Jim Maloway

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls for the end of Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

In May 2008, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw Canadian forces by July 2011. The Prime Minister, with the agreement from the Liberal Party, broke his oft-repeated promise to honour the parliamentary motion and, furthermore, refuses to put it to a parliamentary vote in the House.

Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to our troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors' pensions right here in Canada.

In fact, polls show that a clear majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent idea. This is not the only area where the government collects money. It collects $25 on each passport for consular services, but is not provided for consular services.

Canada now has the highest airline taxes in the world. Canadians are streaming across the border. Some 50,000 people a year are going to Fargo, North Dakota to fly on American carriers, avoiding Canadian airlines. The government is spending way less than what it is collecting on this tax on airport security.

Once again, if the government is collecting money for consular services, the money should be provided for consular services.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. We both have pointed out that we are not here to point fingers at the government. We recognize that our role is opposition. We are asking questions and the government is the government and it has a certain amount latitude, but it has a responsibility. We just wondered why it was not out as far as the Americans were. The Americans are suggesting that it is time for Mubarak to leave.

While I am on my feet, perhaps the Conservatives should look at being a little more co-operative with the opposition. Perhaps daily briefings with the critics might be in order in a situation like this.

I ran into Premier Filmon over the Christmas holidays and I asked whether he had been in contact with the Prime Minister over the years about how to run a successful government, as Filmon did in Manitoba for two years. He said that he wrote the Prime Minister a long email about how to deal with opposition, get the opposition on side and set up committees with opposition members on them to take on initiatives like Meech Lake, but he said he had not heard back. It was a number of years ago when he sent that message.

The government has a lot of learn about trying to make minority government work. We have been reading lots of stories about how successful the Pearson government was in the same length of time and how many things it got through versus how little the Conservative government has accomplished in five years. The Conservatives should learn something before they are not in government anymore.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the emergency motion that was introduced by the member for Toronto Centre. I listened to some very interesting presentations this evening.

It seems to me that the situation has certainly deteriorated in Egypt and, actually, across the region over the last couple of weeks. I think we might have been slightly premature in proceeding with the motion and the debate today because it seems that as each day passes, we see a different dynamic over there. Nevertheless, we are in the middle of the debate right now and there are a few observations that should be made on this situation.

As the member for Windsor—Tecumseh had pointed out, we are not here to point fingers at the government. We are just making some observations. We recognize that it is in a different role than we are. We are opposition and it is our job to point out inconsistencies that we find, just as it is the government's job to be able to make judgments that, we hope, are correct in a given situation.

The member for Toronto Centre talked about consular services. He saw that an important part of the equation that was not being properly deployed. That may well be. However, once again, the government has a role. It has to be able to make its judgments as to where these services have to be deployed. There are a lot of unstable countries in the world and things can change rather quickly.

In my own experience, a number of years ago, in 1983, I found myself in Grenada just prior to the American invasion, having met with government officials, even the finance minister, the prime minister, over a three-week period there, in the summer of 1983. I had absolutely no inkling of what was to happen. Within a month, we had the situation change dramatically and the end result was one where Ronald Reagan led an invasion of the island of Grenada.

I also found myself in Chile as an election observer in 1989, and then again for the election in 1990.

I can tell members that the member for Ottawa Centre has been in situations like this as recently, I believe, as last year, in his international travels. He knows that a situation can get out of hand very quickly and that it can be very unpredictable when large crowds are involved.

I recall being tear-gassed in a huge demonstration in Santiago just because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was with a contingent of election observers that included United States senators and politicians from the EU and other places, so I was well taken care of and directed. However, I still managed to get tear-gassed.

When one gets into situations like this, it is very hard to come up with conclusions, whether as the government or the opposition, especially in a country where we are as far away from the situation as we are here. We are taking advice from people in the field. The government is in a very strong position because it actually has an embassy there, it has people on the street, and probably has better information in many respects than we do.

Also, members have pointed out that Egypt itself, and I have been to Egypt a number of years ago, is a fairly poor country. It was mentioned that 40% of Egyptians live on less than $2 per day; the unemployment rate is high; the education system is not what it should be.

This has been the situation since Anwar Sadat was shot, as many in this House will recall, and Hosni Mubarak took over from him. It is hard to believe that was 30 years ago. A leader who can last for 30 years in any kind of environment is quite remarkable.

However, when we look behind the veils, we see that he was not a leader in terms of what we see in a democratic situation. He ran a government that was hardly an example of democracy in action. That is what the people in Egypt want right now. Young people have hit the streets and have made it known they want change in the government.

It has been noted that the United States, which is not normally a leader in demanding regime change, is further ahead than we are in Canada. Canada is being more conservative than the Americans. We know the Americans have a big investment in Egypt for a number of reasons. They have investment in the military support in Egypt. They have a big interest in the canal, the oil fields and so on, so this is a huge interest for them.

Normally we would see the Americans being very proactive, but they are evidently saying that Mubarak has had his day, it is time to move on and replace the regime with one that is more democratic. The Canadian government seems reluctant to draw that same conclusion. We wonder why that would be the case.

At the end of the day, their strategy may turn out to be correct because, as I indicated, it is a fluid situation. We are concerned about a number of minorities in Egypt. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned the Coptic Christians. He has a number of them in his constituency, as do other members in the House. Especially Egyptian Canadians who live in our country are very concerned for their families back in their country, as well they should be.

It has been mentioned that the government is involved in providing flights. Our member asked earlier why Egyptian Canadians were not being given the same treatment as Lebanese Canadians were four years ago. I knew a person who was involved in the Lebanese situation and the Canadian government paid the airfare. The government has already answered that question by saying there have been a number of Canadian flights already. Canadians have been removed from the country. They have done so at their own expense. Evidently they went in with their eyes open and agreed to pay the $400 and the case is over.

It is possible that we may have to put on more flights, so the government should not just eliminate the suggestion of the member for Nickel Belt offhand because there is an argument to be made for consistency. We had a situation of inconsistency, which I raised earlier this year, when we had the earthquake in Haiti and the government was quick to match funds donated by Canadians. Shortly thereafter, the Chilean earthquake happened and the government refused to do it. A lot of people in the Chilean community and supporters are saying that there is a double standard. It really would not have cost the government a lot of money because there was a much smaller donor base. While the government put out several million dollars of matching funds for Haiti, because there was a large outpouring of support, in the case of Chile it was much smaller because there was not that big a base to donate in the first place.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member made reference to the issue of the Security Council seat, the issue that was dealt with by the government a few months ago. I would ask him to expand on how important he thinks that whole situation was and, had we been successful in getting that position, whether it might have impacted on our situation right now.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as the member has indicated, the government has an important role to play in this situation, including that of Tunisia recently. After all, the government has embassy staff on the ground there who are in a better position to know what is going on. There is obviously some reluctance on their part to move forward.

Does the member have any thoughts or speculation as to why the government seems reluctant to be more definitive in its approach?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 2nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, no doubt there is an overall objective and an overall plan that the security people in the United States have in mind here.

The member is right. The airplanes that were used in 9/11 were domestic airlines. They were not international flights. They were domestic flights that were commandeered in the United States.

Here we have many domestic flights that are taking off from Toronto going to Vancouver and crossing over American air space. He certainly exposes some truth there. Certainly the Prime Minister is under a lot of pressure from the Americans but all we say is that he have some backbone here. The flights were not shut down during the first time they said they would be and they will not be shut down in the future.

We can certainly vote against this bill—

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 2nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, there are other extremely important areas that we should be looking at, including the trusted shippers program and all of the exposure to the packages, letters and bags going onto our planes unchecked. I would like to know what the government is doing about that, as opposed to simply rolling over on an American demand that we provide this information with no guarantee as to how it will be dealt with.

All I am saying is that it would be a big improvement if they would simply adopt the provisions of the Canada-EU agreement. Why would the government not have insisted that there be specific time periods for disposal of data, that the data use is limited and that the data individualization is changed so that the information is rendered anonymous, as per the EU.

Those are all things that would help and the Americans could still build up their profile without attaching the information to the individuals. Hence, the privacy situation would be somewhat mitigated.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 2nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I think the question regarding Bill C-42 at this point is what would happen if we did not pass this bill. The government told us that if it was not in force by December 31, the Americans would deny overflights of United States territory, but here we are on February 2 and Air Transat is operating fine.

I understand the Bloc's concern that it has to do what Air Transat tells it to do. In the area of the air passenger bill of rights, the Bloc members were onside with the NDP in the beginning. Then Air Transat got to the Bloc members and they flipped to the other side and did what Air Transat told them to do. Now Air Transat is telling the Bloc members that they have to pass this bill because it is going to cost too much to fly around the edges of the United States. I guess those are valid concerns, but there are broader concerns to be dealt with on this issue.

At the end of the day, I feel, and I think this caucus feels, that if we had negotiated with the Americans in a tougher manner, they would have backed down. If we had said to the Americans that they would have sovereignty over their airspace and we would provide the information for those passengers for those 100 flights a day flying over their territory, but they would have to reciprocate and provide information on those passengers on the 2,000 planes that fly over Canadian airspace each day, I think we would have seen the Americans back off a bit.

They would have had to come to grips with what their constituents would have to say about this, what their airline industry and airlines would say to their government, and what all those thousands of passengers would have to say. There would be an uprising in the United States against their congressmen and senators. They would be telling the U.S. government at this point to hold back and be a little more understanding of the situation.

Let us look at what we would be providing under this agreement versus what we are providing under the agreement with the European Union.

Under this agreement, I do not think we negotiated anything with the Americans. I think we simply kept their demands and said, “Yes sir, whatever you want you are going to get”. The reality is that we would provide all the PNR information to the United States, which the U.S. could keep for up to 40 years and perhaps share with other foreign governments. We are not really sure about that. The information on the PNR is tied to an individual's name, so privacy is a huge issue.

Let us look at the agreement Canada has with the European Union regarding the same information in the PNR. As a matter of fact, the Canada–E.U. agreement has been praised by Canadian and European data protection authorities because it has specific time periods for the disposal of data. In other words, they cannot keep it for 40 years as the Americans can under Bill C-42. They have to dispose of it after, I believe, a week. I am not sure of the days, but it is not a very long period before they have to dispose of the data. It limits the data's use, unlike what we are giving to the Americans. It limits, in particular, the individualization of the data. This is a really important point.

The information under the Canada–E.U. agreement is rendered anonymous. This allows the security services to build up the profile without attaching it to any one individual. Therefore, security is maintained.

If the member for Winnipeg North wants to get on a plane under this agreement that he is likely to vote for with his caucus colleagues, the Bloc and the government in the next number of days, the information he would have to provide would be in the Americans' computer system and it would be tied to him. They would do data mining and build a bank of information and a profile on him over time.

Under the Canada–E.U. agreement, the PNR information is separated from the person's name. Therefore, a person's privacy is maintained. They still accomplish the same goal that they are trying to get. They can build up profiles but they are not violating privacy. This has become one of the global standards for international treaties on PNR agreements. By getting involved with the Americans in Bill C-42, we are moving away from that high standard with the passage of this legislation.

I wish the Liberals and the Bloc would pause for a second and take another look at this.

As I said, we were supposed to pass this bill by the end of the year or the flights would stop. Well, the flights are continuing, and if we do not pass this legislation now, the flights are going to continue into the future. The Prime Minister will be in Washington on Friday no doubt to provide some answers and excuses as to why his government has been unable to get this legislation through the House. It is his problem to explain it, because he waited until the last possible minute to bring the legislation before the House in the first place.

There are other broader issues we should be looking at here. We should get the initial infrastructure that we have had in place since 9/11 working properly first. I will give a few examples of things that are not working right and some broad areas that we should be looking at.

One example is the trusted shippers program. We have a huge exposure in Canada and the United States with I believe it is 1,000 trusted shippers under the trusted shippers program who are not following up on packages and baggage. People are sitting on airplanes after having gone through all the security procedures, and packages and parcels that have not been checked are on the planes right underneath them. Does that make any sense at all?

We should be concentrating on where the exposures are. Right now the biggest exposure according to the American Air Line Pilots Association is the trusted shippers program, all the mail and packages that are being put on planes without being checked. Why are we not looking at that area? In the whole area of the no-fly list, we do not even have the bugs worked out on that yet.

A couple of years ago, we were stopping Senator Ted Kennedy and refusing to let him on a plane. The member for Winnipeg Centre was denied boarding several times because another person with the same name was on the no-fly list. Six-year-old Alyssa Thomas was denied boarding because her name is on the no-fly list. They would not let her on the plane.

And we trust these people with all these data? Good luck, if the Bloc and the Liberals, and the government for that matter, think that giving all this information to the Americans is somehow going to provide security.

All we are going to get at the end of the day is perhaps a delayed flight if we have to go around American airspace. I am not suggesting that is ever going to happen. I would suggest that we should call their bluff and not pass the legislation.

What are other countries doing? What is Mexico doing? The member for Western Arctic said the Mexicans are not participating in this program. Why do we not check these things out? Clearly, the government has no desire to give us information as to what is going on.

When I talk about a reciprocal agreement, what kind of negotiating is going on in the government when it simply holus-bolus accepts what the Americans want it to do? The Conservative government does not say that if we are going to give them information, we want theirs. Did it occur to anybody over there in the government, the government negotiators, at least to suggest that to the Americans? Perhaps that would have slowed down the process a bit. But no, we are simply rolling over.

The government told me that it does not want to ask them for the information because we do not have a computer system that could handle all the information. The Americans are going to take our information on 100 flights and they are going to spend, and I forget the figure I was told, but a huge amount of money anyway to deal with this data and we would have to do the same thing if we got information from them.

I would suggest that the government start looking at its negotiating team and maybe get it to do a little more work.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly what the Americans are up to is data mining. In fact, that is probably what is going on too with the Canada-U.S. agreement, but there is a big difference between what Canada negotiated with the European Union and what we are dealing with in the United States.

To the United States, they are giving over all of the PNR information, and it is attached to names. Moreover, the Americans can keep the data for up to 40 years. Yet with the European Union, the agreement has time periods for the disposal of data, not 40 years but a matter of days. It also limits the data's use and it limits, in particular, the individualization of the data. The information to the Europeans is rendered anonymous, allowing the security services to build up a profile without attaching it to any one individual. Therefore, they are maintaining the individual's privacy in the European agreement. That is—