Bill C-42 (Historical)

Strengthening Aviation Security Act

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act

This enactment amends the Aeronautics Act so that the operator of an aircraft that is due to fly over the United States in the course of an international flight may provide information to a competent authority of that country.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a good speech, a speech that I believe in.

I sit on the transport committee and right now it is dealing with Bill C-42, which all the privacy experts have said is going to be an invasion of our privacy. Some people think we are in a war against terrorism and that because we are in a war we can give up certain rights. To that end, I proposed a sunset clause for this bill, which was rejected by the Liberals on the committee.

We are in a situation now where a bill that clearly infringes upon the privacy rights of Canadians is going to be law without a sunset clause, without the ability to say that this was only done temporarily because of a particular terrorist concern that we have in this world.

Does the member not think the Liberal Party should walk the walk and not just talk the talk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We didn't have to wait very long. That's perfect then. Thank you.

I just want everybody to hear my first comment. In yesterday's report that we sent to the House on Bill C-42, there was one mistake in the report that suggested that after the timeframe we would review. We discussed that. In the words that were put in the report, it was to review the act. The government is going to propose an amendment at report stage that we review that section of the act--so there are no surprises when it happens in the House and nobody will feel they've been blindsided.

Mr. Jean.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There's one further item of business, and I did want to talk to the committee about this. We finished up Bill C-42 a little bit early. What I'm proposing is that we consider moving immediately to Bill S-5, which has now been referred to our committee.

It's a very small bill. I know some of you are aware of it already. It's a bill, just one amendment, that will allow Transport Canada and Environment Canada to become compliant with NAFTA, which as of January 2009 required that Canada allow importation of Mexican vehicles that are ten years old or older. Right now it can't be done, believe it or not, so Canadians who go down to Mexico can't import them. What we're asking is to bring it to the committee. It should take no more than half an hour to an hour.

What I'm proposing is that we could bring it up on Thursday, tentatively based on whether or not you agree to it after you get your briefing. I would provide briefings in relation to it or ask the department to provide briefings to all the people interested. Once you get the deck on it you're going to see it's very small and very quick.

We could have this done and referred to the House before the break. What I'm proposing is that we keep Thursday open for this bill, and then we could have another bill to the House before Christmas. All of you would receive a briefing between now and then. I would get a deck to you, first of all, and you'll see it's quite small. Then if you want a briefing by the department, I would get that arranged before Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

Again, on the advice to the chair, the introduction of the requirement for the minister to bring in regulations of this manner is a new concept and therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-42.

Mr. Bevington, amendment NDP-5.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It reads that Bill C-42 be amended in clause 2 by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 1 with the following.... So it's lines 15 and 16, if everybody can direct their attention there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting number 41, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 26, 2010, on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I want to bring to the committee's attention that I've circulated a budget for the extra meetings that we're having. It's to provide for witnesses to get here to present. I need someone to move the budget, if they would, so that we can move on to the rest of the--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

The fact is, you are a key figure around the world. With respect to Facebook, you took a considerable number of initiatives that advanced privacy rights.

I would like to move on now to Bill C-42. You appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on November 18. On November 16, Mr. Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, also testified before the committee. Talking about this bill and the Secure Flight Program, he stated that he had no objection to providing information about passengers who are only flying over a country. However, when we're talking about international territory, we know that the airspace belongs to the country where one happens to be. So, on November 18, you expressed certain reservations in that regard.

I believe you proposed restrictions, saying that there should perhaps be some control over the information that is passed on. The information is passed on to air transportation authorities, but there is no guarantee that it will stay there. I think you mentioned that to the committee. We don't know whether it might be given to the police or other agencies. Once the information has been provided, we have no assurance that it will not be disclosed to all kinds of different parties or used in all kinds of ways. That seemed to be a concern for you at the time.

So, you made recommendations, and I am just wondering if they are being acted on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

Taking the advice, as I do almost all the time, I have to suggest that the amendment is inadmissible. It runs contrary to the principle of the bill. The limitation of the provisions in Bill C-42 with regard to its application to only one foreign state is contrary to the principle of the bill and therefore inadmissible. If there is disagreement with my decision, you can challenge it, but other than that there is no debate.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite frankly, I'm of the mind that we should get on to some other business. I have a few things to say, but after that I think we need to deal with these motions and then get on with Bill C-42. We have a lot of people here.

I do want to talk a bit about infrastructure investments and what we've done as a government. Certainly, since introducing our economic plan in January of 2009, we've invested approximately $10.7 billion in federal funds toward more than 6,100 projects. It's no small feat. If we look at the history of Canada, this is the first time this amount of action has ever been taken in relation to infrastructure stimulus revitalization.

I'm very pleased with that and I'm pleased with the fact that we've worked well with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners. We've done a great job and they've done a great job in implementing the infrastructure rollout. For sure, $30 billion has been invested; in fact, over $30 billion has been invested by all of us. Our partners have even applauded us for the work we have done. They have indicated to us that this has been very important.

There are other things we've done. One, obviously, is making the gas tax permanent and doubling the amount. There are a lot of other things we've done with our partners, basically in listening to the FCM and others and building a truly national partnership with the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities.

When the Auditor General came out with her report, I was very, very pleased that she said the economic action plan is being delivered effectively. Her report actually says that the Government of Canada reacted quickly and effectively to design and implement the plan and fund eligible projects.

As of the end of September, provinces, territories, and municipalities reported that work was completed on about five times as many projects--that's right, Mr. Chair--under the infrastructure stimulus fund as they reported in March, so quite a bit has happened even since then.

We were also pleased to see that more than 61% of the projects are being constructed at least 30 days faster than originally forecasted. In fact, if we look at it even more deeply, 99% of the reported infrastructure stimulus fund and communities component top-up projects are now under way or completed. As we know, these projects put people to work when the economy needed it most and we are a shining example in the world of what a country can do when it comes together with its partners--provincial, territorial, and municipal.

But it's important to note that as the economic action plan winds down, a plan that was always intended to be targeted, timely, and temporary, and as projects complete construction, the Government of Canada has made a long-term commitment to continue to work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities--especially as can be seen, as I said, by the gas tax funding and what we've done there—to build world-class public infrastructure for the quality of life of Canadians and to make sure their quality of life continues to be so great.

The $33-billion Building Canada plan complements that economic action plan, and I think all of us can see what we've done with our partners in that area. Where the economic action plan targeted the shovel-ready projects that could kick-start the economy, the Building Canada plan focuses on the longer-term projects that require more time to plan and build. This means that funding for these projects under the programs like the Building Canada fund will continue to flow past next March. Of course, Mr. McCallum's motion that is before us today deals with the economic action plan.

As well, this government increased the gas tax fund to $2 billion a year and made it permanent, as I said, and that has been applauded by all the municipal group and by municipalities and provinces. Municipalities can rely on this funding and use it when they need it, whether that's as they receive it or at some time in the future. Of course, the Conservative government would not take that away, and hopefully no subsequent government would either.

Mr. Chair, I do have a press release that I would like to circulate among the members, but I would like to read out some parts of that. As was said this morning by the Prime Minister: “Canada's economic action plan is working. Our government expects that 90% of infrastructure projects will be done by the ambitious deadline that we set out”.

Certainly, most groups, engineers, and economists have applauded us, because that was a short timeline in order to make sure we spurred the economy. Now, since July 2009, more than 420,000 net new jobs have been created across Canada, and about 23,000 projects are under way or completed. The government has provided $16 billion to modernize public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water, parks, transit, and recreational facilities.

I'm reading verbatim from the press release: “Today, we have extended the deadline for completion of economic action plan infrastructure projects by one full construction season, to October 31, 2011”. Of course, that was said by the Prime Minister just a few minutes ago. “This will allow sufficient time for completion of the remaining projects,” he said.

I would like to circulate this in both French and English, if I may.

Now, I would say bluntly that Mr. McCallum's motion,at this stage, is moot, I would suggest. The difficulty with it, of course, is that it's not accurate on what we have actually done this morning.

You've asked for a six-month extension. We've actually made it a seven-month extension. I don't know where else we could do a better job than what was proposed by your motion, but certainly I would suggest that we have done that. That has now been done, so as far as that motion goes, I would suggest that it's moot.

[Toby Lennox]

Sure, I'd be happy to.

I take your point that in fact Bill C-42 has been preceded by tremendous discussions. These are large and agonizing questions, because they're balancing human rights and security, and one would assume that the conversation will continue. The fact that you're having this discussion here is testament to the will to have that conversation.

I will tell you that we are very much in competition with both the American carriers and American hubs. The effect of something like Bill C-42 would be to strengthen the American border airports immediately. After all, if I can fly to Cancun out of Buffalo and avoid some long detour that is going to cost me more money, I will do just that. The immediate reality is that the advantages American airports close to our border have already would only be amplified.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

All right. In a sense we've gone to the 30,000-foot level with Mr. Hasbrouck's suggestion of international negotiations around some sort of a binding treaty with binding guarantees in it. I want to come back down to ground level again about what Bill C-42 is.

First of all, it's a technical amendment to ensure Canadians don't face any undue delays with respect to their travel plans. I will remind you that we've had a lot of talk about how there should be negotiations. I have to remind those who are listening today, and perhaps our witnesses as well, that Bill C-42 actually follows a process of negotiations that has been ongoing with the United States since 2008. The minister testified before this committee, for example, that we did obtain an exemption with respect to the final rule for overflights that originate domestically in Canada, fly over U.S. airspace, and then land in Canada, so we have had some negotiation with the United States. The decision with respect to bringing in Bill C-42 was based on the reality that those negotiations were not going to produce an exemption for international overflights, and we are facing additionally the implementation deadline at the end of this calendar year. That may represent to some a bit of a Hobson's choice, but it is a reality nonetheless.

I want to get Mr. Lennox onto the record just a little bit.

We've had a lot of discussion over here on the issues of privacy. I want to come to the GTAA and its place and position with respect to the economy. We've just come through a very difficult global recession. You may want to talk about the impact to airports, airlines, and tourism industries as well as about the recovery. We have heard some good news with respect to Air Transat recalling 110 employees, for example, but the economic recovery is fragile. There is competition from U.S. airports. Can you talk about the context, economically, for your industry?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.

I want to ask a very quick question right away, and then I'll move to a different line of questioning.

The BC Civil Liberties Association appeared before this committee. They took the position that Bill C-42 should not be proceeded with unless or until the United States changes its own internal legal process to include the redress mechanism. Are any of the witnesses present at the table today taking that position?

[Toby Lennox]

I'm just the simple airport guy at the end.

The point that I would like to make has been touched upon already. It is that right now there is a time issue concerning both Bill C-42 and the issue about U.S. sovereignty and U.S. demands with respect to what it is going to do with respect to its airspace. I believe Mr. Hasbrouck referred to the non-negotiable demands of the United States. Trying to make that balance between personal privacy and human rights versus the very real commercial economic issues is very difficult, and it sometimes defies legislative timetables.

The issue is whether we are able to have a conversation with the Americans and with others about issues of terrorism, security, and privacy and personal information. I think we have to pursue that. Perhaps a sunset clause may be appropriate.

There is a very real prospect that if you're going to be flying, you are going to be distorting travel routes in order to accommodate something that actually has nothing to do with aviation. In order to get to Mexico, you will have to fly out over the Gulf of St. Lawrence and then down the coast of the United States. That is just not something that's practical or feasible. If you're telling me that this is going to happen in short order, I can tell you that the impact on the industry is going to be considerable, although, at the same time, we as an industry do not make light of the very real concerns that have been raised at this table.

What I'm saying is that there's a conversation that is difficult to have in this timeframe, but we also have to recognize that we are dealing with Americans and with Americans' right to deal with security, whether we agree with it or not. With respect, they're not asking us for our opinion about what they do with the privacy information. That is a conversation we have to push, but I would stress the very real operational concerns that we have with respect to the impact of not following Bill C-42.