Transport Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, you've correctly understood. We're asking—and I can speak for my colleagues as well—for the withdrawal of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act. In reading Ms. Des Rosiers' presentation, I see that she says in her final remarks that her first choice is withdrawal of this bill.

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

She told us she had provided the clerk with amendments, but I have yet to see them. Would the purpose of the amendment be to withdraw Bill C-42? I don't know.

Mr. Chairman, will the clerk be sending us the amendments that Ms. Des Rosiers was to submit to her? We haven't received copies of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm advised that we haven't received any as of yet.

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

Mr. Tassé, is your approach the same?

[Roch Tassé]

Yes. We believe the problem is political and diplomatic. Canada must resume negotiations together with its international partners, especially the Europeans who are also hampered by this situation. Canada is even more affected by the Secure Flight program than Europe. So it should exercise leadership, convene its partners and resume negotiations with the United States.

I know you're going to tell us that there are only a few weeks left before the Secure Flight program is implemented. We've nevertheless known for three years that this was coming. So Canada could have exercised its leadership at the international level to negotiate even harder with the Americans. There is still time to do that. I believe the Europeans are very much open to that kind of partnership.

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

Ms. Vonn?

[Micheal Vonn]

I'm sorry, we cannot recommend any amendments. Simply put, even if we managed to change the number of data elements or we managed to change the potential retention period, or did any of those things, we are still subjecting Canadians to a regime that we say does not comport with the rules of fundamental justice. That cannot be amended through this bill.

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

Mr. Tassé, you emphasize the international nature of the flight prohibition. However, perhaps Canada shouldn't be leading the charge alone. It has a leadership role, but there need to be supporters. The European Union will also oppose this.

[Roch Tassé]

That's exactly what I said, Mr. Guimond. We have to develop a partnership, talk to our international partners and negotiate with the United States together.

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

In what forum should this issue be addressed?

[Roch Tassé]

I assume there will have to be numerous forums where the Canadians speak to the Europeans. We're negotiating a free trade agreement with Europe right now. A lot of committees are meeting. That's one example, but there are others.

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

Mr. Peschard, you talked about a Colombia journalist whose flight was diverted to Fort-de-France. I found that example astounding. People have wound up in Middle Eastern countries and have been tortured.

The fact is that, when you go somewhere, at some point you want to go home.

[Dominique Peschard]

First, to answer the question you asked me earlier, I would point out that there is an international UN forum on aviation issues. It is the International Civil Aviation Organization. That's the appropriate forum.

Furthermore, the names of known individuals who have been detained and tortured on the basis of false information have already been mentioned: Messrs. Arar, Almalki, Abou El Maati and Nureddin. Many Canadians originally from Middle Eastern countries are rightly afraid to go through the United States. They might feel safe taking a direct flight from Canada to Europe to get to the Middle East. However, if information about them were forwarded to American authorities, those authorities might let them travel but might provide information harmful to those individuals to countries where there is no rule of law, to Syria, for example. The consequences for those individuals could be very serious. In Canada, that kind of system would therefore constitute a threat to innocent people such as those I just mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While listening to the testimony, I was sort of writing down a summary, and this is what I've written down.

Bill C-42, if passed, will restrict our citizens' travel rights; it will offend Canadians' rights to privacy; it will quite likely contravene Canadian court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court of Canada; it will violate democratic principles, as Canadian citizens have no way to influence U.S. government policy to which we will effectively be subject; it will effectively cede to a foreign government, namely the United States, Canadian control over where Canadians can travel; it will violate our sovereignty; it will conceivably impair our diplomatic activities and conduct of foreign affairs.

Is that a fair summary of what you would see as the effects of Bill C-42 if it were to pass?

[Roch Tassé]

For the record, yes, it is.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

For over half a century, Canadians have been travelling over U.S. airspace without having to suffer a violation of their rights to control their private information, without being forced to send their personal information to U.S. authorities and to ask for permission from the American government if they want to travel to Mexico, Cuba, or South America.

In that time, in over 50 years, the security record of Canadians travelling over U.S. airspace, to my mind, has been about as close to 100% as you're going to get.

Is there any factual basis to justify this legislation?

[Micheal Vonn]

I can answer that. This is something that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has also alluded to. There is no empirical evidence that no-fly lists advance aviation security at all. There is no evidence of that.

If you think about the logic of this, what you're suggesting is that some people are too dangerous to fly, but simply are not too dangerous to arrest, even on the grounds of conspiracy or anything else.

It's a deeply problematic notion, and there has been no evidence that it actually does what it says it does. We've raised this issue, and various other people have raised this issue, time and time again.

When you ask yourself what this kind of program is good for, it's good for surveillance and control of where people may go, but there is no evidence anywhere that we have been able to find or indeed that anyone who we've asked has been able to find--and that includes the Government of Canada relative to its own no-fly list--that this substantially increases aviation security.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Specifically with respect to Canadians, if we go from Ottawa to Cancun or from Vancouver to Havana or anywhere in South America, we've been doing that for 50 years. There have been millions and millions of flights with millions and millions of Canadians.

Has there been one example--one--in all that time of a Canadian citizen travelling, touching U.S. airspace, and presenting a security problem in the United States that you're aware of?

[Roch Tassé]

There has not been to our knowledge. There was one incident over Quebec in the 1950s.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

This is my last question. This government abolished the mandatory census this summer because they thought the state had no business asking Canadians to furnish information to them about how many bedrooms they have in their house, yet with this legislation, if I understand it, the government wants to have Canadians' information about dietary restrictions and medical restrictions, along with their e-mail address and where they're travelling to, sent not only to the state but to a foreign state.

Do you see any contradiction in that apparent desire to protect privacy, on one hand, and then give it away with such drastic consequences as maybe restricting Canadians' rights to travel wherever they want to in the world?

[Micheal Vonn]

Certainly, as a privacy violation, if we consider this on the basis of the potential consequences for the person involved, it could hardly be more dire than the situation that's facing us in Bill C-42.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Now, if Canadians are on this no-fly list--and we've already talked about the fact that you get on an American list--am I understanding this correctly that a Canadian may effectively be grounded and may not be able to travel where they want to in the world because of a decision made by a foreign government?

Also, that government may share that information with other states as well. So I don't know where that information goes in the world. It could be shared with Israel, Syria, Egypt, Britain. Is that correct? Is that one of the consequences of this bill that the Conservatives want us to pass?

[Micheal Vonn]

I believe that is correct. Certainly not only have people's liberty been impacted, but the aspect of their liberty that constitutes their ability to maintain their living, depending on where they're living, has also been imperilled on some occasions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean has a point of order.