This year will see the implementation of a new piece of American legislation developed by the Department of Homeland Security called the Secure Flight Program (SFP). The bill contains at least one measure that has raised the ire of many Canadian civil liberties organisations; airlines must provide the United States’ Transportation Security Administration with such personal information as a passenger’s passport and travel itinerary three days before any flight goes through American airspace. All information gathered is subsequently cross-referenced against lists of suspected terrorists and criminals. This vetting process determines whether a passenger is given a boarding card, required to undergo further screening, or is prohibited from travelling.
The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), an association of 38 Canadian organisations and unions, worries about the repercussions this new measure will have on Canadian independence with respect to the United States. “The Americans will have a veto on every passenger that gets on a plane in Canada, even if they are not going to set foot on American soil,” laments Roch Tassé, the ICLMG’s coordinator. Tassé is also concerned because of the differences that exist between Canadian and American international policies, given that this program theoretically cedes to the United States control over immigration, refugee seekers and even diplomacy, “What will happen if Canada invites the ambassador from a country such as Cuba?” He believes that the SFP is nothing short of a forced harmonisation of Canadian visa policies with respect to the Americans’.
The ICLMG is not alone with its concerns. The Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) made their grievances known to America’s Department of Homeland Security last December. Chief among ATAC’s critique, “the submission of Canadian passenger’s details by Canadian airlines violates Canada’s laws on the protection of personal information and electronic documents, as well as laws on aeronautics.”
Indeed, even the Canadian government stuck its head ever so slightly above the parapet in response to its powerful neighbour’s requests; Lawrence Cannon, the then Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, sent a communiqué in November 2007, “Considering our complementary aviation systems, as well as the systematic cooperation between our two countries, the government of Canada believes there are solid reasons to exempt from the SFP a flight to or from Canada if the plane is only flying over American territory without landing there.”
Benoît Gagnon, head of the Security, Identity and Technology Research Chair of Canada underlines that “the SFP is the next in a long line of information gathering programs. Little by little, we are letting the United States run our security.” In fact, since Sepetember 11 2001 Canada and the United States have redoubled their efforts to integrate their border security systems, most notably with the Canada-U.S Smart Border Declaration which facilates information exchanges between the two allies. According to Gagnon, it is too early to tell what kind of an impact these developments will have on Canadian sovereignty.
Even without the SFP, the transfer of personal information between the two governments led to complications for Canadians crossing the border. In June 2007, Teresa Healy, the lead reseacher of the Canadian Labour Congress, was the subject of a prolonged interrogation by American customs officers at the Cornwall, Ontario border crossing when she set-off a radiation detector. After it came to light that the radiation was due to medical tests, they switched the subject of the interrogation to her 1991 arrest at a nonviolent protest. No charges were filed at the time, but the customs officers had her digitized fingerprints at their disposal nonetheless. “They told me, ‘don’t worry about it, we’re just keeping them in case you ever do anything else.’”
Healy is still outraged, “I was shocked that the Canadian government gave my file to the Americans when I was declared innocent.” She tried to bring her case to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, but they told her that there was nothing that could be done as it is part of an international agreement.
Experiences such as Teresa Healy’s risk becoming more common if passenger vetting begins to apply to those who are not entering the United States. Citizens wishing to register their opposition to the program, however, have problems of their own, warns Benoît Gagnon, “if we protest against it, the Canadian government will say that it isn’t their policy and the American government will say that we aren’t their citizens. It’s a vicious circle.”
