This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was americans.

Topics

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, for me, the issue that the member raised that is most important is the issue of the no-fly list. When it comes to that list, no person may know what information is being held about them by the United States. Perhaps what is even worse, for me, is that they may not correct that information if there are any mistakes.

We have talked a number of times in this House about some of the people who were on that no-fly list. If the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the member for Winnipeg Centre, who I do not think anybody in this House would suggest is shy, cannot figure out how to get their names off that list, what are average Canadian citizens going to do?

The member referenced in his speech the case of Maher Arar who was also on that no-fly list. Let us look at what happened in that instance. We had a commission of inquiry which, as we know, was done by Justice Dennis O'Connor. He concluded by saying:

I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

The Prime Minister apologized. We paid compensation to the tune of $10.5 million. Yet, the U.S. authorities refused to accept that he is innocent and to this day he is still on the no-fly list.

I know that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is a lawyer. I wonder if he could tell us whether anyone can actually get their name off that no-fly list?

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, the answer, in short, is no. There does not appear to be any way of being able to get one's name off that list.

As I say, I have this case that I have been working on for over a year. I have explored every angle, both legal and political, as well as administrative behind the scenes, and there does not appear to be any way that one can get one's name off that list.

I think we have had a Federal Court decision that said some similar thing, in terms of other cases. So, it is just not possible to do it and yet, we are prepared to expose more Canadians to that list.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Yellowhead Alberta

Conservative

Rob Merrifield ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That this question be now put.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We still have other individuals who are prepared to speak on this.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

That is fine. The motion is that the question be now put. That is a debatable motion, so we can continue on with debate.

However, right now we are in questions and comments. There is a five minute question and comment period for the minister of state.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting the way our colleagues in the Conservative Party have tried to shut down debate on this. They want to push this through. They do not want to be honest with Canadians. This is the party that ranted about the long form census and claimed that if two Canadians felt that there was a fear of black helicopters in the sky because of the long form census, they would trash an internationally respected data collection agency.

However, the provisions in Bill C-42 here will take the private information of Canadian citizens, who might be flying down to Cancun on a holiday, and they will have no idea that this Conservative government's plan is to allow foreign companies to data mine their personal information.

For example, a person who goes to a travel agency and books a flight to Mexico or the Dominican Republic, and happens to fly over United States airspace, their credit card, hotel booking, and rental car information can be passed on to the United States and held for up to 40 years, so that companies within the United States can access that information to data mine. It can be given to other third party countries without the consent of Canadians.

I would like to ask the hon. member, why has the government not had the decency to go back to the many average Canadians out there who look to parliamentarians to protect their interests and explain it to them why they are trading away the personal information of Canadians?

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important piece of legislation that we have before us. It is important that it be passed in the sense that Canadians have the ability to move freely internationally, particularly into and over the United States.

What the United States is actually asking for in this piece of legislation is the information of those who fly over its airspace. It is a sovereign nation. It has been attacked by terrorists. It very much has the concern of who those people are who are flying over its airspace in those planes. It has nothing to do with personal information and the fearmongering that we are hearing from my hon. colleague and others in debate. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is a matter of who is in the plane. The U.S. wants to know that and rightfully so. It has a valid concern in that sense.

When 85% of our international travel is actually into the United States, it is important that we not compromise from that perspective. We have concessions with the United States on flying from Canadian point to Canadian point over U.S. airspace and there is no real concern.

This is an issue that we are dealing with in an effective way and we encourage the House to support this. The fearmongering that we get from the other side has nothing to do with Canadians' interests. This is all about politics and that is unfortunate, although we are in a political arena and we should not be surprised by it.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me understand this now. Canadians who are watching this debate just saw something happen. Rightly or wrongly, opposition parties were actually debating the substance of the legislation. Then the government stood up in its opportunity to debate the substance of a law that it is passing to give the reasons why it is a good law and convince Canadians to its side, but its response was to adjourn the debate.

In other words, it does not want to talk about it and it prefers that we end the discussion right now. Is that what Canadians would interpret as being an open and accessible government that takes responsibility or is it yet another manifestation of, “You're on your own”?

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there.

A significant amount of debate has gone on with respect to this piece of legislation. Canadians' interests will not be served by us continuing to reiterate the kinds of concerns that the opposition has, which are not based on fact but based on hyperbole and fearmongering.

Canadians know full well that we are linked with the United States. It is our greatest trading partner and has been our greatest ally in every war and every battle we have ever fought. We are linked from that perspective. If Canada was attacked by terrorists, the Americans would defend us. When Americans are attacked, we do the same.

This is where we are at when it comes to flying over U.S. airspace and knowing who is in those planes that could potentially cause harm to either American or Canadian citizens. The right to know who is in those planes should not be of that large a concern to my hon. colleagues.

It is important for us to get this legislation through. We encourage debate to be completed, so we can get on with other business of the nation.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

February 28th, 2011 / 6 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, further to the interventions made on Friday, February 18, by members from all sides of the House and further to the intervention made by the member for Guelph earlier today, I would like to provide information that might be of further use to you in considering the alleged matter of privilege raised by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

With regard to the departmental document in question, as I pointed out to you the last time the House met, the CIDA document was sent to the Minister of International Cooperation by public servants who were seeking a decision from her.

The member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, in their interventions last Friday, argued that this was a formal contract. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, an internal departmental document is not a contract requiring the parties, in this case the minister and her department, to agree. This document included a departmental analysis and a departmental recommendation. Public servants sent this departmental document to the minister so that she could review their analysis and make a decision. The departmental document then quite properly served a role to convey the minister's decision back to her officials so that they could implement the decision.

Across government, hundreds of these internal departmental documents cross ministers' desks every day. As members from all sides of the House would know, especially members from the Liberal Party who have served in government, this is how many elected officials transmit their decisions to the public service in our system of government. Indeed, the president of CIDA, a non-partisan public servant, who is the equivalent of a deputy minister, made this clear when she testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on December 9:

Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department's advice.

This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that's quite normal.

I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn't want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative.

Let me reiterate: “—it was her decision”, referring to the minister, “to not accept the department's advice. This is quite normal.... The inclusion of the word 'not' is just a simple reflection of what her decision was”.

That is direct testimony by the president of CIDA before the standing committee.

It is clear that the deputy minister understood the direction by the minister and how it was being transmitted to her. She even acknowledged in her response that the format in which the departmental document was drafted was confusing and that the department's internal practices have been revised to provide the minister with a clear and direct way in which to approve or not approve advice given, which, in the words of the deputy minister, “is her prerogative”.

The Minister of International Cooperation was the only person with the authority to make a decision regarding this application for funding. In this case, the minister's decision was to reject the recommendation provided to her and to direct that CIDA not provide funding to KAIROS. The minister had reviewed the departmental document and made her decision not to approve the funding application. She also told the committee that she did not know who did it, but told the House that the word was inserted on her instructions. Again, as I pointed out last Friday, these are not contradictory statements.

On all the evidence before the House, it must be concluded that both statements are true. Once again, the member asking the question failed to pursue the inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, as I again pointed out last Friday, in their interventions in this place, no information has been presented by the members across the aisle that would establish how the minister could have intended, intentionally or unintentionally, to mislead these officials. As such, I believe there is no prima facie case of privilege before you.

For this funding request, there was only one possible decision-maker: the Minister of International Cooperation. Once she made a decision, it became CIDA's decision. Decisions of cabinet and decisions of ministers are decisions of the government. Decisions of ministers are the decisions of the departments they lead.

As I pointed out in my submission last Friday,

CIDA encompasses both officials and the minister responsible for CIDA.

Ultimately, while decisions are communicated on behalf of a department, it is the minister who is accountable for the decision, as she pointed out 11 times in her testimony to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on December 9, 2010.

In conclusion, the minister has been clear that the department recommended providing funding to KAIROS. That is unquestionable; but she has also been clear that it was her decision alone not to provide funding to KAIROS. She has been clear that she provided the direction to her office to communicate her decision to the department.

As I also pointed out last Friday, the members opposite have raised several points but have not provided proof of a prima facie case that the House's privileges have been breached. The Minister of International Cooperation has indicated that the way in which she handled this matter was unfortunate, and that she had provided a lack of clarity about how paperwork was handled. She has apologized for this lack of clarity.

While a lack of clarity is, in the minister's own words, “unfortunate”, it is not a prima facie case of privilege. The facts do not support the allegations made against the Minister of International Cooperation by members of the opposition, and I do not believe there is a prima facie case of privilege before you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to provide some additional information and, again, we look forward to your early ruling.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition members have a duty and an obligation but also a right to ask questions to ascertain the veracity of the information presented to them.

Therefore, in the interest of establishing whether or not there is a prima facie case, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would tell the House on what date the minister signed the document and on what date she instructed that “not” be inserted.

While he is doing that, perhaps he can give us an indication on documentation the minister received on other projects that were accepted and not subject to contention, where she instructed that a “yes” be inserted.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend wants to engage in debate on this, but it is quite clear that arguments have been presented by all sides of the House on several occasions now.

The case is before you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. I think the facts are clear, as I stated twice now in interventions on behalf of the government, that the minister's statements have not been contradictory. There is no proof of a prima facie case of privilege in this particular situation.

I ask all members, along with me, to encourage the chair to bring a ruling on this matter to the House as quickly as possible.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Carleton—Mississippi Mills Ontario

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the House that tomorrow will no longer be the allotted day and that the House will continue consideration of Bill C-42. Wednesday, March 2, will be the allotted day.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just need to say something.

When a document goes to a minister's office, first of all, we must recognize that the Minister of International Cooperation is not CIDA incarnate. She is the Minister of International Cooperation. CIDA has a president and vice-presidents. The president is CIDA; the system is CIDA.

Having been there I know that in cases like this, the president does not sign the document, unless the president and the vice-president of CIDA and the people recommending the program have thoroughly checked it out, have thoroughly debated or discussed it with the minister's office and have then decided that it is to be approved or that it is being supported or not.

In this case, it was obvious that the president signed the document, as did the other official from CIDA. Therefore, the document was signed.

Now if the minister did not agree, the normal procedure would be to send the document back and to continue negotiations and to have some discussion. The minister does not sign a document and then stick in the “not”. That is never done.

I think what happened in this case is quite obvious: the officials signed the document, the minister signed the document as it had been approved, and then after the fact was told to put in the “not” by the PMO, or someone at the PMO put it in.

I can say this: the document was doctored. It was not done the other way.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

This is not a point of debate.

The Chair is willing to hear arguments based on the specific question of privilege that was originally raised but not to engage in another round of debate on what may or may not have happened.

I would urge the hon. member to stick to the actual substance of the question of privilege that was raised.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I appreciate the member saying that all of the facts are on the table and that he is ready to vote. I just want to make sure that I have the facts right. My colleague does not have to answer the following, because it is not a question.

I am assuming that the form signed by CIDA went to the minister, who then signed it some time later. Some time later, the “not” was put in. If that is not true, then I hope the member will clarify this, but we are assuming it is true in this situation. The minister signed it, having at one time intended to approve it, and then later a “not” was put in.

Second, the member said he had put all of the facts on the table so that we can make a decision. However, now that it is a major parliamentary issue, could he let the House know who actually put the “not” in? I am sure he knows that.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I have heard enough on this issue for now. This is not a debate. Question period was at 2:15 p.m. and there will be another one tomorrow. If members have these types of specific questions, they can raise them then.

We are going to move on. I have heard from several members and not everything being raised is actually substantive to the question of privilege, so I am hesitant to give the floor to the member, but if he assures me he has something pertinent to this substantive question of privilege, I will hear him.

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, privileges need to be taken very seriously. When a member stands up and raises the issue of privilege, meaning that someone has really abused a rule within the chamber, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader chooses at 6 o'clock to start talking about a privilege that has been talked about inside this chamber, I would suggest that it just adds more confusion to the issue.

Mr. Speaker, if one starts to acknowledge the parliamentary secretary to just stand up to say what he thinks or just to read a statement, I do not see how that clarifies the issue. If anything, he put more of a cloud of confusion over it.

The Prime Minister--

Statements by Minister Regarding KAIROS FundingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order.

I am going to stop the member there. I have not heard anything that would add to the subject before the Chair. It is not unusual to have members at various times of the day come in and argue points on questions of privilege. We will move on.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Churchill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, while I was preparing to speak to Bill C-42, I found it quite shocking that the government put forward a motion for closure just a few minutes ago.

The comments by the parliamentary secretary who prefaced that motion were equally problematic. He referred to the need to move on, that this was fearmongering and that Canadians are not concerned about the substance of Bill C-42, something I feel is both problematic and unsubstantiated.

When speaking with Canadians, issues of privacy in an increasingly globalized world are very much issues of concern. Whether it is the Internet, travel that many of us do in a much bigger way, or the way we move around in general across our country and around the world, the security of Canadians, our information and privacy is something we value.

As Canadians, we also have confidence in our government to protect that security. Unfortunately, Bill C-42, a bill that the government supports, flies in the face of the sense of security that Canadians want and the security that is tied in with the respect for privacy that they feel is critical. We are seeing the government shrug its shoulders and say the U.S. is making it do this, so this is how it goes.

This speaks overall to a larger question of sovereignty and the extent to which we stand up as a sovereign country and say that we have real problems with what is being asked of us, we do not feel that pieces of this legislation are in line with establishing a safer, more secure world and, in fact, the bill is rife with problems, gaps and challenges that we cannot even predict properly in terms of what kind of trouble they could bring.

Whether it is in committee or here in the House, I am proud to stand as a member of the NDP in saying that we need to put a stop to the bill. We need to go back to the drawing table to find a way of securing people's privacy, working toward more secure travel and standing up to the U.S. government, which has not only made clear what it wants but, quite frankly, has threatened our freedom of mobility as Canadians if we do not comply with what it wants. Many Canadians would want to see their government show some courage on this and stand up for our sovereignty on something that is as critical as individual Canadians' privacy.

The bill is problematic for many reasons and that is why we in the NDP are saying the debate ought not end and that we need to go back to the drawing board. For example, the information forwarded as a result of this bill would be the passenger name records, which are files travel agents create when they book vacations. These records can include credit card information, who people are travelling with, their hotels, other booking information such as tours or rental cars or any serious medical conditions of passengers.

Why would this information be pertinent? Who people are travelling with, what hotels they are staying in, or what tours they decide to take, whether it is sightseeing, snorkelling or whatever people do during their holidays, it is a completely ridiculous notion that this somehow has to do with maintaining national or international security.

Even medical conditions being shared is something we know can be problematic for many people. Without proper regulation as to who might access this information, potential employers or corporate actors could use such information not only in a problematic way but in malicious ways as well.

Other problematic points include that the information collected can be retained by the United States for up to 40 years. This information may be forwarded to the security service of a third nation beyond the U.S. without the consent or notification of the other signatories.

It has been referenced in many cases in this House. We have seen how this has backfired in such a horrific way in the case of Mr. Maher Arar, someone who went through an incredible trauma. He has shared his story with our country. The government took a stand to compensate him, but we still see that the U.S. refuses to take him off the list. If this is the partner we are supposed to be reasonably dealing with to protect our own citizens, we can just go to past experience to find out quite quickly that a great deal of harm can be done by this kind of legislation.

Furthermore, no person may know what information is being held about him or her by the United States and may not correct that information if there are errors. Any Canadian who would hear this would be horrified to know that there would not be the opportunity to correct the record, whether it is the mix-up of a name, or a whole host of information that is going to be out there. The failure to recognize this as a gap, as potential for real trouble and not just for the individual, but for families, communities and Canadians in general, that their government would not stand up and say this is wrong, is quite shocking.

To bring closure to such a serious debate around security and privacy and recognizing that the two are not at opposite ends but in fact can complement each other, something that is not in Bill C-42, is certainly in line with what we have seen from the government time and again. It is an effort to silence debate and muzzle those who are speaking out against what is being said on behalf of Canadians. The effort is to silence those speaking based on past practices and experience and research by qualified witnesses who have said there are gaps that need to be looked at. We also need to recognize that pressure is being put on us as the Canadian Parliament by the United States. Why can we as a sovereign country not stand up and say this is wrong? It puts our citizens at risk. It is rife with problems and can only be problematic in the future. We need to look at it.

Whether it is in terms of the government's muzzling of debate through prorogation, whether it is through its actions on important parts of our country, whether it is the census, the forced exodus of senior officials who have questioned the government's agenda, all we have seen is an effort to silence and muzzle time and again. The reasoning brought out is that somehow it is fearmongering or somehow Canadians do not think this. This comes from a party that has spoken for the importance of respecting individuals' privacy and respecting Canadian citizens. This is at the heart of respecting Canadian citizens and their rights. They feel this is a country that respects privacy and security and says we are not going to be put at risk and we are not going to be threatened by the U.S.

This is not the only example of this government's failing to stand up for us as a sovereign country. We see this on economic issues time and again. The House will have heard that I have stood up to fight for my home community which is suffering at the hands of a foreign takeover gone wrong by Vale, which announced that it would close the smelter and refinery in my hometown of Thompson. It is an unnecessary battle given that the reason we are at this juncture is because the government opened the door to the sale of a profitable Canadian company to a resource that is integral to us as a sovereign country and is now being called upon to stand up for Canadian workers, for Canadian people, and to stand up for our sovereignty, whether it is in terms of our economy, our resources, or our privacy.

That is what Canadians expect from their government and it is definitely not what we see with this closure motion or with Bill C-42.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue for Canadians. It is an issue that will have numerous ramifications, one of them being the proposed perimeter security deal that the United States president and our Prime Minister have entered into.

Those details have not been made available to Parliament and we do not really understand how that particular information is going to be given up, whether we are going to be put in a position where our security services will be sharing information on flights within Canada with a secure perimeter with the United States again.

It is interesting to note that the United States gave an exemption to domestic flights that overfly the United States. What was behind that? Did the United States give that exemption because in the future we will be looking at a more complete information sharing deal on all passengers in Canada and this is just simply one part of it that has to be completed?

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the work that he has done on behalf of our party as the MP for Western Arctic and as our critic on transportation issues. He has worked tirelessly going through this legislation, asking the tough questions, and opposing it.

What we see here is part of that slippery slope in seeing the government's failure to stand up to the U.S., in seeing the government's failure to note the major gaps, the potential for real abuse of people's privacy, for the mining of people's information with not just the secret service of other countries but also third parties and however that list may go.

The government's failure to stand up for our citizens in this case will be seen as a failure to stand up for them in the future, and that is something that we ought to take seriously.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are still debating this bill on February 28, 2011 is proof that the scare has not worked. The government introduced the bill on the second last day of sitting in June. It told us that we had to pass the bill by December 31 or the planes would stop flying. Not only are the planes still flying but we even managed to get an exemption from the U.S.

The Americans were not planning on giving us an exemption for flights from a point in Canada to another point in Canada that flew over American airspace when those flights can be close to sensitive sites such as large cities. What is the American government's intention when it gives an exemption which could cut the heart out of what it is trying to accomplish?

The United States has not stopped the flights. The government should withdraw this bill and negotiate a better deal.

Strengthening Aviation Security ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment with regard to the exemption and the fact that the sky has not fallen, that in 2011 we are still debating this legislation and the U.S. has not cut us off. That speaks to the fact that there might truly be an opportunity for us to take a stand, to say this is not working for us, that this will not work for Canadians. Let us go back to the drawing board and find a solution to our neighbour's concerns.

It is pretty ridiculous that such a significant threat is being put on us when we have been willing partners in working to ensure that our airspace and our countries are safer. We have an opportunity to make good out of a bad piece of legislation, good on behalf of our citizens, and we are not doing that.

The role of the Canadian government is to stand up for its people, to stand up for our security. It has to find a way of balancing that with privacy. What is the government's role?