Evidence of meeting #36 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Clearly we're enabling U.S. legislation that imposes obligations on people who are travelling in their airspace. It has nothing to do with Canadian law and putting a law in place that requires Canadians to do that.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So we have no security basis for this. We have no examples of any problems to fix, but we're talking about ceding massive control to foreign governments over something as vital as Canadians' right to travel where they want. And we can't even demonstrate that there's a problem to address.
Do I have that correct?
11:50 a.m.
President, Ligue des droits et libertés
I think that's a very good description. I don't think there is any proof, as has been mentioned, that these measures are necessary for air travel security. By accepting this legislation, Canada is saying we can't guarantee as a state that we can ensure the safety of our aircraft. We have to grant a foreign power the right to decide which people can board the planes. There's no historical proof that Canada has not been able to ensure the safety of its aircraft and has not assumed this role responsibly. So there's no justification.
It's not just a question of American sovereignty; it's a question of Canadian sovereignty. The sovereignty of the United States to ensure security does not extend to its capability of violating the rights of citizens of other countries. It's an international right to be able to leave your country and return to it, so this right cannot be violated with impunity by the United States, and we cannot accept that.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Do you know if there has been any attempt by the Canadian government to simply say no to the U.S. government--to say we're not willing to cede our sovereign control over our own citizens' right to travel, and we have to look for other ways to do this?
Do you have any information that the Canadian government has taken that position to defend Canadians' sovereign rights?
11:55 a.m.
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
All we have in the case of ICLMG is correspondence exchanged with two or three ministers of transport in the last three years, and all have said the same thing: “We negotiated as much as we could and got an exemption for domestic flights.”
That's all we know. You've heard that in this committee as well.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.
International law recognizes that a country has governance over its own airspace. Do you agree with that?
11:55 a.m.
Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Yes. I alluded to that a few times in my presentation.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Yet you said in your presentation--and I think I'm quoting you correctly--that Bill C-42 violates international law. To me those two statements are diametrically opposed. On one hand, you agree that America has the right to govern its own airspace, yet you present to the committee that Bill C-42, which is complying with what the United States has the right to ask, violates international law. To me that seems like the two are diametrically opposed.
You also said that it violates the Canadian charter, and you're dismayed that there are grave violations, yet you say the U.S. has the rights to its own airspace.
I know that my colleague earlier was talking about the history of Canada, and that we've been able to fly over the United States for 50 years. But regardless of the history we have--and it's been a good history with our American neighbours--laws change and circumstances change. Since 9/11 we have seen America doing what it needs to do in its own airspace, in its own territory, to protect its own citizens. They have the right to do that, do they not?
11:55 a.m.
Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I'm very, very happy to address the confusion you have flagged.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Well, hold on just a moment. I want to read something here. In 2001, we had a then Liberal minister of transportation. It was Minister Collenette. I want to quote him. He said:
...[U]nder the Aeronautics Act, carriers are obliged to operate under the legislation of another country once they enter its airspace. Any sovereign state, whether the U.S., Britain or anyone else around the world, has a right to know who is coming into its country, whether by land, sea or plane.
In 2008, we learned, as did the rest of the world, that the United States was going to require this same information of anyone flying over its airspace, which we agree they have the right to do, because they govern their own airspace.
If I could just go to Mr. Tassé, if I may, you said that visitors to Canada will be stuck on the ground. I don't understand why that would take place. If someone flying from Europe enters Canada, and they want to return to Europe, I don't understand what the challenge would be. Why would they be stuck on the ground?
11:55 a.m.
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
I was referring specifically to the real people who may be on the U.S. no-fly list.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
The numbers have fluctuated in the U.S. In newspapers we've had figures of 70,000 names. We're not talking about false positives. We're talking about the real people who are on no-fly lists.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may ask, could our witnesses present those numbers through the chair to the committee? I think that's very important to this discussion, and I would appreciate receiving that kind of information.
The other comment that was made, Mr. Tassé, is that it gives a foreign government, and I think I'm quoting you correctly here, the de facto right to decide who can fly to and from Canada. Why would that be the case? If people from Britain want to fly to Canada, how does that impede them? They're not flying over American airspace to get to Canada. How would that impact someone coming from any other jurisdiction, particularly Europe?
I understand that there's airspace over Hawaii and there's airspace over Alaska that belongs to the United States, so coming from that direction could be a challenge. But how is that going to impact them? How many people travel to the U.S. every year from Britain or other places, and how many of them fly through Canada?
Noon
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Approximately 80% of flights between Canada and Europe fly over the United States. Most flights in Montreal have to circle the airport and go over U.S. territory. So all these flights would have to share information with the U.S. Somebody from Britain or France or Geneva would have to get the permission of the U.S. before leaving to come to Montreal.
Noon
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Okay. If you could provide those numbers to us, I think that would be very interesting.
Noon
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
These numbers were confirmed to us by the airline industry.
Noon
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Of course, the other question you talked about was refugees who are coming to Canada. I don't understand why they would be going through the United States to come to Canada. If they're coming to Canada, don't they usually come directly to Canada to claim refugee status?
Noon
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
People from all parts of the world coming to Canada have to fly over the U.S. Latin America is an example. We know that the standards in the U.S. for recognizing refugee status are way lower than Canada's. So Canada could recognize a legitimate refugee claimant from Colombia, and the U.S. would say that this person will not board a plane to go to Canada.
Noon
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
What part of American sovereignty, then, are you not recognizing?
Noon
Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
May I answer the questions that were directed to me, please?
Certainly, as I say, there seems to be some confusion here. The notion that a country is sovereign over its territory cannot be confused with other aspects of international law, and other aspects of international law include the right to fundamental justice. Within your space--
Noon
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Ms. Vonn, if I may say--this is my seven minutes, I think--the fact of the matter is that people have a choice. They have the choice to not travel. They have the choice to not fly at all. If that is a personal choice an individual makes, he or she is respecting American sovereignty over their airspace. They can make the choice not to go. But what you're doing is precluding me from being allowed to go there if I choose to give the information. And as a person who has already gone to the effort of obtaining my NEXUS card, I have already willingly provided my personal information to them, in the same way that we had to provide our passports.
There was a great hue and cry when the American government said that Canadians coming across the border were going to have to provide passport documentation. And now my dad, who's 91 years old and no longer carries a passport, cannot go with me to Vermont to visit my daughter, who is currently a resident there--
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have to stop you there, Ms. Brown. I'm going to give Ms. Vonn an opportunity to answer.