Mr. Chair, I was talking about information sharing. A good example of this might be someone who has applied for a passport who may be travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity, whether it be to join ISIL or to receive training specifically to come back to this country. In the course of a regular process, someone interviewing or speaking to references on the application may come across information to the effect that one of the references alludes to the suspicion that this individual may be becoming radicalized and may wish to use the passport to travel overseas to join the terrorist group.
Right now, the best that Passport Canada can do is possibly refuse a passport. They cannot—and I find this incredible—pick up the phone, call our national security agencies, and inform them that there may be a possibility of a threat with this particular individual here on Canadian soil. I think anyone who is tuning in, who might be listening to this at home, or who reads the text later would be shocked to find out that's the case, and would expect that this government would correct this very blatant issue in order to protect our national security and Canadians here on our soil.
Mr. Chair, the second part to this bill has to do with the passenger protect program. I'm sure most members on the committee recognize the fact that with passenger protect we have the ability to issue a no-board order, but only in the specific case when an individual is an imminent threat to the aircraft itself. For example, if we learn information that someone may try to bomb the airport, bomb the airplane, we can issue a no-board order; we can take action. But we cannot—cannot—issue a no-board order for someone who we believe will be travelling overseas to join a terrorist entity, to receive training, and to then come back to Canada and bring that expertise with them. We're expanding the passenger protect program on this particular issue.