Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2007

[Brion Brandt]

It's a mandated requirement. There are very clear requirements for air carriers—those operating into Canada, within Canada, out of Canada—to use the list and to protect the information, to treat that information carefully. If they don't, they are subject to some fairly severe sanctions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In the recent case of the chap with TB who got on a plane with a Czechoslovakian airline, they would only have access to the U.S. no-fly list or any other lists that they might use. But if our passenger protect program had been in place when he boarded that Czechoslovakian airline, and he'd been on our list, he would not have been allowed to travel to Canada. Is that correct?

[Brion Brandt]

From what I understand of the circumstances surrounding this particular individual, which I don't claim to understand all of—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No, no, I'm not asking about those circumstances. If he had been on the Canadian passenger protect list when he decided to board an aircraft in Prague, I'm asking if Czech Airlines would have been required to not allow him to board. That's my question.

[Brion Brandt]

I understand your question. I'm just conscious of Madam Barnes' concerns.

I will address your question by saying—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm not interested in Madam Barnes' concerns right now. I'm asking you a question, sir.

[Brion Brandt]

What I'm trying to say is that if someone was trying to fly here from Czechoslovakia and they were on our list, that person should have been denied boarding in Czechoslovakia.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

But “should have been” was not the question. Would Czech Airlines have been required, by law, to say the person, “You will not board this aircraft”?

[Brion Brandt]

Yes. By Canadian law, they could not board that person.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

By Canadian law? Okay.

If they had not bothered or had been sloppy, what are the sanctions or recourses from the Government of Canada against that carrier?

[Brion Brandt]

The recourse is very clear. If someone does not fulfill the requirements of this program for an air carrier, there are sanctions that can mean fines of $25,000. There are sanctions for individuals, not just carriers. It depends on just what the action is, and all those kinds of things. I don't know if we have time to get into that, but there are sanctions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No, I just wanted to know if there are sanctions. Okay, thank you.

What about passengers boarding in Canada and going through U.S. airspace, the question Mr. Williams alluded to?

On June 18 we will have a Canadian passenger protect list. If the aircraft is going through U.S. airspace, let's say on its way to Halifax from Vancouver or something, will the air carrier, let's say Air Canada, be required to check that name against the Canadian passenger protect list and the no-fly list of the United States?

[Brion Brandt]

The Canadian carriers currently are obligated to check against the U.S. no-fly list for flights into the United States, and under passenger protect, they will be required to check for flights leaving Canada under our program. For overflights, that's a matter that's still currently under discussion, a matter of concern, but in terms of Canadian air carriers, it's for flights landing in the United States where the obligation exists.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

To check against the U.S. no-fly list.

If it's over U.S. airspace...let's say a person was boarding in Vancouver, going to Halifax, going through U.S. airspace, and they were on the U.S. no-fly list but they weren't on the Canadian passenger protect list. What happens then? They can't board?

[Brion Brandt]

If....

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It's an academic example. They are flying from Vancouver to Halifax, but they are flying through U.S. airspace. And they are on the U.S. no-fly list, but they are not on the Canadian passenger protect program list. Would they be allowed to board that aircraft?

[Brion Brandt]

As far as I'm concerned, if that's a domestic flight, even though it maybe crosses—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I just finished telling you, sir, that it was: Vancouver to Halifax.

[Brion Brandt]

Yes. Then there's no obligation for a Canadian carrier to check against the U.S. no-fly list for that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Even if it's through U.S. airspace.

[Brion Brandt]

Even if it's through U.S. airspace.

We, as I say, recognize that there are these concerns, and we are working very closely with the U.S. to make sure that as we move forward with developing our own programs, these issues get resolved satisfactorily.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In other words, you are saying that the U.S. hasn't totally bought into this proposal that you've just outlined for us.

Anyway, I would like to say that I think the program won't be perfect, but we need it. We certainly need to use something other than the U.S. no-fly list, because it has all kinds of problems with it, so carry on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Cullen, those were good questions, but drawing the parallel to the gun registry was really not a strong defence of the no-fly list, in my estimation. The Auditor General pointed out that 90% of the registrations had errors on them, and I hope the lists don't have a 90% error rate.

I know I was out of order.

Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

I'm leaning more towards agreement with Mr. Comartin about the effectiveness and usefulness of this program. At best, it's marginally effective and would only catch the dumbest terrorists. Yet it inflicts a great problem on the civil liberties of the ordinary citizen, and this is what I worry about.

I'll follow up on Mr. Cullen's question about stopping people from boarding a plane from overseas. If somebody is coming from Hong Kong, China, or India and wants to return to Canada, and they are Canadian and have not committed any crime, but barely might be a suspect or associated with a suspect, they will be denied a way to come back to their own country. This is unacceptable. I don't think that is fair.

The other thing is, I have some experience with Transport Canada and getting a security clearance through a department. I have a constituent who has worked in the Hong Kong airport on the air side doing maintenance as a Canadian, because he couldn't find a job in Canada. He went back to Hong Kong and worked for five years. He then came back and tried to get a job with Air Canada on the air side. He was denied clearance. It took me half a year with the interference of the minister before we could get him a security clearance. This is how complicated and difficult it is for an ordinary citizen to live like an ordinary Canadian.

This no-fly list is going to have a lot of impact on people for reasons that they would not be told. They wouldn't understand why, and they would not be told why they were on the list. They won't be able to defend themselves if they don't even know why they're on the list. To me, this is a great infraction on the civil liberty of Canadians, and it is also going to be very problematic for the minister, and at best maybe you'll catch the dumbest of the dumbest terrorists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I didn't detect a question there, but if you have any comments, go ahead.