Debates of Feb. 1st, 2011

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has just opened a dangerous door and I would need more time to answer. First, he has not understood anything. Second, he does not want to understand anything. Third, and worst of all, if Bill S-6 were to pass tomorrow, it would be the first step towards reinstating capital punishment in Canada. That is very clear and I stand behind my opinion.

Here is the worst part. What will an inmate do if he has no other options and must remain in prison for the rest of his life? He will commit murders for gangs. If my colleague needs some examples, I will give him three, outside the House. I invite him to go to the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Kingston and Port-Cartier institutions. That is the problem posed by Bill S-6.

I am not saying that an inmate with bad behaviour in prison must be paroled. I have never said that. On the contrary, an individual who wants to return to society must be ready, rehabilitated and capable of being an asset to society. Otherwise, he will remain in prison. I hope that it is clear this time. That is not what Bill S-6 is all about. I invite my colleague to reread the bill. If necessary, I will give him a free course on criminal law in the next few days.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, The Environment.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand once again to speak to Bill C-48, which has now reached third reading and is close to realizing the vision of the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville whose private member's bill inspired its content.

As I have spoken about many times over my five years in this House, my colleague and I have been pushing for an end to automatic concurrent sentences for multiple murderers and rapists. I was proud to be the seconder to this important bill when it was brought forward in 2007.

Having spoken to many victims of crime and their families over the years, I became aware of how much of an insult and travesty the notion of volume discounts was within our justice system. The ability to serve penalties simultaneously is a slap in the face to those who have any sort of respect for human life. The murder of victim number two, three, four or five is just as significant, just as impactful and just as heinous as the murder of victim number one. The order in which the crimes were committed should have absolutely no bearing on the way in which a perpetrator is sentenced.

This House is no doubt aware of the stories of Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan, because I have taken every opportunity to share them with my fellow members. For my family, including my daughter, Keerat, who is in Ottawa today, and for the residents of Surrey and Delta, the tragic end to the lives of those two gentlemen was very personal and emotional because they were innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire of the most callous of criminals. Today I will once again share their story so their names are at the forefront of the mind of every one of my colleagues when they vote on this bill.

It was the fall of 2007 when plumber Ed Schellenberg was repairing a fireplace in a 15th floor apartment. At the same time, in a neighbouring suite to the one in which Mr. Schellenberg was working, Chris Mohan was on his way out to play hockey. The nefarious activities that were taking place on that 15th floor in another suite meant that both Mr. Schellenberg and Mr. Mohan became collateral damage for a group of criminals whose regard for anyone besides themselves was non-existent. Gang activity in support of the drug trade took the lives of two men who had absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

Canadians should not have to live in fear of conducting their daily lives in places where they have every right to be. The fact that these terrible murders took place in a residential building in the middle of a quiet neighbourhood makes this incident that much more frightening to contemplate.

Now, thanks to the tireless work of the Surrey RCMP and the integrated homicide investigation team, those individuals who were responsible for this brutality are now in custody and at various stages of the justice process. Our front-line defenders have done their job and have made residents of my riding of Newton—North Delta and those living across Surrey that much more safe and secure in their own communities.

However, now it is time for us as legislators to do our job because, as things currently stand, the courts are helpless because of current laws. The perpetrators of the Surrey Six slayings are counting their lucky stars that current laws allow for no additional punishment for the murders of Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan.

There was no deterrent to these criminals before they took lives and there is certainly no fear now that they are about to face the consequences of their actions. I say that it is about time that we, as representatives of the people, close this loophole.

There must be a difference for those who commit a single act of sexual assault or murder and those who go on a spree and impact many victims. Our laws must reflect the sanctity and respect for human life that is missing in these murderers. There can no longer be any delays due to parliamentary procedure or posturing of a government more concerned with politics than real change.

In 1999, a similar bill was passed in the House of Commons, but due to a general election being called, it died in the Senate. Since the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville reintroduced her private member's bill in 2007, the government has taken every opportunity to create manufactured obstacles to its passage.

I call on members of the government to stop the political games. No more proroguing Parliament, no more political filibustering and no more false accusations against members of my party, who are willing to work together to truly get tough and smart on crime. It does not matter that it was first a Liberal idea. All that matters is that we, as members of the House of Commons, are guided by the constituents we represent and the victims and families who have fallen through the cracks.

I know for a fact that over the years there have been many sentences imposed by judges who were pained to do so. They wanted to lay down stiffer sentences but were completely handcuffed by the parameters of the law. Bill C-48 is going to change all of that.

Before I conclude, I want to recognize the fantastic amendment made to the bill at the committee stage by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has suggested that all decisions, whether with or without a consecutive sentence, should include a verbal or written explanation. It is always useful to know reasons for the important decisions and judges would not mind this requirement.

I encourage all of my colleagues from all parties to finally pass the bill and ensure that another victim is never again taken for granted by our laws.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remember very well the private member's bill on consecutive versus concurrent sentencing. That bill was in fact gutted in committee at that time and I know the member worked very hard to try to get it reinstated.

The debate that has occurred so far has to do in great part with whether Bill C-48 provides the right balance in terms of dealing with multiple murders considering the situation we have with Bill S-6, the faint hope clause. Would the member care to comment on how justice is served and the public safety objectives of the criminal justice would be better served by Bill C-48?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bill is in fact very balanced. On one side it gives powers and resources to judges to make decisions on multiple murders and whether they should be giving sentences as consecutive or concurrent. By including consecutive sentences as part of our law through this bill it would provide a balance to the system.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-48, which has to do with parole and cumulative sentences. This bill offers an option. It is not often that we see a crime bill introduced by the Conservatives that gives judges options. In this case, it gives them the option of imposing additional periods of parole ineligibility in cases of multiple murders. It gives judges the choice of adding them. The Bloc always likes putting things in the hands of judges for obvious reasons.

In a murder case, the judge and the jury can very quickly make recommendations on parole. There is a prison in my riding and I know people who have committed crimes, who are in this prison and who will one day have their sentences reduced or be released on parole and thus return to society. These people are all prepared to do so, and I do not see why we would keep someone in prison who had one moment of weakness, a momentary lapse, or simply a lack of understanding of our society's values. I do not see why we would never give them the possibility of living a normal life.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-48. I think it will be interesting, in committee, to ensure that the basic principles that give freedom to judges are conserved. This bill has to do with murder, the worst crime, which has the most significant consequences for victims and which affects the public the most. Bill C-48 would enable judges to increase parole the ineligibility period when they are pronouncing a sentence—not after, of course—in cases of multiple murders.

As my hon. colleague said earlier, multiple murders are very rare. In fact, only 0.2% of all murders in Canada in the last 35 years were multiple murders. These are major offences, I agree, but they are also extremely rare. What that means is that a good number of the bills now before the House deal with extremely rare incidents, probably because the government cannot find more general issues to address and, as we know too well, the government likes to say it is tough on crime and to put a good spin on it.

We all agree that the most serious crimes deserve the most serious penalties and are therefore subject to imprisonment for life. Sentences that are too light or parole that is too easy, such as parole after one-sixth of sentence—and we introduced a bill to do away with that—undermine the judicial system and only give credence to the misguided notion that criminals are treated better than their victims.

By the way, this bill does not improve the lot of the victims. The government keeps saying that we must focus on the victims of crime, but it has not done so in this bill. This bill is all about the criminals.

It seems unusual that a second murder would not result in an additional sentence. We all agree on that. Under Bill C-48, the judge would at least have the option of imposing consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It would be up to him to decide.

But the Bloc Québécois thinks that punishment cannot be the sole objective of the legal system, to the detriment of rehabilitation and reintegration. We still believe in that, and we do not expect to change our minds soon. In fact, we are not the only ones who believe that parole, rehabilitation and reintegration are important. Last week, there was an article in the paper from a coalition of eleven Christian churches in Canada that said: “According to the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the criminal justice policy of the Conservative government is not helping the victims or the offenders.” That rather confirms what I was saying earlier. Bills are always drafted to deal with criminals, not to assist the victims.

This article listed what the eleven churches want people to know. It asked what Jesus would do with modern-day criminals. It asked if he would let them languish behind bars even longer or if he would try to reintroduce them into society. It is an interesting question because the Conservatives often fall back on the religious view of punishment. They have built their preconceived notions of crime on a that foundation. And now the religious are reminding them of that.

That is how the eleven churches stated their position. It comes at the moment when the government, with bills like Bill C-48 and all of the other bills it is introducing, is already seeing it will need to build more and bigger prisons. In my riding as well, apparently the prison will be expanded to add 192 beds. Yet, for 10 or 15 years, the number of inmates in that prison has decreased on a regular basis. Why? Because there has been an increase in rehabilitation—more people on parole who have been rehabilitated. However, it seems that they will succeed in having more laws that will lengthen sentences and so, we will need more prisons.

What is interesting, and Bill C-48 would lead to this as well, is that 192 prison beds will cost $45 million. Simple division reveals that each concrete bed will cost $248,000. This amount represents two social housing units for prisoners, two units out in our society. The Conservatives prefer to build jails and take people out of society at the attractive price of $248,000 per prisoner. You must agree that this money would allow us to do other things on the outside.

The interesting part that I would like to share is where all of the churches of Canada are listed, be they Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, etc. This is what it says:

This group believes that incarcerating criminals for longer and longer periods, which is what the Conservative government in Ottawa is proposing, does not benefit either victims or offenders.

This is quite basic. I will continue:

I am most concerned that you and the Government of Canada are prepared to significantly increase investment in the building of new prisons.

These are religious leaders saying this. They went on to say:

Proposed new federal laws will ensure that more Canadians are sent to prison for longer periods, a strategy that has been repeatedly proven neither to reduce crime nor to assist victims.

If I understand correctly, Bill C-48 would put people in prison for longer periods of time to ensure that they do not reoffend. People are beginning to realize that it is not the length of time spent in prison that matters, but rather it is the money that is invested in rehabilitation. Offenders need to be re-educated, to be taught the moral values of society, to learn a trade, and they need to be looked after when they are released. Instead of simply giving them a cell in a prison, they must be given a place to live, a job, and a chance to return to society. Those are the ones who will not reoffend. We have a long way to go. We seem to be forgetting about victims.

I will continue quoting these religious leaders, because what they are saying is interesting:

These offenders are disproportionately poor, ill-equipped to learn, from the most disadvantaged and marginalized groups.

This is how religious leaders, who are also part of society, describe criminals.

They require treatment, health services, educational, employment and housing interventions, all less expensive and more humane than incarceration.

That is far from what is happening in Bill C-48, even though, in reality, there is nothing shocking about it. The principle is fine, but we can see that it is leading down the same path. They want to be able to incarcerate an increasing number of people.

The bishops continue:

We are called to be a people in relationship with each other through our conflicts and sins, with the ingenious creativity of God's Spirit to find our way back into covenant community.

They did not mean a community of Alliance members. What surprises me is that the Conservatives, who are so respectful of religion, do not listen to messages as important as this one and continue to think that the only way to make criminals disappear is to put them in prison.

Coming back to the quote:

How can that be if we automatically exclude and cut ourselves off from all those we label “criminal”?

There is a lot of wisdom in that. It is a pleasure for me to say so here in the House because I do not talk about religion very often. Sometimes I do, though, because I think these people have good things to say, as can be seen here. Their message is worth repeating. That is why they said it, so that it would be repeated and we could try to make the Conservatives understand that being tough on crime is not the only path but there are also rehabilitation paths.

In my riding, when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, before the second election they won, they eliminated one streetworker job.

I will not mention the town because that would be giving away too much. This streetworker made $40,000 a year. The Conservative government saved $40,000 a year even though this worker could have been out helping youths who were having difficulties and giving them advice to keep them out of jail. He could get them interested in other things such as learning a trade. He could encourage them to show more respect and give them some concept of morality, which they had not necessarily acquired in broken homes. The $40,000 that the federal government saved is not even a drop in its budget, hardly even one electron.

The opposition maintains, quite rightly, that there should be fewer crime bills. We have the impression that the government mostly just wants to make political hay by being tough on crime, as my colleague said. There were only about 45 recidivists among the 2,900 murderers in Canada over 35 years. We are talking, therefore, about an infinitesimal number. So why rework so many laws? Why not pass a general act instead of acts with such a narrow focus each time?

Here is a quote from some church members on their view of human dignity:

Our Church supports restorative justice...Both for moral and practical reasons, society should be concerned not only with how long prisoners are incarcerated for, but with their character when they leave prison. Every person is made in God's image and has received the gift of dignity...Our goal is not to be for or against a government, but to explain that there are alternatives to prison.

The Bloc Québécois also supports this type of restorative justice. These words should linger and influence current legislation.

They are not trying to engage in politics. They are trying to make the government understand that we cannot invest in prisons indefinitely. It is not a solution. The solution is to come back to rehabilitation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's frankness in talking about the broader dimension of our human responsibilities and the fact that the role of the criminal justice system is not simply to punish. Prevention is part of it, certainly punishment is an element, but then we have rehabilitation and reintegration.

It seems to me that an easy solution is Bill C-48, having more and more people stay in jail for longer periods of time and then we would not have to worry about whether they would be a problem. That is the important element of Bill C-48. We demonstrate a confidence level in judicial discretion. Public safety is extremely important and we should always show respect for the public safety issue. However, eventually people get out, even when they do bad things, and we want to be absolutely sure.

I appreciate the member's comments and acknowledge his openness with the House.

Perhaps the member would comment on whether Bill S-6 on the faint hope clause is consistent with the idea that there are people who are not Clifford Olson, that public safety is not at risk and that maybe there are good public service and safety reasons for early parole in certain circumstances.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very interesting question. I also thank him for appreciating the fact that I spoke about moral values.

The value of this bill lies in the fact that it gives judges the discretion to assess people who have committed such horrible crimes as murder and consider whether their culpability, depending on the circumstances, is greater if they have committed two murders at the same time, or if they have committed two murders, one after the other. Is a person a greater danger to society if he has killed three of his children at the same time or if he has killed only one of his children? That is what must be determined.

It is fortunate that judges can consider this because there is no neat mathematical formula for culpability. Moral values must always be the values on which decisions are based. There are serial killers, but they are already subject to a life sentence without possibility of parole. We are not talking about them, but about a few people who are not necessarily a danger in the long term, but who had a moment of great weakness.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-42. Motion No. 2 has been withdrawn by its sponsor. Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 3 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No, 1

That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 15 on page 2 with the following:

“(4) The Committee of the House of Commons responsible for transport matters must,

(a) within three years after the day on which this subsection comes into force and every five years thereafter, commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this section, and complete the review within two years; and

(b) within three months after the day on which the review is completed, submit a report to the House of Commons setting out its findings.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-42, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 2 with the following:

“the provisions and operation of this section; and”

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally brought this bill back to the House for report stage debate. During the second reading debate and during committee stage, the government made it clear that the bill was a matter of national urgency. That is why I was dismayed that the government waited until the final sitting day before the recess last summer to table this legislation.

Last fall when the House returned, the government waited until October 19 to bring the bill forward for debate and again waited until October 26 to complete debate at second reading. The transport committee held six days of hearings on the bill and then amended and passed the bill on December 7, and it was reported to the House on December 8. Again, instead of taking up this important matter, the government let it sit idle. Now, here we are in February finally discussing the bill again in the House.

I lay out this timetable in some detail for a specific reason. The element of the U.S. secure flight program which would require the transfer of data for flights flying over the U.S. was set to become live at the end of 2010. There was significant pressure from both the government and the U.S. to ensure that our airlines were legally able to perform this data transfer. However, it is clear from the government's lack of action that this was never truly a priority.

The secure flight program, which was rolled out in three stages, has put Canada in a tough spot. Our government has always strived to protect the privacy of Canadians, but the U.S. has the sovereign right to control its airspace. That is why committee members heard from a wide range of witnesses.

We heard from many witnesses, including the governments of the United States and Canada, the aviation industry, the Privacy Commissioner and many civil rights groups. It became rather clear that we really had no choice: we had to allow this information to be transferred.

It also became clear that the bill was woefully inadequate in providing protections to the privacy of Canadians. The members of the transport committee worked to build protections into the law. Now, as amended, the law will require airlines to notify passengers before they purchase their tickets that their personal information will be transferred to the United States.

The second change is that the committee reduced the scope of these provisions. Previously the governor in council had the power, without parliamentary approval, to add other countries to the list of those authorized to receive this information. Thanks to amendments made at committee, this authorization has been limited in legislation to the United States. This means that should another country request this passenger information, the government will have to return to Parliament, and members of both the House and the Senate will have the power to review and approve their addition.

The third amendment is also important. It requires that the House of Commons committee charged with transport issues must periodically review the provisions of this act and report to the House on their findings. This will give parliamentarians the opportunity to bring back witnesses, like the Privacy Commissioner, before the transport committee so that they can follow up on how the privacy of Canadians is being respected or not.

As will be seen in the notice paper, it is this provision of the bill that is subject to report stage amendments. I will touch on these amendments in due course, but first I want to comment on the committee hearings themselves.

I think it is fair to say that all the opposition parties shared the concern about the U.S. government's request to receive this information. However, I was dismayed by the tone that some of the government members took. Some Conservative members of the committee did not seem to take this seriously. They asked, rhetorically of course, if Canadians' right to privacy “trumped” the Americans' right to security and safety.

As the Privacy Commissioner indicated, this is a serious issue for Canadians. She raised the case of Maher Arar, who was rendered to Syria and tortured on the basis of information transferred by the Canadian government to the U.S. This is a serious issue. I want to emphasize that for the members opposite.

Now I will turn to the amendments currently before the House.

Motion No. 3, under the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, is a previously agreed to technical amendment that will restrict the committee's review to the provisions of the bill rather than the entire Aeronautics Act. This was the original intention of the committee.

The other amendment, also standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary, is more contentious. Currently, Bill C-42 requires that the transport committee must commence a review of the bill within two years of its coming into force and every five years thereafter. The committee must report its findings to the House within three months of completing the report. The government's amendment would allow the committee an extra year to begin the study, but would require the study to be completed within two years. That means the government would require the review to be completed within five years of the passage of the bill.

I do not believe the government's amendment fully appreciates the seriousness of the issue. The first review should be completed in less than five years. I will be proposing an amendment to government Motion No. 1, the effect of which will be to say that the review of this legislation should be complete within three years of the passage of the legislation rather than five years.

I know, having spoken to my colleague in the NDP, the member for Western Arctic, that he agrees with me to reduce the length of time from five years to three years.

I have not yet had a chance to talk to my colleague from the Bloc about this, but I will do so as soon as possible.

I also spoke to the parliamentary secretary and he indicated he was not sure whether or not the government would support that. We shall find out. It may be a friendly amendment having the support of all parties, or it may not be. That remains to be seen.

Let me conclude by reading the text of the Liberal amendment to government Motion No. 1. I move:

That Motion No. 1 be amended by deleting all the words in subsection (a) and replacing them with “within two years after the day on which this subsection comes into force and every five years thereafter, commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this section, and complete the review within one year; and”

It is a very simple matter. We on this side believe that these privacy concerns are very important and that we need not wait five years before reviewing the bill to make sure that Canadians' privacy rights have been respected. The government is proposing five years. The effect of our amendment is that this review be complete within three years of passage of the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

This motion proposed by the member for Markham—Unionville is receivable.

Questions and comments.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, this issue and the bill which had such urgency for the government before Christmas have since changed somewhat in direction.

My colleague mentioned that the U.S. government presented evidence to us. While we did have a letter from the ambassador to clarify certain points, we never had a real opportunity in the committee to actually question the Government of the United States on this particular issue.

We did have the Liberty Coalition, a U.S.-based civil liberties group, speak to us. Michael Chertoff is on public record saying that he believed that no-fly decisions should not be subject to judicial review. Within the United States, those who are impacted by no-fly regulations are not subject to judicial review.

Where does that leave Canadian citizens who may find themselves, under U.S. law, prohibited from flying over the U.S. and on a list that they have no judicial ability to access?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, this is a difficult situation for us because we do not want to risk Canadians' privacy by requiring them to give this information to the United States. However, it is indisputable that the United States has jurisdiction over its own airspace. Unless we want our flights not to go over the United States, which would be devastating for the airlines and for travellers, we really have no option but to agree to give this information.

As I said in my remarks, we made several amendments to mitigate the negatives out of this bill. In direct answer to my colleague, I do not think we can expect that Canadian citizens would have stronger rights than American citizens, vis-à-vis the U.S. government. I think the Americans with whom I spoke said that Canadians would have the same rights as American citizens.

This is one reason that a review is needed. We have received certain engagements from the U.S. government. One reason we would need a review, and sooner rather than later, not waiting a whole five years, is so that we can bring witnesses before the committee to hear how this bill has operated and whether, indeed, there have been infringements of Canadians' privacy rights or other issues.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend across the way for his comments and insightful work on the committee. It certainly took all members of all parties on the committee to get the job done in order for Canadians to be able to fly across the United States, even to fly from one Canadian city to another.

I wonder if the member could make it more clear and concise in relation to the amendments he is proposing. I understand there are two particular issues to shorten the timeframe. I am wondering if he has taken into account the long period of time it has taken to get bills passed through this place and to get studies done. Of course we are in a minority government and the Liberals continuously hold us up, and if it is not them, it is the Bloc or the NDP.

I am just wondering if the member has considered all of that, or does this mean the Liberals are going to take a new step forward and actually work co-operatively with the government to get the best interests of Canadians to the forefront?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps it means this is not a friendly amendment, although I would like clarification from my colleague.

The dates I gave in my speech indicate it was not the opposition that was responsible for delays in the bill. It was that the government brought the bill forward on the very last day of the summer sitting. The other dates indicate that if anyone is responsible for the delay, it is the government.

I do not think, even in a minority Parliament, it is too much to ask that within two years of the passage of the bill, which is quite a long time, the government begins a review of the bill and that it is given a whole year, 12 months, to complete that review. The review is not super complicated. It might take five or six days of hearings, much like in the lead-up to the bill. The Conservatives may have trouble fitting in five two-hour committee meetings in the space of 12 months, but for the Liberals and opposition parties in general that should not be a problem.

I do not understand why the government is refusing to go along with the three-year review period, which is ample time to get the work done. Is it because it is downplaying the importance of the risk to the privacy of Canadians and for that reason it is going all the way out to five years before it even considers it necessary to have a review?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in support of Bill C-42 and against the subamendment that has been put before the House.

Bill C-42 would amend the Aeronautics Act to ensure that Canadian air carriers comply with the United States' secure flight program and maintain Canadians' access to southern destinations via continental U.S. airspace. The legislation before us today would also strengthen the North American air transportation system against terrorist attacks and enhance the protection of all air travellers.

All hon. members understand the importance of achieving both goals, which will be easier if we are all clear on what Bill C-42 will and will not do. Some comments I have heard during debate and have seen in newspaper editorials would suggest that if Bill C-42 is passed then all domestic flights will have to comply with the secure flight program. That is absolutely false.

The truth of the matter is that our government has worked very hard with the U.S. administration to gain an exemption to the secure flight rules for domestic flights between Canadian cities which overfly U.S. airspace. That is an important distinction and an important exemption since many flights between Canadian cities do in fact travel through U.S. airspace.

Such flights under the provisions of Bill C-42 and the secure flight rule will not, and I repeat will not, be subject to the secure flight requirements. Neither U.S. law nor Bill C-42 will require that information related to passengers on those flights be shared with the U.S. government.

I have heard it said that the secure flight rule will apply to all Canadian domestic flights, which I previously mentioned is completely and absolutely wrong. I have also heard testimony at committee hearings implying that Bill C-42 might require that passenger information be sent to countries such as Russia or China for flights between Vancouver and Hong Kong, for example, or to Latin American countries for flights to Colombia or Brazil originating in Canada, and to European and Middle Eastern countries for flights from Canada to Dubai.

I want all members in the House to be absolutely clear on this point. Bill C-42 amends section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act so that Canadian airline companies can only provide the United States government with passenger information for all flights which overfly continental U.S. airspace.

I also want to highlight measures taken by the government to address concerns raised by opposition members and by the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, when the bill was before the transport committee. There were some concerns related to what Canadians were being told in relation to the secure flight regulations and whether they would be made fully aware of what information would be shared and with whom.

To address these concerns, we introduced a government amendment at committee stage that will require an operator of an aircraft that is due to fly over but not land in the U.S. to notify all persons who are on board or expected to be on board that information relating to them may be provided to a competent authority in the United States. This measure will ensure that Canadians are aware that their information will be shared with the U.S. government for flights overflying U.S. airspace to a third country. The amendment addresses concerns raised by the opposition and other witnesses during committee testimony and it does significantly improve the bill.

I would now like to shift gears and talk about some of the testimony that was heard at committee from the airline companies as well as from the tourism industry in general.

What was said at committee is relevant and very important, that is that the economic costs of not passing Bill C-42 would be severe.

The Canadian Tourism Industry Association noted, “Use of alternative routes will mean longer travel times, higher costs, and increased environmental impact” for flights not in compliance with the final rule of U.S. security plans. It went on to add, “Consequently, these travellers are likely to choose other destinations that would not require them to make stopovers or long flyovers”. That would undoubtedly have a negative and severe impact on the tourism association's 8,000 direct and affiliate members across the country who in turn represent some 1.6 million Canadians whose jobs depend on the economic impact of tourism in Canada.

The airline industry has been absolutely clear with the government in that it supports and requires Bill C-42 to be passed to remain competitive in the North American aviation industry. The Canadian Tourism Association similarly is clear and unequivocal in its support of Bill C-42.

Bill C-42 will ensure that Canadians can access travel destinations in a safe, quick and cost-effective manner while also protecting their privacy and individual rights. Amendments to the Aeronautics Act will enable Canadian air carriers to provide limited passenger information to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration 72 hours prior to departure for destinations requiring entry into U.S. airspace, such as Caribbean and Latin American destinations. Passenger data will be collected by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration for the purpose of passenger watch list matching.

Canadian air carriers are currently required to match passenger information against the U.S. no-fly and selectee terrorist watch list for flights destined for the U.S. Privacy concerns and false matches have been raised and our government is acutely aware of the importance of protecting privacy and individual rights.

By transferring responsibility for watch list matching from air carriers to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, secure flight is expected to reduce false matches. Only information necessary to conduct watch list matching will be gathered. All personal data will be collected, used, distributed, stored and disposed of in accordance with U.S. guidelines and applicable U.S. privacy laws and regulations. In fact, the vast majority of travel records collected by the secure flight program will be destroyed shortly after the completion of the individual's travel.

The Canadian government is focused on ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is protected and has expressed this concern to the U.S. In compliance with its secure flight program, Canadian air carriers will transmit each passenger's full name, date of birth and gender. If available, the passenger's redress number, passport information and itinerary details will also be transmitted. Passenger data will only be compared against the U.S. no-fly and selectee lists unless specific security considerations warrant further action.

By amending the Aeronautics Act, the Government of Canada is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Canadian air carriers can comply with the U.S. secure flight program, which requires U.S. and international air carriers to share passenger information with the U.S. government for flights that fly into and overfly the continental U.S. en route to a third country.

The Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the 1944 Chicago Convention, stipulates that all air carriers are obliged to operate under the legislation of another country once they enter its airspace. There is no alternative in meeting U.S. secure flight requirements. As I have mentioned, non-compliance by Canadian air carriers would result in lengthy and costly delays, as the U.S. has the legal right under international law to determine who enters its airspace and could legally deny overflight rights to Canadian air carriers destined for third country destinations.

Canadians flying from, for example, Winnipeg to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, would have to travel around the continental U.S. rather than take a direct route across U.S. airspace if the information is not shared and provided to U.S. authorities. This detour would result in additional expense incurred by Canadian travellers in addition to unnecessary inconvenience and added travel time. The effects on Canadian tourists and airline industries would be significant and negative.

Canadian air carriers would be faced with significant additional operational costs that would reduce their competitiveness in an already competitive market.

As the minister has said, Bill C-42 is not a long or complicated piece of legislation, but it is an important piece of legislation. It is vitally important for the Canadian public who wish to continue accessing southern destinations in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. It is vitally important for our airline and tourism industries which directly and indirectly provide over one million jobs to Canadian workers. It is also vitally important to our safety and security interests which require that we continue to work with all of our international partners to improve and enhance aviation security.

Therefore, I will be voting to support the passage of Bill C-42 and against the subamendment recently put on the floor of the House. I urge all hon. members to do likewise.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. I heard him say many times how important this was, so my question is the following: if the bill is so important and urgent to the government, and since the government has known for years the schedule on which these changes in the U.S. requirements would be introduced, why did it introduce the bill at the very last minute, on the last day of summer, when it could have introduced it many months or even a year earlier?

I do not understand why the urgency coincides with the very slow speed of introducing the bill. Is it simply incompetence, or did the government have some other motive for waiting until the last minute?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was neither. Certainly the government has many priorities. The hon. member listened to my comments, and I believe he sits on the transport committee, so he will know that important negotiations were made and ultimately consummated with the U.S. authorities on a very important exemption regarding flights originating in Canada and also landing in Canada that might happen to fly over U.S. airspace between those two destinations. Some time and some significant negotiations were involved in negotiating that exemption. There were a number of issues that contributed to the timing of the introduction of this piece of legislation. They had nothing to do with what the hon. member might suggest, and they were certainly in conformity with the importance that the government places on this legislation.