Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to speak. Now that we look at the clauses and the very small changes made, we will be voting against this clause. I think what we're left with here is a colloquial no-fly list. It doesn't have a real appeal process for those who are inadvertently caught in it.
I know that the government likes to emphasize the dangers of those who are legitimately on the list, but for those like others I've talked to who end up inadvertently on the list because they have the name “Smith” or the ethnic equivalent of “Smith”, it can be very costly. It can be costly for their family, for missing family events. I know of at least one case where someone, through an error, missed an important family event. Or, it can cost in in terms of business.
One person I talked to—and I have every reason to believe their story—flew from Toronto to Vancouver but was not allowed to board a connecting flight, because at that point, someone noticed a similarity between their name and someone else on the list. The person was denied boarding, and when they turned around to fly back to Toronto, of course the people said they couldn't board a plane because they were a security risk.
So you end up with these very odd situations.
I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we have a workable, quick, and fair appeal process that protects ordinary citizens who, through no fault of their own, are caught in the web, one that does not cost them in family or business terms.
For that reason, we'll be voting against the clause.