Declan at Crawl Across the Ocean sums it up:

As for the no-fly list, I guess it’s like they always say, innocent until proven guilty, or until placed on a secret government list for unknown reasons with little hope of appeal.

In case you missed the news, Canada’s no-fly list went into effect on Monday. There are up to 2,000 people on the list — 2,000 people who are an “immediate threat to aviation security” but haven’t, you know, actually done anything we can arrest them for.

This is the second of two posts on Passenger Protect, Canada’s forthcoming no-fly list. Part 1 described how Passenger Protect is going to work.

Why we should be concerned about Passenger Protect

First of all, there’s the cost. Passenger Protect represents a huge increase in federal spending on border security. In fact, just a few months ago, CBC was reporting that the cost might keep the program from being implemented. Look at the numbers from the government’s own feasibility study: “Implementation costs for the RCMP, CSIS and the CBSA alone would range from $95 million to $270 million, the study estimates, with annual operational costs of between $19 million and $60 million. Costs for Transport Canada are not included in the estimate.” By way of comparison, the 2006 federal budget allocated $133 million for the entire Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and about the same amount for hiring one thousand new RCMP officers. I’m no expert on government finance, but the Passenger Protect numbers don’t look good to me.

Second, and more importantly, there’s the question of effectiveness. Will the no-fly list actually make us safer? If the US example is anything to go by, probably not.

Now, to their credit, the designers of Passenger Protect have learned a thing or two from the disaster that is the US no-fly list. For example, unlike in the US, there will be an appeal process — so, in theory, you’ll be able to get your name off the list if it shouldn’t be there. Whether it will work that way in practice is another story, of course, but at least there will be a process in place. There are also specific criteria for adding names to the list, which as far as I can tell is something the US list lacks.

That said, there are still a number of big gaping flaws to reckon with. For one thing, Canada will almost certainly be sharing its no-fly list with the US. So if you end up on the Canadian list, you will also end up on the US list. And once you’re on the US list, you don’t get off it — just ask Maher Arar. (If a formal commission of inquiry can’t get you off the US no-fly list, what chance does a “Not-a-Terrorist” certificate from the Office of Reconsideration have?)

The Canadian no-fly list will also be using the US list as one of its information sources. Now, the US list is finally going to be cleaned up in the near future, but it’s certainly been the case in the past that that list was worthless. The Wikipedia article on the US list runs through some of the better-known false positives if you need examples. I frankly don’t understand how Canada’s security agencies will be able to extract reliable information from the US list. Our own records of individuals with ties to terrorism are far less comprehensive than American records, so I hope the Homeland Security people will be sharing everything they know about the 44,000 people on their no-fly list — because we’d have to be nuts to just use their list without evaluating the information it’s based on first.

Then there are the disturbingly vague criteria for including a person on the Canadian list. For example, the first class of people on the list includes any “individual who is or has been involved in a terrorist group, and who, it can reasonably be suspected, will endanger the security of any aircraft or aerodrome or the safety of the public, passengers or crew members.” Is the definition of a terrorist group restricted to designated terrorist organizations? Does involvement in such a group include just donating money? Does it include involvement antedating the group’s designation as a terrorist organization? Will such involvement itself qualify as reasonable grounds to suspect the person is a threat? These are not idle or unfounded questions. Remember, the agencies responsible for answering them have already helped send at least one innocent person off to be tortured in a foreign country; we can expect them to cast their nets wide and not worry too much if they catch a few innocent people along the way.

Also, the no-fly list will only work if the terrorists agree to use their real names when they book a flight. Which is kind of an important point, because it means we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a system that will only catch the really stupid terrorists. You know, the ones we probably would’ve caught anyway.

Incidentally, in the 18 months since Paul Martin’s Liberals first floated the idea, Passenger Protect has never once been debated in the House of Commons. The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act did raise a few concerns about the program in the report they released this month (which recommends clarifying the criteria for adding names to the list and publishing guidelines on how to get your name removed), but the people you and I actually elected don’t seem too concerned about it. Maybe we should give them a nudge.

Canada is about to get its very own homegrown no-fly list. The initiative is called Passenger Protect, and it got its start under Paul Martin’s Liberal government back in 2005. The Liberals lost power before it could be implemented, but Stephen Harper’s Conservatives thought it was a good idea, so they’re going ahead with it. It’s set to take effect for domestic flights in March, and for international flights in June.

How it will work

The no-fly list will be compiled by a Transport Canada advisory group based on recommendations from CSIS and the RCMP. They’ll be adding the names of anyone who is or has been involved with terrorist groups and might pose a threat to aviation security; anyone who has previously been convicted of “serious and life-threatening crimes against aviation security”; and any convicted violent offenders who might harm the crew or other passengers.

In addition to using their own records, CSIS and the RCMP will be relying on information from foreign intelligence sources, including the US no-fly list. The Canadian list will include each person’s name, gender, and date of birth, and in some cases their address, phone number, and passport number as well. All airlines flying through Canada will have access to the list, but they’ll be required to keep it confidential. However, Canada will almost certainly share its list with the US and other Canadian allies — so if you’re on the Canadian no-fly list, you can expect to end up on the US list, too.

When you go to get your boarding pass, your airline will check to see if your name is on the list. If it is, you won’t be able to print your boarding pass online or at a kiosk — you’ll have to proceed to the check-in desk, where airline staff will ask for your ID and check your gender and date of birth. If you’re still a match at this point, they’ll get in touch with a Transport Canada officer to verify your identity and status, and permit or refuse boarding accordingly. If you want to appeal their decision, you can talk to the Office of Reconsideration, an independent review board.

For more information, check out:

• Transport Canada’s information package on Passenger Protect
• Transport Canada’s response to the Privacy Commissioner’s questions
• Identity Screening Regulations

Coming soon: Why we should be concerned about Passenger Protect.

I’ll be posting more about Passenger Protect, Canada’s nascent no-fly list, in the near future, but for now, here’s a CBC article suggesting that the cost of the system — estimated at $250 million — could keep it from being implemented. (The article is in French only, alas. Here’s a reasonably coherent English-language version, courtesy of Babelfish.)