Evidence of meeting #41 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
One stab at a time.
Anyway, the chair's ruling has been challenged. We'll need a count to see if....
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained? I suspect I'm going to hear a lot of nays.
(Chair's ruling overturned: nays 9; yeas 2)
The ruling of the chair has been overruled. I would ask the question on the amendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
We'll now move to amendment NDP-3. Mr. Bevington.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, the witnesses showed that within our air service, as it stands, information carried on passengers on our flights is under American jurisdiction, in that the servers are located in the United States. Under the particular acts within the United States, they can have full access to that information. This is an amendment that would seek to change the nature of the information.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Bevington.
Regrettably, the advice I've been given is that the introduction of the requirement for operators of aircraft to locate all their computer servers that are used to make reservations in Canada is a new concept and therefore beyond the scope of the bill.
We're now going to move to amendment NDP-4. Mr. Bevington.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Chair, once again this is an amendment that will assist travellers in any wrongful designation of their status by the foreign country, in that it will emphasize the responsibility of the minister to deal with this.
I note the ambassador's letter that was given to us by you clearly states that within the United States there is a process for appeal. I think this particular amendment, giving responsibility to our government to provide a similar level of protection to Canadian citizens under our laws, is justifiable and will make this law better.
I know you're going to make a ruling here, so I'll leave it at that.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
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.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay, thank you.
Regrettably, again, on the advice that I've been given, the introduction of this requirement for the minister to make representation to the Government of the United States on behalf of a citizen with regard to the U.S.-administered no-fly list is a new concept, and therefore beyond the scope of the bill.
We're going to move on.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We dealt with amendment LIB-4 in the previous clause, so we're going to NDP-6, a proposed new clause 3.
Mr. Bevington.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Yes, Mr. Chair. This is an amendment that would draw this act to an end three years after the day on which it receives royal assent. As we've heard much testimony about the nature of this information, we've seen that we're really being pressured into doing something that the Canadian government and the minister said was not appropriate. The minister in his testimony in front of us said that they were working to get a complete exemption for all of these overflights. That was the information I received from the minister.
What we have is a situation where we're passing a law under duress, under the threat of a major disruption to our air traffic service. As such, Mr. Chair, I'm proposing that this act cease to have effect. This will mean that in the intervening time, the government will have an opportunity to make its case better to the Government of the United States and to solve this particular problem.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It is the opinion of the chair that the motion is in order, and we'll open the floor to debate.
Mr. Jean.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand Mr. Bevington's position on this, and that's why, with great reluctance, the government came forward with proposed amendments to Liberal motions to have a mandatory review by the committee within three years, and a mandatory review in five years, so the committee could deal with it--and was, in essence, forced to deal with it--so they could deal with exactly why Mr. Bevington wants a sunset clause.
I have to respond to the issue of duress. I don't at all think we're under any kind of duress. I think, in fact, it's the exact opposite. We're receiving the privilege to fly over somebody else's airspace. If China were below our border, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because they'd just shoot anything out of the air that flies over them. We would not be talking about the exemption; we would not have to be looking at this law.
I think the exact opposite. The government has tried to reach out to Mr. Bevington and the NDP, as well as the Bloc and the Liberals, with this particular amendment to have a review. I think that's more than adequate. Certainly I don't believe it's a right to fly over the U.S., or any sovereign state's airspace. I think it's a privilege, just like it's a privilege for other countries to fly over ours. So the government would not support the sunset clause.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It will give me an opportunity to ask the witnesses. I understand that some of the witnesses were privy to the negotiations that took place. Was the original position of the government that they were looking for complete exemption from these regulations?
11:45 a.m.
Kristina Namiesniowski Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The government had discussions with the United States, Mr. Chair, and at the outset we looked to see what was possible and whether or not Canada could achieve a full exemption. We were not successful.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think that makes my main point in this discussion that we were trying to avoid this particular thing. Because of the information that has been given to us by the Privacy Commissioner and many of the others, this is a very serious issue vis-à-vis privacy and the rights of individuals.
We have a situation where we're passing a bill here today in order to meet up with the U.S. standards that they're now applying to a system of overflights that's been in place for probably 70 years, where this information was previously not required.
Most laws in the British system are based on common law. If you look at the provision, say, of entering into someone's property, then that right is developed over time. Now, this is of course different between sovereign nations, but certainly we could look at this particular act of the United States as an additional burden they're asking us to take on in a long-term relationship.
Without the understanding of the nature of the threat assessment that's being applied to this.... Quite obviously, our government didn't think there was a great threat assessment present with the overflights over the United States. If our government had considered that these overflights presented a hazard to another country, I'm sure it would not have gone there looking for a complete exemption. It would have gone there open-hearted, giving the information to the United States, if it felt that there were reasonable grounds for doing this. So there aren't reasonable grounds in the eyes of the Canadian government.
We have a situation where we're being asked to make an unreasonable change in the nature of our relationship with the United States based on decisions that are not coming from the legislators of the United States. It's quite clear within the legislation that was developed in the United States that there are grounds for a complete exemption for overflights. That's built into their legislation, so the legislators in their wisdom in the United States said “Yes, we should have the ability to give another country a complete exemption from overflight requirements”.
That's clear. The United States, at the level we deal with as legislators, made that decision. What has happened since is that at a bureaucratic level there have been some decisions made that this overflight information is required, and that our security service and security system is not adequate.
What I wanted to accomplish with this sunset clause is to put the onus back on the government to deal with this at the highest level, to deal with this with the understanding that our legislators and the legislators in the United States both see that this information requirement is excessive, and that it can be eliminated. Without this clause, we will see that this legislation will remain in place for a very long period of time and be an unnecessary burden on Canadian travellers.
We have a situation with a review, which is fine and good, but now we have an open-ended review, so we have the government and this committee commencing a review. That's what it says. You can commence a review and you can go on for many years before you actually complete a review. I was willing to go along with that amendment when it had a fixed time, when that review had to come in front of Parliament. I don't see that now. I see a wide-open review process with no obligation for completion. There's no obligation now in the legislation that says that review has to be completed.
“Commence”—what kind of word is “commence” within legislation? How does that put any onus on anyone to complete something? “Commence a review”—that's about the worst word I can imagine to put in that situation. It really doesn't do anything. It requires there to be complete goodwill on the part of whoever is holding the majority in this committee at the time of the commencement of the review in order for that review to be completed. What you've done then is to basically make this subject to the whim of the committee. You've made the legislation subject to the whim of the committee. You've taken it away from being a very clear obligation on the part of this committee, which has made this decision to go ahead with a particular law that we've heard quite clearly can infringe upon Canadians' privacy rights. You've made a decision to go ahead with that, and now you've kept the decision for completion of a review in the hands of the majority of the committee.
Mr. Chair, we don't know what the composition of this committee will be like in three years. There will be another election within three years. There may be a majority of any shape or description on this. That's unlikely to be determined until the election. With this kind of legislation, I think we can safely say....
I'm speaking to the legislation, but there's a point of order.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, debate on amendment LIB-4 has already ceased. We're on amendment NDP-6, if I'm correct on that.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
