerto Vallarta or from Edmonton to Montego Bay, Jamaica, because those cities are in central Canada. They have no choice but to fly over the U.S. It would take four hours to fly to the Pacific Ocean and then fly south. A flight that normally takes three and a half or four hours with an Airbus 330 or 320 would take seven or eight hours. That makes no sense.

Something I thought of and have talked about before, but that bears repeating because some members were not here, is that we cannot forget that the Air Transat fleet includes Airbus 310s and 320s, and I believe it also has some Airbus 330s.

As it turns out, an Airbus with 350 passengers on board requires a little more time for taking off and landing. It is not like a Cessna that can touch and go and land in 150 metres. When landing in Montreal, depending on the runway being used—24 or 32—the pilot has to turn and fly over the U.S. It is the same thing in Toronto at Pearson airport. In other words, because of those flights, Air Transat would be doomed to bankruptcy.

As the Bloc Québécois transport critic, and with my colleagues who agree on this position, we had to take individual freedoms into account, but we also had to take into account feasibility and the viability of air carriers that have to use U.S. airspace. I moved an amendment that called for reciprocity. Many Americans fly through Canadian airspace and if the U.S. is requiring us to provide a passenger list, then we should be demanding reciprocity with the U.S. Unfortunately, my amendment was democratically defeated in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I accept that, but I find it unbelievable. If it is good enough for the Americans, why would it not be good enough for us?

In any case, we are at third reading stage and, in closing, I confirm that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C-42.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member across the way for his many hours of thought on the final outcome and how we arrived at where we are today.

My friend said, and the NDP also alluded to it, that if the Americans ask it of us then why do we not ask it of the Americans. Some people may not want to get into that debate. Hundreds of thousands of people a day travel the skies. Who will pay for the cost of taking that data from the United States and assembling it, and for what purpose? Just because the Americans ask for it should we ask for it?

Canada has a great tradition of protecting human rights, standing up for the world at large and standing up for people. We are in a different threat situation than the United States, but no less serious. However, if we do ask for that information,what will we do with it? Are we going to get it because we gave it to the U.S.? What is the purpose of that?

My understanding is that it would cost billions of dollars over time to get that data and to do something with that data. For what purpose? There is no purpose that I could defend to the people who voted for me to get me here today.

I appreciate the member bringing forward that amendment but I would like to know exactly what we would do with that data, because I see no great conclusion in relation to it if we were to receive it.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am greatly disappointed by the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. He is saying that it would be expensive and would cost millions of dollars. In other words, because the Americans have the means, they can do it, but it would be far too costly for us. Yet the Conservatives bought full body scanners for airports. That cost money and that money was wasted. They should search people as they did before, by making us take off our shoes and belts. That would be just as comfortable as full body scanners.

The Conservative government is using money as an excuse. It prefers to buy tanks and warplanes instead of getting its priorities straight. With this government, everything is expensive, except when it comes to buying tanks or warplanes for Afghanistan, even though we have no business being there. Then money is not a problem.

I will calm down because otherwise my supper will be ruined.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would appear that members are still exercised about an issue that they have already agreed has passed. In fact, the Americans gave us notice some 16 months ago that the legislation that led to Bill C-42 would be implemented and put into effect in the United States last December.

This is not an issue of security. It is an issue of the government now trying to backtrack because it presented this last June and only now wants to put it into law. Just imagine being unable to protect Canadian sovereignty for all that period and then to come forward and say that it is a question of security. It is not.

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has just indicated rather eloquently that this is a commercial issue. It is to prevent airlines from being sued for breach of privacy legislation by Canadians on Canadian carriers. It is an issue of sovereignty ceded to the Americans because of the government's incompetence and inability to negotiate what the Americans asked it to negotiate on 16 months ago.

I would like the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to elaborate on this. What this shows is that the $40 million spent on those special machines in 11 locations in Canada to provide greater aviation security meant nothing to the Americans and that the legislation to impose another $3.2 billion in aviation tax for security measures was unimpressive to the Americans, and therefore we have to go to this because our airlines will be exposed to harassment by Americans. That is what this legislation is about.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Toronto region. I admit that I did not know how much the body scanners cost: $40 million. Given that we have to appease the Americans and that this government kneels before them as soon as they ask for something, the answer is sure to be “yes”. I would like to repeat what I said earlier: the government's fiscal priorities are misplaced.

I gave the example of how much the body scanners cost. We could talk about it on the eve of the budget. I would not want the Liberal members to think that I am trying to flatter them, but we should be making big business—the oil companies and big banks that make billions in profits and gouge us and raise the price of gas just before weekends and holidays—pay the taxes they really owe. The government would then have plenty of money to manage the information that I think we should require of the Americans for review and that we would have required of them had my reciprocity amendment passed.

Once again, money is an excuse. They say that they do not have any money. Instead, they should be saying that they do not have money for anything important but that they have money for things that do not make sense.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for what he said today. I do agree with him that the proposed amendment may well have been a good bargaining chip in this whole deal. Quite clearly, if we look at the incidents of airline terrorism in the last two years, what we see is the one rather dubious individual with the underwear bomb who flew from Amsterdam over Canada to the United States. In reality, there has been no incident of a Canadian plane carrying a bomb flying over the United States.

What we have is a situation where there is probably a higher degree of risk of an American plane carrying a bomb to an American destination overflying Canada than there is of a Canadian plane flying to Barbados carrying a bomb with a bunch of Canadians on it. That is pretty clear.

I agree with my colleague that his amendment was a good idea but it should have been part of the government's negotiation package to get out of this deal. Does the member agree?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree and I would like to take this opportunity to say that I appreciate working with my colleague from Western Arctic on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

It could have been part of broader discussions and negotiations. My grandmother always told me not to cry over spilt milk. I agree that that could have been the case, but we now must deal with what is before us. A bill has been introduced and, as parliamentarians, we must make a decision.

I do not want anyone to think that the Bloc Québécois does not respect individual freedoms or that it is not sensitive to rights and freedoms. However, in this case, the two are diametrically opposed. We had to take a position. However, all my Bloc colleagues believe that individual freedoms are of vital importance.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42, which amends the Aeronautics Act to allow airlines to send personal information of passengers to foreign security services.

Let me begin by reminding members in this House that the right to privacy is a fundamental cornerstone of any western democracy. Equally important is the right of the people to know what their government is doing so that the government can be held accountable by a knowledgeable electorate.

Bill C-42 turns that accountability on its head. It suggests that the Government of Canada has the right to know what its people are doing at all times and that it even has the right to share that information with foreign governments, but it reserves for itself the right to be the most secretive government in Canadian history with its citizens continually being denied access to information. It is a government run amok, and frankly in this instance, it is dangerous.

The law before us today purports to hand over to foreign security agencies undisclosed information about Canadian passengers who may not even be landing on their soil. As my NDP colleague, the member for Welland, pointed out earlier in this debate, this is really a fundamental question about the rights of Canadians to privacy as opposed to the decision of a foreign government, be it the United States, Colombia or even Panama, that wishes to have the personal information of anyone in our country who chooses to travel by air. He said:

I find it quite astounding that somehow we think that giving this information up is okay and we can trot out security as being the justification for giving up our private information.

Honestly, where is it going to stop? Is it just our names, the hotel we are going to, the car we are renting and our destination? The government is trying to play Canadians for fools.

We all know that security agencies, including our security agencies, build profiles of those they deem of interest. We are also talking about the security agencies of other countries that do not share our laws and with whom we have had a serious concern about violating the rights of Canadian citizens. Even our own security agencies have behaved badly. We can try to remedy our own institutions, but how can we remedy those of other countries?

Dr. Mark Salter, an associate professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, had this to say:

Governments want this information so that they can build profiles of not just risky passengers but safe passengers as well.

He went on to say:

What worries me about this particular legislation is that the data not only go to the destination country but may go to all states that the airline might fly over.

That, I feel, is the significant change this legislation brings and that worries me a great deal. He is right when he says:

I think it is dangerous to sacrifice our privacy and our freedoms for the dream of zero risk or perfect security.

This particular measure does not provide additional security for the aviation sector and it places an additional burden on Canadian citizens who are flying.

I noted earlier that this hypocritical secretive government is so eager to divulge its citizens' private information to other governments, yet it will not disclose these agreements to its own citizens.

Fortunately, we have some understanding of a similar information transfer agreement between the European Union and the United States. I want to share some of the contents of that agreement.

The information forwarded will be the passenger name record, which is the file a travel agent creates when a vacation is booked. The passenger name record could include credit card information, the person a citizen is travelling with, hotel details, and other booking information such as tours or rental cars. Astoundingly, that agreement also provides details on any serious medical condition of the passenger.

The information collected can be retained by the United States for up to 40 years. This information may be forwarded to the security service of a third nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory. The United States may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises the EU of the change. No person may know what information is being held about him or her by the United States and may not correct that information even if there are errors.

I want to come back to this last point, because as I noted earlier, we have no control over agencies of other countries. Who in their right mind would agree to allow a foreign country to hold private information about a Canadian citizen? Who in their right mind would allow that country to hold wrong information about a Canadian citizen for up to 40 years? Who would accept that there is no recourse to correct this wrong information about a Canadian citizen? Well, none other than the Conservative government. That is who. The bill that is before us today would essentially allow data mining of Canadians' personal information by foreign security services.

Dominique Peschard, president of Ligue des droits et libertés, gave two examples of the consequences of ending up on the U.S. secure flight program. I quote:

My first example is that of Hernando Calvo Ospina, a Colombian journalist living in France. On April 18, 2009, Mr. Ospina was travelling to Nicaragua via Mexico for Le Monde diplomatique. Five hours before Air France's Paris-Mexico flight was scheduled to land, it was diverted to Fort-de-France, Martinique. The captain informed the passengers that the United States had not authorized the aircraft to fly over the country because one of the passengers constituted a threat to national security. Unknown to him, Mr. Ospina was on the United States' no-fly list. Mr. Ospina is a regular contributor to Le Monde diplomatique and has written a number of articles criticizing U.S. foreign policy and the CIA's role in Latin America. Mr. Ospina's prohibition has nothing to do with air security. The flight's co-pilot even went to see Mr. Ospina during the flight to verify that he was indeed the person targeted by the prohibition. In Mexico, Mr. Ospina was briefly questioned by Mexican authorities before taking another flight to Managua.

Another case I would like to discuss is that of Paul-Émile Dupret, a Belgian citizen who is an analyst for the European Parliament and who has conducted a campaign opposing the transfer of European travellers' personal information to American authorities. As his flight was on route to Mexico—his final destination was Sao Paulo, where he was travelling to attend the World Social Forum—the aircraft had to circumvent the United States because U.S. authorities were not authorizing Mr. Dupret to fly through American airspace.

These individuals clearly do not represent a threat to air security, and individuals like Mr. Ospina and Mr. Dupret could very well have been Canadian journalists or public servants travelling to Latin America.

It is an illusion to think that the information provided under the Secure Flight program will be protected, that it will be destroyed or that it could be corrected in the event of any error. On the contrary, that information will be added to the data bases of the U.S. intelligence agencies and will be compared with information held by all the agencies I've just mentioned to determine whether such and such a person should be prohibited from flying over the United States or even placed on another list.

Justice O'Connor's investigation of the Arar affair has shown to what extent the ill-considered sharing of information can have harmful effects. Four years after Judge O'Connor's report was tabled, we are still waiting for implementation of his recommendations for the introduction of a mechanism for monitoring security intelligence activities in Canada.

We know that Canada is being bullied by the U.S. and that unless this bill passes, the United States could close its airspace to Canadian aircraft.

I have stressed before, and so have my colleagues, that Canada and the United States have a long history of co-operation in politics, economics, defence, security and culture. We know that our closest neighbour and ally, the United States, cannot simply cut off its airspace to our flights and passengers. That simply is not realistic.

The government could do better for its citizens, but it is not. We on this side of the House are dumbfounded why the government, which bills itself as the great defender of our privacy, would so readily abandon our rights. The Conservative government's sponsorship of Bill C-42 is truly shameful.

I want to stress that this debate is not an ideological one. Its significance is due to the extent to which the federal government would go in relinquishing our rights without any disclosure to its citizens. This bill is truly reprehensible.

Members need not take my word for it. Here is what others have said about this legislation.

Roch Tassé, the national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, states:

After running a risk assessment for each passenger, Homeland Security in turn issues a “boarding pass result” back to the airline. The “result” instructs the airline to issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel, or issue an enhanced screening requirement.

These regulations give the U.S. access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not entering the U.S. but merely overflying its airspace. Furthermore, this information can be shared among at least 16 U.S. agencies and with foreign governments. The program gives the government of a foreign country a de facto right to decide who gets to travel to and from Canada since the vast majority of Canadian flights to and from Europe, the Caribbean and South America overfly American airspace.

Maher Arar is on the U.S. no-fly list. Several other cases in which Canadians have been denied boarding by the U.S. even for domestic flights in Canada have also been reported. Those cases include several individuals who have been deemed by Canadian courts and commissions of inquiry not to pose a risk to the national security of Canada. They include Abdullah Almalki, Adil Charkaoui, and others.

If Bill C-42 is adopted, even the rulings of Canadian courts would not be able to be enforced.

Mr. Edward Hasbrouck of the Liberty Coalition, a U.S.-based civil liberties group stated:

You should be very clear that the enactment of Bill C-42 would grant to the U.S. government de facto veto power over the ability of virtually anyone to obtain sanctuary in Canada, since in most cases it's impossible to get to Canada to make a claim for political asylum or refugee status without overflying the U.S., and that power of the U.S. would be exercised at the worst possible point: while a refugee is still on the soil of and subject to the persecution of the regime they are trying to flee.

There are measures that could be taken to balance the needs for enhanced security with protection of our citizens' privacy. In 1998 the European Commission put forward six key principles which must be included. They are worth repeating.

First is the purpose limitation principle. Private personal information should be processed for a specific purpose and subsequently used for further communication only insofar as this is not incompatible with the purpose of the transfer.

Second is the information quality and proportionality principle. Information should be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. Further, the information should be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which it is transferred or further processed.

Third is the transparency principle. Individuals should be provided with information as to the purpose of the processing and the identity of those in control of the information in the third country and other information insofar as this is necessary to ensure fairness.

Fourth is the security principle. Technical and organizational security measures should be taken by those in control of the information that are appropriate to the risks presented by the processing. Any person acting under the authority of those in control of the information, including a processor, must not process information, except on instructions from the controller.

Fifth is the right to access rectification and opposition principle. The subject of the information should have the right to obtain a copy of all the information relating to him or her that is processed and a right to rectification of the information which is inaccurate. Furthermore, in some situations, the person should be able to object to the processing of the data relating to him or her.

Sixth is the restriction on onward transfers principle. Transfers of the personal information to further countries should be permitted only where the second country is also subject to the same rules as the country originally receiving the information.

Bill C-42 does not include any of these protections. Under this bill, it would be open season on the private information of Canadians. This bill is an affront to our rights as Canadian citizens.

In conclusion, I want to end with another quote from Dr. Mark Salter. He states:

Canadians' data should not be hostage to the most paranoid regime that an air company chooses to fly over. The proposed change to these data protection regulations to include overflight states dramatically increases the vulnerability of Canadians' data while offering no means of redress or appeal.

We can assume that citizens know when they travel to a particular country that they are consenting. They know they go through a visa process and a border process, so they know their data is being evaluated. However, Canadians would have no way of knowing which of the countries they flew over would get their data, what would happen to their data, or how to appeal the use of that data. I think this is a dangerous change that poses clear costs but offers no benefit.

Clearly, this is a bill that should not be passed by this House. It embodies all that is wrong with overzealous governments that are prepared to sacrifice their citizens' privacy in the name of unspecified threats.

To my Conservative colleagues, I would say this. Just this past summer, the government did away with the long form census. The justification given was that it was an intolerable invasion of Canadians' privacy. It was deemed an intolerable invasion of privacy to ask how many people are living in one's home.

The fact that census information is vital to making evidence-based decisions so that we can design programs that are appropriate and adequate to meet the needs and demands of the population did not matter.

We were simply asked to accept that no end could justify the means of such an onerous invasion of privacy. Yet here we are less than a year later and the government members are suffering from a case of collective amnesia. Privacy no longer matters.

They now just want all of us to accept that somehow it is okay for the government of the United States to know not only that someone is flying on a particular day but also to know the person's credit card information, with whom the person is travelling, the hotel he or she will be staying at, other booking information such as tours or rental cars, and the person's personal health information, one of the things that nobody has the right to know except that person and his or her doctor.

I cannot square that circle and Canadians cannot square that circle, either. However, what is absolutely clear is that they deserve better from their government. By voting against Bill C-42, we are sending the government back to the drawing board.

As I said at the outset, the right to privacy is a fundamental cornerstone of our democratic society and we will not condone or support the data mining of Canadians' personal information by foreign security services.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have heard about the British man who cannot get back to his country, et cetera. However, I have been getting calls from Canadians. A lawyer called me saying he had a client who was concerned about travelling to Mexico, because he would have to go through Toronto with his family to get a flight to Mexico. His concern was that he might be held in Toronto while his family would be able to go on their already paid vacation, because there might be something on the Canadian Police Information Centre's computer, or CPIC.

I have been a lawyer for 30 years and I cannot tell members all of the information that CPIC has. Even people who get pardons for offences could be on CPIC. People who have been charged with offences and had the charges withdrawn or who were acquitted could be on CPIC. There is a lot of prejudicial information.

Things that we might not take very seriously in this country, such as a conviction for simple possession of marijuana 25 or 30 years ago when someone was a teenager or in his or her early twenties, might be taken very seriously by the American authorities, because they would think of it as a conviction under a narcotics control act. We do not know how seriously these things will be taken by other countries, particularly the United States. It may have a totally different attitude toward that.

What concerns me is that Canadians will have their freedom of movement and their own personal information available or subject not only to the Americans but also to anybody else they choose to give it, without our knowledge or consent. This is fundamentally wrong.

The member mentioned that ordinary Canadians should be concerned about it. I believe that is the case. Would you comment on that, because I think many ordinary Canadians would have very good reason not to want this bill passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. member knows that I cannot comment, but perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain will.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to. I very much welcome the question from the member for St. John's East. I know he has been following this issue closely, along with the rest of our caucus.

He is right. This raises a fundamental issue not just about Canadians' right to privacy but should also be of concern to everyone the world over, as these are fundamental changes in how two countries collaborate with respect to the exchange of information.

The really frustrating thing from where I sit is knowing that the Europeans, who also have an agreement with the United States, were actually able to negotiate improvements to their agreement with the U.S. The Conservative government is not even trying. It is rolling over and saying, here is the bill that the U.S. wants us to pass and let us just do it.

I know the Americans are our friends and allies, but that does not mean it is not the responsibility of the Conservative government to protect our interests as Canadians, and it is refusing to do that. That is why I would encourage all members of the House to vote against Bill C-42 and send the government back to the drawing board and stand up for the people who have sent us here to represent them. We should to stand up for their privacy and vote against Bill C-42.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, there were headlines in the media today about hackers from China who were attempting to access the House of Commons' computers. Of course, that is a matter of some real concern, because it would expose confidential information.

If we set aside that issue, we have a government that is willing to hand over to the United States, Panama or any country that basically asks for it, confidential information that should be protected. This is the appalling aspect of the Conservatives' bill. Although it has made loud noises about hackers endeavouring to access the House of Commons' computers, it is actually offering the United States government, the Panamanian government or any government that wants it, personal credit card and personal health care information and everything else that is on the passenger name record.

I want to ask the member for Hamilton Mountain how she thinks the Conservatives could possibly justify this hypocrisy.

She mentioned the census, and we are concerned about hackers getting into the House of Commons' computers. However, we basically have a Conservative government that is willing to hand over, wholesale, Canadians' confidential information to any foreign government that requests it. It is absolutely absurd.

How can the Conservatives justify this?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot justify the Conservatives' approach to confidentiality and access to information. We have just spent an entire week in the House on, and the Speaker had been asked to adjudicate, an issue with respect to access to information that my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, raised in the House just yesterday.

We have been spending a tonne of time here as parliamentarians having to fight the government for access to information that we should have had as a matter of right for our being able to do our job.

There is now before the Speaker the question of whether we, as members, have a right to access information about the cost of the government's crime bills. We received a piece of paper yesterday, but, unfortunately, that paper contained hardly any information, and paper alone is not good enough.

We have asked for and not yet received appropriate projections of the costs of corporate tax cuts.

Members will remember only too well the seminal ruling given by the Speaker on the issue of members' access to the documents pertaining to Afghan detainees. Of course, there is another issue as well regarding who said what, when and where about the funding cuts to KAIROS, another matter for the Speaker to adjudicate.

We are taking up an unbelievable amount of time in this House appealing to the Speaker over and over again so that we can get access to the information we require to do our jobs on behalf of Canadians, instead of debating the issues that Canadians care about, such as jobs, pensions and health care.

Yet here we are discussing Bill C-42 by a government that will not share information with us or Canadian citizens and yet is eager to hand that information over to foreign countries. As my colleague pointed out, it is not just any information but information that includes travel plans, car leases and, most importantly, and potentially, the medical records of the people who are travelling. Medical records should never be shared with anyone beyond the patient and his or her doctor, yet the government is opening the books to foreign governments.

There is a huge inconsistency in the way the government deals with the protection of information. It is trying to close its books to us but opening them to foreign governments. I think that point alone is reason enough for every member in the House to vote against Bill C-42.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I think she set out the reality of Bill C-42 in a succinct and very clear way.

It terrifies me, and I know it terrifies my constituents, because I began to hear from them when news of this bill first emerged about a year ago. They absolutely recognized the danger of allowing other foreign capitals to have the information that we have always regarded as key to our security in this country.

The member talked about the long form census and she made reference to the secrecy of the government.

It is interesting, but we have just been exposed to one ludicrous crime bill after another. The government seems desperate to make criminals of Canadians. In the course of doing so, it keeps talking about victims. However, with Bill C-42, it seems to me that it is victimizing the citizens of this country, exposing them to whatever might possibly happen to them from the release of sensitive information to the likes of Mexico and Panama.

We know what happens in Mexico and the violence and insecurity that travellers experience there. We know from this new trade deal the government has signed with the government of Panama that we will be exposed to the lack of support and security that Panama provides its own citizens.

So how on earth are we going to expect that government to support the citizens of Canada and protect them?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises absolutely essential points in this debate.

It really is about the onus on our government to protect our citizens, Canadian citizens, from the potentially corrupt practices of other governments. The government is actually condoning the potential victimization of Canadian citizens. It is completely appalling. We should all be resolutely against this bill.

We have laid out the reasons. There is no protection for the private information of Canadian citizens. There is no guarantee that it will not end up in the wrong hands. Therefore, there is no guarantee and no control over how that information would be used against Canadian citizens.

At a minimum, Canadians have the right to expect that their government will stand up for them in any international obligations. We are not simply a doormat for its friends south of the border. Yes, we have friendly relationships and important trading relationships with them, but that does not mean it is not the responsibility of our government to protect our citizens. In proceeding with Bill C-42, clearly the government is abdicating that very important responsibility.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to describe the aspects of the bill that I feel are very important. I want to thank the Library of Parliament, and we probably do not thank it enough, for the good work that it does and the expertise that it holds. This summary was put together by Alysia Davies, and I thank her for the great job that she has done. In general, I want to thank the Library of Parliament for the research work that it does.

On June 17, 2010 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act. Its short title is strengthening aviation security act. The bill would amend the Aeronautics Act to create an exception for the application of another statute, the Personal Information, Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or as we know it around here PIPEDA.

The bill would amend the Aeronautics Act and PIPEDA is the main federal legislation governing privacy rights and obligations of the private sector. To date, its application in the aviation context is mainly concerned with the handling of personal information of passengers flying on Canadian aircraft.

Organizations are generally prevented from collecting, using or disclosing the personal information of customers to third parties without the customer's consent except in certain specified situations involving law enforcement, national security, defence, international affairs, compliance with a warrant or subpoena, as well as other situations that would rarely apply in the air travel context such as debt collection.

Currently the Aeronautics Act exempts the operators of aircraft from PIPEDA's restrictions on disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign state require disclosure of information about anyone onboard a flight that is landing in that state. People in my riding have had issues with this over the years, especially the town of Gander. Gander is the home of the Gander International Airport and it has been and continues to be an important route for many people over the years. It is part of the great circle route and as a result a lot of planes fly into Gander for refuelling and the like. Gander airport has been a famous refueling stop for many years and continues to be. With that in mind, we certainly appreciate the security. We know a lot about international law when it comes to privacy.

Passenger information for any Canadian flight that will land in a foreign state, whether or not the flight originates in Canada, can be disclosed to a foreign government without restriction by the air carrier, provided the disclosure meets the existing requirements in the Aeronautics Act. It is required by the laws under the foreign state. Such disclosure would not require the consent of the passengers or the triggering of the normal exceptions in the PIPEDA legislation.

What brings us to this third reading stage of the bill is the amendment. Bill C-42 would amend the section to expand its application. It would now apply not only with respect to foreign states in which the flight is landing but also to any foreign states that the flight would travel over. Accordingly, whether or not the foreign state that a flight lands and requires the disclosure of any personal information under this bill, an air carrier would be able to provide disclosure without consent or other restrictions to which it would normally be subject under PIPEDA if the laws of the foreign state and the flight path require it.

In addition to this, the bill is an in-depth piece of legislation which would have a great effect on the passenger protect program. The Aeronautics Act is the authority for a federal government program called the PPP, or the passenger protection program. It is informally known in the common vernacular today as the no-fly list under which Transport Canada provides aircraft operators with a list of names of potential passengers that must be checked before issuing a boarding pass. It is called the specified persons list.

There has been much discussion about this program. It is intended to identify potential terrorists on airline passenger lists and block them from boarding domestic or international flights. It is similar to a parallel program run in the United States for the same purpose. There has been some heated discussion about this particular no-fly list and some people have found themselves on this list for reasons such as similarity of name and so on. There may be some past association that no longer has any bearing on their behaviour today. Unfortunately, they do find themselves on the no-fly list and therefore we have a lot of complaints.

Many members of Parliament would agree that they have received several calls regarding the no-fly list and how some people have managed to end up on that list, for example, by just having the same name as someone who is under suspicion, we will say.

The program was the focus of some controversy in the early days and Transport Canada, assisted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, added names to the list without the knowledge or consent of the potential passengers. There has been considerable concern that names will end up on the list mistakenly, resulting in an innocent passenger being banned from air travel. For example, there were media reports that two young boys, a 15-year-old junior champion athlete and a 10-year-old, both named Alistair Butt, were initially stopped from taking domestic Air Canada flights in 2007 because this name appeared on the list.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada joined with all of her provincial and territorial counterparts in the year 2007 to issue a resolution expressing concerns about the PPP or the no-fly list and recommended that it be referred to the parliamentary committee for study.

The resolution also recommended, among other things, that more detailed and specific legislation authority for the program be developed under the Aeronautics Act, and an independent oversight body be established for the program, which brings us to this debate now.

Several parliamentary committees have received briefings about the program since then, most notably, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and the Standing Committee Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In 2009, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada conducted an audit for the program, PPP, passenger protection program, and under Transport Canada it is regulated, as I mentioned. In most respects the program was compliant with the applicable statutes and policies, although there were some points that needed attention. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada intends to follow up with another audit of the program this year, 2011.

Bill C-42, which we are debating at third reading, deals with what happens to the personal information of passengers once the air carriers have obtained it, either from Transport Canada's specified persons list or from another source. It therefore affects the application of PIPEDA, the statute which regulates the air carriers, as private sector organizations rather than the Privacy Act, the statute which regulates the federal public sector.

Bill C-42 contains two clauses. The first clause provides its abbreviated title, the Strengthening Aviation Security Act, and the second clause amends the Aeronautics Act, the crux of the bill, to exempt the operators of aircraft from the restrictions in PIPEDA on disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign state require disclosure of information about anyone on board a flight over that particular state.

Specifically, passenger information for any Canadian flight that will fly over a foreign state, whether or not the flight originates in Canada, could be disclosed by the air carrier to that state's government without restriction, providing the disclosure meets the existing requirements in the Aeronautics Act as required by the laws of the foreign state. Such disclosure would not require either the consent of the passengers or the triggering of the normal exceptions that we pointed out which are in PIPEDA.

I understand many of the concerns that are being brought forward here today, concerns of the NDP, and certainly the concerns of the average individual. Individuals and our society in general require protection and want to feel secure. They depend on us here as MPs to enact the laws that provide security of the people. We also hold the bar rather high when the government puts forward legislation like this, which is why amendments were made at committee.

At a transport committee hearing on air safety on May 11, 2010, Assistant Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier stated that the U.S. will retain this information for as long as 7 days to 99 years. She also added:

--our understanding is that information collected can be disclosed and used for purposes other than aviation security, such as law enforcement and immigration purposes.

The government waited until the last sitting day before the summer recess which we feel was a transparent move to avoid parliamentary scrutiny over these measures. The amendment to the bill at the transport committee was to introduce oversight measures, such as periodic parliamentary review and a requirement that airlines and travel agents inform Canadians of this information transfer before their ticket is purchased.

The opposition is very concerned about the changes being proposed in Bill C-42 which we brought up in second reading of this debate. The Aeronautics Act already allows for the disclosure of personal information by airlines to foreign states and if the flight is landing within the foreign state itself. The act also provides a legislative authority to create the no-fly list, with the PPP, intended to identify potential terrorists in airline passenger lists and block them from boarding domestic or international flights.

As we know, since the early part of the last decade, since 9/11, this has been an incredibly large issue in the United States, particularly for reasons that are obvious, but it has also become a very important issue here as to the security of our people. Since that time we find ourselves now looking at the situation in a different light. Many of our laws have been changed since then to provide for the security of peoples. We have seen many incidents that have taken place internationally, whether it be the London bombings, the Middle East, or other major destinations across Europe and North America that have been threatened. In some situations, attempts to create mass acts of terrorism have been thwarted.

Many of the measures that we have taken as a government, internal security matters as well as foreign security matters, have been implemented and some certainly have been quite successful in thwarting the attempts of people who wish to do terrorist acts around the world. Again, not just in North America but around major destinations all over the world, including key ports in Asia as well as Europe.

The no-fly list, however, is not infallible. Further, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has expressed concerns with the measures enabled in the Aeronautics Act, by further changing the act, forcing Canadian airlines to disclose personal information of Canadian passengers who are simply flying over a foreign state.

Bill C-42 further endangers the privacy rights of Canadians which we acknowledge and worked through at committee. Maintaining public security however is important and a balance must be achieved.

The opposition members expressed this concern when the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Liberal members amended the bill in three specific ways.

First, the House of Commons will be required to conduct a review of these measures two years from the date they come into force and every five years thereafter. Second, this data transfer will be limited to us in legislation. The original version of the bill allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order in council. Third, airlines and travel agents will be required by Canadian law to inform passengers of this impending data transfer before their ticket is purchased.

It is important to note that the Canadian government did secure an exemption for Canadian flights where the origin and destination are both in Canada but the plane would enter U.S. air space.

Bill C-42 amends the Aeronautics Act to exempt the operators of aircraft from the restrictions in PIPEDA on disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign state require disclosure of information about anyone on board a flight over that particular state.

Currently the Aeronautics Act exempts the operators of aircraft from PIPEDA's restrictions of disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign state require disclosure of information about anyone on board a flight that is landing in the states. That is why, when we looked earlier at the situation, we decided to make the amendments through the committees and now we find ourselves here at third reading.

Accordingly, passenger information for any Canadian flight landing in a foreign state, whether or not the flight originates in Canada, can be disclosed to a foreign government without restriction by the air carrier, provided the disclosure meets the existing requirements in the Aeronautics Act and is required by the laws of the foreign state. Such disclosure would not require the consent of the passengers or trigger the normal exceptions in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, part of the Aeronautics Act.

Only specific pieces of information will be required by the U.S. government, such as, name, birthdate, gender, flight and passport information, as available. The U.S. government insists this information will only be used for no-fly list matching. The U.S. has the right to control its own airspace and that is enshrined in international law. If we were not to pass this bill, Canadian airlines would be barred from U.S. airspace, which would cripple their ability to operate.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves.

As I mentioned earlier, security over the past 10 to 15 years has changed dramatically. At the beginning of the decade we found ourselves in a situation where security was the utmost when it came to acts of mass terrorism. We found ourselves creating and enacting legislation that changed our behaviour and way of thinking in many ways.

This was not isolated only to the United States, which was the recipient of the damage of 9/11 in a most inhumane manner. In this country we realized how linked we are to the United States in trade, air travel, borders, which is still a contentious issue, and at the same time maintaining our sovereignty and of course respecting the privacy rights of all individuals. We found ourselves in a situation where we had to balance our right to privacy with our right to be secure.

This debate has given us the chance to flesh out that balance to achieve between security and the right to privacy. Since coming out of committee, we have struck a balance that we certainly believe is the right way to go. I commend all members of this House voting for or against this piece of legislation for having a mature debate about how to achieve that balance and be responsible for securing our citizens in this country and North America in general.

At the same time, we have to be respectful and uphold the rights of our citizens in this country. To do that we have made amendments that we feel are responsible. We brought our concerns to the table at second reading and to committee. I want to commend the committee on the work it has done and on the amendments it has accepted.

We now find ourselves at third reading of this bill. I think it goes a long way in protecting our security. It is good for our economy and is respectful of the rights of our citizens to their privacy.

As I mentioned earlier, a community in my riding has played a very important role over the last 50 years or so when it comes to aviation and international travel. The town of Gander, home to the Gander International Airport, was the main refuelling stop for major flights between Europe and North America. Back in the day, in the 1950s, 1960s, and even into the 1980s, air security was not debated as much and was certainly not top of mind for citizens of this country. However, it certainly is today. The world is changing. Gander has changed accordingly. The airport security regime has changed accordingly. Today we are now responding to threats we did not face many years ago, back when Gander International Airport was in its heyday with major international flights coming in from Europe to North America.

In closing, I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear a speech by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, the homeland of my ancestors and my wonderful grandfather.

He made cogent and thoughtful arguments, but I have to add some things, to which I would appreciate a response from the hon. member. He speaks of the need to balance interests, to ensure that Canadians are secure against terrorists, and the need to balance rights. I would ask him why he did not initially say the bill before the House should at least include the minimum conditions that the Europeans sought and obtained from the United States of America in order to protect the interests and security of the citizens of Europe.

Why did the Liberals not propose amendments on reciprocity? Surely that is what would secure us. This bill is not going to secure Canadians. It may, in the minds of American lawmakers and security officers, provide greater security to them because many still believe the terrorists all came from Canada, but I fail to see how any of these measures are ensuring the security of Canadians.

I have heard some of the speeches in the House, including the one by the hon. member. Despite the fact that he provided very cogent arguments and interesting information on the background of the no-fly list and so forth, it is important for the House to remember we are not talking about mere friendly principles. We are talking about our basic constitutional rights, which include the constitutional right to the security of the person, the right not to be deprived except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice or due process, and the right to notification. The government is now attempting to deal with that, but my question would be whether it is enough to simply notify, or is that going to be in fine print at the bottom of the ticket.

The charter provides the right to be heard, for Canadians to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and not to be arbitrarily detained and imprisoned. These are not minor friendly principles; they are overriding constitutional charter rights. We cannot talk about a balance to ensure that Americans feel secure against potential terrorists coming from Canada and flying over their airspace, against our constitutionally entrenched rights.

I can assure everyone that if we called for the same kinds of impingements on the freedoms of Americans, there would be a great hue and cry. Where is the reciprocity in what the member is proposing, to make sure this act does not throw the scales out of balance and impinge on our constitutional rights in the interests of the fear of Americans?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a good one. It is a good one in the sense that we have struggled with this for quite some time. I am not going to dismiss her concerns, let us put it that way; this is something I think she puts a good argument towards.

On the balance we have achieved, obviously each of us has a different version on where that balance lies. Nonetheless, her arguments about reciprocity certainly are good ones.

Of course we find ourselves in a situation where it is not a black and white issue in many cases; there is a lot in here to sift through. We want to do this for the security, not just of Americans but also North Americans, including us, and I think this piece of legislation does go forward in doing that.

As I mentioned earlier, we find ourselves in a situation where the amendments we put forward are key to this, in three specific ways. First, the House of Commons would be required to conduct a review of these measures two years from the date they come into force, and every five years thereafter. Second, the data transfer would be limited to the United States in legislation; the original version of the bill allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order in council. And, third, airlines and travel agents would be required by Canadian law to inform passengers of this impending data transfer before the ticket is purchased.

Again, it is important to know that the Canadian government did secure an exemption for Canadian flights where the origin and destination are both in Canada and the plane would enter into U.S. air space.

Things are different on the reciprocity issue when it comes to Europe, but again, in achieving this balance with Bill C-42, we feel it is right to go forward. The review would examine that as well, which is a very important aspect of it.

While there is no doubt that the American government wants to keep its citizens secure, we do also, but with rights of privacy too. Would the Americans be equally as upset if it were the other way around? I am sure they probably would be. In this case, I am sure they would also respect that our air space is very close to theirs and that an attack on them would certainly be an attack on us.

We must consider that we have the responsibility to keep our citizens secure.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a particular part of this legislation, in fact, on the absurdity of putting this legislation forward in the first place. As the member would know, the bill is being proposed by a government that very recently told Canadians they had to do away with the long-form census because it was far too intrusive: “We could not possibly ask Canadians how many bedrooms were in their homes.” How intrusive, how appalling that the Canadian government should know that about citizens.

Everyone in the country, except members of the Conservative Party, seem to appreciate how important census information is for social planning, for effective planning of all kinds of programs that affect average Canadian families. Yet, while the Conservatives have a problem collecting that information, they have absolutely no difficulty sharing the personal information of Canadian citizens, with not only the U.S. government, but frankly with governments all over the world, potentially including governments like Panama and Colombia.

If Canadians realized with whom their information was going to be shared, I am not sure they would not be protesting, right now, outside of this building. The reality is that the kind of information being shared is not just point of departure and point of arrival for any particular air flight, it includes things like credit card information. More troublesome than that, it includes personal medical information, which we would now be sharing at the drop of a dime, as soon as this legislation becomes law.

The Canadian government has done nothing to protect the personal information of Canadian citizens from being spread around. It is almost like the government wants to hit “reply all” and send it to any agency, any government, that might want this information. It is doing nothing to protect that information.

I find it passing strange that is being introduced by the government that is so unwilling to share its own information, government information, to which we, as members of Parliament, have a right. We saw that in the House this week. We could not get access to the costing of the government's justice bills. We could not get access to the projections of the cost of corporate tax cuts.

We could not even get a straight answer about what happened in committee on whether a certain minister inserted the word “not” into the submission on funding for KAIROS. That is an institution that we on this side of the House certainly fully support. We thought KAIROS should get funding from this government. The government is obfuscating what happened around that funding initiative, although I have to say the obfuscation is not particularly effective, since every Canadian seems to know about it. It has become an item in every single news outlet and media outlet all over the country.

The government is trying to protect itself from having to give out information about what it is doing, but it has no problem with widely disseminating information about its citizens.

I wonder if the member is at all troubled by that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that certainly the irony is not lost on me regarding Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, in comparison with the long form census controversy. The lack of intrusion on the long form census and the so-called intrusion in this bill, I guess the ideology does not rub together. Nonetheless, I appreciate the member's comments.

I do appreciate the fact that in this particular case obviously there is more information which, under different circumstances, people would not want to sacrifice to any airline or any particular individual regarding their privacy. We find ourselves in a new age, a new era. Therefore, I think that the balance which needs to be achieved is close to being achieved here.

The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I can sum up Bill C-42 by saying it should be defeated. It is nothing more than data mining by foreign security services, primarily the United States, and is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Canadians.

Bill C-42 would amend the Aeronautics Act to allow for an exemption for airlines from the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; thereby, permitting them to transmit to the United States department of homeland security personal information about airline passengers.

The U.S. department of homeland security could then run this information through a number of databases to determine if the travellers should be prevented from entering U.S. airspace. If the U.S. department of homeland security determines a person may be allowed into United States airspace, then the airline is given permission to issue a boarding pass. This is the process set up under the United States secure flight program which mandates that only those the U.S. department of homeland security allows may enter into U.S. airspace, regardless if those individuals are landing in the United States or not.

While the Conservatives like to point to name, gender and date of birth as being the only items of information required, the secure flight final rules state that airlines must also provide the following information if they possess it: redress number or known traveller number; passport information; itinerary information; reservation control number; record sequence number; record type; passenger update indicator; and traveller reference number.

All of these information elements are part of the air travel system for ensuring passengers move efficiently in their travels. It is information the airline would automatically possess.

Unfortunately, it is sufficient information to allow the department of homeland security to data mine the travel reservation systems used by all airlines as these databases are physically located in the United States and the U.S. patriot act requires that they be available to U.S. security agencies, without a warrant.

Included in this information are known medical conditions of passengers, who is travelling with the specific person, and even what they ate on the airline if they ordered a special meal.

Previous to Bill C-42, this information was passed to the U.S. department of homeland security only for passengers travelling to the United States. Through a non-binding diplomatic note, Canada had secured an exemption from secure flight for domestic flights.

As almost all flights within, to and from Canada pass through United States airspace, Bill C-42 would essentially allow the United States department of homeland security to determine who may enter and leave Canada by air.

Bill C-42 would also allow airlines to send personal information of passengers to foreign security services. What information would be forwarded is determined by requirements laid out in secret agreements with other countries. Details of these agreements have not been released.

However, it is known that Canada has signed or is negotiating agreements with the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and the United States.

Details of the agreement between the European Union and the United States, for the same information transfer, are troubling. That agreement allows the information collected to be retained by the United States for up to 40 years.

Under the secure flight final rule, the retention period for Canadians is seven days if no match is found in the data; seven years for a potential match; and 99 years for confirmed matches.

As I have already indicated, this information may be forwarded to the security service of a third nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory: the passenger.

The secure flight final rule also stipulates that no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors.

The United States already has such an agreement with the European Union. Under that agreement, the United States may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises the EU of the change. There has already been one amendment whereby all documents held by the EU concerning the joint U.S.-EU agreement shall not be publicly released for 10 years.

This would preclude any access to information requests. In essence, Bill C-42 provides too much access to private information without any protection. As I have stated, it will allow data mining of Canadians' personal information by foreign security services.

The Conservative government seems to be inordinately influenced by what it seems to believe is a danger, that unless Canadians agree with the bill, the United States could close its airspace to Canadian aircraft. While this threat may result in pressure to pass the bill, it is very unlikely the United States would carry through with that threat. Still, Bill C-42 is being spun by the government as necessary for fighting terrorism. There is no example of how this data mining has caught a single terrorist or any other criminal.

The bill is an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of Canadians by foreign security forces. I have heard from many constituents who are very concerned that such an intrusion is an unacceptable invasion of their privacy and undermines their sense of personal security.

I believe Maher Arar is an example of how this type of information can be misused. Canadians remember Maher Arar, a 34-year-old Canadian wireless technology consultant who was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at age 17. Maher became a Canadian citizen in 1991.

On September 26, 2002, while in transit at New York's JFK airport en route to Montreal, Mr. Arar was detained by U.S. officials, and on the basis of information provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he was interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled, and flown to Syria where he was imprisoned in a tiny cell for 10 months. During his captivity he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession. Due to the unrelenting efforts of his wife, Monia Mazigh, and the help of Alexa McDonough, he was eventually returned to Canada in October 2003.

In January 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations, the Government of Canada announced a commission of inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials. In 2006, Justice Dennis O'Connor cleared Maher Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating that he was able to state categorically that there was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar had committed any offence or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada.

The authorities at JFK identified Maher as knowing a person being investigated by the RCMP, but failed to further investigate the degree of this acquaintance. They made assumptions which were unjustified and they took action which would have been unjustified even if Maher Arar had been guilty of serious crimes.

Despite an apology and financial settlement from the Government of Canada in 2007, U.S. authorities refuse to accept Mr. Arar is innocent and he remains on the American no-fly list. Clearly, this is a terrifying example of how information can be skewed, misinterpreted and misused.

Many people have commented on the agreement being considered by the Government of Canada in regard to the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act. Ms. Chantal Bernier, assistant privacy commissioner in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada told the Standing Committee on Transport, Communities and Infrastructure in May 2010:

--privacy and security do not have to be at odds. In fact, they must be integrated. And they converge. They converge in this fashion: privacy commands that we collect as little information as possible, in a minimal approach, and as well in the effectiveness of security, in the sense that its effectiveness rests upon collecting only the information that is relevant...the right to privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon, unless it is demonstrably necessary for the public good. It follows, then, that the collection of personal information can only occur when it is proven necessary, and it must be proportionate to that necessity...that necessity must be assessed on an ongoing basis by verifying that the collection of personal information is indeed effective and necessary in relation to the identified necessity. Finally, it must also be demonstrated that there are no less privacy-intrusive measures available to reach the same goal.

Comments to the transport committee by Edward Hasbrouck of Liberty Coalition, a U.S.-based civil liberties group, are chilling. Mr. Hasbrouck stated:

Unlike the case in Canada, where someone denied travel is given formal notice of that decision and has rights to appeal it, those no-fly orders in the U.S. are entirely extrajudicial. No one in the U.S. has yet obtained court review by any U.S. court of a no-fly order. It is U.S. government policy not even to admit that they have issued such an order, and that includes those denying passage on flights overflying the U.S. that were not scheduled to land. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is on the public record as saying that he believed that no-fly decisions should not be subject to judicial review, and the current U.S. administration has done nothing to repudiate that perspective.

While the consequences for anyone are very serious, including for those U.S. citizens trapped abroad who are currently unable to return home because they are not allowed to fly and have no other way to get back to the U.S., they are perhaps most draconian for refugees and asylum seekers. You should be very clear that the enactment of Bill C-42 would grant to the U.S. government de facto veto power over the ability of virtually anyone to obtain sanctuary in Canada--

This sounds very much like the case of Dawood Hepplewhite, a British man stranded in Toronto after being denied permission to fly home. His name is on the U.S. no-fly list. Mr. Hasbrouck went on to talk about how the data collected is used. He indicated:

These data are also used for purposes of surveillance of travellers. It is not the case that the information is simply used to make a onetime decision about whether to let you fly. All of your PNRs, even if you are not deemed suspicious and are allowed to fly, will be added to the lifetime travel history and compilation of data already being kept about you as part of the automated targeting system.

Dr. Mark Salter, associate professor, school of political studies at the University of Ottawa, told the committee:

Governments want this information so that they can build profiles of not just risky passengers but safe passengers as well. Research clearly demonstrates that in the United States and the U.K., government agencies are trying to collect as much data about travellers as possible. Government agencies such as the U.K. Border Agency try to develop very sophisticated algorithms that predict not which individuals are dangerous, but what kinds of itineraries are dangerous.

What worries me about this particular legislation is that the data not only go to the destination country but may go to all states that the airline might fly over. That, I feel, is the significant change that this legislation brings, and it worries me a great deal.

Flights that use the polar routes from Vancouver to Hong Kong would have to go over Russia and China. Are we suggesting that they are reasonable destinations for the passenger data of Canadian citizens? Flights that go to Colombia or Brazil must overfly any number of Latin American countries. Flights to Dubai must overfly most European countries and some Middle Eastern countries. Is the Government of Canada confident that the destination for their data can provide adequate protection? Are Air Canada and other air providers confident of that as well?

I understand that one of the reasons for this legislation is to get around the requirements of PIPEDA for Air Canada to provide such data. What worries me is that neither the government nor other agencies have put protection in place for data that will now go abroad.

I think it is dangerous to sacrifice our privacy and our freedoms for the dream of zero risk or perfect security. This particular measure does not provide additional security for the aviation sector, and it places an additional burden on Canadian citizens who are flying...the use of this commercial data, because it is created by airlines for their use, poses clear risks to privacy and no clear benefit. There is no reciprocity among any of the other countries. We are simply making Canadians more vulnerable to the security services of other nations, and we are doing so for countries that may not have the same robust privacy legislation or commitment that we have in Canada.

Canadians' data should not be hostage to the most paranoid regime that an air company chooses to fly over. The proposed change to these data protection regulations to include overflight states dramatically increases the vulnerability of Canadians' data while offering no means of redress or appeal.

We can assume that citizens know when they travel to a particular country that they are consenting. They know they go through a visa process and a border process, so they know their data is being evaluated. However, Canadians would have no way of knowing which of the countries they flew over would get their data, what would happen to their data, or how to appeal the use of that data.

The proposed changes to the Aeronautics Act are dangerous indeed without any clear benefit to Canadians.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the committee that there is an expectation of privacy protection by the charter. This bill would not meet a section 1 challenge because it has no limitations. It does not adequately protect the problems that may arise with the disclosure of information and so on.

The first point is that there is a constitutional vulnerability that should be looked at before we go too much further. There is no requirement in Bill C-42 or in the regulations of the U.S. Transportation Safety Act for safeguards to protect the information. There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass information to other government agencies, such as law enforcement or immigration. There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass this information to third countries. We know this has been a particularly difficult issue for some Canadians, Maher Arar being a case in point. There is no guarantee the TSA will not use the information for profiling Canadians to put them on its watch list or no-fly list.

Ms. Des Rosiers also reminded the committee that in the United States the no-fly list is under constitutional review. It has been challenged because there are too many false positives arising. The process has a described Kafkaesque quality in the way it does not allow people to know whether they are on it, how to get off it, and what evidence is on it.

That is the danger. The danger is that Canadian passengers will be put at risk of being stuck somewhere with no possibility of flying home. There is no guarantee that an innocent Canadian could not be mistakenly placed on the list. There is no guarantee that innocent Canadians mistakenly placed on the list will not be prevented from flying to or from or being detained in the U.S. or elsewhere without due process.

I have absolutely no confidence that surrendering information about Canadians to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is either safe or wise. Disclosure to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of personal information on passengers travelling to certain destinations, particularly Cuba, could lead to unpleasant consequences. For example, this information could be used to identify Canadian companies that do business with Cuba or to penalize travellers who have visited Cuba by consequently refusing them entry into the U.S.

How will Canada ensure that the U.S. will not use the secure flight program to apply its Helms–Burton act which imposes penalties on foreign companies doing business with Cuba? Canadians and Canadian companies have had a long-standing and very positive relationship with Cuba. Millions of Canadians have visited Cuba, and I am sure would like to continue to visit Cuba.

Over and over we have heard the warnings from reputable experts and indeed the voices of concerned Canadians. Surely the government will listen to these warnings. We need to defeat Bill C-42. Canadians deserve better than the lacklustre leadership and absence of due diligence from the government. How can anyone trust a government, its ministers and a Prime Minister so willing to jeopardize their privacy and security?

In the words of our Privacy Commissioner, “the Canadian government has a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens”. It is time the government understood that and did its duty.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for London—Fanshawe. She gave an excellent comprehensive speech on all of the reasons that Bill C-42 is deeply flawed and should not be supported by anybody in this House.

I know the member has been listening to the debates in the House for months now. One of the issues that arose last summer was the government summarily decided that this country was no longer going to have a long form census.

We know from social service agencies and other levels of government that the information that is gleaned from the census is absolutely imperative to the planning work that these organizations do. What did the federal Conservative government say in response to that? It said that we cannot have a long form census because it is unbelievably invasive into the private lives of Canadians.

If it was so invasive to ask Canadians how many bedrooms they have in their homes, how can the government possibly support Bill C-42 which, as the member so clearly outlined, is much more intrusive? It tries to access very personal information, including health information, from Canadian citizens.

Perhaps the member for London—Fanshawe would like to talk about the census on the one hand and Bill C-42 on the other.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain has made a very salient point in regard to the government's plans to eliminate the long form census. As she indicated, the government's decision is based on the notion that it is just too personal to reveal how many bedrooms or bathrooms might be in someone's household. By the same token, apparently it is not too private or too personal to reveal health information, travel plans, itineraries and the names of travel companions to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The question in regard to the census is a very important one. One of the key issues we have with the changes to the long form census is the removal of questions about unpaid work. The committee for the status of women has done many extensive studies into issues relating to women and employment insurance, women in regard to maternity leave. Very often a young woman, particularly one who has her own business such as a small cleaning business, may not be able to access maternity leave if her second child is born too quickly after her first child, and as we know, sometimes these things do happen. In addition, the kind of unpaid work that women do is very important to understanding the policies and programs that women need.

The elimination of the long form census says to me very clearly that the government is not interested in programs and policies that would help women.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. There are serious concerns about this legislation.

At committee the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group said that after running a risk assessment for each passenger using data-mining technology, homeland security in turn issues a boarding pass result to the airline. The result instructs the airline to issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel, or issue an enhanced screening requirement. These regulations give the U.S. access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not entering the U.S., but are merely overflying its airspace.

As we look at this government bill, I wonder if the member could think about how this connects to the security and prosperity partnership agreement that was turned down by Parliament. I wonder whether she sees this as an attempt by the government to subvert the will of Parliament again. In moving this forward, the government is trying to bring back pieces of the security and prosperity partnership agreement. Could she comment on that?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised many points and I hope to touch on all of them.

Certainly, the so-called security and prosperity partnership was anything but secure and offered anything but prosperity. This whole notion that we are just one big happy family on the North American continent most definitely is shown to be less than accurate when we consider how we differ from the Americans.

We have, or we should have, an entirely different view about privacy and the security of the person. We most certainly have a different view of those elements without our nations that we need to be concerned about. I use the first and second Iraq wars as examples. There was a great deal of pressure from the United States for Canada to become involved in those wars. Fortunately, we had the sanity and the sagacity to avoid both of them.

The SPP, as the member indicated, was turned down not just by the Parliament of Canada but by the people of this country. They wanted to know their government was standing firm in terms of our security and that it was not willing to divulge anything in regard to personal information or the control it has over Canada's borders and decision making.

The issuing of boarding passes and homeland security being able to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on any passenger should make the blood of every Canadian boil. How dare it? Who is homeland security that it can tell a Canadian citizen if he or she may or may not fly? I find that to be profoundly disturbing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague has a few more things to say on this subject and I will give her that opportunity.

This is exactly what she indicated. Every Canadian's blood should boil over this issue because it is really intrusive. Imagine three travellers being told at an airport that one of them is unable to board the flight. That has happened.

Perhaps the member would like to make a comment with respect to our colleague from Winnipeg who is on the no-fly list. How does one get off the no-fly list? We know he is not a terrorist. Why is he on the list?

This bill would actually make it worse.

Perhaps my colleague would like to comment with respect to whether someone could win a charter challenge on this.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of a charter challenge is salient to this argument. If the government is foolish enough to try to push through Bill C-42, I would hope that there would be a number of charter challenges.

As I indicated in my remarks, if a person is on the no-fly list or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not like the person or has misinformation about the person, the person has no way of determining what the information is and whether or not it is accurate.

In the case of my colleague from Winnipeg, I suppose there are those who would say it is just as well he be kept out of the United States. Many Americans might view it that way. However, it is his right to travel. It is his right to have that access. The fact that he has a name very similar to probably millions of others who fly should not mean that he be detained or denied and his privileges taken away.

I was thinking about the reaction of Americans themselves to the security in airports in the United States. Last Thanksgiving a number of Americans decided that they had had enough of full body scans and the disrespect they felt they were receiving at the hands of their government. As I indicated in my speech, all of these excessive measures do not seem to have increased security. The American passengers revolted. Perhaps it is time for Canadians to stand up to a revolting bill that serves no positive purpose.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act. This act seeks to create an exception from the application of another statute, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, for operators of aircraft.

In our opinion, this bill should be defeated, as it is nothing more than data mining by foreign security services, primarily of the United States. It is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Canadians. This invasion of privacy is backed up with the threat that U.S. airspace will be closed to Canadian aircraft unless this bill is passed.

Currently, the Aeronautics Act exempts airlines from PIPEDA's restrictions on disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign country require disclosure of information about anyone onboard a flight landing there. Accordingly, passenger information for any Canadian flight that will land in a foreign state, whether or not the flight originates in Canada, can be disclosed to a foreign government without restriction by the air carrier. Such disclosure would not require the consent of the passengers or the triggering of normal exceptions in PIPEDA.

Bill C-42 amends this section to expand its ambit. It would now apply not only with respect to foreign states in which the flight is landing, but also to any foreign states the flight would travel over. Accordingly, whether or not the foreign state that a flight lands in requires the disclosure of any personal information, an air carrier, under this bill, would be able to provide disclosure without consent if the laws of a foreign state on the flight path required it.

The U.S. secure flight program already has Canadian airlines passing on passenger information, including full names, date of birth, gender and, if available, passport numbers and itineraries to the U.S. government 72 hours prior to departure of the flights scheduled to land there.

Now the U.S. government is attempting to expand this approach by making the program international through the implementation of mandatory reporting requirements, which would see the disclosure of sensitive personal information on all flights passing through designated U.S. airspace. Therefore, Bill C-42 is an attempt to placate these American security concerns related to foreign individuals flying over United States airspace.

Let me make this clear. It means that under the new provisions of Bill C-42, Canadian citizens would be subject to the disclosure of their personal information on all flights passing over the U.S. on the way from Canada to a third country, such as a planeload of Canadians heading to Mexico, Cuba or Jamaica. I could rhyme off many places that Canadians fly to in the winter months.

Moreover, according to Roch Tassé of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group:

The Americans will have a veto on every passenger that gets on a plane in Canada, even if they are not going to set foot on American soil.

Mr. Tassé added:

What will happen if Canada invites the ambassador from a country such as Cuba?

Although the government has apparently negotiated an exemption for domestic Canadian flights that enter U.S. airspace, the expanded disclosure of the personal information of citizens to foreign governments is troubling, especially considering that the creation and maintenance of the U.S. no-fly list has been described overwhelmingly as a disaster.

For instance, reports have indicated that children and even infants have been mistakenly included on the no-fly list. Of course, the most famous case is that of the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, who was declared a terrorist due to incorrect information being included on the no-fly list. In Canada, the Arar case should serve as a warning as to how the sharing of incorrect data can lead to horrifying results.

With this in mind, how are Canadians going to be assured that their personal information will be kept confidential?

Furthermore, how are Canadians going to be assured that this information will be used in the prescribed manner?

Although there appears to be an agreement in place with the U.S. stipulating that any information collected that is unrelated to terrorism will be erased after seven days, what assurances do we have that these measures will be taken in a timely and efficient manner? If the maintenance of the no-fly list is any indication, there is a significant chance of the confidential personal information of Canadians being mismanaged.

That is the truly worrying issue here. This information has the potential of being held for years and being used for purposes other than what it was first provided for.

The government will tell Canadians that it is taking steps to ensure that the information handed over will only be kept for a few days. The reality is that once this information is handed over, we will have no control over it. The only way that we can ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected is to stop this information grab by the U.S. and other countries. We must strongly assert our conviction that although security is a primary concern when regulating the aviation industry and those who have access to flights, this does not mean that security concerns trump the privacy rights of Canadians.

The New Democrats understand the need to balance privacy and security concerns in order to protect individuals from security threats while ensuring that individual liberties are not infringed in the process. However, the broadening in scope of the disclosure of personal information fails to properly meet this balance.

Why should Canadians believe that this expansion of information sharing with foreign governments is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians, especially considering the mismanagement of the collected information that has been prevalent under the U.S. no-fly list?

What will Canadians get in exchange for this gross violation of their privacy? Not much. They may get a slightly shorter waiting time to board an aircraft. However, there will also be an increased risk that their confidential personal information will be mismanaged, which, in the past, has often been the reality.

Why is the government willing to engage in the collection and dissemination of personal information in this instance when it was more than willing to dismantle the mandatory long form census on the basis of its supposedly intrusive collection of personal information?

The reality gap posed by the government needs to be exposed. Why are there grossly different standards for the collection and dissemination of personal information? The government cannot have its cake and eat it too in this case. Either it agrees with the collection and dissemination of confidential personal information or it does not. Which is it?

I would like to quote my colleague from the Western Arctic, our critic for transport and infrastructure, who stated:

On the face of it, this bill seems pretty simple. It seems it is just changing a couple of lines in the Aeronautics Act. However, this bill has many more ramifications. What we have seen from the government is a failure to address the ramifications prior to putting the bill forward....

Canadians will give up their information, but they will give up more than their information....

We heard testimony about the passenger name record. Most of the information accessible to Canadians will be transferred. It will not simply be names and passport numbers and dates of birth; we will be giving the United States the opportunity to examine the full passenger name record. This is a very serious business, because it brings in much more information. We have heard many examples in the media over the past months of individuals whose information has been used in a manner that has caused them to have difficulty when trying to enter the United States. We have set up a system that can create much discord among passengers who are travelling over the United States.

In August 2007 the European Commission released an opinion on the EU and U.S. agreement for the processing and transferring of personal information by air carriers to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The opinion compared the 2007 agreement with others. The opinion found that the agreement's safeguards for private information were weaker than in other types of agreements and, specifically, that the amount of information transferred was increasing and that the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, might use sensitive information that had been excluded by previous agreements. It also found that the transfer of information to foreign agencies was made easier and was no longer subject to the previous protection safeguards. Information would be kept for at least 15 years in some cases. In other cases, it was found that information was kept for 40 years.

This opinion also found that the new agreement contained an increased number of exemptions from the safeguarding and protecting of personal information, safeguards that could be waived at the discretion of the United States. The European commission stated, “—the new agreement does not strike the right balance to uphold the fundamental rights of citizens as regards data protection”.

As I mentioned earlier, Roch Tassé of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has said, “The Americans will have a veto on every passenger that gets on a plane in Canada, even if they are not going to set foot—” on any state or any part of the United States.

The Air Transport Association of Canada, ATAC, made its grievances known to the American Department of Homeland Security last December. Its critique was that the submission of Canadian passenger details by Canadian airlines violated Canada's laws on the protection of personal information and electronic documentation, as well as the aeronautics laws.

With the passage of Bill C-42, the handing over of this private information will no longer violate Canadian law. The only way to ensure that we can protect Canadians' personal information is to stop this information grab by the United States.

It is the opinion of New Democrats that this bill should be defeated, as it is nothing more than data mining by security services, primarily of the United States, and is an unwarranted invasion of Canadians' privacy. This invasion of privacy is backed up with the threat that U.S. airspace will be closed to Canadians who want to travel abroad by simply passing over, not going into, the United States.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this issue links to the ongoing work by the government on a perimeter security deal. Quite clearly these issues are related.

The Liberal Party has come out very strongly against the sharing of information that may or may not be within the perimeter security deal, yet at the same time it is voting for this bill. The Liberal members want to have their cake and eat it too.

I want to know how my hon. colleague feels about this particular direction the Liberal Party is taking on this. It feels strongly that we should not be sharing information willy-nilly with the United States under the overflight provisions, yet when it comes to something like this where we could probably have negotiated a better deal on the overflight provisions, and still probably could, why is the Liberal Party behaving in this fashion?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly wish I had a crystal ball so I could give my hon. colleague an answer, because there have been many times when we have scrutinized for some of those decisions.

However, it comes down to the fact that we are here right now to try to defend and protect the rights of Canadian passengers and their personal information. I hope the Liberal Party will see the light and vote against this legislation, because it truly is worrisome to think about the potential impact of such personal information being out there for 10 years or, as I said in my speech, the evidence that such information has been kept for 40 years.

We will continue to stand here and talk about the implications of this bill for Canadians and their personal information. We will let the public know through this debate and other ways that we are against this type of legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very few people in this place, or in the country for that matter, would disagree with the hypothesis that we have to do everything possible to protect the rights and privacy of Canadians in all matters and that we have to look at the exceptions in a reasoned fashion.

We know that every country has the right to protect its own airspace and land space and to require certain information if people want to go there. To broadly deal with this as if it is a total violation of the privacy rights of Canadians may be a stretch.

Would the member confirm for the House his understanding about what information would actually have to be disclosed as part of the requirements that the U.S. has laid out in its statement?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in the sense that we are having this discussion to ensure we find ways of protecting the information that is going to be provided.

From my understanding as to what the bill would be allowing foreign security services and governments to gather relates to more than just date of birth, passport numbers and itineraries. It would relate to health status, health card numbers and all the things which could have an impact on what people do not want foreign countries to know about them.

The importance of keeping this information within our own country, which is our right, is what we are debating now. I am sure all colleagues in the House want to ensure that the information of Canadians is protected.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the conversation that has taken place, the speech by my colleague and the question posed. When Liberals were speaking to the bill, one would think they were opposed to the bill. They were saying it imposed on the private information of people, yet they are saying they are going to support it. This is the type of flip-flop we have heard from the Liberals and on the government side.

If we look at this legislation, we have to look at what the European Commission said in 1998. It said that in order to do something like this, there would need to be six key principles that would have to be included: the purpose limitation principle; the information quality and proportionality principle; the transparency principle; the security principle; the right to access rectification and opposition principle; and a restriction on onward transfers principle. We see none of that in the bill.

In defence of the bill, the public safety minister's office said that it had to do this to ensure that Canadians did not face any undue delays in travel plans. We have seen what undue delays in travel plans do. Maybe my colleague could comment on this. When people book flights to Cancun or Cuba, they may have to call the United States to see if they can fly. Does he think it is right for people to have to ask the U.S. for permission to take a trip?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to think that a worker in my great riding in Sudbury, who saves enough money to take himself, his spouse and his family on trip somewhere, would have to call the United States to see if they can go. We have certain rights and freedoms in Canada that would allow us to consider that going on a trip is not something where we would need permission from the United States.

The airport in my great of riding Sudbury is one that my hon. colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and I are often in. We have a couple of great companies that are now establishing themselves at the Sudbury airport. Sunwing, for example, is starting to come to Sudbury more often. It is great to see international carriers, Canadian-based but going abroad, coming to my community in northern Ontario. That creates jobs and economic development.

If Sunwing starts to lose passengers who cannot take these flights to Mexico or Cuba because they would be flying over the United States, we will start to see job losses in northern Ontario. We have been seeing them over and over again, unfortunately, because the government's decisions when it comes to the Investment Canada Act and what has happened in some of our resource-based industries.

We are starting to see other industries come to northern Ontario, and that is great. However, if Sunwing is an example of what needs to be done to ensure we have development, then we need to encourage that travel. This bill is counter to that. Fewer and fewer people will able to fly to Mexico or Cuba, let alone the job losses, with not as many people flying.

I think we can encourage more people to fly, by ensuring that we are still protecting the airline industry with the right regulations, not the wrong regulations. This seems to be something that is very similar. Everything is reactive, nothing proactive. The opportunity to look at proactive legislation rather than looking at the reactive side would do a lot more for protecting Canadians and Canadian identity.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add some comments on Bill C-42. I think there is some information which would have been clarified by the committee had members looked at the committee testimony dealing with international rights and the rights of countries to protect their sovereign airspace and land.

Substantively, this is a furtherance of the wish of the Americans to respond to the terrorist threats upon the U.S. They are our neighbour and our largest trading partner. However, the intent of the U.S. clearly is not directed at Canada in terms of interfering with Canada, but rather protecting their sovereign space.

It is easy to give a speech in this place on privacy rights. One speaker just said that the Americans would have our health card and health care information. That is not actually the case. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner was before committee and laid out the disclosure, and it is basic disclosure.

We have had evidence that this kind of information is provided when we cross the border in automobiles. We have to provide our passports. That opens up any file on times of travel. The Americans keep records. There is probably a fair bit of information on people who travel to the United States, much more than people who fly over it.

The bill is very straightforward. It requires Canada to provide information about people flying either to the United States or over the United States.

The testimony at committee was not 100% onside. Some people argued on the privacy issue. However, when it got down to it, there was no disagreement whatsoever on a sovereign country protecting itself and prescribing certain conditions and requirements to enter its airspace. That is not in dispute. The question really becomes this. To what extent is the information necessary for that sovereign country, whatever it be, to protect itself?

In reviewing some of the discussion at committee, I heard and read that they were looking for an appropriate balance between protecting our security, while protecting the civil liberties and privacy rights of Canadians. I think that is where the committee landed.

As I said, the international law recognizes a state's right to regulate aircraft entering its territory. The United States has the Chicago convention to which Canada is a signatory. It requires our compliance with the regulation that states that the laws and regulations of each contracting state is related to the admission, or departure from its territory, of aircraft engage in international air navigation or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory. We are already signatories to that agreement.

The issue now is to the point where there is kind of an understanding and acceptance of the sovereign right of Canada to have certain information requirements for people visiting Canada in a variety of situations, whether it be people arriving without documents or some problem like that. There are all kinds of examples where Canada requires information from those wanting to get into this country and, without it, they are detained and work is be done to establish why they are here.

Some of the other discussions at committee had to do with such things as if we did not pass this bill and in fact we refuse to provide the information then aircraft flying from Canada to some country other than the United States, but travelling over it, would not be able to do that. It would not be given permission to enter U.S. airspace. The consequences of that could be enormous. The number of aircraft that fly over U.S. airspace but do not land in the U.S. is enormous. The economic cost and impact of something as simplistic as fuel costs, the time involved and inconvenience would be devastating not only to an airline but certainly to its customers and the country.

These arguments and the bogeyman approach to legislation regarding the protection of privacy rights of Canadians because secret information about them will be provided and it will be used for nasty things really cannot be taken seriously. We are a signatory. We have a responsibility to support the requirements of the U.S., which has a very significant and legitimate reason to protect its airspace, its country and its people. We expect nothing less from Canada.

I believe early in February the Minister of Public Safety said:

For our part, we have worked closely with the Americans to ensure this is implemented in a way that recognizes our security interests and the privacy concerns of Canadians.

Now it is up to the Liberal-led coalition to stop playing politics and support this needed bill.

That is the political part of it, but the operational part is working with and having a balanced approach to respecting sovereignty rights. If anybody votes against this, it had better not be because he or she wants to ignore the sovereign rights of any country. That is not a starter. The only argument there could be is with regard to what information is there.

When appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Privacy Commissioner made it very clear that although it is an issue of concern this in fact is not a violation of Canadian privacy rights under PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

I believe there is an understanding. I must admit that Canadians obviously would respond to the issue of perhaps disclosing certain information. However, in the normal course they are told that if they want to go to Mexico and fly over the U.S. they have to give their name, address, passport number, et cetera. That is something that we do. In fact, the disclosure that Canadians make in the normal course in terms of transacting their day-to-day lives is much more broad. Many people have given their Visa number to a supplier to buy something over the Internet. What protection do they have if that supplier continues to process charges against their cards until they are caught? It can happen.

Having been the former chair of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee, I have heard many of these arguments. The Privacy Commissioner has a stellar record of acting swiftly and strongly with regard to the privacy rights of Canadians, most recently with regard to the lax provisions under Facebook, and has worked collaboratively internationally to ensure that we protect those rights.

However, when we have someone with the experience, the expertise and the earned respect of our Privacy Commissioner saying that the disclosure required under Bill C-42, and considering the sovereign right of the United States to protect its property, it is not unreasonable disclosure. In fact, it is disclosure that is necessary.

I heard the debate at second reading. I looked at some of the testimony at committee and although I have heard both sides of the story, it is not enough for members to use simple rhetoric to say that they have to protect the privacy rights of Canadians and therefore they are voting against the bill. What they are really saying is that they will not pass the bill. They want Canadians to say, “Let us stand up to the United States, not give it the information, and we are prepared to spend the extra money to fly around the United States. By the way, if we ever want to go to the United States, we will not give them that information either”.

The airlines will not stand for it. It cannot happen. It is not economical to operate an airline if it has to basically fly around continents. It is not a starter.

With regard to entering the United States, we have been looking for a range of opportunities to enhance greater cross-border activity and travel with the United States, not only for the general vacationing public or visiting for brief periods, but more important, for the economic impact. It is the economic side of the argument that is very important.

We cannot ignore the fact that this would have some serious economic implications. That was brought out very clearly at the committee hearings. Our transport critic tried to make the case that there are issues we can negotiate and deal with. I do not think anyone has provided the comprehensive list because I do not believe it exists as to the specific disclosures that will be required, but I would say that it would be minimal, compared to what some members have suggested. There is absolutely no security information in knowing somebody's health card number. It really is astounding that people say the Americans will get this.

I heard the argument in one of the speeches that if the United States is to have this information, it could go to a database to get it and there are linkages. People do business abroad and also have medical treatment there. There are computer records with people's information and that is why it is very important that we be part of the solution, not part of the problem. But in this regard, it is very clear that the appropriate step is to continue to work for a balanced approach to providing the information necessary, to respect the sovereign right of the United States to restrict travel over its airspace without having an opportunity to vet who might be on the plane.

That is a security issue. It is not matter that security trumps privacy rights, but it is a legal obligation that we have pursuant to agreements that we have already signed with the United States. Virtually every country around the world has the same requirements that airlines will not be able to travel in their airspace without having the authorization to satisfy whatever conditions are required.

It is not easy. It would be so simple to explain how our privacy rights have to be protected, but at what cost? Are we talking about privacy rights in the extreme or are we talking about a person's name, address, telephone number and passport number, all of which are generally available. When people enter the United States, they have to fill out a card which asks if they are taking large sums of money, if they have any fruits or vegetables, if they have any firearms, what hotel they are staying at and the phone number where they can be reached. We already do that naturally, yet that is a lot of information. It is a lot more than is being asked for with regard to Bill C-42.

Where is the discussion about all that disclosure? It is because if we want to land in the United States that is the information it requires. We understand that because it is its right to ask for it, otherwise, we are not getting in. I appreciate the comments of some members, but to somehow argue that privacy rights are being infringed upon is a false conclusion and it is sustained by the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Stoddart, before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that this not a breach of the privacy privileges and rights of Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting because the member just mentioned the fact that people already fill out the information, but they do it because they want to, not because they do not know they are actually doing it. If I want to order something on the Internet, it is my will to provide that information. If I am flying to the United States and I have to fill out a form, fine I will do it, but it is because I am actually agreeing to that.

However, if I am flying over the United States, why should the United States be privy to information that I do not even know it is getting, and it should not be getting? It is open season on private information as far as I am concerned. We do recognize the difference between someone who is willingly giving information and someone who knows absolutely nothing about the information that is being given. This is something that should be brought to hearings across the country, to talk to people about whether or not they want their private information given out.

Members on that side talk about how the census was not providing that information and we should keep it, and we agree that we should keep the long form census. But now we are going to give the United States more information. Maybe you could elaborate as well with respect to whether or not this information would not only be given to the United States, but what it can actually do with that, which is give it to other countries. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than to another member of the chamber.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping you were going to answer the question since the member laid out very clearly where she stands on it.

If I want to do it voluntarily, it is okay but if I do not want to give the information, then I am not going to give it. If people go to the U.S. border by car and the border patrol wants to see their passport and they respond they do not want to show it, what happens? They have to turn around and go back. There is a consequence of saying “I do not want”. We have a signed treaty with the United States with regard to disclosure. If we do not want to provide any information that may be required pursuant to Bill C-42, we have the right to say “no”, and take a plane that goes to the Maritimes or to Vancouver and then flies on, so we could still get there. It would not have to be disclosed because we would not be going over U.S. airspace. I am sure the member would appreciate that it is an impractical solution to her problem.

I would ask the member to inform herself and her colleagues about what specific information is being required and whether or not that information is already being readily given out any time we travel to the United States by land. It is already happening, but this is to do with where the aircraft is flying over.

I do not think anybody will ever forget 9/11. Certainly people in the U.S. will not. I remember being at the transport committee the year after it happened and officials in the U.S. cried when they tried to relate some of the stories of what they went through. This has really hurt the country and this is part of its sovereign safety. This is what the United States needs to get that comfort level, not only for government officials, but for the people of the United States.

I understand the member's point, but we cannot get there from here.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this again because the member mentioned about going to the United States border.

Why would the United States have to have our information when we are flying over but not landing in the United States? That is the number one question.

The number two question is, does the member believe the United States would not allow these flights to land, or even to fly over the U.S., if it did not get the information? We are talking economics here. Does he really believe that all of these flights would no longer be able to fly into the United States or to fly over the U.S. on their way to other countries? The reality is we are looking at economics. Maybe he could explain to us the danger for the United States in not allowing Canadian flights to go there. That is the bottom line.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments are circular.

First, the member does not recognize, or will not admit, that the United States has the sovereign right to require certain conditions for entering its airspace. That includes either landing in the United States or just flying over it.

As a matter of fact, as I indicated in my comments, virtually every country in the world has similar restrictions on flying in its airspace. That is why we have to find the balance.

The U.S. ambassador has indicated very clearly that the Americans will work with Canadian officials to deal with the privacy concerns expressed. There will be limitations on the extent of information. The member raised the issue of how long the U.S. is going to keep the information. The Privacy Commissioner gave some guidance. It will be worked on. There will be a retention policy. On sharing information, there obviously are restrictions on that information getting out of the control of the United States for the purpose for which it was rendered.

I heard that discussions were still ongoing with regard to abandoning the requirement to provide information when a flight is just flying over the U.S. going from one destination in Canada to another destination in Canada.

Those are somewhat encouraging. We will have to wait to see.

I know that none of the members in this place have all of the information as to what specifically is going to be asked for, what is the retention policy and what are the other conditions under which the clearance of the aircraft will be given because these details are still being discussed.

The principle that cannot be discussed is whether or not the United States has the sovereign right to impose conditions when Canadian aircraft fly over its airspace.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote that this bill is:

--a complete abdication to a 'foreign government' of Canada's duty to protect the privacy of Canadians, and a cessation of existing Canadian legal safeguards. This abdication and cessation of privacy protection is unacceptable and dangerous.

I cannot believe what I just heard from the hon. member.

Under the bill, U.S. carriers would not be giving us their passenger lists so we could make decisions about our security on flights that overfly Canada. This is ridiculously one-sided.

I can understand why we would try to pass a bill that would increase the security of Canadians and Canada, but this bill would not do that. Why other parties and members of this House are supporting this is mind-boggling. How can the hon. member support a bill that would not even require Americans to give us the same information they are asking from us?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions.

The first question is about why the U.S. does not give the information to us when American aircraft fly in our airspace. The answer is simple. The Government of Canada has not requested it. That is pretty straightforward.

The second question addresses the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's assessment that this bill is a flagrant violation of privacy rights.

That is not the case according to the Privacy Commissioner. However, if that were the case, then we would have the case of our privacy rights having to be protected in Canada, sovereign airspace having to be protected in the United States, and there being no reconciliation but to fly around the U.S.

There has to be a balance. We have to work on it. That is what has been happening. There have been serious discussions with the U.S. ambassador as to how to mitigate this and also how to educate the public about why and how, and the process that will be followed.

It seems to me they are looking for that balance. That is the only way to get around the member's problems.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our transport critic, the member for Western Arctic, for bringing to the attention of this House the slippery slope represented in this bill and the potential for the erosion of some of the most fundamental rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians.

Let me begin my remarks with two points. Canadians have a right to know what their government is doing with their money. They have a right to know about the government's policies and programs. Every step of the way Canadians have an absolute right to know. In fact, the right to know, freedom of information, is the very oxygen that democracy breathes. However, the inverse is not true.

The government does not have a right to know everything that its citizens are doing. That is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. That is one of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in a western society and a western democracy. It is a slippery slope and I caution members of Parliament that we must be ever vigilant to ensure that even a subtle erosion of those fundamental rights and freedoms does not take place.

Any time there is legislation put before the House of Commons that threatens to erode those fundamental freedoms or threatens to fail to augment and expand other freedoms, such as the right to know, we have to stand up and denounce it. That is what I rise to do here today.

This government bill, Bill C-42, should be defeated. It should be denounced. It should be condemned. In fact, Canadians who care about our national sovereignty should gather together and protest the very introduction of this bill because representatives of the Government of Canada are negotiating away the very fundamental rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians.

This bill should be defeated. It is nothing more than data-mining by foreign security services, primarily those of the United States. It is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of Canadians. Believe me, I am not overstating things when I say that the Government of the United States has no right to know when Canadians board an aircraft in this country, which is one of the things contemplated by this bill. It is an expansion of a great affront to Canadian sovereignty, that is, the American do-not-fly list.

I have some personal experience with that atrocious do-not-fly list in the United States. For a long time, even though I am a Canadian member of Parliament, I was unable to get a boarding pass to get on an airplane in this country to travel on a domestic flight from my home city of Winnipeg to my place of work, the House of Commons in Ottawa, even though the flight does not even go through American airspace.

This list is created, maintained and housed entirely in the United States. Canadians, like myself, even an elected member of Parliament, have no right to know how they got on that list. There is no avenue of recourse for grievances. There is no methodology to get off that list.

Yet, when I go to the airport in my home city of Winnipeg and check in with Air Canada to get on a domestic flight, the women who work at the check-in counter know me by name and when they enter my name into the registry of passengers for that flight, a big red flag comes up on their computer. They say, “I am sorry”, member for the riding of Winnipeg Centre, “I cannot issue a boarding pass for you, because you are on this do-not-fly list.”

Forty-five minutes passes while we phone the Department of Foreign Affairs. The people there cannot help. Then we have to phone this magic number in the United States, and the Americans do some research to see if this individual, me, is the same individual who is on their do-not-fly list.

I cannot board a plane in my own country. Canadians should be furious at that intrusion into our Canadian sovereignty. It is absurd.

This went on for years. I must have been stopped 30 or 40 times from getting on domestic flights until finally we had to misspell my name deliberately, which is fraudulent. That was the big recommendation, that I should book my flights under a different name and there would be no problem. That is the solution to the problem because there is no mechanism to convince the Americans to get the heck out of our business.

This is an extension of that absurd situation, except in this case the Aeronautics Act would be amended to allow airlines to send personal information of passengers to foreign security services, primarily in the United States. That information is laid out in secret agreements with other countries. We cannot find out what the secret agreements say, but we know the details of the agreement that exists between the United States and the European Union. We can assume that the details being negotiated in agreements with other countries, including Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic and the United States, are similar to the framework agreement between the United States and the European Union.

Some of the details of the agreement between the United States and the EU would make one's hair curl. For instance, the information forwarded would be the passenger name record, which would include the name of the travel agent used to book the vacation, credit card information, who the person is travelling with, the hotel the person will be staying at, other booking information such as tours or car rental and any medical conditions of the passenger. It is basic personal information up to and including a person's credit card information and personal health records.

We are not talking about people on flights landing in the United States. We are talking about domestic Canadian flights that may pass over the United States for about two minutes. There are little extensions of the Canada-U.S. border that dip down so that when flying from Montreal to Winnipeg a plane may fly over a bit of the United States en route.

Any of that information would be in the hands of the United States government, a foreign national government. Get this: It can keep that information for 40 years and, I suppose, use it against someone, possibly put the person's name on its infamous do-not-fly list. The information may be forwarded to the security services of a third nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory. The information could be traded like party favours among partner nations in the war on terrorism. A person's personal credit card information, who the person travels with and personal health records could be passed around. It is an abrogation of the duty of the Government of Canada to protect the right to privacy of its citizens.

Let me repeat the remarks I opened with. We, as Canadian citizens, have an absolute right to know what our government is doing with our money, policy, programs, et cetera. The government does not have an absolute right to know everything about Canadian citizens. We have an absolute fundamental right to privacy. It is in the Constitution. We have an officer of Parliament dedicated to protecting those rights. They cannot be negotiated away. One cannot negotiate one's way out of the Constitution and no one has a mandate to do it on our behalf.

The government enters into these arrangements and then tries to have them codified and ratified by Parliament through a bill such as this one. It has no right or mandate to trade away our constitutional rights to privacy, but this is what it has done. Why the other opposition parties cannot see this is beyond me.

We owe a debt of gratitude to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, for blowing the whistle on this otherwise seemingly innocuous bill as it worked its way through the House of Commons and the transport committee. Fortunately, witnesses appeared before the transport committee on this bill and testified in no uncertain terms that this bill erodes and undermines the fundamental rights to privacy of Canadians.

The agreement signed between the United States and the EU, which we believe is the template model for agreements that will be signed with the other partner countries, goes on to say that no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States and may not correct that information if there are any errors. In other words, there is no avenue of recourse.

Again, it is a principle of natural justice that there should be a grievance procedure. There should be an avenue of recourse if mistakes are made about a person and where the veracity of the information being held could be challenged. However, the whole thing is done with such privacy and secrecy that individuals would have no way of knowing what their dossier says about them and what information is being handed around from nation to nation.

This is how horror stories like the Maher Arar situation came to light. This is the kind of nightmare experience that Canadians know all too well from the front pages of the national news of our country year after year as we struggled to understand how such a thing could happen to a Canadian citizen when travelling innocuously within the secure zones of those who seek to make our world safer.

Terrible mistakes are and can be made. It gets to be a runaway freight train without the restraints of reason and logic. Without the underpinning of those fundamental freedoms upon which we built our country, then the war on terrorism does infringe on basic rights.

The other point of the agreement made between the European Union and the United States that we think may find its way into the international agreements with other partner countries, if it has not already, is that the United States may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises the EU of the change. There has already been one amendment whereby all documents held by the EU concerning the agreement shall not be publicly released for 10 years. In other words, there is no access to information requests. That basic fundamental freedom that I introduced in the opening of my remarks of the absolute right to know what your government is doing does not apply apparently. This is a rights-free zone.

What we are contemplating in Bill C-42 ignores our right to know. It ignores what I argue is the very oxygen that democracy breathes. It ignores the fact that the sunlight is a disinfectant and when we shine the light of day on the behaviour and actions of government it automatically elevates its ethical standards. All those things are torn up and thrown out the window and with it Canadians' expectation of the right to privacy.

I just heard a member from the Liberal Party say that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is not concerned with Bill C-42. He obviously was not at the transport committee meetings when it heard testimony on Bill C-42.

Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, the officer of Parliament charged with the responsibility of upholding Canadians' fundamental right to privacy, in fact, said that Bill C-42 raises important questions about sovereignty. She said that the Canadian government has a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens and it may not go to international forums and barter away those rights. The government cannot negotiate its way out of constitutional rights and privilege.

It is up to us. This House of Commons is the check and balance where we ensure that these erosions do not take place, that we do not embark down that slippery slope, that this is not the thin edge of the wedge in a wholesale abrogation of the duty of the government to uphold our constitutional rights in terms of privacy and freedoms.

It concerns us greatly that we are being asked to buy a pig in the poke to lay the framework for the implementation of this agreement without even knowing the details of the information trading regime that will be agreed to. For all we know it has already been signed off because the details have not been released.

As I did my research into this bill, I was reminded of how we are following the Americans down this dangerous road. We all know that the Americans were attacked. We all know that they have a legitimate right to make their nation more secure. Nobody is arguing that.

A government's first obligation is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. We wish the Americans well with that and we want to co-operate with that. But we do not believe that the sharing of this information will lead to a safer world. We are also concerned when we throw those fundamental rights and freedoms over the side for the sake of expediency to implement security measures, that will become less secure in an environment without those basic freedoms.

Researching this bill reminded me of another national trend initiative. For 30 years, in their war on getting tough on crime, the Americans were deluded into thinking that longer prison sentences, tougher punishments, mandatory minimum sentences, and locking up a whole generation would make their streets safer. The reason I raise this in the context of Bill C-42 is because we now know, and the Americans have now realized, that they were wrong.

Leaders like Newt Gingrich, of the right wing Republican tough on crime movement, have published lead editorials in The Washington Post acknowledging that they were dead wrong. The Americans are spending billions of dollars on more prisons. They are stacking up prisoners like cordwood with longer prison sentences and their streets are no safer. They are bankrupting the coffers of their state legislatures and their federal government trying to house all of these prisoners.

The Americans have turned a corner. They are now saying that their money should be reinvested in crime prevention, drug rehabilitation, counselling, and services to keep people out of the criminal justice system. They are now saying that they should not be building more prisons to stack prisoners up.

At the same time, at this very same juncture, the Government of Canada is embarking down the road that has just been abandoned by its neo-conservative mentors in the United States.

The same reasoning applies to this bill. We do not have to go blithely down the road of the United States in what some believe is an over-reaction to its national security issues because it is not always right. The United States is our closest neighbour and our biggest trading partner. Sometimes friends have to tell friends when they are wrong.

In their zeal and their enthusiasm over national security the Americans are dead wrong in thinking they are making their country safer by undermining fundamental rights and freedoms of a western democracy. Democracy is a fragile and tenuous construct. It is held together by thin fabrics of rights and freedoms. As one by one those fabrics are strained and stressed, and worn, or even broken, that valuable construct of democracy is very vulnerable.

It is no surprise that there are only 20 federations in the world because democracy is such a difficult form of government to hold together. We have to be especially vigilant in a federation like Canada. We need to ensure that we never allow the fundamental freedoms of the right to know what government is doing and the right to privacy for its citizens to be taken away. If anything, those fundamental elements of our democracy should be enhanced and strengthened by this House of Commons, not eroded and undermined by a reactionary piece of legislation that we believe will have adverse and contrary effects that are the polar opposite of the spirit and the intent of this legislation, which is to combat terrorism.

This bill should be defeated for a number of fundamental reasons.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something to the discussion. One of the testimonies was from Roch Tassé, the national coordinator for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. He talked about the fact that this is not just about the personal information of Canadians, but the impact on businesses as well. He said:

Disclosure of personal information to the Department of Homeland Security on passengers travelling to certain destinations, particularly Cuba, could lead to unpleasant consequences. For example, this information could be used to identify Canadian companies that do business with Cuba or to penalize travellers who have visited Cuba by subsequently refusing them entry into the U.S. How will Canada ensure that the U.S. will not use the secure flight program to apply its Helms-Burton act, which imposes penalties on foreign companies doing business with Cuba?

I ask my colleague, given the fact that he has done quite a bit of research on it, is he concerned about that?

The other question I would ask him to answer, because I did not quite get an answer from our Liberal counterpart, is whether or not he believes that if this legislation is not passed, the United States would stop all flights from going over there, given that money goes into its economy when Canadian flights go into the United States?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the hon. member's last point. It is true that in the classic pattern of gunboat diplomacy, the Americans are watching the Parliament of Canada with the implied threat that if we do not pass this legislation and therefore forfeit, surrender and undermine Canadians' right to privacy when travelling on airplanes that may go over even a little corner of the United States, that they will actually close American airspace to their best friend and largest trading partner in the world. This is an absurd situation. Again, we do not make good policy with a gun at our heads. This is something we should find intolerable as Canadians.

It reminds me of the gunboat diplomacy that I have personally experienced with the Devils Lake water boundary dispute where Lloyd Axworthy, Gary Doer, the premier of Manitoba and I went to Washington, urging the Americans to live up to the Boundary Waters Treaty and not talk about an inter-basin transfer of water that will contaminate the Red River and Lake Winnipeg with organisms, foreign invasive species, et cetera.

They simply looked at us and said, “You Canadians have to understand one thing. When it comes down to doing what is good for you and what is good for us, we are going to do what is good for us. Thanks for coming. Do not let the door hit you on your way out”.

That is the kind of relationship we seem to have and this government seems to negotiate on its knees. It does not negotiate from a position of strength, dignity or pride, or upholding the rights and privileges of Canadians. It negotiates on its knees, subject to threats by the American government that it will somehow close airspace--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not quite finished his thought and I am hoping he will finish the thought.

I see this over and over again. We have seen it in the House. The Bloc members were actually not supporting this legislation initially and all of a sudden they have changed their minds. This is because of lobbying by the big airline companies of the United States, I am sure.

The Bloc members have a self-interest. We thought they actually stood up for the rights of people. We think it is very sad that they are actually supporting this type of legislation.

Could my colleague explain a little bit more about the information that would be provided and how it would impact the privacy of Canadian citizens?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I am very concerned. In fact, I am afraid the underlying forces driving this legislation are not reason or logic or doing what is in the best interest of Canadians. The underlying pressures driving this legislation are unbelievably aggressive lobbying by well-connected Conservative lobbyists who just flip-flop through the revolving door, from the PMO to lobby firms and back again with their little wish list.

We all know Canadian lobbyists are undermining democracy. We are following the American model. One day Tim Powers and Geoff Norquay are the head of big lobby firms and the same day, or that night, they will be on TV being interviewed as Conservative Party strategists who have just walked out of the PMO with the Conservative Party line. No wonder we get legislation that is not in the best interest of Canadians shoved down our throats, under the threat of terrible consequences of not being able to fly over American airspace, when things are being driven by well-connected Conservative lobbyists undermining democracy.

In my view, and I maintain this, having lobbyists is like having bats in the attic. They cannot stand the light of day, are almost impossible to get rid of and if they are left there too long, they rot the timbers of the building.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the position taken by the member from Mississauga that we should not worry about this, we had not negotiated that part of it and that we should pass the legislation anyway.

We have seen the abuse by the Americans of their no-fly list and the number of errors, and this came out at committee. Their no-fly list is still permeated with errors that oftentimes have very negative consequences for the people who are the subject of those errors.

Could the member, who has been here for awhile, talk about the attitude of going ahead, doing this and then waiting to see what the outcome is going to be, as opposed to setting in place what the regulations should be, what the guidelines would be and what the absolute protection would be, in writing, in legislation, on both sides of the border?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh asks a very relevant question.

We have been asked to buy a pig in a poke. We have been asked to put in place the underlying principles and the framework of an agreement, the details of which we do not know. We would not buy a house without reading the fine print, but we have been asked to buy a pig in a poke and to trust the government that it would never enter into an arrangement that would be detrimental to the best interests of Canadians.

We have recent evidence, experience and empirical evidence from which to draw. There is the absurd situation of a do not fly list where a freely elected Canadian member of Parliament cannot get on an airplane in his own country because of a list being kept in Washington, DC. We have recent examples, like the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen subject to the overzealous trading of information between countries, which caused an atrocity in that regard.

We do not know the details of the agreements being entered into with other countries. We do know the details of the one agreement that has been released, and that is between the United States and the European Union. In that case, every time people travel, the right to information they will have is their credit card information, who they are travelling with, what hotel they are staying at, other booking information such as tours or rental cars and any medical condition they may have.

Personal credit card information and personal health records will now be in the hands of another nation. Canadians' sovereign right to privacy is being compromised and undermined by this legislation. It should be condemned. We should be unanimous in our condemnation of a foreign nation intruding in our Canadian national sovereignty and the absolute obligations of the government to protect the sovereign and fundamental freedoms of privacy.

We have a right to know what the government is doing. It does not have an absolute right to know what we are doing.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42 today. I am the tourism critic for the NDP. More important, I am a Canadian citizen who is concerned about this tremendous erosion of Canadian privacy and sovereignty. The bill has serious implications on Canadian travellers taking international flights over but not into the United States.

The bill should be defeated. It is quite clearly nothing but data mining by the United States. I can understand why it would ask. I cannot understand why we would say yes, especially when it is not reciprocal. It is an unwarranted invasion of Canadians' privacy in many ways.

It is disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising, that the Conservative government would introduce such a bill. It might be reasonable to assume that foreign governments would want carriers to provide names and personal details for flights that would be landing on their soil. Unfortunately, Bill C-42 goes a ridiculous amount further. It would have airlines provide personal information. We heard the member from Winnipeg list many of the kinds of personal information that would be given to a country that travellers were just flying over.

Let us explore some of the implications of the bill. Apparently, a passenger leaving Canada on a vacation to Cuba, which many Canadians do although the Americans do not like it because they do not like Cuba and do not like us going to Cuba, could have their name, birthdate and over 30 other pieces of personal information subject to screening by the Department of U.S. Homeland Security. It would also be checking that information against various databases, including the infamous U.S. no-fly list. If people's names are on the American no-fly list, they will not get on that flight nor will they know the reason why. As well, it may not be just a one-time occurrence. Effectively, they may never be able to get off that U.S. no-fly list and may be banned from all flights leaving from Canada but flying over U.S. airspace for a very long time.

There are already examples of misuse. For example, there is the story of Hernando Ospina. He is a journalist for Le Monde diplomatique, whose Air France flight from Paris to Mexico was diverted to Martinique just because he wrote an article that was critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Another example is Paul-Émile Dupret. He is a Belgian researcher with the European Parliament. His flight from Europe to the World Social Forum in Brazil was diverted, not because he was a security threat but because he campaigned against the transfer of European travellers' information to U.S. authorities.

Who will be on the no-fly list after our speeches here today? Will members of the House of Commons end up on the U.S. no-fly list?

How can the government assure Canadians that this type of political misuse will not occur if Bill C-42 is passed? Apparently, the U.S. has told our government that it needs everyone's personal information so it can check it with its various lists of people who it does not want flying so there are less false matches and less problems. It is saying, “Let us clear your passengers for you.” Our government is going along with this. Is this laziness? Are we really that desirous of letting someone else take over the security checks of our citizens flying to a third country via U.S. airspace? We will simply have to accept that they do not get to fly internationally anymore because we have given a foreign government a veto over Canadians travelling abroad.

I hope all the members of all the parties in the House come to their senses, vote against Bill C-42 and preserve Canadian rights and Canadian sovereignty.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North will have 15 minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North had the floor and has 15 minutes in the time allotted for his remarks.

I therefore call upon the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we left off before question period, I was speaking about Bill C-42, introduced by the Conservative government, which amends the Aeronautics Act.

To briefly reiterate what I said before, this bill should be defeated. It is nothing more than data mining by foreign security services, primarily the United States, and is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Canadians. This privacy invasion is backed up by the implied threat that U.S. airspace would be closed to Canadian commercial aircraft unless the bill is passed.

Let us explore some of the implications of the bill.

Apparently, passengers leaving Canada on a vacation to a destination south of us, be it Central America, South America, the Caribbean, could have their names, their birthdates and over 30 other pieces of personal information subject to screening by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which involves running that information through various government databases including the infamous U.S. no-fly list.

Bill C-42 amends the Aeronautics Act to allow airlines to send the personal information of passengers to foreign security services, not just the services of the United States.

What information will be forwarded is determined by requirements laid out in secret agreements with other countries. As we know, the government delights in secret agreements until it is too late to reverse them.

Details of those agreements have not been released. However, it is known that Canada has signed or is negotiating agreements with the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and the U.S..

Details of the agreement between the European Union and the United States for the same information transfer are troubling. That agreement allows the following:

First, the information forwarded will be the passenger name record, which is the file a travel agent creates when one books a holiday. It can and usually does include credit card information, who one is travelling with, hotel, other booking information such as tours or rental cars, and any serious medical conditions of the passenger.

Second, the information collected can be retained by the United States for up to 40 years.

Third, this information may be forwarded to the security services of a third nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory.

Fourth, no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors.

Fifth, the United States may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises the EU or other signatories of the change.

There has already been one amendment whereby all documents held by the EU concerning the agreement shall not be publicly released for 10 years with no access by others to that information request.

In essence, the bill would allow data mining of Canada's personal information by foreign security services.

If a passenger's name is not on one of the American lists, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will allow the Canadian airline to issue that passenger a boarding pass. However, we have all heard the horror stories of the mess one can get caught up in if he or she happens to have a similar name, and especially the same birthday, as someone on that multi-million name list, or if someone has been put on the list by mistake. That person's name will never be taken off. He or she might be questioned, delayed or barred from that flight. Even worse, he or she may effectively be banned for weeks, months or years from all flights leaving Canada that overfly U.S. territory.

I know members of the Conservative government have been arguing that we have to give up some of our sovereignty if we want to have security, that this time the cost of our safety is the freedom of movement of our citizens.

It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's famous saying, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”, and I would add, probably do not get either one.

That is ironic because the bill will not improve the security of Canadians one bit. It does not have our security interests in mind at all. The Republicans could have and perhaps did draft this bill. If they did, there might be some clause for the sharing of information instead of it all being a one-way street.

U.S. carriers could be giving us their passenger lists too, so that we could make decisions about our security, but reciprocity is nowhere to be found in Bill C-42. This is ridiculous. It is one-sided. Only Canadian passenger information is being sent to the U.S. All it does is send our personal passenger information abroad for not only the U.S. but other governments to do with as they may for a very long time. They could keep that information forever or pass it along to other groups or governments or use it to prosecute Canadians for their own purposes and we would not have any control of it at all. It is yet another significant erosion by the government of Canadian autonomy by the Conservatives.

Why should members of the House representing Canadians support this legislation if it will not even improve the security of Canadians? We are not elected to represent the interests of foreign governments. At least that is not the way I and members of the NDP see it. As the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, I represent Canadians and constituents in my riding. Therefore, gutting the privacy rights of Canadians for no improvement in their safety is a foolish bargain.

It is no wonder the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called this bill:

--a complete abdication to a ‘foreign government’ of Canada’s duty to protect the privacy of Canadians, and a cessation of existing Canadian legal safeguards. This abdication and cessation of privacy protection is unacceptable and dangerous.

It is interesting that the bill comes from a party which claims repeatedly to believe in the privacy and autonomy of Canadian citizens and has claimed in the past, without a lot of evidence, that it fears big brother or big government intruding into the lives of average Canadians. This is not only the Canadian government but the United States and many other governments intruding with our permission.

This legislation rolls over and rolls back Canada's privacy laws in order to get airlines to pass along the names and personal information of air travellers to a foreign government. It gives a foreign government the ability to tell Canada's air carriers who can and cannot fly on flights that do not even land in its country.

There is the danger that unless this bill is agreed to, the United States could close its airspace to Canadian aircraft. While this implied threat may result in pressure to pass this bill, it is unlikely the United States would ever carry through with this threat.

While the bill will be spun as necessary for fighting against terrorism, there are no examples of how this data mining has caught a single terrorist or any other criminal. However, Maher Arar is an example of how this information can be misused to grossly abuse the rights and protections of a Canadian citizen.

Our own chief justice said in 2009:

One of the most destructive effects of terrorism is its ability to provoke responses that undermine the fundamental democratic values upon which democratic nations are built.

In conclusion, this faulty legislation would undermine both the sovereignty of Canada and Canadians' privacy rights. There is no evidence at all that it would increase security one bit.

I invite all members in the House to reconsider and keep the interests of our constituents in mind, vote against Bill C-42 and represent the interests of all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member closed his speech by saying this is faulty legislation. I have the bill here and I am not sure whether or not the member could point out where the fault is in the legislation. There may be some fault in the logic of the member's argument, that there are some options to whether or not he would like to respect sovereign authority of another country that is pursuant to an agreement that we have with the United States already. It is already in place. He knows that.

The question is, if the Civil Liberties Association says that this is an abuse of privacy rights and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada says no, it is not, how do we resolve the issue when any sovereign country says if we want to enter its air space, there are certain conditions to follow. How does the member reconcile that? It is not a matter of faulty legislation. We have to do something. What is it?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of bad legislation. There is legislation which is flawed in technical aspects, in research, in how the laws are applied or written. Then there is just plain, old, dumb, one-sided legislation that protects the rights, allegedly, of Americans with absolutely zero reciprocity to protect the rights of Canadians.

I have come to expect that from the party across the aisle, but I am pretty shocked to be hearing this kind of lame apology from a member of the Liberal Party for legislation which is so obviously one-sided and dumb.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's excellent presentation regarding Bill C-42 explained the issues rather well.

Fundamentally, the government should be looking at improving security when dealing with air travel. One of the ways to do that is to look at the exposures that we have. The biggest exposure we have right now, according to the Allied Pilots Association, is the trusted shippers program where mail and packages go directly onto airplanes, sit right underneath passengers on the airplane, that are totally unchecked. These thousand-plus people in the trusted shipper program have not really been investigated, have not been checked, but once again, we are ignoring a major exposure at the expense of doing something like this which has questionable value.

When the Americans asked for this legislation, the government should have recognized that in fact there are maybe 100 Canadian flights flying over the United States, but there are 2,000 American flights flying over Canada. The negotiators should have been smart enough to say, “If it is good enough for us to give you the information, then why do you not give us the information?”

The government tells me that is exactly what it is prepared to do. The point is that the Canadian government is not prepared to pay the evidently half a billion dollars in developing the computer system necessary to handle the information. We are prepared to let the Americans foot the bill for the computer system. We are going to give them the information so they can keep it and for what purpose? There is absolutely no proof we are going to get any tangible results out of this. There are just more questions.

The Liberal Party should be asking more questions about this rather than blindly following the government, as it does with this bill and many other bills in this House.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be surprised by the depth and breadth of knowledge of the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He does a lot of homework and keeps on top of things.

The hon. member asked, who is going to pay the cost? In the late seventies we had a 36% corporate sales tax for large corporations in both the U.S. and Canada. Today that marginal tax rate for large corporations in the U.S. is still 36%, but for Canadian corporations it has dwindled down to 16.5%, which has not resulted in investment. We are exporting huge amounts of tax revenue to the United States at this point, so it certainly will be able to afford the cost of multi-billion dollar computers to keep track of the private lives of Canadians.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate of the hon. member, and all members in the House today and in weeks past.

I understand that the American government does have authority to implement its secure flight program. International law is pretty clear on that, jurisdiction includes airspace above a country.

That is not at issue here. The Canadian government also has a duty and that duty is to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens. We are not disputing the fact that the Americans are protecting their sovereignty and are acting within those rights, but this is about what the Canadian government is doing to protect Canadian citizens.

I want to remind my colleague of some of the recommendations made by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner when this bill was before committee. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is concerned about the direction this legislation is taking us in.

There were six specific recommendations. First, the Canadian government should negotiate the collection of minimal personal information, meaning strictly as necessary to ensure proper identification and therefore avoid false positives.

Second, question the retention periods of seven days for no match and seven years for potential matches to fulfill the commitment from the U.S. authorities themselves to collect personal information only as necessary for airline security.

Third, negotiate robust and accessible redress mechanisms for Canadians to minimize the impact of an erroneous match.

Fourth, implement measures to support Canadians availing themselves of the DHS redress mechanisms.

Fifth, inform Canadians of the exact scope of personal information that will be collected by DHS under secure flight.

Finally, clarify Canadian law on the conditions of disclosure of personal information by airlines to DHS to ensure public debate and legal certainty.

Some Liberal speakers earlier in this debate said that those concerns are all serious, but the legislation should be passed and we will worry about that later. I am not sure that is a responsible way to pass legislation in this House. Canadians deserve better from us.

I wonder if the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North could tell us whether he agrees with the Liberals, that when we pass this bill, we can work out the details later, or whether we actually need to get the details right before we focus on passing this legislation.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain to be well prepared. I am very appreciative of her bringing the detailed and written recommendations made by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner here.

We often hear the Liberals playing fast and loose with the facts, but I do not know whether it is accidental or not, or whether it is just a lack of knowing.

We heard the hon. Liberal member just a little while ago say that the Privacy Commissioner did not have any problems with this bill. We just heard a good and detailed list of exactly the kinds of concerns that the Privacy Commissioner shared with members of the NDP and myself.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the direct testimony of the Privacy Commissioner at committee on November 18, 2010. The member who just spoke is absolutely wrong. She said that there were no breaches of the act. It is like having regulations to a piece of legislation. How long is the retention period? How do we mitigate false positives, et cetera? These are operational things that happen in regulations.

If the member would check the actual testimony, he would see that the Privacy Commissioner had no concerns about the legislation, but did make suggestions on how to mitigate the potential for any undue invasiveness.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone interested could obviously check the text of both of those pieces of history. We have it written down and carefully read piece of evidence here in the opinion of the member.

I would just like to re-read the very short quote about the best opinion. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls this a complete abdication to a foreign government of Canada's duty to protect the privacy of Canadians. It is unacceptable and dangerous.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a day like this, many Canadians think about travelling south. Some may be thinking of going to Cuba or to Mexico, to the Caribbean, and in order to do so, they have to fly over American airspace.

The bill before us is truly disturbing. Even though travellers are not landing on American soil, the information of any passengers and tourists going to a southern island will be shared with American agencies, and it is not just one agency, it is many different agencies.

The agreement before us, Bill C-42, would allow information to pass to the U.S., such as both passenger name records, the file created by travel agents when they book a vacation, which includes credit card information, with whom passengers are travelling, their hotel and other booking information, such as car rentals, tours they may take, and any medical and diet information. Essentially, almost their complete personal file would be handed over to the United States. The United States of America can keep the information for 40 years.

The United States agencies can then send the information to a third nation. It could be sent to China, Libya, Russia or wherever they want to send the information, without the consent of the tourist or passenger flying over American airspace. In Canada, a passenger would not even know this information is being shared by any number of countries.

If there is an error in the information, such as an error in a passenger's medical information, how many children they have or any number of things, because sometimes travel agencies make mistakes, neither the passenger nor Canada would find out about it, and before long the third country could have this erroneous information. This is the kind of invasion of privacy we are talking about today.

The United States may amend the information as long as it advises the European Union of the change, but Canada may not necessarily know much about it. Basically, any information about a Canadian would then be shared. Given the tens of thousands of tourists who go south over American airspace as they travel to other countries to visit their loved ones or to vacation, Bill C-42, would have implications for those tens of thousands of Canadians.

Even though the bill is very short, only two pages, the implications for air passengers is serious. Why is that so? Fundamentally, Canada has a slightly different foreign policy, I would hope, than the United States of America. We do not view Cuba, for example, in the same way as does the United States. We do not support the sanctions against Cuba. We allow for free travel to Cuba.

I recall that we had a distinctly different refugee policy when the U.S. was heavily involved in Latin American countries: El Salvador, Guatemala during the 1980s, and Chile during 1970s. For a long time during the 1980s the U.S. would deport people back to El Salvador and Chile where they faced death squads and were systematically killed. Nuns were brutally raped and bishops, such as Bishop Oscar Romero, were murdered in El Salvador.

I cannot imagine what would have happened to the Canadians who defended the rights of these brave church workers in El Salvador if that information was passed on to the United States and shared with the regime at that time. If those Canadians flew to any part of Latin America, their lives would have been endangered.

At that time Canada was very clear that we would not deport people back to Chile because the Pinochet government was not democratic and abused the human rights of its citizens. We would not deport people nor would we share the information of Canadians, especially church workers who worked very closely with people in those Latin American countries who were struggling for democracy and freedom from poverty.

We know that Canada had a different foreign policy. We did not participate in the Vietnam war or enter into the war in Iraq. However, if at that time Canadian passenger information was shared with the Americans then, for example, Vietnam war resisters flying over the United States could have had their family and their future put in jeopardy.

To allow this kind of secure information to be given to another country would reduce the sovereignty of Canada and Canadians.

It is not as if we do not have examples of mistakes made in the past with sharing information with the Americans. We can recall the case of Maher Arar who was sent to be tortured. The information on him was misused and incorrect, but he had no idea that was the case.

He was a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was a native of Syria, but came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. In 2002, in New York at JFK airport in transit to Montreal, he did not think twice that there would be a problem. Twelve days later, he was shackled and flown to Syria. He was then put in a tiny cell, which was like a coffin, for 10 months. Canadians are very familiar with the torture he went through. He was beaten and forced to make a false confession.

We know that was a mistake. Justice Dennis O'Connor, in September 2006, cleared Maher Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating that he was able to say:

—categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

The Prime Minister even apologized and awarded him $10.5 million in compensation because he was innocent.

Yet, to this day, Maher Arar is still on the American no-fly list. How many more Canadians are on that no-fly list? How many innocent Canadians are on this no-fly list? Canada has a right and a responsibility to tell Canadians and to advocate on their behalf to ensure innocent Canadians who are on the no-fly list see some kind of justice. Yet the bill probably would increase the number of people being entered onto an American no-fly list. That is highly dangerous and is highly invasive of people's privacy.

Coming from a Conservative government that claims to protect people's privacy, through not wanting people to fill in the long form census, et cetera, we would think this bill would not see the light of day. Perhaps, at the end of the day, the Conservative government really does not care about people's civil rights and privacy.

We are seeing a disturbing trend of the charter rights of Canadians being violated. One of the charter rights states that in a democratic society such as Canada, it is important:

Security measures must be developed in the context of respect for and protection of individuals’ constitutional rights, including democratic and due process rights, the right to privacy, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

The G20 report today said that people's rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression had been violated, yet the government will not call a public inquiry. Now we are debating Bill C-42, which totally violates the person's right to privacy, including the due process. How can Canadians have due process if they do not know their information is being shared with other countries? There is no consent and no notification. This means that person who is on some record, and not just one agency but many U.S. agencies share the information, will not have any due process that according to the Charter of Rights should be given to the he or she. The person will not be given any process to get justice.

It is no surprise that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association spoke out very much against this bill. It said:

—this bill would not meet a section 1 challenge, because it has no limitations. It does not adequately protect the problems that may arise with the disclosure of information....

Therefore, the first point is there is a constitutional vulnerability that should be looked at before we approve the bill.

She further talked about there being no requirement in Bill C-42 or in the regulations of the U.S. TSA for safeguards to protect the information.

There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass information to other government agencies, such as law enforcement or immigration. There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass this information to third countries and, in fact, it can do so. We know this has been a particularly difficult issue for some Canadians, Maher Arar being a case in point. There are several others. There is no guarantee that the TSA will not use the information for profiling Canadians, to put them on its watch list or the no-fly list.

In terms of immigration policies, for quite a large number of years, we know Americans were deporting people back to Haiti, whereas Canada does not do so. Again, it is because we have slightly different foreign policies. To now merge all this information is giving away Canada's right to have its own established rules and regulations.

The general counsel with Canadian Civil Liberties Association mentioned that the United States no-fly list was under constitutional review. It has been challenged because there are too many false positives arising out of it. We know there have been difficulties with this no-fly list, including a famous Canadian, Maher Arar, being on it.

The process has been described has Kafkaesque, as it does not allow people to know whether they are on it or not, how to get off it and what evidence is there. To this day, Maher Arar still does not know why he is on the American no-fly list. He has still been unable to remove his name, even though the government and our Parliament have said that he is innocent and is no threat whatsoever.

There is no guarantee that an innocent Canadian would not be mistakenly placed on the list, like Maher Arar. There is no guarantee that the person would not be prevented from flying or being detained in the U.S. or elsewhere without due process.

Speaking of the number of agencies, 16 U.S. agencies can share this information. Those who end up landing in a country that the U.S. may not support, such as Cuba, could end up in trouble because it is a third country.

All of this points to the fact that this is a massive invasion of people's privacy.

We have other examples. One case is a Belgium citizen, Paul-Émile Dupret, who is an analyst for the European Parliament and who has conducted a campaign opposing the transfer of European travellers' personal information to American authorities. As his flight was en route to Mexico, his final destination was Sao Paulo, where he was travelling to attend the World Social Forum, the aircraft had to circumvent the United States because the U.S. authorities were not authorizing Mr. Dupret to fly through American airspace.

We note that these individuals clearly do not represent a threat to air security. Mr. Dupret could very well have been a Canadian journalist or a public servant travelling to Latin America. It is an illusion to think that information provided under the secure flight program will be protected, or that it will be destroyed or that it will be error-free.

Last, Justice O'Connor's investigation of the Maher Arar affair made a lot of recommendations. To this day, the government has still not implemented those recommendations. Instead, it is going in the opposite direction and bringing in Bill C-42, with the support of the Liberal Party of Canada. What a shame.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina raises a number of really important issues. Though I do not have a lot of time this afternoon to pursue some of them, I want to talk about the no-fly list. It is interesting when people like Senator Ted Kennedy and, indeed, the member for Winnipeg Centre in the House can be on the no-fly list with no recourse to get themselves off of it. What are we really doing here? We cannot even ask questions about this.

I want to remind members of a very important presentation that was made to the committee when it studied the bill. It was made by Nathalie Des Rosiers from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. With everyone's indulgence, I will read part of her presentation into the record because it is very important for members in the House to be reminded of what she said. She said:

Certainly to the extent that there is an expectation of privacy protected by the charter, this bill would not meet a section 1 challenge, because it has no limitations. It does not adequately protect the problems that may arise with the disclosure of information, and so on. So the first point is that there is a constitutional vulnerability that should be looked at before we go too much further.

She went on to say:

I would mention to the committee that in the United States, the no fly list is under constitutional review as we speak. It has been challenged because there are too many false positives arising.

The process has been described as Kafkaesque, in the way it does not allow people to know whether they're on it, how to get off it, and what evidence is on it. So that's the danger. The danger is that Canadian passengers, Canadians, will be put at risk of being stuck somewhere with no possibility of flying back. There's no guarantee that an innocent Canadian could not be mistakenly placed on the list. There's no guarantee that innocent Canadians mistakenly placed on the list will not be prevented from flying or from being detained in the U.S. or elsewhere without due process.

I want to ask the hon. member this. If that can happen to the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the member for Winnipeg Centre, what guarantees do Canadians have that they will not be similarly impacted?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me read several quotes. The first states, “the U.S. government [gives] unprecedented amounts of information about Canadians”. That is talking about the privacy of Canadians. the member goes on to say:

I do not think the Prime Minister is being straight with Canadians about this issue. The deal would impose U.S. Homeland Security standards on this side of the border. Why is the Prime Minister even contemplating the surrender of Canadian privacy rights to U.S. Homeland Security?

The member further asked what biometric information on Canadians would the Conservatives surrender to the Americans and when would the Prime Minister tell Canadians and Parliament the truth.

I have another quote from the hon. member, who stated:

The issue is how much private information the Canadian government will hand over to the Americans in the harmonization of entry and exit systems. It is a question to which an answer should be given. Will we keep control over who gets into Canada in terms of our immigration and refugee policy and will the Prime Minister bring this deal to Parliament before an agreement is signed?

The person who asked all these questions is the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Even though he has asked all those questions and he is opposed to the invasion of privacy, I do not understand why that party is supporting Bill C-42.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague.

First, is she dismayed by the fact that there is hardly anyone from the opposition and government benches asking questions on such an important bill? This bill would take the rights of citizens away.

The second is I simply want to know if she is in agreement with this. Testimony was given in committee by Dominique Peschard, president of Ligue des droits et libertés. He talked about the case of Paul-Émile Dupret, a Belgian citizen, who is analyst for the European parliament. He conducted a campaign opposing the transfers of European travellers' personal information to American authorities. All of a sudden, he found himself on the no-fly list. This is an individual who clearly did not represent any type of threat to air security, yet he is on the no-fly list.

I wonder if the hon. member agrees with the following, which states:

It is an illusion to think that the information provided under the Secure Flight program will be protected, that it will be destroyed or that it could be corrected in the event of any error. On the contrary, that information will be added to the data bases of the U.S. intelligence agencies and will be compared with information held by all the agencies...to determine whether such and such a person should be prohibited from flying over the United States or even placed on another list.

Could my colleague comment on this? Also, is she dismayed that the Liberals, Bloc and Conservatives are barely speaking on this issue?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on February 7, in the House of Commons, another Liberal member of Parliament asked:

On the question of privacy, what additional personal information will Canadians be required to disclose and what are the guarantees against cases of abuse like Maher Arar?

Before surrendering Canadian borders, sovereignty and privacy, will the government bring full details of any proposed agreement before Parliament for debate and approval?

The member also talked about negotiations with the United States having a direct bearing on Canadian sovereignty and the privacy of Canadian citizens.

Well, this part of the deal is right before us in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Wascana, who made those comments, should really tell the other Liberal members to stand up against Bill C-42 and say no to it, because it would surrender the privacy and the rights of ordinary Canadians. That is not what Canadians want to see.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to recognize that the information to be provided will be PNR information. Canada has a history and an involvement in its agreements with other countries dealing with PNR information. We actually are recognized as supporting and upholding a very high global standard for the use of PNR information, in particular, in the Canada-EU agreement relating to PNR matters. This issue was broached very well by Professor Mark Salter, from the University of Ottawa, at the committee. The agreement has been praised by Canadian and European data protection authorities because it has a number of very important features.

First, it has a specific time period for the disposal of the data; there is none of this 40- or 50-year question. It limits the data's use, which is what I think we want to see here. In particular, it limits the individualization of that data so that the information is rendered anonymous. That is what we want. While rendered anonymous, it still allows the security services to build up the profiles they are trying to build up but without attaching them to any one individual.

Is that not what we are seeking to do here?

The question is, why are the Bloc and Liberal members and some of the Conservative backbenchers raising this as an issue and asking for a different approach to it?

This is a global standard for international treaties that we are part of, and what we appear to be doing is moving away from it by adopting a bill like this.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government is far too interested in pleasing the Americans. There has been no effort to protect Canadians' interests in this bill. Canadians' concerns are not being listened to and their rights are being violated.

What I do not understand is that those words I just cited were actually by the member of Parliament for Willowdale, taken from her remarks during the debate on February 3. Yet even though the Liberal members of Parliament have talked of their concerns about the violation of people's privacy, they are supporting Bill C-42.

I think it is time we voted against this fundamentally flawed bill that is before us.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Sudbury, Credit Card Industry.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up some of the comments made by the member for Trinity—Spadina in her speech.

We are seeing a spectacle here of Liberals supporting this bill without asking much in the way of questions. The Bloc is supporting this bill. Even the Conservative backbench is being very quiet and not asking questions that I would think some of their base supporters would want asked.

I recall listening to some of the criticisms made by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence a few months ago. One of his criticisms was that the bill was brought in on the last day of the June sitting. In fact, the member for Markham—Unionville said that he had only seen the bill two days before that. Without really having much time to examine the issues, he said he was okay with it and that he would be prepared to send it to committee.

Why is there a lack of interest in pursuing questions on this particular bill? We could be asking questions about many issues. I have asked the government privately about why it did not seek some sort of reciprocity.

The government has been negotiating free trade agreements in many sectors, and recently we met with a delegation from Trinidad, a country that is negotiating a free trade deal with Canada through the CARICOM organization. This deal has been in process for over a year. All of these issues are being dealt with in these negotiations, and have been since 2009. They are in their second round of negotiations. The issues are on the table and people are debating them and asking questions. There is no secrecy. In this case, on the other hand, it seems very much to be a rushed and secretive process.

I asked the government members why they would not ask for reciprocity. Given that 100 Canadian flights fly over the United States, as I am told, and 2,000 flights cross North America, why would our negotiators not simply say that if we are going to provide the information to the United States on the 100 flights, then we would want information on the 2,000 flights, and then see how the Americans would like that? Then we might watch the Americans retrenching and maybe backing off.

A government member told me that the U.S. would give us the information, but he asked what would we do with it when we get it. It would cost us, I believe he said, a half billion dollars for the computer system we would have to develop to process all of the information.

It sounds to me as though the Americans would have liked us to keep the information for them. However, we would have had to develop that computer system and the government does not want to do that. So the Conservative government says, “Well, let the Americans do it. They want the information, so they can pay for the computer system and we will give them the information, regardless of what in fact is going to happen to that information”. It is just an unbelievable approach.

I never heard of a government that does things like this. I would have thought the government would dig in its heels at the beginning, defend Canadians' interests and demand reciprocity. I would have thought they would demand that information regardless of what they would do with it, and then see what the Americans would do. I guarantee that the Americans would back off. Just to prove my point, that is exactly what the Americans did.

There was a big issue here, a discussion about what to do about flights that cross American airspace when going from one point in Canada to another point in Canada. Pretty well any flight out of Toronto to my home city of Winnipeg will cross American airspace.

If the Americans had wanted to be consistent, they would have demanded that this information be provided as well. What they did was to provide an exemption instead, which proves that they can be flexible if we dig in our heels and have some backbone in the negotiations. We were able to negotiate that if an airplane flies over American territory on the way from Toronto to Winnipeg or Toronto to Vancouver, or between any two Canadian points, it will be exempt from this list.

Now the question really is how much of this is about security? I say this because we can give all sorts of examples where if one flies from one Canadian city to another Canadian city but goes through American airspace, one can go over some very sensitive territory in doing so. Planes can fly over or be close to major American cities, major American landmarks and major American installations. Thus the argument that somehow there is difference between flights going across United States territory completely and not landing versus flights that are going between two points within Canada and crossing American territory, I believe, runs counter to the fact there is an exemption, which indicates this not as big an issue as we are being led to believe it is.

Then we have the drop-dead date of December 31. The member for Winnipeg Centre remembers that date. On December 31, the whole sky was going to fall if we did not get this thing passed. The government brought this bill in the last sitting day of June and said, “Here is the legislation and if we do not pass it by the end of the year, there are going to be no more flights over American territory.”

Well, I was just on one yesterday. It never seemed to end, by the way. It took me two days to get back from Trinidad. A five-hour flight ended up taking two days, but that is a story for another day.

The fact of the matter is that this agreement was supposed to be in place or the flights were going to stop. It is almost March 1. It is the last day of February, and the flights are flying just fine. As a matter of fact, we may be in an election in the next two weeks, and in a minority government the legislation may never see the light of day. Even if it gets through the House in a minority government, it still has to make it through the Senate. There could be an election before that happens.

So much for those flights not being able to go over the United States. Members need to start asking the question, what is this really all about? And why are there no questions coming from the Conservative backbenchers? Why are there no questions coming from the Liberals? Why are they so quiet?

Why are my friends in the Bloc so quiet? On two occasions when I have been here, the Bloc critic talked about how important this was and how this affected Air Transat. That was the Bloc's whole reason for supporting the bill. The entire issue about how the information could be misused and where it was going to end up and whether it could end up in North Korea, somehow that did not seem to faze them one bit, as long as Air Transat was happy.

The member indicated that Air Transat could not get its Airbus A-319s and 320s landed in Montreal because they were big planes that took such a wide berth in circling that they inadvertently circled over American territory. If we did not have the agreement, somehow they could not fly over American territory any more and poor Air Transat would be shut down. They would not be able to have any more flights from western Canada because, once again, they would have to fly around all the corners of the United States. They are right about that, and it would add to the costs and delays for the travellers.

However, the reality is that we have to deal with what is before us. The fact of the matter is that the deadlines have passed, the flights are still going and we have an exemption already. There are just too many questions about this whole issue to warrant quick passage of this kind of legislation.

Professor Mark Salter of the University of Ottawa talked about what I call best practices. In government, business, accounting, and IT issues, we try to pick best practices that have been agreed to by professionals worldwide. Canada already has a very high standard when it comes to the use of the PNR information, all the information the airline keeps in its data bank on a person. When people look at whatever they have booked with an airline, there will be a passenger record consisting numbers and letters. That is where the information about a person is located. The PNR information is what is being debated here. That information may end up in places the passenger may not want it to be.

We have a high global standard. We support that high global standard because we are signatories to the Canada-EU agreement relating to PNR matters. On the one hand we already agree and live with PNR issues that are acceptable to the European Union that best practices say is the way to go. This agreement is praised by Canadian and European data protection authorities for a number of reasons. What are those reasons? The member for Winnipeg Centre will be very pleased to hear this. There are time periods for the disposal of data. It is not 40 years and it is not seven days. There is a very specific period that puts a time limit on the disposal of data. It limits, in particular, the individualization of the data. That is what we are really concerned about.

The information is filtered. It is rendered anonymous. It allows the security services to build up a profile. That is what they want. If that is true and they claim they want to deal with profiles, they can build up profiles, but they do not need to attach them to individuals. That is what our biggest objection is to this type of activity. This agreement is a global standard for international treaties on PNR agreements.

The question is why would the government negotiators who are negotiating with the Americans not say to use that section. Why would the government's negotiators not say that there is wording and best practices in the PNR agreement with the European Union? Why not use that section? If it is considered a gold standard and everybody accepts it, why would we not make that argument? Why would we not say to the Americans that if they really believe they are not going to use the information for purposes we do not want it used for, why do they not simply live up to what is considered a gold standard? The wording could be cut and pasted. It is something that has been in agreements for years, something that even the Americans would probably agree to. They obviously did not want to do that or the government did not care to push that point.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

They're on their knees.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That is beginning to be what this whole situation looks like.

If we were to look at security threats, we should be looking at the trusted shipper program, if anybody knows what that is. The American Pilots' Association is so concerned about it that the association has made the program its number one concern. While we are subjecting passengers to all sorts of screening procedures, taking away their toothpaste and doing all this stuff, there are a thousand-plus trusted shippers, most of which have not been vetted or checked out very well, shipping letters and parcels. All these parcels are on planes all across Canada and the United States and they are right under where the passengers sit. Sitting a few feet below the passengers are parcels and mail that were not checked at all.

That is a terrible situation. If governments are concerned about security, why are they not looking at that? Why are they not taking immediate steps to screen those parcels and mail to make the whole situation more secure, instead of chasing around doing something like this?

Let us look at the no-fly list, and there is a big joke if we ever saw one. Senator Ted Kennedy was put on a no-fly list.

I was in Washington after 9/11. The Americans were digitizing the mail. They treat the mail that goes to government offices, senators and members of Congress. No mail goes directly to them any more. The mail is secured in a post office maybe 100 miles outside of Washington. The mail is digitized. The mail is radiated and it turns a shade of yellow, similar to the colour of the jacket of the member for Hamilton Mountain. I have seen this mail. The Americans have a reason for doing it. They do not want people sending bad things to their elected officials.

That is something that works. There were some fits and starts with the program and it took a couple of years, but I guess they finally got the program working.

I believe we should be doing things that work, that solve a problem, not to have a no-fly list which included Senator Kennedy and other U.S. senators. A couple of years ago, some U.S. senators told me that they have been stopped at the airport and denied boarding. This is the kind of system we have. The member for Winnipeg Centre is on a no-fly list and cannot get off the list. He sent a letter but cannot find out how he got on the list.

We are dealing with it on this bill. The Liberal Party and the Bloc are going to have to answer to all of this when their constituents come calling to say that they are on the list and they want to find out about the list. Good luck finding out about the list.

Six-year-old Alyssa Thomas was going, I believe it was to her First Communion. I believe she is from Ohio. Her parents are physicians. She was trying to get on an airplane to go to her First Communion. She is six years old and she is on a no-fly list and she cannot get off the list. They sorted out the problem for her on that particular day with a lot of paperwork. Her father decided to follow up on this because the girl is six years old and her parents do not want this issue following her around for the rest of her days. Her parents sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking what was going to happen. Guess what? They received a follow-up from the Department of Homeland Security addressed to the little six-year-old girl, which would neither confirm nor deny her presence on the no-fly list.

This is how people are being treated.

If we want to check our credit scores, we can contact Equifax. I recommend that people do that. There are at least two credit agencies in this country, Equifax and another one. They will give people their credit information and people can dispute some credit information. Perhaps a Visa bill was not paid one month or it was paid a few days late. It could have a negative impact. People have the ability to find out what information is on file and if there is misinformation, there is a process whereby people can correct the information. What is wrong with that?

If we can do it for credit information, which is considered very important, why can we not do it for something as important as a no-fly list which can stop people from even being allowed on an airplane? Why can we not have the ability to question the information on the list and dispute it in case it is wrong?

The member for Winnipeg Centre does not have that option. The six-year-old girl does not have that option. That is ridiculous. Why are the Bloc members and the Liberals sitting back and allowing that to happen? The backbenchers of the Conservative Party have nothing to say about the issue either.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for raising on my behalf some of the frustrations I and others have with the reasoning that went into Bill C-42, such as this no-fly list that I was unfortunate enough to find myself on, and am still on.

My colleague would be interested to know that after years of trying, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, through ministers of foreign affairs, we finally found out who we might appeal to in the United States to get my name off of that list. They told me to send them my birth certificate, passport, marriage licence and all other pertinent information and wait six weeks to three months while they held all my personal information. They are in Washington, D.C. They would then make a determination whether or not there was anything they could do for me. I do not think that is any kind of avenue for recourse.

We are starting from a consensus in Parliament that a Canadian's right to privacy is one of the cornerstones of our western democracy, one of the very things that defines us as Canadians. That constitutional right is so paramount the Conservatives are obsessed with the belief that the long form census is an intrusion into Canadians' right to privacy in asking how many people are living in a household. In fact, there are legitimate social reasons to know that information in order to plan for social programs based on populations in regions of the country.

If the right to privacy is so paramount that the Conservatives actually cancelled the long form census, how can they not respect the right to privacy of Canadians who are travelling abroad without having their personal information bandied all over the countryside and internationally?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a mystery to me as to why the Conservatives are so quiet on the issue. I know their supporters were very vocal on the whole issue of the long form census, yet with an issue such as this they are particularly quiet. I know there are concerns over there and concerns within the party too. I gather they decided to simply ignore the obvious. The bigger surprise to me is why the Liberals and the Bloc are not raising concerns on this issue.

Air Transat is still flying through U.S. airspace. Everybody was supposed to stop flying. The world was going to come to an end on December 31. Well it did not. There was not going to be an exemption when flying from one point in Canada to another. We were not going to get an exemption, but guess what? We got an exemption.

The government has to develop a bit of a backbone. It has to go back and try to negotiate a better deal. The Conservatives may actually surprise themselves and do better if they actually tried. We should not sit back passively and allow them to get away with this when we really do not know what the long-term liability of this legislation is going to be.

We pointed out some of our concerns and some bad practices in the past, but we do not know what the total ramifications are going to be. The members seem to be content to let things develop.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member ran out of time, but I do want him to have the opportunity to comment further about what we have been seeing in this debate today.

There is a big disconnect between what the Liberals in particular were saying a few weeks ago and their complete lack of enthusiasm for debating this issue today. I will read a few things into the record.

On February 3, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence said:

I was immediately outraged both by the process and the substance of the legislation.

Again on February 3, the member for Willowdale said:

We find ourselves in a rather difficult position because although we have significant concerns about the privacy of Canadian travellers, the government, through its failure to do anything to protect those interests, has allowed us to get to the point where we have, in effect, become hostage to demands from the United States.

Then the member for Wascana said:

If we have a common entry and common exit system, does it not follow that Canada no longer has sovereign Canadian control over immigration and refugees? Canadians need to know what is at risk.

He said in another question:

What is the Prime Minister prepared to bargain away? For example, with respect to the admissibility of visitors, immigrants and refugees, will Canada apply its own standards...?

These are all questions that are being raised by Liberal members in this House, yet today not a single one of them is getting up to debate these very serious issues. When will they stand up and fight for the protection of privacy of Canadian citizens?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the member. I thought that this issue would have gotten them quite excited. Under normal circumstances, I would have expected the Liberals to be very active on a debate like this and the Bloc to be similarly inclined. Why they do not see or have the concerns that we have on this is a fairly big surprise.

We have the experts' opinions about how the agreement could be improved, so we are not saying not to have an agreement here, but we are saying to have one that fulfills the best practices using the PNR agreement clauses in some other agreements. That would be a big improvement: asking for reciprocity, asking for further exemptions, asking for further clarification. The government says it cannot afford the computer system or else it would keep the data itself. The Americans are saying that we can keep the data ourselves; we must just provide the computer system.

Why are we not looking at something like that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak at third reading on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I did speak on this bill earlier, at second reading, and I think also at report stage. I certainly share some of the very serious reservations that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have about this bill. I am very pleased that a number of us are getting up to speak on this bill. I would certainly echo the comments of the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Elmwood—Transcona that it is very disappointing that although we have heard other members of the House express concerns about the bill, apparently they are making a decision not to participate in the debate.

The reason we debate legislation is to have a thorough airing of what legislation is about and what its impacts and consequences will be. A bill is sent to committee, where it is examined very thoroughly and witnesses are called.

I do find that in this current political environment, a pattern that has been emerging is this idea that everything has to be rushed through. Everything gets a once-over, a quick once-over, and then off it goes. We get through it quickly at committee and call in a few witnesses. It seems to me that long gone are the days when parliamentarians examined legislation very carefully and tried to think about what the impacts of legislation might be immediately and in the longer term.

It strikes me that this is one of those bills that we have to look at not only in terms of the immediate impact on Canadians but also in terms of the longer-term effects. That is why I am very proud that members of the NDP have debated this bill very seriously. We have treated it very seriously in committee; here we are at third reading, final reading, and we are not prepared to say that we will just let it go and that it has had the kind of examination it needs, because we still have a lot of questions about this bill.

Even at third reading, it is not too late. I appeal to some of the Liberal members that it is not too late to reflect on this bill and to make a decision that it should not be allowed to pass third reading and then, of course, go to the Senate, where it will just be rubber-stamped and go through now that a Conservative majority has been appointed in the unelected Senate.

As a result, we take our work even more seriously, because we know that any examination that needs to be done has to be done in this place, has to be done in committee and has to be done by people who are following the bill, by calling in witnesses and hearing the expertise and experience that exist on this file.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act does have a history. I remember when we debated it just before the holiday recess in December. We were told that this bill had to be passed by the House, that there was a deadline, that the U.S. government was insistent that this bill be passed and it had to be done by such-and-such a date. I do not remember exactly what that date was, but all of a sudden—

[An hon. member]

The world was going to come to an end.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It was something like that; the world was going to come to an end, or at least flying would come to an end, and our relations with the U.S. on this issue would come to an end.

There was enormous pressure to rush this bill through. Fortunately it did not happen. We have been trying to find out ever since what that deadline was and how real it was, or whether it was just something that was manufactured to create the illusion, as we have seen so many times in the House, that something had to be rushed through.

We were very happy to give this bill a thorough analysis and to listen very carefully to what some of the witnesses had to say in committee. I think we have come to the conclusion that this is not a good bill. It is not in the interests of Canadians. There is no evidence that it is going to improve security overall. There is no evidence that it is going to improve the security environment vis-a-vis terrorism.

We do have concerns, and I think this is partly as a result of what we have seen in Europe, where similar legislation is being developed. For example, the European Commission has taken a very strong stand and has said that if such legislation comes through, it has to meet certain benchmarks. It has to meet thresholds about protecting the privacy of citizens.

It has to protect people's faith and trust that governments will not data-shop information, passing it around and creating enormous data warehouses where information can be used for God knows what and for all kinds of reasons.

There are some fundamental concerns about this bill. If this bill goes through, it will create a huge process and bureaucracy whereby very personal and detailed information about Canadian residents who happen to fly through U.S. airspace will be passed on to U.S. departments and security agencies and institutions, and may well go even beyond that to other states. That really concerns us.

We have all heard stories about people who have ended up on no-fly lists, whether it was because of an error or some bureaucratic screw-up or whatever. We heard about the recent case of a man in Toronto who was not able to board a plane and was in a difficult situation. Any one of us could imagine what it would feel like if we were going about our business, family or personal, and all of a sudden we found out that information was being forwarded to some security agency. We do not know what the information is, why we are on a list, or why we are suddenly being challenged and not allowed to board a flight. We have heard of so many of these cases. It concerns us that this bill would exacerbate and in many ways codify what we have already seen taking place.

As parliamentarians we should be wary of this. Our job is to create an equilibrium. Our job is to understand security issues, but also privacy issues and the civil liberties and political liberties that we all have. In the era of Big Brother, people react strongly to the government's collecting information about them and using that information in a myriad of ways.

We should recognize that since 9/11, groups in Canadian society have been targeted by these kinds of processes. I have worked with a number of individuals and organizations in my riding of Vancouver East who have brought forward cases of people being racially profiled and targeted, particularly at airports, for a different level of attention in terms of security concerns. The whole notion of profiling that goes along with this is concerning.

It is possible that many people think they have nothing to worry about. They think that if they have done nothing wrong, then they do not have to worry. If their names are on a list or if their information is being passed to a foreign government, why should they worry about that? A growing number of people understand that when an injustice or a process targets one part of the community, whether it is people with a Middle East background or people who observe Islam, then an injury to one is an injury to all. That is an old saying in the labour movement.

Although many Canadians may not feel they may be directly impacted by this kind of legislation, lots of people understand that the kind of broad mandate that would result from Bill C-42 would impact some people immediately but would also impact broader society. When the civil liberties and the privacy of some people are at risk, we should consider that it puts us all at risk as part of a democratic society.

We need only look at history to see how those things happen. Historically, the idea that we can remain naive, ignorant or in denial without that affecting us has caused very bad things to happen. Massive violations of basic human rights have taken place by the state. We are not talking here about other individuals. We are talking about the state itself and the enormous powers it has to use information gathering. We are talking about something as simple as a no-fly list and what happens when that kind of list is developed and information is gathered.

I note that Ms. Chantal Bernier, the assistant privacy commissioner of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, actually made some excellent comments at committee last May when this bill was looked at. I would like to quote her briefly because she starts saying right off that “privacy and security do not have to be at odds”.

In fact, she says that they should be integrated and that they do converge. She said:

The first one is that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon, unless it is demonstrably necessary for the public good. It follows, then, that the collection of personal information can only occur when it is proven necessary, and it must be proportionate to that necessity. Third, that necessity must be assessed on an ongoing basis by verifying that the collection of personal information is indeed effective and necessary in relation to the identified necessity. Finally, it must also be demonstrated that there are no less privacy-intrusive measures available to reach the same goal.

I believe that is a very serious statement.

There are a couple of things happening here. If approved, this bill will set into motion a whole set of procedures regarding the transfer of information about Canadians who happen to be flying over U.S. airspace.

Ms. Bernier is making the point that there has to be ongoing verification. Something can happen and we can respond to that. However, as the environment changes, where are those checks and balances to ensure that the provisions that are put in place are not of a nature so stringent that they take on a life of their own and begin to culturally assimilate into society until it is no longer noticeable that is taking place? She is making a very important point about the need for ongoing verification of the collection of personal information that it is actually effective and necessary.

The other point she makes is that work is required to show that other measures that are less privacy-intrusive could not have been used to achieve the same goal. I do not know if we have had that discussion. I am not on the committee and I do not know if it dealt with that. However, again, she has hit the nail on the head here in identifying another key principle. It is very easy for governments to sort of strike out and, in its almost absolute power over these things, create a mechanism that is all-encompassing, that casts a very wide net, much wider than need be.

Regarding the objective of a security concern, the assistant privacy commissioner sets out a test here that needs to be examined. If I paraphrase what she is saying it is this. What would be the lowest threshold measure that could be taken in respect of privacy to meet the needs of security and the public good without violating privacy? Again, we do not really have any information to allow us to determine whether or not that actually took place.

She also makes the point that it has to be demonstrated that any of the security measures, that violate privacy and people's rights, have to be for the public good. This is where members of Parliament need to come in because our job in this place is to uphold the public interest, not private interests, which includes privacy. I do not think that is a contradiction. It is the public interest based on checks and balances to ensure that any system put in place is not onerous to the extent that it has cast such a wide net that it actually is not appropriate and will have far-reaching consequences.

Again, the assistant privacy commissioner has made a very good point in establishing a test as to whether or not these measures are actually deemed to be for the public good, or the fact that they are so heavy-handed in infringing upon individual, human, and privacy rights, that they actually end up being offensive and intrusive measures that should not be allowed to be established.

Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that we do not like this bill. We do not think this bill should go through. We are very concerned that there was an attempt to rush it through Parliament when there has been no evidence that it needed to be. We would much prefer to apply the principle of caution when it comes to these kinds of measures. It seems to me that the federal government or any state has enormous resources at its disposal already to deal with security concerns.

I was in the House when the Anti-terrorism Act, then Bill C-36, was first approved. It was rushed through as well. That bill, in and of itself, has dramatically changed historically the way we deal with security in this country. It gives enormous power to the state to get involved in people's lives and to make decisions without due process, and without proper judicial oversight and review.

To me, Bill C-42 is just kind of a consequence of that. So here we are on this path. The course of least resistance is to say, “Let it go through”. We are here today to say that we do not believe that and we do not think we should let it go through. We believe in that principle of caution. We believe in some fundamental values here of protecting Canadians' privacy. If we cannot do that as parliamentarians, then who will?

I do think there are some really excellent civil society groups in Canadian society that have done amazing work in bringing forward cases. One only has to look at the absolute horror of what happened to Maher Arar and information there that was passed to foreign governments and the price that he and his family paid. Certainly, his wife, Monia Mazigh, was an amazing person in her own right who led that fight. There were many groups that supported that struggle to ensure justice was done.

I do not diminish the work of those organizations and individuals who very courageously bring forward these issues, sometimes in a political climate of fear, in a political climate that becomes very divisive, where it is easy for the government to say it is them and us, and where we can play on people's fears. I really abhor that. I think it is the antithesis of what we should be doing as a democratic government and what we should be doing as parliamentarians.

However, the point I was getting to is that at the end of the day I do believe it is us as elected parliamentarians who represent that broad public interest, who have to do due diligence on this bill. We have to be cautious, challenging, and we have to be suspicious in many ways, and not necessarily accept the arguments given to us as to why this bill should be approved or why it should have been rushed through.

I am happy to have spoken to this bill and I hope that others in the House will as well.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, none of us dispute the fact that the Americans have the sovereign right to protect what happens in their airspace, but we count on the Prime Minister to also take Canadian sovereignty to heart. Part of that involves taking the responsibility seriously to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens.

For me, there are four things that are really at the heart of this debate. First, under Bill C-42, the information forwarded to foreign governments will be the passenger name record and that is the file that travel agents create when they book vacations. It can include things like: credit card information, who people are travelling with, their hotel, other booking information such as tours or rental cars, and any serious medical conditions of passengers. Nobody should have a right to people's personal medical information except for the people it pertains to and their physicians.

Second, the information that is collected could be retained by the United States for up to 40 years. Third, this information could be forwarded to the security service of a third nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory. Fourth, no individuals may know what information is being held about them by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors.

As I said earlier in the House, if somebody like the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the member of Parliament in the House, the member for Winnipeg Centre, can be on the no-fly list and they cannot figure out how to correct the record, what is the average Canadian citizen going to do? Is it not our responsibility in the House as Canadian legislators to protect Canadians against these kinds of problems?

If we are not doing that job, I would suggest that we are not acting in the public interest, which is really the point the member for Vancouver East was making. It is our obligation to protect the public interest. Unlike my Liberal colleagues, I do not think it is good enough to say that we should pass the bill and worry about it in regulations later. We have to perform due diligence at the front end and get this right.

I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver East would care to elaborate on those really important points a little further.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to elaborate on my colleague's points about this bill. She is correct that the four issues contained in the information that is passed to a foreign state is very troubling.

The other thing that is really worrisome is that a number of these agreements are being negotiated, but none of the details have been released. We know that Canada is negotiating agreements with the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic and the United States, the one we are dealing with today. The member referenced details of the agreement between the European Union and the United States, so at least we have some of that information. However, what we have is scary and very worrisome.

The fact is that we do not have transparency on the other negotiations that have taken place with Canada and the countries that I mentioned, and perhaps there are others we do not know about yet, and this information can be retained for up 40 years. We begin to see the very long-term consequences. That, for me, is one of the big issue with this bill.

Who will remember where it all began? How does one go back to trace that and figure out how these processes began that are debilitating in terms of fundamental rights and privacy? We are talking decades of something taking on its own life and dynamic. We end up in a place where people have less and less ability to, one, even know what is going on and, two, be able to access information or appeal if they feel they have been placed on one of these lists improperly or unfairly. It is actually very scary that this information would exist for so long.

I come back to the Privacy Commissioner's comments and the member talking about the need to have ongoing verification. At minimum, there has to be some kind of strong oversight that is transparent, so the process itself is not behind closed doors. I thank the member for raising those comments because they help illuminate why we are so concerned about this bill and taking the time to debate it to alert people to what is going on.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the remarks of my colleague from Vancouver East, I was reflecting on the notion that of all places in the Canadian Parliament, in the House of Commons, we should be using our time and be seized with the issue of strengthening and reinforcing those fundamental rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians instead of bearing witness to the erosion and the undermining of those very rights and freedoms, one of which is the citizens' right to privacy, because members seem to have things upside down on that side.

We, as citizens, have a right to know what the government is doing with our money, and we have a right to know what the government is doing in terms of policy and planning on our behalf. But the government does not have a right to know everything that we are doing and certainly a foreign nation does not have a right to know everything that we are doing, our freedom of movement, our personal health records, our credit card information and who we travel with. That information could be very damaging in the wrong hands to our well-being, so the government has an obligation to uphold our right to privacy, not negotiate it away.

As I listened to my colleague's speech, it is so topsy-turvy for us to use precious parliamentary debating time on a matter that threatens to erode and undermine those basic fundamental freedoms on which we built our nation, those freedoms that define us as Canadians.

It frustrates me that we cannot convince our opposition colleagues of the basic truths that the member for Vancouver East was trying to convey, that these are things we have to hold on to and we have to be vigilant because it is a fragile, tenuous thread that holds our democracy together. Those threads are the rights and freedoms that we crafted in the formation of this country. It is at our peril that we let any of them be eroded or dissipated by legislation or regulation. Certainly the Government of Canada should not be negotiating away at an international bargaining table those basic fundamental freedoms that we enjoy here today.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic the perceptions of stereotypes that on the one hand the NDP is often characterized as being the defenders of big government and we hear about Conservatives who are there for the little guy with privacy and conservative values. I agree with the hon. member when he says it is very topsy-turvy, because the Conservative government and before it, unfortunately, the Liberal government, which was hell bent on legislation that was taking us down this path of erosion of rights. It has been left to New Democrats to stand and speak the truth about what is going on here in terms of more legislation such as Bill C-42, that will undermine and erode those very basic values of privacy.

It reminds me of other historical instances whether it was the Chinese head tax, the internment of Japanese Canadians or speaking against the War Measures Act. Sometimes it is not popular to stand up at those moments when something is taking place and to look beyond the frenzy, the fear and the politics that are created at that moment and to look beyond that to what is being created.

We have done that and we feel very proud of that history, but with the bill, it is part of the pattern of governments which are in effect data mining Canadians' personal information and sending it to foreign security services. There are no checks and balances. There is no verification. There is no process of transparency and accountability. This is one of those times that we have to get up and ask who is watching this. We are doing that and we implore other members of the House to do--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind members that we are now into the part of debate where speeches are 10 minutes and questions and comments are five minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to this bill in the past and there are some themes that need to be repeated over and over again.

With all due respect to my colleagues from the NDP who have raised the issues of privacy and commercial rights, et cetera, and perhaps cast a net of blame and guilt to all parties, including the Liberal Party, inappropriately so in my view, and especially since the Liberal Party, when it was in government, resisted these incursions upon the sovereignty of Canada, incursions upon the privacy of Canadians by foreign states in the most vigorous fashion. It is a little disturbing to hear someone say that the Liberal Party would actually go in the opposite direction.

The truth of the matter, though, and many of the people who have been following this debate will bear this out, is that the Americans gave Canada notice more than a year and a half ago that by the end of 2010 their legislation would apply to their territory and the air rights associated with their territory. The consequences upon foreign carriers, or indeed even domestic carriers that would be carrying passengers over American territory whether they were to land there or just transit, was going to be subject to that American legislation. They gave a year and a half of warning.

The Privacy Commissioner gave the government an indication of what the implications would be for individuals and for commercial interests a year and a half ago.

All of this to say that the government, had it been interested in the issues of sovereignty, whether they would be commercial or private, did absolutely nothing.

I know it satisfies many people to talk about the ineptness of government or maybe the unwillingness on the Conservative government's part to protect the interests of Canadians and their sovereignty. But keep in mind that the legislation the Americans passed went into effect last December and that Bill C-42 would not do anything other than hold Canadian airline companies that go into the United States or fly over the United States safe, harmless from any liabilities under the Privacy Act. That is essentially it. For the Americans, security trumps privacy, it trumps commercial interests and it certainly trumps the sovereignty concerns of other states, including Canada.

What is that security concern? I should not cast the blame to Liberals, the NDP, or the Bloc on this because they were not at the table. The Conservative Government of Canada was at the table and it was unable to negotiate for Canadians any kind of exemption.

Further, it was unable to eliminate from this current legislation the fact that any other state can apply the same sanctions that the Americans have done to Canada.

This business about security trumping virtually everything else has been the mantra of the government, but it is also the mantra of the United States. I am not going to criticize the Americans' concern verging on paranoia. They are applying that to us. However, the government has not been able to convince the Americans that the measures we have put in place for security, at least in the air industry, are sufficient to make them comfortable about Canadians travelling over the United States and into the United States by air.

Why do I say that? Take a look at the fact that last year the government, right out of the blue, provided $11 million to put 40 body scanners in our main airports so that we can be extra sure there is not going to be any threat.

The body scanners and the new technology that have been put in place in many of the country's airports may do something to secure people's sense of safety. The fact that there was only one company allowed to bid and only one company to which that contract went is another story.

However, $11 million for 40 body scanners, and none of those scanners have any way of finding trace elements of powder or chemicals. I know that the minister is asking what this has to do with anything. Well, it has to do with the investment we make in air security on the air side. The Americans are looking at this and saying they are not happy with what we have, so they are not even going to negotiate any mitigation of the legislation. Do we have air marshals on every one of those planes? The answer is clearly no, so what other mechanisms have been looked at in order to provide the sense of security they need with respect to safety on the air side?

On the land side, they can handle that, but the air side they are not convinced. Did the government make any effort? The answer is no. Did it take a look at the research and the development that is available, whether it is in the United States or in Israel, which is always touted as the place that has the best technology and the best procedures for security? Did it do that? No, it did not.

It washed its hands of any responsibility and in fact turned its back on the Americans and told them to make laws for their country and if it applies to our citizens and our commerce, well, then we will deal it. What we will do is sit down and talk about a security perimeter.

That is so old hat. It has taken the Americans five years to come forward with a proposal that in effect says to the Americans, “We will be responsible for the northern border in the United States and let us see if we can negotiate for you what that means”.

What will the Americans accept? So far they have not accepted our body scanners, they have not accepted the fact that we make roughly $500 million of investment in security as people go through airports. We have just increased taxes by $3.2 billion over the next five years so that we can provide greater assurance at the airports, not necessarily the naval ports or any other land ports.

An additional $3.2 billion of taxation the Conservative Government of Canada says it is now going to impose on everyone in order to make the security perimeter more or less feasible. We do not know what the government is going to spend that money on. Please tell us that it is on new technology. Please tell us it is on research and development of the technologies that the Americans, the Israelis and others who are absolutely paranoid about safety, and maybe rightly so, are using.

We have no clue where the Conservative Government of Canada wants to take us and what kind of submissions it has made with the Americans with respect to overflying or landing in the United States by Canadians who are no threat to anyone.

I can see that some of my Conservative colleagues opposite are saying that this guy is playing down the business of security. Nobody does that. Nobody in the House says that we should not ensure that the Government of Canada provides security for its citizens.

What everybody demands is that the Government of Canada make at least a token effort to protect the business interests of Canadians and the privacy interests of all Canadian citizens as they go about the business of travelling around the world. The Conservatives have not even done that.

It is easy for someone to say when we go to other countries, we abide by their rules. That is the only thing that the government believes in. If people leave the country, they are on their own. If they fly over somebody else's territory, they are on their own. There is more to government than simply saying “you are on your own”.

If the Conservatives feel that their rationale for coming into government is to prove that they are ineffective negotiators, that they have no concern for Canadians and no concern for their commercial interests, Canadians are going to have to judge them on their rationale for being in office. What a shame.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our House is not the only one considering agreements with the U.S. around the issues of flights and passenger name records. As the member for Eglinton—Lawrence will probably know, the United Kingdom and the House of Lords committee looked at this issue in some detail. The following are some of its conclusions:

The Committee fully accept the potential value of PNR data in the fight against terrorism. But the data must be collected accurately, analysed correctly, and used only for counter-terrorism and related crimes.

The committee said in its report:

We believe that the use of PNR data for general law enforcement purposes, as opposed to countering terrorism and serious crime, is undesirable and unacceptable.

It is talking about the agreement between the U.S. and the EU. It went on to say:

The current PNR agreement with the US does not achieve this. Data can be used for many crimes other than counter-terrorism - even for protection against infectious diseases. Data are widely available, and distributed without appropriate safeguards. The US avoids its current undertakings about PNR; this cannot be allowed to continue.

If members have listened to the speeches in the House, they will know there is grave concern that there is no such protection in the agreement between the United States and Canada either. First, does the member want to comment on that? Second, would he then indicate to the House whether he will vote for or against Bill C-42?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy debate in the House. Perhaps we should all enjoy it more often because it will give us an opportunity to raise the issues that are of concern to many Canadians.

My hon. colleague will know that about three and a half years ago the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the then minister of transport, introduced what we would call a bite-sized bill, so members have an opportunity to advertise they are doing something, which was essentially a no-fly list. People's names could be put on a no-fly list and only the minister of transport at the time could remove it, but he had to go through the minister of foreign affairs and Homeland Security. Homeland Security was not about to answer phone calls from Canadian citizens, or any citizen, on the spur of the moment because their name was on a no-fly list.

The government already gave away individuals' privacy three years ago on a no-fly list. It said then that people were on their own. If they got on a plane, it was somebody else's problem if they got into trouble.

I believe the member was here when we had that debate and discussion. It is unfortunate we have to repeat it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to claim some confusion. I read parts of the speeches that the member and other Liberals gave at second reading. I have listened to some of their speeches today and earlier at third reading and I am confused.

The member has just done it, as well as others from the Liberal Party. They attack the government on the merits of this bill, but, as far as I know, they still will vote for it, in spite of all of the problems with it and all of the potential risks that it poses to Canadian citizens and residents who at some point may be flying through U.S. airspace.

Could the member perhaps confirm that Liberals will vote for the bill in spite of his speeches and that of other members and if so, why will they vote for it when they know all the problems that will arise out of this bill if it becomes law?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remove all doubt. I was the first and only member of Parliament from either side of the House who actually spoke on the bill when it was presented last June, on the last day of sitting. I took great pains to try to raise awareness. I did not hear very many people from the NDP party, because it is an NDP member who has asked this question, comment on it.

I pointed out all the difficulties associated with the bill and indicated at the same time that whether we voted for or against it, after the end of December, it would be a moot question. The Americans were already subjecting us to all of this and the Government of Canada wanted nothing to do with it. As I said, people are on their own.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the sky to fall. The end of December came, then January and now February 28 and the sky had not fallen. It is so typical, both of the official opposition and the government to fall into that trap. Anytime when dealing with a bully, one pushes back and does not cave. That is what we see happening on this bill.

It is a fairly innocuous bill when looked at initially. It has two sections to it. However, the impact it has on Canadian citizens flying is quite severe. This is not an issue in which we are saying this is what is likely to happen. We know it has already happened. That last member sat at the transport committee, where he heard the evidence from witnesses before the committee who described incidents where the United States had acknowledged the errors on its no-fly list and had also acknowledged the number of times the list had been used improperly.

I will talk about the errors on that list. This is the point we have to understand. What will happen is that more Canadians will end up on that no-fly list. More Canadians will have their ability to fly as they have traditionally, denied. Given the inability of the U.S. to manage the list, I think more Canadians will be in the middle of flights that will end up being diverted. I can give assurance that the list is not any better since then. If anything, it is worse because more names have gone on it. This was done by the electronic privacy information centre. It challenged the integrity of the list. It said that known or suspected terrorists were on this list and that the list remained filled with errors. That was the absolute conclusion to which it came. This is a U.S. government agency making that determination.

If we pass the legislation, and it will be the shame of Parliament if we do it, there will be hundreds if not thousands of additional Canadians being faced with that problem.

It has been difficult for me. I have a file right now of a very well-known individual in the Windsor area, and I will be very careful not to disclose it because the impact on him and his business would be horrendous. However, he and I believe he is on the U.S. no-fly list because of malicious information from a business competitor. I have been working on this file for over a year now. There is absolutely no way of finding out who made the initial allegation, who gave the Americans the information that he was a terrorist. There is no way of finding out how to get more specifics so we know what we are dealing with. The U.S. will not give us any of that. There is no process to get him off the list.

We have heard repeatedly in the House, and in committee in particular, of the abuse that has gone on. There are estimates that there are as many as 500,000 to 1 million names on the list.

Let me use another example of the ineffectiveness of that list. At Christmas a year ago, we had the Detroit underwear bomber incident. He was on the list. The Americans had been advised twice, once by his father and once by another source, that he would take that flight. They do not have the ability to manage that list. It is just horrendous that we are faced with the Kafkaesque type of responses that we get from that government. Yet the Conservative government and both opposition parties in the form of the Bloc and the Liberals are prepared to vote to allow more Canadian names to end up on the list.

It is not as if there is no alternative. We understand the sovereignty issues facing the United states. However, my riding is surrounded by the United States on three sides, and I am being very blunt on this, and there is a level of paranoia that exists around security in that country. We understand where it comes from, but Canadian government officials and Canadians have to understand how overblown it has become since 9-11. I believe we have a moral responsibility country to country to say to our neighbours that they are wrong and that there are ways to deal with this.

I will go through three points that we should be saying to the Americans before we allow any of this to go forward.

First, they have to clean up their list. That is an absolute precondition.

Second, they have to build in a process to allow individuals whose names have ended up on that list to counter the information that put them on the list. It should be a simple, straightforward and rapid process.

Third, we have to be absolutely clear that this information cannot be shared with other governments. We have seen all too many cases. The Maher Arar case is probably the most notorious case in the world. His information was transferred to another country. We saw the whole rendition process that he was put through and how it ended up. That would happen again at some point in the future with regard to this legislation. The government ended up apologizing to him and paying him $10 million to $12 million. How many more times are we going to have to do that because of passing this kind of legislation?

We also heard repeatedly about the threat from the United States, that if we did not get this bill through by the end of December, that they were going to cut us off and we would not be able to fly through its airspace. That has not happened and there was never any expectation, in our minds anyway, but there was in the minds of the government and I guess the Liberals.

Again, the Americans were very clear that when they were negotiating with us, they would be looking after their interests. I am not saying anything that would insult them. I think they would probably see it as a compliment. They expect one of two things from us. If they are being honest, they expect us to give in all the time. Also, reluctantly, they would respect us if we stood up to them and did not give in because it was wrong.

We should be telling the Americans that requiring us to submit our sovereignty rights to protect our citizens is not going to happen unless those three conditions are met as an absolute minimum. Also, if they are going to go ahead with this, then we should have access to the same information, which we do in other areas.

Why is the government doing this? Other than simply succumbing to that pressure, it is not standing up for our country or its responsibility to protect our citizens. The government simply gives in. There is no other explanation. This bill does not make any sense, looking at it from the perspective of Canadian citizens.

To put ourselves in this proposed position would be a total abdication of our responsibility as parliamentarians. The basic fundamental responsibility we have is to protect the interests of our citizens, their security, privacy and civil liberties. If we pass this bill, we will abdicate our responsibility in all three of those areas.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I always enjoy hearing other people's views in this House. However, I wish that the member had not said what he did about the sky not falling because I can see the pencils being sharpened by my colleagues on the government side, saying there is justification for passing this bill right away because it is unnecessary, and the government of the United States and the Government of Canada have already accomplished what they needed to accomplish, so who cares.

I just want to correct something else for him. While it is true that I was a member of the transport committee, and I know the minister is looking at it and he is saying, “A great member, as well”, I have not been a member of that committee since last June. All my commentary is associated with my having been a former member of that committee and having followed the issue from its inception. So, if somebody confused somebody else's presence on the committee, when the hearings on Bill C-42 were taking place, I am delighted that my presence had such an overwhelming impact on whomever was there that I am now confused for other members on that committee.

That having been said, I think that there are some valid points that have been made by my colleague and there are points that need to be addressed constantly because, as I said before, the government does not care. It says, “You're on your own”. That is its mantra. Maybe he should address that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues were just speculating what that was all about, so I am having some difficulty responding.

I did not get an answer from that member as to whether his government, or his party, and I think he still thinks he is in government. He certainly talks, in terms of responding to questions, as if he were still on the other side of the House, in terms of not answering.

There is absolutely no reason, given the speech that he has made in this House repeatedly and that other members of his party have made in this House repeatedly, attacking this legislation and this kind of approach and attacking the government for being weak in its negotiations. What is it he kept saying? “Just leaving them up in the air”. Why are they voting for this legislation? Are they making the same error as the government? Are they caving in to the bullying tactics of our neighbour, as opposed to standing up for our citizens and saying, “We're not doing that. You're not going to abuse our citizens that way. Here's an alternative route you can go down. We're prepared to look at that. We're prepared to negotiate with you, country to country, but we're not caving in”. As opposed to what they certainly are prepared to do by voting for this, and the government is clearly in favour of.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for me, the issue that the member raised that is most important is the issue of the no-fly list. When it comes to that list, no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States. Perhaps what is even worse, for me, is that they may not correct that information if there are any mistakes.

We have talked a number of times in this House about some of the people who were on that no-fly list. If the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the member for Winnipeg Centre, who I do not think anybody in this House would suggest is shy, cannot figure out how to get their names off that list, what are average Canadian citizens going to do?

The member referenced in his speech the case of Maher Arar who was also on that no-fly list. Let us look at what happened in that instance. We had a commission of inquiry which, as we know, was done by Justice Dennis O'Connor. He concluded by saying:

I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

The Prime Minister apologized. We paid compensation to the tune of $10.5 million. Yet, the U.S. authorities refused to accept that he is innocent and to this day he is still on the no-fly list.

I know that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is a lawyer. I wonder if he could tell us whether anyone can actually get their name off that no-fly list?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer, in short, is no. There does not appear to be any way of being able to get one's name off that list.

As I say, I have this case that I have been working on for over a year. I have explored every angle, both legal and political, as well as administrative behind the scenes, and there does not appear to be any way that one can get one's name off that list.

I think we have had a Federal Court decision that said some similar thing, in terms of other cases. So, it is just not possible to do it and yet, we are prepared to expose more Canadians to that list.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We still have other individuals who are prepared to speak on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

That is fine. The motion is that the question be now put. That is a debatable motion, so we can continue on with debate.

However, right now we are in questions and comments. There is a five minute question and comment period for the minister of state.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting the way our colleagues in the Conservative Party have tried to shut down debate on this. They want to push this through. They do not want to be honest with Canadians. This is the party that ranted about the long form census and claimed that if two Canadians felt that there was a fear of black helicopters in the sky because of the long form census, they would trash an internationally respected data collection agency.

However, the provisions in Bill C-42 here will take the private information of Canadian citizens, who might be flying down to Cancun on a holiday, and they will have no idea that this Conservative government's plan is to allow foreign companies to data mine their personal information.

For example, a person who goes to a travel agency and books a flight to Mexico or the Dominican Republic, and happens to fly over United States airspace, their credit card, hotel booking, and rental car information can be passed on to the United States and held for up to 40 years, so that companies within the United States can access that information to data mine. It can be given to other third party countries without the consent of Canadians.

I would like to ask the hon. member, why has the government not had the decency to go back to the many average Canadians out there who look to parliamentarians to protect their interests and explain it to them why they are trading away the personal information of Canadians?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important piece of legislation that we have before us. It is important that it be passed in the sense that Canadians have the ability to move freely internationally, particularly into and over the United States.

What the United States is actually asking for in this piece of legislation is the information of those who fly over its airspace. It is a sovereign nation. It has been attacked by terrorists. It very much has the concern of who those people are who are flying over its airspace in those planes. It has nothing to do with personal information and the fearmongering that we are hearing from my hon. colleague and others in debate. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is a matter of who is in the plane. The U.S. wants to know that and rightfully so. It has a valid concern in that sense.

When 85% of our international travel is actually into the United States, it is important that we not compromise from that perspective. We have concessions with the United States on flying from Canadian point to Canadian point over U.S. airspace and there is no real concern.

This is an issue that we are dealing with in an effective way and we encourage the House to support this. The fearmongering that we get from the other side has nothing to do with Canadians' interests. This is all about politics and that is unfortunate, although we are in a political arena and we should not be surprised by it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me understand this now. Canadians who are watching this debate just saw something happen. Rightly or wrongly, opposition parties were actually debating the substance of the legislation. Then the government stood up in its opportunity to debate the substance of a law that it is passing to give the reasons why it is a good law and convince Canadians to its side, but its response was to adjourn the debate.

In other words, it does not want to talk about it and it prefers that we end the discussion right now. Is that what Canadians would interpret as being an open and accessible government that takes responsibility or is it yet another manifestation of, “You're on your own”?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there.

A significant amount of debate has gone on with respect to this piece of legislation. Canadians' interests will not be served by us continuing to reiterate the kinds of concerns that the opposition has, which are not based on fact but based on hyperbole and fearmongering.

Canadians know full well that we are linked with the United States. It is our greatest trading partner and has been our greatest ally in every war and every battle we have ever fought. We are linked from that perspective. If Canada was attacked by terrorists, the Americans would defend us. When Americans are attacked, we do the same.

This is where we are at when it comes to flying over U.S. airspace and knowing who is in those planes that could potentially cause harm to either American or Canadian citizens. The right to know who is in those planes should not be of that large a concern to my hon. colleagues.

It is important for us to get this legislation through. We encourage debate to be completed, so we can get on with other business of the nation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I was preparing to speak to Bill C-42, I found it quite shocking that the government put forward a motion for closure just a few minutes ago.

The comments by the parliamentary secretary who prefaced that motion were equally problematic. He referred to the need to move on, that this was fearmongering and that Canadians are not concerned about the substance of Bill C-42, something I feel is both problematic and unsubstantiated.

When speaking with Canadians, issues of privacy in an increasingly globalized world are very much issues of concern. Whether it is the Internet, travel that many of us do in a much bigger way, or the way we move around in general across our country and around the world, the security of Canadians, our information and privacy is something we value.

As Canadians, we also have confidence in our government to protect that security. Unfortunately, Bill C-42, a bill that the government supports, flies in the face of the sense of security that Canadians want and the security that is tied in with the respect for privacy that they feel is critical. We are seeing the government shrug its shoulders and say the U.S. is making it do this, so this is how it goes.

This speaks overall to a larger question of sovereignty and the extent to which we stand up as a sovereign country and say that we have real problems with what is being asked of us, we do not feel that pieces of this legislation are in line with establishing a safer, more secure world and, in fact, the bill is rife with problems, gaps and challenges that we cannot even predict properly in terms of what kind of trouble they could bring.

Whether it is in committee or here in the House, I am proud to stand as a member of the NDP in saying that we need to put a stop to the bill. We need to go back to the drawing table to find a way of securing people's privacy, working toward more secure travel and standing up to the U.S. government, which has not only made clear what it wants but, quite frankly, has threatened our freedom of mobility as Canadians if we do not comply with what it wants. Many Canadians would want to see their government show some courage on this and stand up for our sovereignty on something that is as critical as individual Canadians' privacy.

The bill is problematic for many reasons and that is why we in the NDP are saying the debate ought not end and that we need to go back to the drawing board. For example, the information forwarded as a result of this bill would be the passenger name records, which are files travel agents create when they book vacations. These records can include credit card information, who people are travelling with, their hotels, other booking information such as tours or rental cars or any serious medical conditions of passengers.

Why would this information be pertinent? Who people are travelling with, what hotels they are staying in, or what tours they decide to take, whether it is sightseeing, snorkelling or whatever people do during their holidays, it is a completely ridiculous notion that this somehow has to do with maintaining national or international security.

Even medical conditions being shared is something we know can be problematic for many people. Without proper regulation as to who might access this information, potential employers or corporate actors could use such information not only in a problematic way but in malicious ways as well.

Other problematic points include that the information collected can be retained by the United States for up to 40 years. This information may be forwarded to the security service of a third nation beyond the U.S. without the consent or notification of the other signatories.

It has been referenced in many cases in this House. We have seen how this has backfired in such a horrific way in the case of Mr. Maher Arar, someone who went through an incredible trauma. He has shared his story with our country. The government took a stand to compensate him, but we still see that the U.S. refuses to take him off the list. If this is the partner we are supposed to be reasonably dealing with to protect our own citizens, we can just go to past experience to find out quite quickly that a great deal of harm can be done by this kind of legislation.

Furthermore, no person may know what information is being held about him or her by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors. Any Canadian who would hear this would be horrified to know that there would not be the opportunity to correct the record, whether it is the mix-up of a name, or a whole host of information that is going to be out there. The failure to recognize this as a gap, as potential for real trouble and not just for the individual, but for families, communities and Canadians in general, that their government would not stand up and say this is wrong, is quite shocking.

To bring closure to such a serious debate around security and privacy and recognizing that the two are not at opposite ends but in fact can complement each other, something that is not in Bill C-42, is certainly in line with what we have seen from the government time and again. It is an effort to silence debate and muzzle those who are speaking out against what is being said on behalf of Canadians. The effort is to silence those speaking based on past practices and experience and research by qualified witnesses who have said there are gaps that need to be looked at. We also need to recognize that pressure is being put on us as the Canadian Parliament by the United States. Why can we as a sovereign country not stand up and say this is wrong? It puts our citizens at risk. It is rife with problems and can only be problematic in the future. We need to look at it.

Whether it is in terms of the government's muzzling of debate through prorogation, whether it is through its actions on important parts of our country, whether it is the census, the forced exodus of senior officials who have questioned the government's agenda, all we have seen is an effort to silence and muzzle time and again. The reasoning brought out is that somehow it is fearmongering or somehow Canadians do not think this. This comes from a party that has spoken for the importance of respecting individuals' privacy and respecting Canadian citizens. This is at the heart of respecting Canadian citizens and their rights. They feel this is a country that respects privacy and security and says we are not going to be put at risk and we are not going to be threatened by the U.S.

This is not the only example of this government's failing to stand up for us as a sovereign country. We see this on economic issues time and again. The House will have heard that I have stood up to fight for my home community which is suffering at the hands of a foreign takeover gone wrong by Vale, which announced that it would close the smelter and refinery in my hometown of Thompson. It is an unnecessary battle given that the reason we are at this juncture is because the government opened the door to the sale of a profitable Canadian company to a resource that is integral to us as a sovereign country and is now being called upon to stand up for Canadian workers, for Canadian people, and to stand up for our sovereignty, whether it is in terms of our economy, our resources, or our privacy.

That is what Canadians expect from their government and it is definitely not what we see with this closure motion or with Bill C-42.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue for Canadians. It is an issue that will have numerous ramifications, one of them being the proposed perimeter security deal that the United States president and our Prime Minister have entered into.

Those details have not been made available to Parliament and we do not really understand how that particular information is going to be given up, whether we are going to be put in a position where our security services will be sharing information on flights within Canada with a secure perimeter with the United States again.

It is interesting to note that the United States gave an exemption to domestic flights that overfly the United States. What was behind that? Did the United States give that exemption because in the future we will be looking at a more complete information sharing deal on all passengers in Canada and this is just simply one part of it that has to be completed?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the work that he has done on behalf of our party as the MP for Western Arctic and as our critic on transportation issues. He has worked tirelessly going through this legislation, asking the tough questions, and opposing it.

What we see here is part of that slippery slope in seeing the government's failure to stand up to the U.S., in seeing the government's failure to note the major gaps, the potential for real abuse of people's privacy, for the mining of people's information with not just the secret service of other countries but also third parties and however that list may go.

The government's failure to stand up for our citizens in this case will be seen as a failure to stand up for them in the future, and that is something that we ought to take seriously.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are still debating this bill on February 28, 2011 is proof that the scare has not worked. The government introduced the bill on the second last day of sitting in June. It told us that we had to pass the bill by December 31 or the planes would stop flying. Not only are the planes still flying but we even managed to get an exemption from the U.S.

The Americans were not planning on giving us an exemption for flights from a point in Canada to another point in Canada that flew over American airspace when those flights can be close to sensitive sites such as large cities. What is the American government's intention when it gives an exemption which could cut the heart out of what it is trying to accomplish?

The United States has not stopped the flights. The government should withdraw this bill and negotiate a better deal.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment with regard to the exemption and the fact that the sky has not fallen, that in 2011 we are still debating this legislation and the U.S. has not cut us off. That speaks to the fact that there might truly be an opportunity for us to take a stand, to say this is not working for us, that this will not work for Canadians. Let us go back to the drawing board and find a solution to our neighbour's concerns.

It is pretty ridiculous that such a significant threat is being put on us when we have been willing partners in working to ensure that our airspace and our countries are safer. We have an opportunity to make good out of a bad piece of legislation, good on behalf of our citizens, and we are not doing that.

The role of the Canadian government is to stand up for its people, to stand up for our security. It has to find a way of balancing that with privacy. What is the government's role?

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak once again on this topic, a topic that has certainly had quite a number of speakers and promises to have many more before we resolve the question.

The government introduced this legislation last June with the announcement that we would have to have it approved by December 31. If that were not to happen by the end of December 2010, the overflights of the United States would come to a halt which would certainly lead to chaos and trouble for the Canadian flying public and the aviation industry in this country. That was the story at that time.

We are now long past the supposed deadline, the flights are continuing unabated and there is no sign that the Americans will prevent our flights from overflying the United States. What we have seen is that an exemption has been offered for flights that originate in one city in Canada and end in another city in Canada that overfly part of American territory.

The fact that the Americans would allow this exemption is somehow an argument that the bill will now be more palatable to Canadians, but it in some ways cuts part of the heart out of the intention, because the flights that overfly the United States right now that start in, say, Toronto and fly to Winnipeg, in many instances they fly over very sensitive American military installations, landmarks, cities and populated areas. So if anyone wanted to do something bad, they could still do that by getting on a plane that was simply flying between two Canadian points and going over American airspace. Clearly there is something else at play here.

Another issue we have to look at is that there is a Canadian no-fly list. The member for Winnipeg Centre is on the Canadian no-fly list. A person who is on a no-fly list would not be on the plane in the first place. Whether a person is on an American no-fly list or a Canadian no-fly list, he or she will not be allowed to get on an airplane in the first place. I am not really certain what problem we are trying to solve with this particular legislation and what the absolute importance is of getting the bill passed in very short order.

Whenever we look at issues like this, we want to question how the legislation increases the safety of the flying public. Right now we have other issues that have been identified as being very serious.

I believe the American Airlines' Allied Pilots Association has identified the trusted shipper program, which consists of over 1,000 companies that have the clearance to send parcels and mail. These parcels and mail are simply routinely loaded onto the planes. Just below where passengers are sitting on the plane are great quantities of mail and parcels that have not been checked at all. I would like to know what the sensibilities are to have the screening process we have, all of the very expensive airport scanning systems we have in place, and we are doing all of these procedures to our passengers.

While all of this is happening, mail and parcels are being trucked onto the plane. That is where the real exposure is. Just recently there was a case where toner cartridges in Africa were the source of explosive devices attempting to be shipped through the mail that would have found their way onto planes within the systems. We have a lot of evidence out there. The American Airlines' Allied Pilots Association has a very big issue here. We could have potentially had a big explosion just recently with those toner cartridge packages that nearly made it onto planes.

Evidently, the problem is much closer to home because every day in this country we have packages and mail getting on these planes.

Let us look at whether or not the no-fly lists that we have in this country have in fact added to our safety. We have the member for Winnipeg Centre on a no-fly list. When he was still alive, Senator Ted Kennedy was denied boarding on American planes. We have had other examples of Congress representatives and senators finding themselves unable to board planes because they are on lists. Therefore, when we look at a system like this we wonder if we should be making an attempt to clean up some of the problems we have in the current system rather than trying to inadvertently create more. If we look at how we can correct the records, we have found that it is almost impossible. The member for Winnipeg Centre has tried to get off the list. He has been unable to do so.

One example is six-year old Alyssa Thomas from Ohio. It was reported that she was on her way to her first communion. She was stopped at the airport in the United States, I believe it was a Cleveland to Minneapolis flight. She was denied boarding because she was on the no-fly list. The problem was solved with a lot of paperwork and she was able to board the plane. However, when the family realized that this was an issue that might follow her for the rest of her life they sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security in an attempt to get the issue cleared up on a long-term basis. The department would not confirm nor deny her presence on the no-fly list and stated there would be no further communication regarding the matter. Now, at six years old, she will go through her life being on the no-fly list without any possibility of ever getting off it.

These are the questions that the Liberals, the Bloc and the members of the opposition should be asking in the House. They made a big issue of the long form census a few months ago over privacy issues there. The Conservative base was quite upset that the state would be asking census information about how many bedrooms in the house and so on. Yet it somehow does not seem to have any problem whatsoever giving over PNR information that could be sent to other countries' security systems with no guarantees and no information as to how it will be used.

I have indicated in previous speeches that there are better ways of dealing with PNR issues that Canada actually supports. Through the Canada-U.S. agreement on PNR matters we have been praised for the high standards that we have promoted and upheld in PNR matters. In the agreement we have with Canada-E.U., there are limitations on the disposal of data, how much time the PNR information can be kept, and the individualization of the particulars of the data so that the information is rendered anonymously. That allows security services to build up their profiles, which is what they want, without attaching it to any one individual. That is the--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has taken an active interest in airline passengers since he arrived in the House of Commons. All airline passengers in Canada want to thank him for that.

He was getting to an important point at the end of his speech when he talked about the accumulation of data about airline passengers by foreign security agencies, particularly by American security agencies. Some critics of this legislation have said that it would aid and abet data mining by American security agencies at the expense of the privacy of Canadians. He talked about the building of profiles that these security agencies would do with the information they would collect from airlines.

Could he expand on that point and let us know what he really thinks of the criticism that the bill would aid and abet data mining by American security agencies?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. That is exactly what it is. The interesting thing about it is if both the American and Canadian no-fly lists are accurate and up-to-date, then any people on those lists would not and should not be on planes in the first place. The people we are concerned about will not be on the plane so their PNR information will not be transferred to any foreign government or, in this case, the American government. We will be giving all of the data on people who are not on the no-fly list and are on the plane in the first place.

When I asked about reciprocity, the government indicated to me that the Americans were prepared for us to keep our own data. We have negotiated one exemption already for point to point flights over U.S. territory between two cities in Canada. Therefore, why would we not negotiate reciprocity? One hundred flights a day fly over the United States and two thousand American flights fly over Canada. Why did the government not say to the Americans that if it gave them our information, then they would have to give Canada their information? The government says that it will cost too much to develop a computer system to deal with all that information. The government just rolled over and signed on to the deal the way the Americans wanted it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on the kind of data that would be required? Would this be useless data or would this be data that could be used by any one of the 16 American agencies that might have access to the information?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the information is not something that one would want to have sent to security agencies unless it is done on the basis that it would be rendered anonymous.

That is how we deal with PNR information under an agreement, for example, between Canada and the EU. When our negotiators negotiated with the Americans, why did they not say that Canada had already signed on with the EU and supported the practice of proper PNR information handling? Why did the government not suggest that the clause in the agreement with the EU be used?

The PNR information under the Canada-EU data protection system allows for time periods for the data to be kept. The data has to be disposed after a certain number of days. There are limits on the individualization of the data so the data is rendered anonymous. The security services build up the profiles they are looking for, but the information is not attached to any one individual.

This is the global standard for international treaties on PNR agreements. Canada signed on to this agreement with the EU. Countries right around the world have signed on to this. Why would we give up a gold standard that we have supported for many years on the use of PNRs? When it came to the Americans and security, the government disregarded all of that.

Canada is going to send whatever information is in the PNR, and that information can vary. There is different information on each PNR. The member for St. John's East asked what was in the PNR. It depends on what the travel agent typed in when the booking was made. Each person is different. People have different medical problems that might be indicated in there, or they might have different meal preferences. All sorts of different information could be in the PNR that would be dealt with here.

This is not the way to deal with the issue. The government should take the legislation back to the drawing board.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the important matter of Bill C-42, concerning the personal information of Canadians on flights over the U.S.

Although we will support the legislation, I will speak to the history of the bill, how we got to that point and why we can now support the bill.

First, it should be noted the way in which the government went about introducing the bill. As is the practice of the government, which we have become all too familiar with, it either tables legislation that it has no plans on following through with or it introduces legislation that it is not serious in following through with in such a way that it limits serious debate.

The government waited until the last sitting day before the summer recess to introduce this bill, a move to avoid parliamentary scrutiny over these measures by leaving little time for debate.

As it stands right now, the Aeronautics Act already allows for the disclosure of personal information by airlines to foreign states if the flight lands within the foreign state. The act also provides a legislative authority to create the no-fly list intended to identify potential terrorists in airline passenger lists and block them from boarding domestic or international flights.

The no-fly list, however, has proven seriously problematic. Further, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has expressed concerns with the measures enabled under the Aeronautics Act.

The Privacy Commissioner has testified before committee that the Canadian government should ask the United States to quickly destroy the information it will be collecting on airline passengers flying over the U.S. because there is nothing to prevent that information from being shared on a wide scale basis both in the U.S. and abroad.

The Privacy Commissioner has also noted that there is nothing in the new secure flight policy that precludes the Department of Homeland Security from sharing passenger names, birthdates and genders, passport information and travel itineraries with immigration and law enforcement authorities at home and abroad.

This assessment of the policy contradicts the assertions of the public safety minister, who told the transport committee that the information collected on Canadian passengers was intended to be used solely to protect aviation security.

No wonder there are some serious concerns when we have conflicting views from the minister and the Privacy Commissioner.

By further changing the act to force Canadian airlines to disclose personal information of Canadian passengers who are simply flying over the United States, Bill C-42 would further endanger the privacy rights of Canadians.

Maintaining public security, however, is important and a balance must be achieved. Liberal Party members expressed this concern when the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Liberal members have amended the bill in three specific ways: first, the House of Commons will be required to conduct a review of these measures two years from the date they come into force and every five years thereafter; second, this data transfer will be limited to the U.S. in legislation, as the original version of the bill allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order-in-council; and, third, airlines and travel agents will be required by Canadian law to inform passengers of this impending data transfer before their ticket is purchased.

This may only be a one paragraph bill that would make a minor change to the wording of one section of the Aeronautics Act, however, these changes would be significant in practice. The bill could effectively be used as legal justification for airlines and travel agents to supply foreign governments with personal information about passengers when a plane they are on flies through a country's airspace. Currently, the act allows for this transmission of information only when a Canadian plane lands in that country.

Let me take a moment to go over the history of these provisions in the Aeronautics Act.

At question is subsection 4.83 (1). This allows for the cabinet to make regulations regarding the transmission of certain information to foreign governments. Subsection 4.83 essentially creates legislative exemption to the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The supporting regulations remain the critical component of this piece of the framework.

Schedule 1 of the regulations lists the category of information that may be automatically provided to an authorized foreign government. This includes basic information such as name, gender and passport number.

Schedule 2 of the regulations provides what detailed information may be provided to a foreign government. These details include the passenger's address, phone number, class of ticket, for example, business or economy, method of payment for the ticket and whether the passenger in question actually paid for the ticket.

The final schedule in these regulations, Schedule 3, lists the governments and agencies that are authorized to request or receive any of the information listed in either of the first two schedules. There is only one country and agency on the list: the United States and its commissioner of customs.

The regulations in question were introduced in 2001 during the 37th Parliament. Bill C-44 amended the Aeronautics Act to allow the transmission of this information to foreign governments. This was in response to new U.S. requirements for any plane landing inside that country.

Subsequent U.S. legislation requires other countries to provide the U.S. government with details of any passenger in a plane flying over the U.S., not landing, but actually flying over the U.S.

The Liberal Party has very strong concerns about the erosion of Canadian sovereignty expressed in the bill. We also have very real concerns about the privacy of Canadians and about the ability of the government to conduct foreign affairs in a way that benefits Canadians.

The balance between national security and personal freedom is a crucial balance for any government. I, as well as my Liberal colleagues in the official opposition, am very concerned that Bill C-42 goes too far. Hence, the need for our amendments.

For starters, the bill was not designed to protect the national security of Canadians. It was designed to transmit information to other countries for flights outside Canadian airspace. Once this information is in the hands of a foreign government, we cannot control what they do with it.

In May of last year, assistant privacy commissioner, Chantal Bernier, spoke to the transport committee. She said that the U.S. government, the only government currently authorized to receive this data, could keep the personal information of Canadians anywhere from seven days to 99 years. She also stated that the U.S. could use that information for any purpose, even those not related to air-land security, such as law enforcement.

When the United States passed the patriot act in the aftermath of September 11, it caused concern to many nations around the world. The patriot act allows the U.S. government unfettered access to and control of information about citizens from all over the world. It is no small matter to put private information of citizens into the hands of the U.S. government, where it will be subject to the wider net of the patriot act.

We must be concerned about any law that allows information about Canadians not accused of any crime to be put in the U.S. intelligence machine. We could be creating a situation where the government helps to provide a foreign government information that is used to prosecute Canadians without any formal judicial process.

It should be clarified that these are not information-gathering agreements. Rather the legislation would create a one-way flow of information out of Canada and into the hands of foreign governments.

In passing the legislation, we are creating a legal framework that will require diligent monitoring. It is important that we exercise our right to ensure that Canadians are protected. Hopefully, we can do that with the amendments that we put forward, which are now a part of this. As well, we must ensure that we stay on top of this and monitor very closely what is done over the course of the time.

We must understand that in creating this legislation we are opening the door for other countries to ask the same things. We are saying publicly that we are willing to provide personal and private information about our citizens to other countries. This is a troubling development that we must be willing to abandon if it proves to be more sinister than good.

Just because a Liberal amendment has been adopted to limit this information sharing with the U.S., it does not prevent other countries from now wanting to negotiate similar information transfers. Therefore, we need to be very vigilant in terms of what the government will do once this bill has been passed and can move forward with it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share the same concern about how to protect the overall security of our country and recognize some of the challenges faced in bringing forward this kind of legislation.

Would the hon. member expand a bit more on the amendments that she was referring to that the Liberal Party put forward to ensure we have a better balance in this bill?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when we put forward these amendments, the idea was to work with the government and the other parties in the House of Commons to ensure that Parliament works.

First, we talk about the need to conduct a review of the measures two years from now and every five years thereafter so that two years from now we will be able to see if these amendments are as effective as they can be; second, with regard to the data transfer to the U.S., the original version of the bill would have allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order in council; and, third, airline and travel agents would be instructed to ensure that passengers travelling are well aware that their information will be shared with the U.S. It is very important, first and foremost, that passengers have a good appreciation and understanding of what the result would be of Bill C-42.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the amendment that deals with the review. She talked about the two-year review and then the subsequent five-year review. Reviewing legislation is good. We have seen that happen in a number of cases, although sometimes when the time comes to do the review it does not get done.

How will this review happen? This is a process where information would be given to the Americans. What exactly will we be reviewing in two years? Will we be reviewing how much information we sent the Americans? We certainly will not be able to review what they did with the information.

Surely the member does not expect the Americans to send us a report card, although maybe she does. After two years, we will ask the Americans to please send us a report on how they dealt with the information we sent them. Clearly, we will want to know what happened to the information that we sent them. We will not get any information from the Americans about that no matter how many times we ask.

All a review would tell us, in my opinion, is what we already know or should know, which is how much information we are sending to the U.S. but not what the final result is of having provided the information. That is what I am having some trouble getting my head around in this case, but maybe the member could give me some further information on that amendment and the others.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there will be an onus on the U.S. government to work with the Canadian government. Canada will acknowledge that it is prepared to share the information with it but recognizing as well that Canadians have some concerns. Yes, we expect that the government will be able to do a review of the information that has been shared, how that information has been handled and the impact of sharing that information on Canadians.

We expect to be able to do that in the first two years. If it is not working, if we find there has been an abuse of that sharing of information and if the U.S. has not lived up to its end of the bargain, then obviously that is an issue that we will have to deal with. However, at the end of the first two years we will know whether we need to make further adjustments to a bill like Bill C-42.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42 and to review some of the concerns that we have raised time and time again.

I am afraid I do not share the optimism of the member for Random—Burin—St. George's in terms of the expectations she has for U.S. participation in making changes to this and in reviewing its procedures. There have been no discussions about these procedures, no safeguards have been put in place and no limitations whatsoever on the kind of information that the American government, its agencies or the foreign governments to which it will be passed on, would obtain from this process.

The legislation is very simple. It is an agreement to release information. It causes us very grave concerns. We have not seen the agreement itself but we have seen are other agreements. The European Union has an agreement on this. The United States and the European Union have agreed that all this information, called PNR, the passenger name record, that the travel agencies or airlines have will be passed on to the American homeland security.

The information that is collected can be retained for up to 40 years and it may be forwarded to the security services of a third party nation without the consent or notification to the other signatory, and that includes the individual who is the subject of this. People may know what information about them is being held by the United States and may not correct that information. In the case of the EU agreement with the United States, the Americans can amend that agreement unilaterally any time they wish by themselves without the consent of the other party.

That is a pretty devastating amount of invasion of privacy of Canadians who, in this case, are not even going to the United States. They may be travelling to Cuba, Mexico or on an international flight from one part of Canada to Europe or South America which happens to over-fly U.S. airspace.

This is rather disturbing. In fact, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, told the committee that Bill C-42 raises important sovereignty issues. She said that she was not questioning the American government's authority to implement its own program. International law is clear that a state's sovereignty extends to its own airspace.

However, the Privacy Commissioner said that the Canadian government had a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens. That is not what is happening here at all. There are, in fact, very few or no limitations on the protection of privacy here.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, spoke to the committee as well. She said that the bill did not really meet the protection of privacy in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it had no limitations.

This is a mystery bill. There is no requirement in either Bill C-42 or in the regulations for the United States to safeguard and protect the information from other people. There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass information on to other government agencies. In fact, it has been suggested that the information will be available to some 16 United States government agencies.

There is no safeguard that the U.S. will not pass the information on to third countries, and, in fact, it has the right to do that. As we know, this has been a particularly difficult issue for some Canadians given what happened to some Canadian citizens, such as Maher Arar who was tortured as a result of information being passed on by the Americans which they had obtained in part from Canada.

This whole no-fly list, as has been mentioned here, is part of the issue. One of the issues around the United States homeland security no-fly list is that it is under constitutional challenge in the United States.

The concerns the Americans have are similar to the concerns we have. In the United States, for example, Americans are not allowed to know whether they are on the no-fly list, how to get off the list or what evidence their presence on the list is based. This is a concern we are having here.

We need to understand how this process works. If a passenger will be overflying the United States, the airline must advise the American homeland security as to what information it has on its passenger record. The Americans will then do data mining of their own and they will issue a result to the travel agency. The instructions will be one of the following: issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel or issue an enhanced screening requirement. This regulation will give the United States access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not even entering the United States.

This information can be shared with at least 16 United States agencies and foreign governments and the government of a foreign country, in this case the United States, has a de facto right to decide who gets to travel to and from Canada since the vast majority of Canadian flights to and from Europe, the Caribbean and South America overfly American airspace. That is not true for all overseas flights, obviously, but for the majority it is.

We have a serious concern about the bill, so much so that we are voting against it. I am surprised to hear similar concerns to ours being raised by members of the Liberal Party, including the previous speaker. Again and again the Liberals raise the same issues and say that they are concerned about them and yet they seem to be quite happy to support this legislation. I do not understand that.

There are a lot of concerns. People have mentioned the success in getting the exemption on the issue of overflight when airlines fly from one Canadian city to another. If an airline is flying from Vancouver to Toronto and is overflying the U.S., there is an exemption. I wonder why the Americans were so happy to grant that exemption in this arrangement. I suspect it has something to do with the perimeter security agreement. I suspect that Canada in the perimeter security agreement has already given up the right to information on who is flying on any plane in Canada. Even the information on someone flying from Toronto to Ottawa may already be available under the perimeter security agreement. Therefore, it may be that this exemption is merely just a sop to public opinion.

The reality of this legislation is that we are now entering into a world of mystery. I am not normally into conspiracy theories but we are entering into a world of mystery that the homeland security no-fly list, for example, has been called Kafkaesque in reference to a very famous author who wrote about a mystery world where one does not know what is going on, one does not know why one is being charged with something, one does not know why one is being held, one does not know why one is being treated in a certain way by authorities. That is the essence of the Kafkaesque world.

We are getting there with this kind of agreement because, if this legislation passes, information on us will be available to the American authorities, some 16 agencies and whatever government they want to give them to. They can make decisions on our future or our situation based on whatever they think of the information that happens to be there and we may have consequences.

I do not really have time to go into the story, but I was in Russia one time, and maybe one of my colleagues will ask me to tell a bit more, but one never knows what happens to this information. One never knows whether there are consequences or not. One never knows whether one is the subject of some kind of oppression because of information that has been made available. That is the essence, the difficulty and the problem I have with this legislation.

I believe my time is nearing an end and in my 10 minutes I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments that my colleagues on both sides of the House may have.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was completely enthralled by the speech of the hon. member for St. John's East. Instead of asking a direct question, I would like him to elaborate a bit more on his thesis of why this bill is so bad for Canadians.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that will give me a chance to tell the story of my visit to Russia in 1981.

I met an individual who that very day had been interviewed by the KGB because she had been seen in a place where foreigners would visit. I asked her what the consequences of being interviewed by the KGB were. Her answer was very interesting. She said, “One never knows”.

What we do know is that they wrote down the fact that there was a meeting, why there was an interview, everything that was said, and they put it in a file somewhere. That information could affect one's future when applying for a job, or trying to travel to a foreign country. This was 1981, before the wall came down.

Her answer stuck with me ever since, “One never knows”. One never knows what the consequences are of information that a secret agency might have on a person. That is why people like me and other Canadians value our privacy, freedom, and our own security. We consider it wrong that foreign government agencies have information that they have no need for without any protection, safeguard, or any ability to correct that information.

That's the essential reason why this legislation ought to be opposed. The agreements are not transparent, the information is not protected, and there are no safeguards as to what the information may be used for. These are the concerns we have and continue to have. This is why we oppose this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has bamboozled the Bloc and the Liberals into supporting this bill on the basis that it was needed for security and that the Americans demanded it by December 31 or the 100 flights a day from Canada would stop.

I always thought that the reason for the Canadian and the American no-fly lists was to keep the people who were a potential security risk off the planes. With all the security and screening processes we have at the airports, and the fact that we have a no-fly list, which is supposed to keep all the bad guys off, this would mean that we are giving information about the good guys. That is what we are doing here. We are providing information about the good guys.

The fact that this was so important that we were going to shut down Canadian aviation if we did not pass this bill has all proved to be nothing but an apparition. Today is March 1 and nobody is talking about shutting down flights.

It is time the Canadian government went back to the Americans to say, “If we are going to give you information on 100 flights a day, then we want reciprocity with information on your 2,000 flights a day that are flying over Canada”, and then see what they have to say about that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we had passed the high-water mark of paranoia. Understandably, the Americans were concerned about what happened September 11, 2001, but that was not a result of problems that this agreement is designed to solve. The people who did this nasty business in the United States in 2001 at the World Trade Centre did not fly from other countries, they were inside America. They were not coming from foreign states to do this nor over-flying the country. I think an awful lot of work has been done since then to be more vigilant, there is no question about that.

I hope that we are at the high-water mark and that the invasion of privacy envisaged by both this agreement and by the perimeter agreement are not going to be implemented. We oppose them. We think they are going too far and we will vote accordingly when the time comes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our party, proud to speak against Bill C-42 and what it would mean to Canadians right across this country.

I may or may not be the only member of Parliament who worked 18.5 years in the airline industry, but I can assure members that if they think for a second, with regard to flights from Canada down south, to Mexico, the Caribbean, or elsewhere, that fly over American airspace or American waters, that those flights would have been cancelled if we did not give the United States credit card numbers, health records, or what hotels we were staying at, they are delusional.

Would tit for tat mean that we are going to stop all those flights from the U.S. to Europe that fly over Canadian airspace as of December 31? That would be utter nonsense. It would hurt both economies. It is something both countries do not want to do.

It is nonsense for the Liberals and the Bloc to fall into this delusional state that if we do not give them all this information, it is going to hurt our airline industry. It is false; it is a great big lie. I would hope that the Liberals, the Bloc, and the Conservative Party of Canada would use their ten percenters or householders in their individual ridings to let Canadians, their constituents, know what they are about to do with the Bill C-42.

I was recently on vacation in a place where I met many Americans. I spoke with many Americans about this, over dinner and over a few drinks. They were surprised that the United States government is actually asking the Canadian government for this type of information. These folks were from Iowa, Kentucky, L.A., Florida, and New York.

Not one of them, whether they be admitted Republicans or Democrats, or have no interest in politics at all, wanted to know if I flew from Halifax to, say, Cuba or Jamaica. Not one of them wanted to know what hotel I was staying at. Not one of them wanted to know my health records. Not one of them wanted to know my credit card information. Not one of them wanted to know anything else. They could not care less. What they care about is people getting into their country who want to do bad things to them. That is what they care about. And we would agree with them.

Bill C-42 is the capitulation to our friends, the Americans. Friends should tell friends when they are doing something wrong. Instead of capitulating and agreeing, and fast-tracking Bill C-42, we should take a step back, go back to the negotiation table and tell the Americans they are wrong. We would be wrong in this country if we accepted the parameters of this particular negotiation.

Once Canadians find out, if this goes through the way that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc want it to go through, many Canadians may wake up the next day and find themselves on no-fly lists. They may find themselves on all kinds of lists somewhere that they know nothing about. They will show up at an airport and be told they cannot go somewhere because somebody, somewhere, in the United States, either through error or through deliberate action, may have put them on the list and made sure that they could not fly, for whatever reason, even if they have no intention of going anywhere near the United States.

I know that the United States these days, in some circles, is called the excited states. There is a reason for that. The U.S. is very nervous about a variety of things. But when a country is nervous or when it makes laws without really thinking about the clear decisions of what it is about to do, it is up to its closest friends to advise that country to sit down and tell it what it is doing is wrong.

There are ways of protecting the United States and Canada and, for that matter, the entire North American continent, without intruding into the private lives of Canadian citizens and, for that matter, American citizens as well. I worked in the airline industry for over 18.5 years and I can tell members that many of our customers came from the United States and points beyond. Without them, many of the airlines that we worked for back in those days probably could not have survived. The same applies to the United States.

Can members imagine all those winter vacationers from Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, for example, who go to Florida on a regular basis? If we did not succumb to this and we just told the Americans, “We're not going to do what you want us to do”, are they telling me that the State of Florida is going to accept the fact that thousands upon thousands of Canadians would no longer be able to visit the State of Florida during snowbird season? Is that what the Government of Canada is telling us? Of course not. The reality is, it is simply wrong.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the member there. He will have five minutes left to conclude his remarks after question period. Right now we will move on to statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-42. This is an important bill. The member for Western Arctic has done a terrific job in bringing some of our issues and our concerns to the forefront.

I will spend a bit of my time talking about Canada-U.S. relations and what has happened in a general sense, because it is connected to the bill.

The bill would allow the private information of Canadians to be given to the Americans when they fly through U.S. airspace. We see this as an erosion of civil liberties. The use of this kind of information over the last several years has shown a lack of accountability.

The first case I witnessed was when I was in Washington, D.C. in 2003. The U.S. decided it would unilaterally bring in the NSEERS program, a program that tiered Canadian citizenship. Despite being a Canadian citizenship, if an individual originally came from one of five destinations, that individual would be fingerprinted and photographed. This program later turned into U.S. visits.

I asked the Liberal government at that time if it was going to object to this tiering of Canadian citizens because it was going to create complications, like the ones we are now seeing at the border. The government did not even challenge that, which was very disappointing. We have not yet had a prime minister who will challenge that.

The U.S. patriot act jeopardizes the privacy of Canadians. I fought a campaign a number of years ago when the Paul Martin administration decided to outsource the census to Lockheed Martin, an arms manufacturer. Lo and behold its data assembly was in the United States, so under the U.S. patriot act all Canadian information was accessible.

Under the patriot act, a law enforcement agency in the United States, primarily the FBI or the CIA, can demand private information from any company about its employees. It is interesting to note that, under the act, the company is not allowed to inform the individual concerned or the other companies from which the agency gets the information.

All of our census information would have been exposed and at risk. Thankfully, after a good strong campaign, we were able to get the government to amend the contract to ensure that data assembly stayed in Canada. Lockheed Martin won the contract, but the data assembly and maintenance had to be done in Canada, and it was for that time period.

Why is this important? The private information that we give up, such as our credit card numbers, our phone numbers, a whole series of things that we give up when a trip is booked with a travel agent, will be exposed if Bill C-42 is passed.

The government has not pushed back on these issues. It has just rolled over for the Americans. The Conservatives assume that if we push back on this issue, that will affect trade and commerce at the border. The reality is, as we have succumbed to more of these elements, the problems at the border have become worse.

The Conservative government's policies have been atrocious when dealing with the image that Americans have about our Canadian system. The government's position on immigration and its cracking down on crime agenda, as well as a whole series of other things, hyperactivates those elements for its political stock base, basically the mediators in the Conservative Party. This blends in with the American rhetoric we have heard out of Washington from American politicians about the northern border not being safe and being more dangerous than the Mexican border.

We have fed into that negativity. Programs and greater barriers have not necessarily improved things. In my opinion, the data we will provide will create other administrative barriers.

The Conservatives tell us that they are working closely with the United States. We know they have been having private secret meetings. They have signed other protocols that have not worked and they have fed into the American way of thinking that our border is not safe.

I remember when we had the longest border in the world without a military presence. Now the Coast Guard is patrolling the Great Lakes in gun boats. Coast Guard members use the Browning machine gun that fires hundreds of bullets per minute. This reinforces the image of hordes of Canadians scooting into the United States for illegal activities. We agreed to that program. I fought a campaign in the U.S. to raise awareness of the fact that we did not need those guns. Now they are sometimes stored.

Then we saw most recently, and this is a good example of how we feed into their system, how they try to spin these programs as being successes. The one that I am going to talk about a bit is the shiprider program. This is a program where an American pursuing a Canadian can enter Canadian waters and arrest that person; and, likewise, we can do the same.

Interestingly enough, when we signed this agreement, we allowed U.S. federal, state, municipal and coast guard persons to make that arrest in the U.S. However, on the Canadian side, we just have the RCMP. We have basically told the United States, and this is from the comments I get back from Americans, that because our CBSA officers cannot make similar arrests to its American counterparts, we have just admitted that we have a weaker system, that the weaker system needs more attention, and that weaker system has more problems than is being admitted.

Then we see these Americans, like the one from North Carolina, talking about how once again Canada's border is more dangerous than the Mexican border. Meanwhile on the Mexican border, they have lost control in certain jurisdictions because of the drug lords and they have a serious problem where thousands of people are entering and exiting per day. Now we have Canada being considered similar to that element. That is what is fundamentally wrong with not pushing back on these matters.

Not pushing back on this one is really critical, as well, because it gives up our privacy and it adds more barriers and more administrative problems than there have ever been before. That is going to lead to less trade, that is going to lead to more problems, and that is going to lead to a series of other administrative problems.

What is interesting is that when the Americans introduce legislation, and we agree to legislation like this, they will have the opportunity to change it for other data in the regulations. They will have the opportunity to open it up to other types of information. That is one of the reasons we oppose this. There is no set of based rules that people will know for sure.

As with the patriot act, we do not have any details. Is the information going to be shared further? Is it going to be scrubbed? When we have different information and it is wrong, how is it going to be used? One only has to bring up the case of Maher Arar where we saw the Canadian RCMP provide misinformation about a Canadian citizen who was in the United States, who was then sent abroad to Syria and tortured, and we then had to have a public inquiry.

So these things are real. They are not fantasy. These are actual cases that have taken place and are going to continue to be possible because we are giving up this type of a system without having the proper accountability. We have not even written in the measures to be able to change this. That is one of the things that gives us a disturbing sense of the government and its handling of U.S.-Canada relations and its secret meetings.

We do not have a playbook. All we hear from the government on the Canadian side is that our immigration system is problematic and our laws in this country are not tough enough on people. Then when we negotiate with the Americans, they know the type of rhetoric that has been used here and they fuel it for their own purpose.

When we are talking to the United States, are we looking at our immigration system being changed? It has often been said that some of the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. We have heard those statements from Hillary Clinton. We have heard them from Janet Napolitano. Even if they were to retract them after much attention because they are not fact based, it still would not matter. The impression has been left that we are weak and that we do not stand up for ourselves.

When we have an issue like this bill, Bill C-42, that is not exact, it again proves and reinforces that we just roll over immediately. That is a real difficulty that we have with regard to our approach with the United States. It has to be tougher. We must have more expectations and measurables.

When we talk to industry and other types of organizations, they tell us the border is getting thicker, and it is getting thicker because of the government's policy. When we look at places like Windsor, Ontario, which is the busiest border and we are adding capacity, where the CBSA is being moved out of for crass political reasons, again, that shows the U.S. that we are going to be weak. This is going to lead to more problems, not solutions.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation on Bill C-42.

We have not heard any representations from the government on this during the last couple of days. I would be very interested to see a government member stand and speak to this bill, so that we could actually ask some questions.

I believe it was the lone Liberal who spoke to the bill who spoke about how some amendments were made, and one of them was a two-year review. I had to ask her a question about what we were going to find out from a two-year review when we are the ones giving the information to the Americans. What we want to know is, if they are going to review it, what are they going to do with the information?

All our review is going to show is that we gave them X amount of data. However, we will have no idea what they did with that data. If members think for one moment that the Americans are going to answer the questions and tell us what they did with the data, and what the result was of turning it over, they have to be dreaming.

I think this review is basically dead in the water. It is just a way for the Liberals to roll over and support the government, and at least have some explanation for their support base as to why they did it.

I do not know why the Liberals are not asking more questions. I do not know why the Bloc is not asking more questions. There are a lot of questions that should be answered before we pass this legislation.

I wonder if the member has any further comments about this issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. It is like grabbing a cloud. It is just going to slip away from us.

A two-year review will be meaningless because we do not have the power in the act as it stands now and we do not have the capability to demand the answers about how that information will be used, when it was used, where it was dispersed, and all those things. It is not included in the act. We will have that problem.

It is unfortunate that there is not a greater debate in the House of Commons about this. Later on, if there are situations where citizens are going to be affected, potentially having an interruption of travel or of their lives, as with the extreme case with Maher Arar, there is not going to be any accountability. There will be no recourse and no expectation.

This is what is truly unfortunate about this debate, that we are not even putting that on the record. It is sad that nobody else is engaging on this. I think airline travellers across Canada should be alarmed that both the government and the Liberal Party are allowing this to pass through the House of Commons, basically without any type of oversight whatsoever. The oversight will come from those in the U.S. who want to use Canadians' personal information for whatever benefit they want. That will be the result.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.

The part of his speech that intrigued me most was the reference to American gunboats in the Great Lakes. It would seem to me that that very act would endanger Canadian citizens. The fact that our government seems to have put up no resistance, just simply rolled over and played dead, in light of this American decision leaves me amazed.

I wonder if the member would expand on that situation. I would be very interested to know the circumstances and the end result of his interventions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it is an important aspect.

The government amended a treaty that went back to the War of 1812. When it did that, it shredded the great knowledge that our undefended border with the United States was well managed but was also a signal to the world about how that can actually be done in a modern age.

What is interesting is that even though we lost that battle, the Americans wanted to create 40 gun ranges for these training exercises to take place. The bass fishermen are lower in the water, so the radar would not picked them up.

They were literally going to use lead casing bullets, by the thousands, and dump them into the Great Lakes. Only the New Democratic Party made a submission against that proposal in the United States and we were able to stop that. The U.S. decided not to do it.

The government actually made a submission two days late, so it was not even considered in the discovery and analysis. It did not make it on time for that. Allowing 40 gun ranges on the Great Lakes would have been a terrible idea for the environment and safety.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I deeply regret that the government has brought forward such a draconian piece of legislation as Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

As I indicated in previous remarks, Bill C-42 quite simply should be defeated. It is nothing more than data mining by foreign security services, primarily the United States, and is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Canadians.

Bill C-42 would amend the Aeronautics Act to allow for an exemption for airlines from the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, thereby permitting them to transmit to the United States department of homeland security personal information about airline passengers.

The U.S. department of airline security could then run this information through a number of databases to determine if the travellers should be prevented from entering U.S. airspace. If the U.S. department of homeland security determines a person may be allowed into the United States airspace, then the airline is given permission to issue a boarding pass.

This is a process set up under the United States secure flight program, and it mandates that only those the United States department of homeland security allows may enter into U.S. airspace, regardless if those individuals are landing in the United States or not.

While the Conservatives like to point to name, gender and birth date as the only items of information required, the secure flight final rules state that airlines must forward information that includes the passenger name record, which is a file that a travel agent creates when a customer books a vacation. It can include: credit card information, names of companions travelling with the individual, hotel and other booking information such as tours, rental cars, and any serious medical conditions of the passenger if the airline possess that information.

Unfortunately, it is sufficient information to allow the department of homeland security to data mine the travel reservation systems used by all airlines because these databases are physically located in the United States.

Previous to Bill C-42, this information was passed to the U.S. department of homeland security only for passengers travelling to the United States. There was an exemption for domestic Canadian flights. However, almost all flights within and to and from Canada pass through United States airspace. Bill C-42 would essentially allow the United States department of homeland security to determine who may enter and leave Canada by air.

Bill C-42 would also allow airlines to send personal information of passengers to foreign security services. What information would be forwarded is determined by requirements laid out in secret agreements with other countries. Details of these agreements have not even been released. However, it is known that Canada has signed or is negotiating agreements with the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic and the United States.

Details of the agreement between the European Union and the U.S., for the same information transfer, allows the information collected to be retained by the Americans for up to 40 years. As I have already indicated, this information may be forwarded to the security service of a third nation without the consent or even notification of the signatory, meaning the passenger.

The secure flight final rule also stipulates that no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors. In essence, the U.S. already has such an agreement with the EU that all such documents will not be publicly released for 10 years.

That means for an airline passenger seeking recourse in regard to a prohibition to travel, this would preclude any access to information requests. In essence, Bill C-42 gives the government agencies too much access to private information without protection for our citizens. It is also being spun by the government as necessary in our fight against terrorism.

There is no example of how this data mining has caught a single terrorist or any other criminal. Bill C-42 is an unacceptable invasion of privacy of Canadians by foreign security forces.

I have heard from many of my constituents who are most concerned that such an intrusion is an unacceptable invasion of their privacy and it undermines their personal security.

Maher Arar, who has already been mentioned, is an example of how this type of misinformation can be misused. In September 2006, in New York at the JFK Airport on his way home, Mr. Arar was detained by American officials. He was interrogated about alleged al-Qaeda links and 12 days later he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria. During his captivity he was beaten, tortured and forced to make false confessions. Despite a commission of inquiry, an apology and financial settlement from the Government of Canada, the United States authorities refuse to accept Mr. Arar's innocence and he remains on the American no-fly list. Clearly this is a terrifying example of how information can be skewed, misinterpreted and abused.

Many people have commented on the agreement being considered by the Government of Canada in regard to the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act. In May 2010, Dr. Mark Salter, who is an associate professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, told the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that governments want this information so that they can build profiles not just of risky passengers, but safe passengers as well. Research clearly demonstrates that in the United States and the U.K. government agencies are trying to collect as much data about travellers as possible.

What worries the experts about this particular legislation, Bill C-42, is the widespread distribution of the data. Flights that use polar routes from Vancouver to Hong Kong would have to go over Russia and China. Are we suggesting that they are reasonable destinations for the passenger data of Canadian citizens? Is the Government of Canada confident that the destination for this data can provide adequate protection?

What worries many of us on this side of the House is that neither the government nor other agencies have put protection in place for data that will now go abroad. It is dangerous to sacrifice our privacy and freedoms for the dream of zero risk or perfect security. This particular measure does not provide additional security for the aviation sector and it places an additional burden on Canadian citizens who are flying.

Quite simply, this bill makes Canadians more vulnerable to the security services of other nations. Canadian data should never be hostage to any regime that an air company chooses to fly over. The proposed change to these data protection regulations to include overflight states dramatically increases the vulnerability of Canadians' data while offering no means of redress or appeal.

The proposed changes to the Aeronautics Act are dangerous and without any clear benefit to Canadians. Dr. Salter is not the only expert in Canada warning that Bill C-42 sets out a dangerous path, one that we should not follow. Over and over we have heard the warnings from reputable experts and indeed the voices of concerned Canadians. Surely the government will listen to these warnings.

We need to defeat Bill C-42. Canadians deserve better than questionable leadership and an absence of due diligence from the government. How can anyone trust a government, its ministers and a Prime Minister so willing to jeopardize their privacy and security?

In the words of our Privacy Commissioner: “However, the Canadian government has a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens.”

It is time the government understood that duty. It is time that it exercised due diligence for the sake of Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member's speech and arguments were quite well presented, but we do have a situation. The U.S. government and Canada have an agreement that is already in place which is directly related to the sovereign right to control their own airspace in the U.S. As the member knows, the thrust of the bill is to permit the request of the U.S. government for certain information, which, she is quite right, is still being discussed. The alternative is that the U.S. can say that flights would not be able to fly over U.S. airspace if they do not comply.

Given that the Privacy Commissioner before our committee on November 10 laid out some suggestions on how the security of the information could be safeguarded, she did not conclude it was an invasion of privacy and inappropriate disclosure. I wonder what the member's solution would be if Bill C-42 does not pass.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that there have been references made to previous agreements. I am not entirely sure that there was any wisdom in some of these agreements. It feels very much like the government is simply rolling over and playing dead.

What about the sovereign rights of Canadian citizens? What about our right to privacy and security?

This whole issue seems to revolve around threats from the United States. No matter how paranoid the Americans may be, it makes absolutely no sense to shut down the border or to preclude air flights from Canada. Yet that seems to be what is in Bill C-42. The American government is saying that even if we are not landing but simply flying over its airspace it has an issue with that.

In terms of safeguards, there has been a great deal of secrecy around these discussions. I have seen those safeguards and that is not acceptable.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a very well-reasoned speech and one of profound importance to Canadians. I believe we need to get right down to the nub of the matter.

The bill would force Canadian airlines to send personal information to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Canadian travellers who are not even touching U.S. soil, but fly over U.S. airspace.

We know that the passenger name record has very detailed information, such as credit card numbers, where one is staying, who one is flying with and potential health concerns. We also have no way of knowing what third countries will get that information because this agreement permits the United States to send that information to third countries.

I am wondering about the question of reciprocity. Canadians want their government to defend their interests. Did the Conservatives, at the same time that they were selling out information on Canadians' privacy rights to the Americans, get reciprocal treatment so that American passengers who are flying over Canadian airspace have to let our security personnel know the passenger name record information on American travellers? I wonder if the government ensured that we would get reciprocal treatment in this regard.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that there is no reciprocity.

I find it absolutely amazing that the Canadian government is willing to give over information about credit cards and personal data without any assurance that information is secure or even accurate. It comes back to the whole problem of misinformation. As was the case with Maher Arar, people being denied access and refused the right to fly within their own country based on misinformation that they cannot correct. There is a stranglehold on the retention of that information and that quite simply should never be.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again in the House on what I have called before, and will call again, one of the most ill-advised pieces of legislation that I have seen in my time here in the House of Commons.

Bill C-42 amends the Aeronautics Act to require airlines in Canada to send personal information on passengers to foreign security services. In particular, Canadian travellers who are travelling to destinations that may touch U.S. airspace, but do not land in the United States, would have the decision over whether or not they are issued a boarding pass in Canada determined by U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

There is so much wrong with the bill that it is hard to know where to start, so I will start at the beginning. The passenger name record that an airline creates on each passenger when they book a flight to fly from Canada to Mexico, Cuba, Latin America or Europe contains the following information: the file that a travel agent creates when a vacation is booked, the name of the travel agent, credit card information, who is travelling with the passenger, the hotel, booking information for tours or rental cars, and any serious medical condition of the passenger.

This information that would have to be turned over to U.S. Department of Homeland Security could be retained by the United States for up to 40 years. We know this because there are similar agreements that contain this information. This information may be forwarded to the security service of a third party nation without the consent or notification of the other signatory.

No person may know what information about them is being held by the United States and may not have a chance to correct that information if there are errors. The United States has signed similar agreements with other countries that may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it simply advises the other party of those changes.

In essence, once the passenger name record is logged by the airline and is sent to officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, they will make the decision as to whether or not the Canadian citizen who is going to board an aircraft in our country will be allowed to board or not.

That is something so fundamentally wrong on the surface that it is hard to believe that anybody would proceed any further than that. Imagine having a Canadian citizen's right to fly to a country around the world determined by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Is there anything more preposterous? Is there anything more undemocratic? Is there anything more offensive?

Imagine Canadian citizens who choose not to go to the United States. They may make the deliberate decision not to go there. They have to have personal information about themselves transferred to security apparatus in the United States and decisions about whether they can fly or not determined by American authorities.

I have heard Conservatives in the House say “Well, what can we do? The Americans have asked for it. They will not let us fly over their airspace.” Let us examine that. First of all, Canadian airlines have been flying over U.S. airspace for decades and decades without having to send this personal information to the United States. That is number one. What is the difference now?

Number two, why can Canadian authorities not retain control, authority and responsibility of the security of Canadian airlines? Canadian soldiers are good enough to fight in Afghanistan right now. They are good enough to fight right beside U.S. soldiers. They are good enough to work side-by-side in NATO and to be trusted with that. But the United States does not trust Canada to maintain adequate security over our own aircraft?

I might also add that Canadian airlines and Canadian security apparatus have an outstanding record of controlling security in our country. I would go so far as to say that it is superior to the security arrangements in the United States.

Moreover, and here is the kicker, Canada sought and obtained an exemption from having to send information on Canadian citizens to the United States for domestic flights that fly over U.S. airspace. Let us stop for a moment and look at the absurdity of that.

If in fact it is true that the Americans need this information about Canadian travellers to fight terror or to make sure that these flights are secure, why is it not needed on domestic flights that fly over American states? That is ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, security steps and methods for international travel are actually superior and more in depth than security checks for domestic flights. One could argue that if we actually needed these steps, then the one place we would absolutely insist on there being passenger name information would be on domestic flights, but that is the one thing that the Americans said was not necessary.

I want to talk about the lack of reciprocity. What kind of government negotiates with a foreign state and allows that state to demand the personal information of its own citizens and does not insist on the same for itself? That is not negotiation. That is abdication.

What about the violation of Canadians' privacy? Canadians may want to take their families to Mexico. Many families have done that in the past 10 years. Do they run the risk of having their decision turned down by the United States?

What about Canadians travelling to Cuba? We all know that the United States has the Helms-Burton Act, which prohibits its businesses and citizens from having any kind of dealings with Cuba. Are we going to have the United States determine whether or not Canadian passengers can go to Cuba or Latin America? Canadians should know that it is not just Latin America. Of course, every flight to Latin America will fly over U.S. airspace. Many flights that go to Europe and other parts of the world also touch U.S. airspace.

This is also a profound violation of Canadian sovereignty. It has been pointed out by witnesses before both the transport and public safety committees that decisions over whether Canada can invite diplomats from certain countries, diplomats who would fly over U.S. airspace, could essentially be vetoed by the U.S. government.

Of course, the most profound violation of sovereignty is allowing a foreign government or institutions of a foreign government to determine where our own citizens can travel in the world.

We heard the government say when it abolished the long form census, a ridiculous move if there ever was one, that it thought it was not the state's business to know how many bedrooms people had in their houses, that it was offensive for the Government of Canada to know how many bedrooms a Canadian citizen had. At the same time, it signed an agreement with the United States that would sell out information on Canadian citizens, such as their credit card information or health status or where they were travelling, and give that information to a foreign government. That is ridiculous.

The government also likes to say that the primary duty of any government is to protect its citizens. That is not being done here. It is a sad day in Canada to see the Conservative government not protecting Canadian citizens, not protecting their freedom and their right to travel where they want to in the world. The government is failing completely in that regard.

I want to talk for a minute about the Liberals' shameful record. After speaking against this bill and sounding like they actually understood the privacy and sovereignty issues, the Liberals voted in favour of Bill C-42 at second reading. Every Canadian should know that when the Leader of the Opposition questions the government on why it is entering into security perimeter negotiations with the United States and selling out the privacy rights of Canadians, Liberals are voting for it. They are voting for this very bill that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the right to determine where Canadians travel.

The New Democrats are going to stand against this kind of cynicism. We are going to stand up for Canadians, for privacy rights, for Canadian sovereignty, for fair dealing with Canadian citizens, and we are going to restore Canada's place in the world as a country of fairness, decency and democracy. We will stand up for our citizens to make sure their fundamental rights are respected.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are getting to the point where we have heard some of these arguments before.

The Privacy Commissioner was before committee and the member referred to what was going on in committee. He is probably aware that the Privacy Commissioner raised some issues of concern from the point of view of how we can mitigate the risk of information getting out, such as in the retention agreement and how long information would be kept and with whom it could be shared with, et cetera. All of these things are still ongoing.

What she did not say but we would have expected from the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, an experienced and excellent official on behalf of the Government of Canada, was that this was a gross violation of the privacy rights of Canadians. That was not her position.

Therefore, I ask the member, if the Privacy Commissioner does not think it is a gross violation, why does he?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague what his own colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Willowdale, said:

The government seems far too interested in pleasing the Americans, listening to the Americans and adhering to American interests. I have nothing against the Americans, but in this situation we are sacrificing the interests of Canadians in order to please the interests of the United States. That is simply not acceptable.

That is what a Liberal MP will say in the House, and then the Liberals will vote for Bill C-42.

The Privacy Commissioner had serious concerns about the bill, but she was only one of about 11 witnesses whose testimony I have read, including Roch Tassé's. In fact, I will go over some of the testimony of the people who testified extensively on the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could bring forward some of that information in response to the next question.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who had many of his facts absolutely correct. I just have to question, though, as I am not quite sure if he might have seen the whole context.

We know that the Conservative Party will sell out civil liberties on a dime. The Conservatives would do that before getting up in the morning. We know what they think of people's personal liberty, but I am surprised at the hon. member's surprise that the Liberals would also be willing to sell out Canada's civil liberties, because was is not the leader of the Liberal opposition who previously stood up during the worst, darkest days of Bush's torture regime and defended coercive investigation?

We know the Conservatives do not mind using the rubber hose. That is in their DNA, but it was the Liberal leader who supported coercive investigation and said it was necessary, and so why would we think that the Liberal Party would actually care about people's privacy rights, about people's--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member equal time. I understand that the hon. member has a minute to respond.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have known one thing over the last 20 years, that the Liberal Party of Canada will say almost anything to get elected.

The Liberals said they wanted a national child care program in 1993, in 1997 and in 2001. They said they would bring in a national housing program in 1993, 1997 and 2001. They broke those promises every time. They said they would abrogate NAFTA. They did not do that. They said they would repeal the GST. They did not do that.

It does not surprise me that the Liberal Party of Canada will say one thing and do another. That is exactly what Canadians know the Liberals to be and that is why they have lost seats and the percentage of the popular vote in every single election since 2001, at least that I have seen. That is because Canadians do not trust them. The Liberals want to talk like New Democrats when they are out of power and then govern like Conservatives when they are in power, and Canadians have their number. Canadians know that.

However, to see the Liberal members stand up and vote in favour of Bill C-42, an absolutely unacceptable violation of Canadians' privacy rights and an absolutely appalling abdication of Canada's sovereignty, is really something that I hope every Canadian from coast to coast to coast gets to see. I say this because when Canadians want to travel to Mexico, the only place that decision should be made is in their family room or kitchen. They are the only people who should be deciding where they as Canadians travel.

When the Conservatives say they will let the U.S. Department of Homeland Security do it, that is not good enough.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am pleased to have to stand here and speak on this bill on closure. This bill is one that I have had trouble with ever since it was introduced in Parliament and the whole time it was before the transport committee.

The Conservative government would like Canadians to believe that Bill C-42 is just about ensuring Canadians can fly to destinations in the sun, that we have to pinch our nose and vote in favour of this bill, which really sells out Canadians' freedoms and liberties.

It is surprising how the so-called standing-up-for-Canadians party is so quick to make a move like this.

However, the bill before us is just part of the sellout. The larger issue is the total sellout of Canadian sovereignty under the perimeter security deal, which, if this government has its way, we will likely not even see inside the House of Commons. It will never get debated here.

We know the reality is that this bill, which is a completely unnecessary invasion of Canadians' privacy, is just a stopgap until the government has instituted a perimeter security deal. My fear is that if the Conservatives have failed to stand up for Canadians when they negotiated this deal, just how supine will they be when it comes to selling out Canadian sovereignty as part of a perimeter security deal?

When the minister appeared before the committee on this bill, he said it had to be passed before the end of 2010 or the U.S. would close its airspace to Canadian flights. That did not happen. The minister allowed the Americans to bully him, or perhaps he was simply bluffing the committee. We called their bluff.

The Conservatives pointed out the exemption they obtained for domestic flights. It is laughable. The exemption is based on a non-binding diplomatic note, much as the rest of this is based on letters, not treaties. There is no clear indication of how any of this is set in the relationship between Canada and the U.S. What the exemption really shows is that this bill is not about security or fighting terrorism, but about allowing another country to determine who may come and go from Canada. It proves this bill is setting us up for the bigger perimeter sellout.

In researching this speech, I came up with some interesting statements. On privacy, I found the following quote from the website of the member for Langley on how Conservatives protect the privacy of Canadians:

One of the key duties of a government is to protect the rights and privacy of all of its nation’s citizens.

Given the government's total failure to protect Canadian's privacy through Bill C-42 and how it will deal with privacy and other information issues through the perimeter security deal, the member for Langley may have to amend his website.

On the Conservative Party's website, it is said that:

Under the strong leadership of [the Prime Minister] Conservatives are taking action for Canada’s sovereignty, safety and security—

Then there is this line from the Prime Minister's bio page:

As Prime Minister, he....stood up for Canada's sovereignty--

However, Webster's dictionary has the following as a part of its definition of sovereignty:

freedom from external control.

I have trouble thinking this is the case here. It seems that when it comes to protecting the rights of Canadians, the Conservatives have failed completely.

On February 9 of this year, the parliamentary secretary told this House:

—I will tell members what I do require, and what I think this government has required, from the United States. We have required that the Americans uphold and strengthen the vital cornerstones of our Canadian values, such as due process, the rule of law and the preservation of individuals' civil liberties, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and privacy rights.

My goodness, that is a long list. None of it appears in this bill. None of it is found anywhere within any treaty or any agreement between the United States and Canada that comes under this particular section.

What has the member done here?

When we start to talk about the perimeter security deal, most Canadians do not believe the Conservatives when they say they can be trusted to protect our rights.

Postmedia News reported on February 18, 2011, that:

Two-thirds of Canadians fear [the] Prime Minister...will "compromise" by giving up too much power over immigration, privacy and security to get a deal with the United States on border controls, a new poll has found.

The national survey, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global Television, also finds Canadians are split over whether they "trust"...[the Prime Minister] to craft a deal that maintains this country's independence.

The poll by Ipsos Reid reveals Canadians want [the Prime Minister] to adopt a much more transparent approach to the "perimeter security" negotiations that are being held in total secrecy.

That is what Canadians think about what the Conservatives are doing.

There was also an online poll last week in theGlobe and Mail. Of the 67,000 respondents, 90% said that they did not think we should give up information in this relationship with the United States.

The day after the parliamentary secretary for transport made his claims about how the government was protecting the rights of Canadians, the leader of the Liberal Party wrote in the Globe and Mail:

The content of the proposal and the manner in which it came about raise serious questions about the government’s commitment to defending our sovereignty, our privacy and our rights as Canadian citizens.

It is too bad for Canadians that MPs are supporting Bill C-42. I think Canadians should raise serious questions about the Liberal commitment to defending our sovereignty.

Then there is the line from the Liberal transport critic, which shows how much backbone the party has in protecting Canadians.

As I said in my speech, this is not a law that I particularly like because it does raise concerns about privacy and issues such as those raised by the hon. member. However, for practical purposes, I think we have little choice but to pass the bill. The Liberals had a choice. They could have protected Canadians but, no, they wanted to side with the Conservatives, and we can expect them to continue to work with the Conservatives on this particular issue.

Then there is the line from the member for Willowdale who said:

--we are now being held hostage. If a Liberal government had been asked to do this, we would have asked how we could work this out so we did not accede to this and sacrifice the privacy of Canadians.

It is not too late. If the Liberal Party would go against this bill, we would force the Conservatives back to the bargaining table with the United States to work out a better deal on this bill.

Then we have a line from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence who said, “This bill is a total abdication of our sovereignty responsibility”.

Can anyone imagine letting a foreign authority, not the government but a competent authority within the government of another country, determine what it must know about whether passengers board a plane in Canada or go someplace else or another place in order to come to Canada?

Canadians will be watching the vote on this particular bill.

What about the Bloc? Surely, it must defend sovereignty. Its critic said:

As the Bloc Québécois transport critic, and with my colleagues who agree on this position, we had to take individual freedoms into account, but we also had to take into account feasibility and the viability of air carriers that have to use U.S. airspace.

Once again, we see that the choice being made is between freedom and liberty, the rights of Canadians and a supposed infringement upon the commercial movement of aircraft.

When it comes to protecting the rights of Canadians, there is one party in this House that puts Canadians ahead of profits. Which party is that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The Conservative Party.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I heard the hon. member across the way say “the Conservative Party”, but quite clearly the only party in this House that is actually standing up on this bill over and over again is the New Democratic Party.

The reason we have taken such a strong opposition to this bill is that all through the process we saw the Conservatives fail to get a proper deal for Canadians. My colleagues have talked about all of the things they could have worked on to make a difference in this bill but they did not do that because their hearts were not in it. They chose to sell out Canada. They chose not to do the work to protect Canada. Why did they do that? They did it because they were looking at this larger perimeter security deal. In their minds they felt that by integrating further into the United States we could increase the profits of our companies and sell out our grandchildren.

Today, the choice is apparent. What we do not know and will not find out is what this complete perimeter security deal means to Canadian travellers, to Canadians and to the future of this great country of which I am very proud to be a representative.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, on November 18, when the Privacy Commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, she tried to clarify that the requirements under the no-fly list and that legislation did have some privacy concerns. She said:

However, C-42 differs from the measures listed above in that it will not result in the introduction of any new domestic aviation security programs nor will it involve the collection of additional personal information by Canadian government agencies.

Rather, it will allow American or other authorities to collect personal information about travellers on flights to and from Canada that fly through American airspace and this, in turn, will allow American authorities to prevent individuals from flying to or from Canada.

I think the Privacy Commissioner has added to the debate from the standpoint that the no-fly list issues, the Maher Arar issue, et cetera, are different cases from Bill C-42 and that there are no conclusions on behalf of the Privacy Commissioner that there are breaches of privacy rights of Canadians. I wonder if the member would want to comment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, quite clearly this bill would open the door for the U.S. to use the information that it is provided for any purpose. Even the U.S. ambassador in his letter stated that in most cases the information would be used for security purposes. The door was not closed on that one.

The testimony we heard from one U.S. witness indicated that within the homeland security bill there is no protection for aliens on information. Therefore, when we turn information on Canadians over to the U.S., we are doing it with no protection at all.

I would like to see the Privacy Commissioner go through this again and understand the precise nature of what we are creating with this bill and the type of direction we are taking for the country. When we start to talk about a perimeter of security deal and the sharing of information from Canadian security services with the United States on an ongoing basis, what will that lead to?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the government messed up in the negotiations. It made a very poor deal. The government could have gone for reciprocity and caused the Americans to back off when demanding information on their 2,000 flights a day versus the 100 that we have to give them.

The government has admitted that the Americans were prepared to let it keep the information but the government was not prepared to spend $500 million or so on the computer system that would need to be set up to keep the information.

The bottom line is that we should get our existing systems working better. We have a no-fly list that does not work. We have the member for Winnipeg Centre on the no-fly list. Former Senator Ted Kennedy is on the no-fly list. We need to clean up that list first.

We also need to get the trusted shipper program working. The American Pilots' Association says that we have 1,000 trusted shippers who are not so trusted because they are sending all sorts of packages and letters onto the airplanes that are not even checked. There is a huge exposure there but we are ignoring that while we are chasing stuff that really does not--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must give the hon. member for Western Arctic a chance to respond.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, a witness who appeared before the transport committee this morning is one of the chief executive officers of a very large security firm from Europe that conducts most of the aviation security on the ground there. His comments about what has happened over the past decade is that after 9/11 we created an aura of paranoia and, in some cases, delusion about what was correct in terms of aviation security, the need for information and the use of the security apparatus that we have put in place. He said that we needed to review that.

What we have here is probably one of the last gasps of the American empire in its desire, through its paranoia, to carry forward this information gathering system in a way that is really not appropriate.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Poverty; the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Harmonized Sales Tax.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-42 and to follow the lead of my colleague from Western Arctic who gave a very impassioned speech outlining not only some of the shortfalls of this bill but cautioning us about how this bill would compromise Canadians' right to privacy.

We should frame the argument on two basic points. First, the public has a right to know everything that its government is doing with its money and everything it is doing in terms of the administration of the programs and policies. That is an absolute fundamental right and it is enshrined in the Access to Information Act, which I call the freedom of information act. Freedom of information, I argue, is the oxygen democracy breathes. It underpins and forms the foundation of the western democracy that we enjoy.

Just as important and equal to and parallel with the public's right to know what its government is doing is the truism that the public also has the right to privacy and the government does not have any absolute right to know everything that citizens are doing. That would smack of big brother, an Orwellian nature of things. As Canadians we need to be ever vigilant to recognize and enshrine those two principles.

We in the House of Commons are charged with the responsibility to not only defend and uphold those fundamental rights and freedoms but we are also charged with the obligation to enhance, strengthen, reinforce and buttress those fundamental rights and freedoms. As elected members of Parliament and as the custodians of those rights, we should never entertain a bill that may undermine, erode, diminish, shrink or reduce in any way those very principles by which we define ourselves as Canadians.

When a bill likes this comes along under the guise of national security, the other opposition parties blindly rush to it.

I began my remarks by recognizing and paying tribute to my colleague from Western Arctic for reading this bill and blowing the whistle on the predictable consequences of going forward in this direction. I am surprised there are no other champions of these fundamental rights and freedoms in the House of Commons who are willing to join us in the defence of these fundamental principles.

I want to point out as well perhaps the mother of all contradictions in terms of the Conservatives' views on privacy. They tie themselves in this Gordian Knot, this pretzel logic that they have because, on the one hand, they do away with the innocuous and necessary long form census, something that provinces, minority groups, organizations and institutions rely on, under the guise that it is an intrusion on the privacy of Canadians.

Any time one wants to amend a clause in a contract the first thing the party should ask is whether there has been a problem and, if so, what the nature of the problem is.

A former minister of foreign affairs from Quebec spouted off that he had thousands of complaints regularly coming into his office about the long form census. When challenged to show some of those thousands of complaints, he modified his remarks by saying that he had many, often and frequent complaints. When challenged to show some of those complaints, he said that he had people contact his office complaining. When put again to the challenge, he could not produce a single complaint.

I believe there has been only one incident in the Canadian judicial system of a person being prosecuted and charged with the offence of not filling out the long form census because it was mandatory. One test case went all the way and it was found that the woman did not comply with the legislation.

In spite of the absence of any empirical evidence or any body of complaints, the government stripped away a necessary and innocuous long form census, but, again, in buying a pig in a poke, it seemed willing to strip away one of the most fundamental rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoyed, and that is the right to privacy. It traded that away at an international tribunal.

Nobody gave the Conservative government a mandate to go to Washington and trade away the fundamental constitutional rights of the people of Canada. In fact, I would argue that constitutional rights cannot be negotiated away. Rights are not assigned to people by virtue of some document. They are the inherent rights of Canadians. The right to privacy is one of those.

Yet in a very cavalier, sloppy and cowardly way, the Conservative government has entered into this agreement and it seeks to have the Parliament of Canada ratify it. I say “no”. It will not get the New Democratic Party members of Parliament ratifying this document.

I call it cowardly because the government clearly went into that set of negotiations on its knees. It was not standing on its hind legs. It was bargaining from a position of weakness and it was accepting whatever was handed to it, without taking any steps to defend the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

I want to point out that this document finds its origins and is an extension of and materially similar to in the atrocity of the American do not fly list, resonant in, maintained and operated by Washington. My colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, pointed out that in fact I am on that stupid list and cannot get off it. So was the minister of defence, Bill Graham. The Canadian minister of defence was on an American do not fly list and was unable to board a domestic aircraft in his own country. That is how insane this do not fly list is.

This document will extrapolate, expand on and compound the ridiculous situation we see ourselves in with that do not fly list. I could not get my name off that list for love nor money. First, people could not find out where it was and then they could not find out who to talk to. Then after six weeks of trying, we finally got a phone number, a 1-800 number in the United States, which told us to send our birth certificates, our passports, our marriage licences, our driver's licences and in six weeks to three months, a message would be sent back us, telling us whether we could get off that list.

I am not going to send all my documents away to some black hole in some basement bunker in the Pentagon. That is not what a Canadian member of Parliament does when he wants to board an airplane in his own country to fly from home to work and back. That is the absurd nature of this.

Nobody took any steps to protect Canadians when the government entered into this agreement. I do not believe any third party foreign nation has a right to know my credit card information, who I am travelling with, my hotel, my medical condition, any tours or car rentals, or the names people I meet with while I am there, just because I get on an airplane to fly to Aruba for a holiday.

That is the privileged information the Government of Canada traded away and not just to one party but to all the parties to this agreement: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, the United States and the European Union. We do not even know all the terms and conditions of this deal because they remain secret. We do know the terms and conditions of the deal between the European Union and the United States, and it is shocking.

This personal information can be held by the United States for 40 years, shared with other countries without the knowledge of the host country, us, or the individual. Passengers will have no idea if this information is being trade around like party favours at some kind of a confab between those member countries or countries that are stipulated to this treaty.

The United States can unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises us of the change. Who would negotiate a deal like that? That is not a deal between partners, when one side can unilaterally amend it at any time just by notifying the other side. That means the Americans can inform Canada tomorrow, or as soon as we ratify this, that they are going to change all the terms and conditions of it. I do not think the government was defending our best interests when it went to Washington and entered into this arrangement with the United States.

I do not know what forces were driving the government's reasoning to enter into this, but it certainly was not upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, those freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians.

It is our job as elected members of Parliament to uphold, strengthen and enhance freedoms, not trade them away at the bargaining table for God knows what. In fact, the government is like Jack and the Beanstalk. It traded away our cow for three beans that will probably never sprout.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to focus for a moment on the question of democracy. One of the worst aspects of the bill is that a decision on a Canadian citizen's travel plans would be made by an institution in a foreign country, in this case the United States. My hon. colleague has already talked about how frustrating and impossible it is to get redress from that institution.

There is a concept in democracy of no taxation without representation. The idea is that those who made decisions over our lives should be democratically accountable to us.

Could he comment on the failure of democracy in this case by having the rights of Canadians determined by a foreign body that has no democratic accountability to citizens? We have no ability to challenge the determination, to go to an elected official or to vote someone out of office who fails to take action on our behalf because those officials are all in a foreign country. I am interested in my hon. colleague's comments on that aspect.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are two points in law that I could point out today for the benefit of anyone listening.

First, it is a principle of natural justice that with any regulation that imposes a restriction on people or governs people in any way, there be an avenue of recourse, that there be a grievance procedure of some kind to allow people to file complaints or correct an error. It was clearly an error that got me on the do not fly list, but there is no avenue of recourse for me to file a grievance, correct the error and get myself off of it.

In this much more expansive and comprehensive treaty we are entering into, there are far more details we would want to study. First, people have a right to know if they are on that list. Second, they have a right to know how they got on that list and by what qualifications, et cetera. Third, in any sense of fairness and natural justice, they need to have an avenue of recourse.

The second point in law is that a person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions. We have to be aware of that as we go forward with the bill. People could be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of their actions with this bill and that is the erosion of the right to privacy of Canadians. They are educated and know better.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have worked together quite a bit on a few issues. One issue he has raised, and I have also raised it often, is the whole issue of legislation including a requirement to have regulations or subsequent information, which Parliament never sees after a bill has gone through the entire legislative process.

The point the member raises is that the disclosure requirements in this bill should have been fully negotiated, in my view, in advance. They are still in process and we will not know the final answer. It really makes it very difficult for parliamentarians to do a thorough job and make an informed assessment about whether there are in fact privacy breaches.

Based on what the Privacy Commissioner knows at this time, she has not concluded there are breaches. It does not mean that there may not be. The member has a point and I give him an opportunity to comment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is shocking. In most legislation it is true that the devil is in the details and they are often in regulations put into effect after we are finished debating a bill in the House of Commons. In this case, a worse situation exists.

Article 5 of the European Union-United States deal is that the United States may unilaterally amend the agreement as long as it advises the European Union of the change. This has happened once already. Not only would we be buying a pig in a poke and we are not satisfied with the current terms and conditions, but the U.S. can unilaterally and arbitrarily amend the agreement just by notifying us. Yet the inverse is not true.

The other party to this so-called agreement may not unilaterally amend the agreement, only the United States can. What crack group of chimpanzees did we send there to negotiate this agreement. We should put a bag on—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise on behalf of not only the New Democratic Party but the people of Timmins—James Bay and speak to Bill C-42.

Under Bill C-42, the Conservative Party has decided to allow the private information of Canadian citizens who fly to the Dominican Republic or Cuba, not even entering the United States, to be given to U.S. Homeland Security. This information includes credit card information, personal information and who a person is flying with and it is without even telling the people about it. Homeland Security will then make the decision whether those Canadians will be allowed to board their flights.

This is a very disturbing bill, but it speaks to a deeper issue. When I go home to Timmins—James Bay, people tell me that Ottawa is broken. They tell me that the politics of Ottawa favours the insiders, the bagmen, the senators and the pals of the ruling party. They wonder how the government could be so out of touch with the needs of average Canadians.

So the people back home know, when they travel with family and friends to the Dominican Republic, their government has never bothered to tell them that it will take their private information and give it away.

If the Conservative government was an honest government, and we know “honest” and “Tory” does not really fit in the same sentence, it would go back to the Canadian people and tell them that part of the deal is to sell out their privacy because it thinks there is a greater good. That would be a discussion we could have at the Tim Hortons or with our church groups, but the Conservative government does not do that. It is trying to force this bill through, shouting about national security and the war on terror.

Let us go back to where the war on terror started. It was not hosers in flip-flops and tank tops with lobster-red skin coming home from Cuba in March who decided they would take a plane and fly it into the towers. It was not Canadians from Mississauga or Red Deer who decided they were going to attack our number one trading partner and the people of the United States. The Canadian people were there on 9-11 helping the American and international flights by allowing them to enter Canadian airspace so those people could be looked after. We were an ally, as we have always been.

Who started the so-called war on terror? They were people who were invited into the United States, who were vetted by the United States government, who bordered domestic flights and took control of those flights and caused that horrific day of tragedy.

Yet there is no attempt by Homeland Security to get the information of people on domestic flights in the United States where this terrible act of terror happened. It is asking the Canadian government, the Conservative Party, to do that. To be fair, I am sure our trading partners have sized those guys up from the get-go. They figure they will get what they ask for, because on the so-called war on terror, we are all supposed to give up something.

We have given up all manner of rights and privacy to stop this so-called war on terror. We have seen 85 year-old ladies at the airport getting manhandled or six year-old kids getting patted down and we have been told that this is important, that these basic rights have to be suspended.

The rule of law is based on the right of people to confront their accusers. It is based on the fundamental right of privacy of a person. These rights are given away in the bill.

We need to look at history and other places where there has been a war on terror. Think of England in the 1970s with the terrible bombing campaign by the IRA. It was considered okay to suspend massive civil liberties then. What happened? Poor Mrs. Maguire, her four children and their relatives were dragged off to prison for 113 years because the government of the day cowed the opposition into saying that civil rights, basic rights of privacy had no place in a so-called war on terror. We have to do better. We have to talk about this bill and we have to go to the public.

It brings me to the second point of my conversation today which is the hypocrisy of the government. The Conservatives said they would do things differently. They said they would clean up the Senate. What did they do with the Senate? They filled it with party hacks and fundraisers.

The Conservatives tell Canadians they are tough on crime and yet two of those senators, bagman Gerstein and campaign manager Finley, are now up on charges. Two senators whose basic job is to raise money and work for the Conservative Party on the public dime are now being charged. What is the government's position on criminal charges brought against two Tory bagmen senators is that it is an administrative error. It is the hypocrisy of this.

The old Reformers back home must be rolling over that the government which said when it came into power that it would clean things up is not only as cynical and rotten as the previous government, and that is saying something, but that it has filled the Senate with people who are under criminal charges and it is letting them stay there and continue to work on the public dime.

We see the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. This is the government that said it would stand up for Canada. What did it do? The Conservatives went to the U.S. and negotiated a bill. It is important for people to know what is in the bill, because it is a government that will run attack ads, smear people and trash their reputations and go on about fictitious iPod taxes, but it does not have the guts to run radio ads in anybody's riding saying, “We are taking your personal private information and we are giving it to the United States”. That is what happens when people vote for a Conservative government. It does not tell people that. It is running with smoke and mirrors and all kinds of side issues, any hot button it can find to get people back at the Tim Hortons riled up.

It should rile people at Tim Hortons that the government goes to the U.S. and agrees that the information on the passenger name record set up with the travel agent, which includes people's credit card information, where they are staying, who they are travelling with and all the booking information, can be given to another country to keep, and it could be traded with any other country. People do not even have to go to a country. They could be just flying over it. The Conservatives would sell that information and not have the decency or the honesty to tell the people of Canada that this is what they are doing.

It is within this agreement that no person may know what information is being held by the United States and he or she is not in a position to correct that information. It is like Kafka gets caught up with the bullies and the fundamental issue of rule of law is the ability to challenge the accusations. We know from the war on terror that is not what happened. We saw what happened to Mr. Arar, how he was pulled out, thanks to our allies in the United States, sent overseas and tortured, and how hard it was to clear his name. Even with his name cleared, he cannot be taken off the so-called no-fly list, this black hole list, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, that people are put on.

What do we need to do? Number one, we need to get rid of the Tories. That is a reasonable solution. We have to get rid of them because they do not represent Canadians. They do not represent what is good, so let us get rid of them.

Number two, we need to look at legislation and read the fine print. We see in bill after bill it is a government that stands up and shouts at opposition members and tries to bully them, and it is pretty successful usually with the Liberals. The Conservatives bully opposition members and tell them not to read the fine print, but just sign. If the opposition members do not sign, they are enemies of the state, they are soft on crime, they are some kind of pinko pervert. The Conservatives will throw whatever they can.

However, our fundamental job in the House is to read the fine print so we can go back to our constituents and tell them that in the bill, the government that told them it would stand up for them has taken their personal information, their basic right to privacy and given it away. They do not even have to ever travel to the United States, but they might be flying over it some day, maybe on a flight from Winnipeg to Toronto. They might be within their own country and that information could be traded away. It allows foreign countries access to Canadians' privacy for data mining. It is highly problematic.

What do we need to do in order to have a proper bill for safety? We need to work together to ensure that we have bills that protect the best interests of our citizens and not simply sell out to the lowest common bidder.

I will be more than pleased to take any questions or comments as this is a fundamentally important element to the democratic process

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, as ever, my hon. colleague is cogent, down to earth and speaks the plain truth on behalf of the citizens that he represents so well. I consider it a privilege to share the House with him.

A number of members who have spoken to this bill today have raised the concern about the violation of our basic rights in this country. What needs to be stated even more strongly is that these are entrenched constitutional rights. They are in the Constitution. This is not just some kind of folksy platform idea that maybe we have basic rights and opportunities in this country, the right to mobility, the right of security of the person, the right to have the principle of fundamental justice and due process applied to citizens.

I wonder if the member would like to speak about what direction this bill is taking us in and whether it is an underhanded way of trying to undo our basic constitutional rights.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised a very important point. We are talking about something fundamentally profound to a functioning democratic society, which is that the constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens cannot be arbitrarily taken away.

We have seen how the government will break whatever rule, rip up whatever agreement and break any law it can get away with, but the fundamental constitutional rights of individual citizens cannot be compromised. This bill has arbitrarily compromised it.

I am very concerned because the government refuses to even tell Canadians. It is trying to bully the opposition into allowing this. Once these fundamental constitutional rights of people are broken, then we can no longer say that those rights exist.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there was some excellent testimony at committee about this bill and I want to make sure the voices are heard in this debate.

Dr. Mark Salter, a professor at the University of Ottawa, stated:

Governments want this information so that they can build profiles of not just risky passengers but safe passengers as well. Research clearly demonstrates that in the United States and the U.K., government agencies are trying to collect as much data about travellers as possible.

He went on to say:

--I think it is dangerous to sacrifice our privacy and our freedoms for the dream of zero risk or perfect security. This particular measure—

Speaking about Bill C-42:

—does not provide additional security for the aviation sector, and it places an additional burden on Canadian citizens who are flying...

Canadians' data should not be hostage to the most paranoid regime that an air company chooses to fly over. The proposed change to these data protection regulations to include overflight states dramatically increases the vulnerability of Canadians' data while offering no means of redress or appeal.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on the situation where experts testify before the transport and public safety committees that roundly condemn this bill from stem to stern and yet the government does not pay any attention to that expert evidence and plows ahead.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is fairly straightforward. When we talk about data being held hostage by a paranoid regime, we are describing the Conservative Party. It attacked the long form census first claiming it had thousands of emails and then it was hundreds. Then it said there are a few people somewhere who think there are black helicopters in the sky spying on us, which might be the Conservative base, and that as long as one person in Canada has any kind of privacy concern, it will strip away an internationally recognized census and planning bureau, which it did. Yet with this bill, it trades away all Canadians' right of privacy and basic constitutional rights for a dime. In fact, not even a dime, it will do it for free.

When we talk about paranoid regimes playing hostage with our data, voila, the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I rise with some concern having to follow the eloquence and passion of the member for Winnipeg Centre and now the member for Timmins—James Bay. They are always a little intimidating to follow because of their eloquence and oratorical skills, quite frankly.

The member for Timmins—James Bay is suggesting intelligence, and I am going to take issue with him on that, not with regard to the member for Winnipeg Centre but for the member for Timmins—James Bay. The eloquence and oratorical skills are clearly there, which are skills that are sorely lacking in the House in many ways.

This is the second time this week I have spoken to this bill. I spoke yesterday on the same bill, but at that time I was specifically speaking to the contents of the bill. I will come back to that in a few minutes, but I want to address some comments on the reason I am allowed to speak the second time, as have so many of my caucus members, which we would not have been allowed to do according to the rules of the House but for a typical bullying manoeuvre by the government. What it did was this. Late yesterday afternoon it brought a motion to the House, which certainly is within its rights to do, which had in effect the purpose of shortening debate on the bill. That was moved yesterday by the House leader, but what that did was re-open the debate.

We are allowed not only to speak against why debate should be continued. We are also allowed to explain the significance and importance of Bill C-42 to the Canadian people and their basic rights which are fundamental to the democracy that is Canada. Quite frankly, it is ironic. Had the Conservatives not brought that motion, the debate probably would have ended sooner simply because we would have run out of time in terms of the number of speakers we had who wanted to speak to this.

I want to make the point very clearly that our caucus is utterly opposed to this bill because of the breaches of privacy and also because of fundamental rights that will be affected very negatively by this law if previous patterns in the United States follow. Our caucus is absolutely opposed to the bill. A large number of caucus members have insisted on being given their opportunity to speak to the bill to express the reasons why they and their constituents are opposed to it.

To some extent, I have to thank the Conservatives for giving us this opportunity to speak more. Yesterday I was limited to 10 minutes, with five minutes of questions and comments. I am getting a second chance because our time for the 20 minute speeches had lapsed.

This is a criticism of both the government and the Liberal official opposition. Both parties have stood in the House at various times, both at second reading and again at third reading, and argued that we had to pass this because it was being demanded by the United States. This is particularly true of the Liberals but also of the Conservatives, that they have tried to somehow rationalize their support for the bill on the basis that we know there is potential for problems. Both sides of the House, the government party and the official opposition, have, in their more honest moments, admitted that. There is real potential for abuse to the Canadian citizenry. We hear repeatedly the line, “We will take care of that down the road”. That is grossly irresponsible on the part of any parliamentarian. We are talking about basic privacy rights and also the high risk to other fundamental rights, human rights and civil liberties.

There is no reason to believe that it will not happen given the history of the U.S. no-fly list and the way the Americans have abused both their own citizenry and some of ours in the past. There is no reason to believe that it will not occur again.

What is happening here, if this bill goes ahead, is we are exposing many more thousands of Canadian citizens and residents to their names ending up on that no-fly list and the process being used against them.

One of the real problems with this legislation is the regime in the United States that deals with the no-fly list. We know, and this came up at committee repeatedly, that the no-fly list in the United States is full of errors. We always hear of the reality of the now deceased Ted Kennedy's name being on it. The former interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Bill Graham, was on the no-fly list. We have heard from my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that he is on the list.

The point being is that it is obvious that those people do not pose, in any way, a threat to the United States, and certainly are not a terrorist threat. In many other ways they may pose a threat to some of the policies of the United States, but that is okay in a democracy. People are allowed to have that voice.

The problem is people like that, and many more, get their names on the no-fly list and there is essentially no way of getting their name off. There is no way for it to happen. For the average person, the process does not exist. If those names came off the list, if Mr. Graham's name came off, or if Mr. Kennedy's came off, it was because there was some political person somewhere who said that it was really dumb and that maybe those names should be taken off, and then some official somewhere was directed to get their names off the list. We have no idea how that happens.

As I said in my speech yesterday, I have been working for the better part of a year on behalf of a prominent citizen in the Windsor area. It is going to be extremely damaging if it ever comes out that his name is on that list. I can say with absolute honesty and frankness that I have tried every single angle, including political routes, and have had no luck in getting his name off the list. We cannot even figure out who is ultimately going to be able to do that.

We have had other cases. The member for Vancouver East had one three, four or five years ago. It was for someone who was from Ontario, but who was on the west coast. It dealt with flying into the United States on business and then flying home. When this person gets to the airport in Vancouver, he is told, “Sorry, you're not allowed on the plane. Your name is on the list”. There was no explanation as to which list it was at that time. We subsequently learned, quite frankly from information from one of the clerks at the desk, that it was the U.S. no-fly list.

He has not been able to get his name off this list. So any flights that he takes now in Canada, he has to be sure that he is not in any way going through U.S. airspace because he will not be allowed on the plane.

It is a system that is rife with abuse. It is a system that is also grossly inefficient. It does not work. That is the bottom line. Yet, we are being told here, both by the Conservatives and the Liberals, “You have to vote for this because our American neighbours who we all know are great negotiators are saying that is the only way we are going to allow you to fly through our airspace”.

It is interesting in that regard. That threat has been outstanding. It was supposed to be in effect at the end of December, if this bill did not go through, and all flights flying through U.S. airspace would be cut off. Here we are at March 1 and our planes are still flying.

We have to continue to call the Americans' bluff and say that we are not going to do this, that if they clean up their list and implement some meaningful protections within that system, so that people whose names get on the list erroneously can get them off in an efficient, quick way, then we will negotiate with them as to whether we are going to allow this information. But before that, this bill should be voted down.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation today on the bill.

We have been listening for at least two days now to speeches and presentations on this bill and we have yet to hear from any government members. If we were able to hear from government members, we could at least ask questions of members of the government who have negotiated this deal and who are bringing it in. However, we are left asking questions basically of ourselves. We are not getting any answers from any of the Liberals or the Bloc members, who have simply rolled over and followed the Conservatives on this issue.

Speaker after speaker for our party have listed all the problems with this negotiation. There is no reciprocity. There is no attempt to even get reciprocity on the issue. That would have slowed down the process a lot. It would have got us probably a better deal. We got an exemption, but in a way the exemption simply defeats the purpose of the bill. We are flying point to point in Canada, for example, Toronto to Winnipeg or Toronto to Vancouver, and we are flying over American airspace, we are flying right over all those sensitive installations, buildings and big cities that they are worried about, and it does not seem to be a problem. It is only if we are flying to another country over U.S. airspace that we have to give this information. So, there are a lot of questions here that are really unanswered.

In terms of PNR issues, we have best practices with agreements with other countries that we follow. They could have taken that wording and used it in this deal. They did not do that. Hence, the very poor approach at negotiating here.

This is a really bad deal. I think the Liberals should smarten up; the Bloc should smarten up. They should pull back a bit and start asking more questions. We should renegotiate the whole thing because the flights that were supposed to stop on December 31 have not.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the other questions, if I can add to the list, is, why do we not have a clear, in writing, binding agreement that says if this information is going to be shared, it is not to be shared with anybody other than the United States?

At committee, we saw some of the examples of the abuse. We have situations where we are passing on information as to where we are travelling, what hotels we are staying at, what tours we are taking. There are all sorts of information where corrupt or anti-democratic governments are quite prepared to use violence against their citizenry to use that information to track if we are having meetings. Let me use Colombia as an example. If I am going to Colombia to meet with some of the labour movements there who are generally targeted by that government and by the paramilitaries, and that information is passed on to the government, it certainly can be leaked and often is leaked to the paramilitaries. So, the people I am meeting with are now in danger. I could go on with any number of other examples.

So that, again, is a pre-condition. If we are going to share this information with our closest ally, our closest ally has to absolutely guarantee, with no exemptions, that this information stays in its country, within its services, and is not passed on to other countries.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Roch Tassé, from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, described it this way:

After running a risk assessment for each passenger using data mining technology, Homeland Security in turn issues a boarding pass result back to the airline. The result instructs the airline to issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel, or issue an enhanced screening requirement. These regulations give the U.S. access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not entering the U.S. but merely overflying its airspace. Furthermore, this information can be shared among at least 16 U.S. agencies and with foreign governments. The program gives the government of a foreign country a de facto right to decide who gets to travel to and from Canada,--

Now, I ask my hon. colleague to tell us, is this really what Canadians want? Do they want, when they decide to fly to Mexico or Latin America, a foreign government determining whether or not they get issued a boarding pass and determining whether they can fly?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has less than 30 seconds.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I will answer quickly.

No, that is not what Canadians expect. They expect their rights to be protected, their privacy to be protected, and their ability to move around the globe in a safe fashion to also be protected; none of which is guaranteed in this legislation at all.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposition to Bill C-42. It is clearly an important bill when we look at what is at stake.

There used to be a solid core of supporters and even members within the Conservative Party who prided themselves on the issue of privacy protection. That seems to have been lost recently. It has been pawned off at times, and I give the example of the bizarre and unusual case of the census conundrum.

The government has said that it wants to make sure that the privacy of citizens is protected. It has said that citizens should not feel obligated to tell the government how many bathrooms they have in their domain and other personal information. When asked how many people had actually complained about this, the government said one was enough. We are still not sure who that one person is. Some people think it might have been someone in the minister's backyard.

The point is this is not about the census and people know that. We in this Parliament are bound by the provisions for protection. We have the oversight. The problem with this bill is that we would be handing over Canadians' right to privacy to another government.

The government has talked about not being able to pony up the money for the database for the collection of this information. Not only will information be handed over to another government but that information will be held by that government and we will not be able to get to it.

I really want to underline the importance of the intervention made by my colleague from Windsor. I have had case after case right here in the nation's capital involving people who have been denied entry into the United States. When our government is asked what can be done, we are pointed to homeland security in the United States.

I do not know if the same situation exists in Saskatchewan, but I do know that people right across this country have been faced with it. If a constituent is on a no-fly list, his or her member of Parliament will probably talk to the minister or someone in his department. They are told that this is something that the department cannot handle. This is under the oversight of homeland security in the United States. After a very long route through voice mail, we can bring forward the case but that is the end of it. We will not be heard again.

Right now we have problems with regard to Canadians being able to freely travel abroad, particularly south of the border, and we have not figured that out yet. The government has been very silent on this during this debate. The government is going to oblige the United States when asked for this information, but we have not even figured out how to get someone's name off a no-fly list.

Constituents are scratching their heads and wondering why they cannot cross the border into the United States. They cannot figure out a way to get their name off the no-fly list. The government is about to open this up even further by sharing data through Bill C-42. It does not make sense.

Where is the consistency within the Conservative Party that used to stand up for privacy? This is not about the census. This is not about how many bathrooms there are in somebody's house. This is about a person's ability to travel abroad without the fear of being put on a no-fly list or without the sharing of personal information. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about providing credit card information. We are talking about providing the date of birth of a Canadian citizen.

This reminds me of the debate in the House on Bill C-31 to reform the Canada Elections Act, when Liberals and the Bloc wanted to support an amendment to that bill and to streamline electoral practices by putting birth dates on the list.

Members may remember this. There was a strong debate in committee. I asked Ms. Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, to come before committee to get her opinion on whether she thought having birth date information on an electoral list was a good idea. At the time I was not supported by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc, who said that we had already heard from Ms. Stoddart. The problem was we had heard from Ms. Stoddart before the amendment was put forward.

I wrote to Ms. Stoddart and asked her opinion, as Privacy Commissioner, about having one's birth date on the electoral list.

Mr. Speaker, you will know, having been in a couple of campaigns, that the electoral list is shared widely. To have that kind of private information, with people's dates of birth, on a list that is circulated so widely is asking for trouble. Allowing others to take people's information from the electoral list to apply for a credit card or to do the other things that data miners do opens up many doors.

At the time, Ms. Stoddart got back to me and the House and said she had grave concerns about this compromising Canadians' privacy. Eventually, thankfully, that bill was dropped, but it was about to go through the House. It is the NDP Party that stood against that flagrant abuse of Canadians' privacy.

Again, I go back to the Conservatives and ask what happened. They used to be the ones who talked about protecting privacy. Now it is only about whether people have to say how many bathrooms they have in their homes. That is the line in the sand now.

What about when someone travels abroad? What about when someone's data is collected and captured by another country? Does that not matter any more to the Conservatives? Is it simply a matter of shrugging and saying this is the way we do things now? I want to underline that because this is a government bill.

To my friends in the Bloc and the Liberal Party, reviewing things after five years is not going to do what is needed, or even within two years or a year. If it is bad legislation now, do not pass it. When they vote for this bill, they are blessing this process. It is too late a year later, when a constituent asks how his or her information got into a database in the United States, to say we were told that it would not happen, that we trusted this would be a process our officials would keep their eye on. That is not good enough.

Today opposition members have an opportunity to say no to this bill. It is not about saying we do not want to negotiate with our friends south of the border. It is in fact saying that we should negotiate with our friends south of the border, which we did not do.

I am surprised that both the Liberals and the Bloc have decided this bill is okay. I say this because I know many of them and know that their constituents will be concerned about privacy. I am sure many of their constituents have been on the no-fly list and have not been able to get their names off it. I am sure many members have had to deal with those cases.

At the end of the day, I return to the issue of whether this is a good deal for Canadians. I say it is not: it puts our privacy in peril. If that is the case, then we as New Democrats say no to this bill. We need a better deal and we say no to Bill C-42.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read something that was said by the leader of the official opposition earlier this month. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, a perimeter security deal that has harmonization of entry and exit standards will confer on the U.S. government unprecedented amounts of information about Canadians. I do not think the Prime Minister is being straight with Canadians about this issue. The deal would impose U.S. homeland security standards on this side of the border.

Why is the Prime Minister even contemplating the surrender of Canadian privacy rights to U.S. homeland security?

The leader of the official opposition appeared to suggest to Canadians that he cared about their privacy rights and stood against the surrender of Canadian privacy rights to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and yet we see the spectre of the Liberal Party of Canada preparing to vote in favour of this bill that would do exactly that.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on that horrendous act of hypocrisy.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would join the Leader of the Opposition in my concern about the perimeter talks. One of the concerns we have is about the SPP. We have not seen anything come before Parliament. He is quite right to underline the concerns that Canadians have about that. We and other members of the opposition, the Bloc, share the same concerns.

The thing that is hard to understand is what we do know.

We do not know the details of the perimeter talks because the government has not brought forward details of what is being discussed and what is at stake. We hear things. We hear about energy being shipped south, about supplies that we have not been told about and at what cost. We hear about standards for border security, products, food, etc.

However, we do know about this bill. Hopefully, the Leader of the Opposition has read this bill or had someone advise him about it. Unlike the perimeter security deal, we know about this one, and this one is going to compromise Canadians' privacy. This is not abstract, but concrete. This will give up Canadians' privacy to our friends south of the border.

Therefore, I would tell my colleague from Vancouver that we really do want to encourage the Liberals to look at this. In all sincerity, if they are concerned about privacy and sovereignty, there is an easy choice: vote no to Bill C-42.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made earlier today the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-42.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #190

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)