Dennis Bevington

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill C-42, which was portrayed by the government with such urgency to us on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the fall when we had witnesses in front of the committee with many unanswered questions about it.

On the face of it, this bill seems pretty simple. It seems it is just changing a couple of lines in the Aeronautics Act. However, this bill has many more ramifications. What we have seen from the government is a failure to address the ramifications prior to putting the bill forward. I am glad we have managed to insert a review clause into the bill for this legislation, because we are entering completely uncharted territory with the release of this information to the United States in the form we are taking. We are asking Canadians who are not visiting the United States, who are not setting foot on United States soil, to give up their information to a foreign country. That is what we are doing with this bill.

Canadians will give up their information, but they will give up more than their information. They will give up the opportunity for the United States to take on more information about them.

How does that work? We heard testimony about the passenger name record. Most of the information accessible to Canadians will be transferred. It will not simply be names and passport numbers and dates of birth; we will be giving the United States the opportunity to examine the full passenger name record. This is a very serious business, because it brings in much more information. We have heard many examples in the media over the past months of individuals whose information has been used in a manner that has caused them to have difficulty when trying to enter the United States. We have set up a system that can create much discord among passengers who are travelling over the United States.

I am not going to speak a lot about the human rights issues. I will leave that to my colleagues, who are pretty confident and pleased to take on that task, because all Canadians should understand what has happened. However, I would like to speak to some of the aspects of the bill that we dealt with at committee in trying to mitigate the issues that have surrounded this bill.

My colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert talked about the great exemption that was given to Canadians over the issue of domestic-to-domestic flights. It is an exemption that on the face of it seems rather odd: the U.S., very concerned about its airspace, is allowing an exemption for passengers who are going to undergo fewer security proceedings than they would on an international flight. A Canadian getting on a flight in Halifax is certainly subject to a lot less scrutiny and procedure under aviation regulations than one flying from Halifax to Puerto Vallarta. Why would the U.S. give this exemption?

I think we heard the answer later on, towards Christmas, when it was revealed that the government is planning a perimeter security deal with the United States. If we have a perimeter security deal with the United States such that we are passing all information at all times to the United States, it does not matter to the U.S. whether the information is collected for domestic-to-domestic flights, because with the perimeter security deal we can be sure the U.S. will get all the information it requires on all the flights in Canada. That is something that I think was not very well laid out, but we are still waiting for the results of it.

We see that the Prime Minister is heading off to the United States at the end of this week to speak with President Obama about the perimeter security arrangements, so I am sure that some of these aspects will come to light. Is it an exemption? No, it is part of the U.S. plan to extend the perimeter security arrangement.

Even with the perimeter security arrangement, the U.S. needs to have the information on international flights coming into Canada because they are flights coming across a common perimeter between the two countries. If we follow the logic of the United States, it still needs this deal.

What is the aspect of perimeter security that we are supposed to deal with in this particular bill? It is pretty straightforward: if a plane is flying into Canada or the U.S. from another country, information is going to be given to the U.S. government.

What does the U.S. government do with that information? We heard testimony in committee that the U.S. is not stopped from sharing that information with any other country. When that information is given to the U.S., it is its business to deal with as it sees fit. There is no indication from the Conservative government that it put any restrictions on that information.

When the NDP tried to move an amendment as a last-ditch effort, it was ruled out of order. The amendment was to try to understand how we could save information on passenger name records so that information that is really no one's business would be kept in Canada. Because most of the servers that contain the information are in the United States, once the U.S. has the passenger name records, it will have full access to all of that information under its laws.

Regardless of what Canada gives the U.S., as long as the passenger name records are provided, all the information is open. That was given in testimony. Once again, the government did nothing to limit access by the United States to information about Canadians.

My colleagues on the government side talk about the time restriction of seven days for the U.S. to have the information. In this modern computer age, seven days is quite a long time to deal with information. It can do with it as it sees fit. If it destroys the particular information that comes from the Canadian source within the United States, that information will certainly be recorded in other fashions over that time, and within the seven days it could be shared with every other country in the world. Once again, because Canada did not put restrictions on the sharing of information, once this information is let out of the bag, it is gone. It is out there and available to everyone if the United States so chooses.

Why did the European Union stand up on this particular issue? Why did the European Union say it had trouble with these arrangements made for overflights? Why did it say that? Did it say that for no apparent reason? No. It was because the EU does not suffer the overflight issue as much as we do. It is not as big an issue to the EU because the EU does not have as many flights. However, it certainly has concerns in terms of the information, personal liberty and privacy rules in those countries, and we should have the same in Canada.

Because the bill was presented in such a simple and naive form in the committee, the number of issues not dealt with in this bill is astounding. The government negotiated for years and years on this issue; could it not come up with a better bill than this? It is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the government could put that much effort into its negotiations and come up with a bill like this, with no protection for Canadians and no limitations on any of the issues. The issues were quite clear and should have been very clear to anyone involved in any negotiation with any other country on this type of issue, and they were.

The government's plan for a perimeter security arrangement with the United States is going to open up more information than perhaps any Canadian would want. Canada is still a sovereign country. After any more years of Conservative government, I hope that we will remain as sovereign as we are, that Canadians will have some redress and that they will be respected by the government.

NDP members are supporting this amendment because there will be a review of this bill, but supporting this bill goes against the very nature of my party's desire to protect the rights of Canadians.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 1st, 2011]

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?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to federal regulation of the lands in the Northwest Territories, in detail: (a) what was the rationale for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's recommendation that the subsurface interim land withdrawal for Edehzhie Candidate National Wildlife Area not be renewed; (b) prior to making the recommendation, did the department consult with the Dehcho First Nations and, if so, (i) when were the consultations conducted, (ii) how were they conducted, (iii) where were they conducted, (iv) what was their outcome; and (c) if no consultations were conducted with the Dehcho First Nations, what were the reasons?

[Petitions, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from across the country who are calling for a commission of inquiry into aviation safety.

The petitioners are concerned about the reduction in traditional oversight and inspection methods by Transport Canada and the delegation of those responsibilities to aviation companies via the safety management systems.

The petitioners are concerned as well that Canada may no longer be compliant with our obligations to the international aviation organization under the Chicago convention. They are worried that the travelling public may be in some danger as a result.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to initiate a commission of inquiry to be headed by a Superior Court judge.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 10th, 2010]

With regard to the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor): (a) what is the purpose of the ongoing strategic review of CanNor; (b) how much project funding was allocated by territory and by riding in the Northern region for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year, specifying which departments or agencies were responsible for funding administration and program delivery; (c) how much funding was allocated to CanNor under the Economic Action Plan; (d) how many projects were funded by CanNor under the Economic Action Plan; (e) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for CanNor for fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (f) how much core and project funding has been allocated to each Regional Economic Development Agency by territory for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year; (g) how much funding was allocated to support CanNor's operations office in Ottawa during each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year; (h) how many staff were assigned to work in the office in Ottawa during each fiscal year since 2008-2009, up to and including the current fiscal year; and (i) what programs or initiatives will sunset in fiscal year 2010-2011 and will any new programs be launched in fiscal year 2011-2012?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 10th, 2010]

With regard to the regulation of oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories and the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas production facility near Fort Laird, in detail: (a) what is the current status of the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas facility; (b) if the clean-up is on hold, what steps are being taken to prevent contamination of the environment near the site; (c) why have several clean-up deadline extensions been issued for this gas field; (d) what consultations have been conducted with and what information has been provided to local First Nations concerning the clean-up of the Pointed Mountain gas field; and (e) on what date does the government expect the clean-up of this gas field to begin?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

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 Environment, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is way off track when it comes to actually protecting the environment. Yesterday, when questioned about the Edéhzhie area of the Northwest Territories, also known as the Horn Plateau, the government laughably said, “a national wildlife area designation does not preclude development”. Opening the door to resource exploitation in these protected areas has forced the Dehcho First Nation to take this government to court.

Why is the government wasting everyone's time and money through this court case? Is it another Lancaster Sound? Where is the issue? Either these areas are protected or they are not.

[National Holocaust Monument Act, December 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument. I think all parties in the House were very interested to see this bill move forward, in different ways of course. Through the debate that took place in committee, we have now come up with the final version of this bill.

This bill is very important because it speaks to the need for a public monument to honour the victims and survivors of the immense tragedy of the Holocaust that came out of the second world war. It speaks to the conclusion of the second world war; to the role Canada played in the victory over the Axis to ensure that the Holocaust came to an end and that it would not occur again in that area of the world; to the tremendous blotch on human history; and to those very unfortunate people who, with their whole race, did not in any way deserve this.

We now have a bill that will put forward a monument, but one might ask why we had some degree of debate in committee about it.

I think the government recognized the importance of this, but as with recognizing the importance, there is also the understanding that responsibility goes with setting up a monument. I felt that the government worked very hard to take away the public responsibility to create the monument. However, certainly within committee, we worked very hard to keep the Government of Canada's role in developing, designing and commissioning this monument as an important role. We can see this in the bill as it stands now, “The minister, in cooperation with the Council”, which he will establish, “shall oversee the planning and designing of the Monument...”.

The minister will ultimately be responsible for the design and planning of the monument. The minister will work with a council that he will select from very worthy citizens, I am sure, who will come forward to serve on this council.

The minister, in the end, will be responsible for ensuring that the design and planning of this monument are appropriate for Canada and for the victims and survivors of the Holocaust. That is something that still remains in the bill, but it was something that was the subject of much debate in committee.

I think the bill stands well as it is and will give a monument over time that the public can take pride in. It will be Canada's monument to the Holocaust and to the survivors. I think that is a very important distinction that we have to keep within this bill.

The terms of the bill are such now that I am very confident that the council that will be constructed to do the fundraising will be successful so that the bill will move forward. The minister can ensure that as well. He has the capacity to increase the funding to make sure this project moves ahead in good fashion. Also, the minister is ultimately responsible to ensure that sufficient funds are available through the council before the monument is commissioned.

Therefore the responsibility will lie with the minister to make this happen. I think that is something that is a very important difference from what the government wanted to do with its amendments. The end result of this is very much in speaking to the principles that the originator of the bill put forward.

I want to thank that member for his work in doing that. His presentation at committee was excellent and was part of how the committee came to grips with making this happen.

My father was a veteran of the second world war. He was in the European theatre for five years, engaged in supporting the bomber groups that ultimately were the ones that pounded the aggressor into the ground, we might say. The burden of doing that, which the Canadian army and air force had to take on to end the terrible conflict in Europe, is a burden that all those people carried throughout the rest of their lives.

I think of the construction of this holocaust monument and the importance it has to the Canadian public and to all those brave Canadians who took on that burden, and with that burden perhaps to many of them came the knowledge that out of this they wanted peace, they wanted a settlement of war, they wanted to stop that kind of conflict and to put an end to that kind of human behaviour in this world.

To me, this is a very appropriate time to construct a monument to this immense tragedy of humankind and to cast a light on the hope that can come from the end of this type of conflict, the hope that can come for all mankind.

[Safer Railways Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would say once again that these issues are part of what will need to be examined at committee. I think the bill opens up a number of doors that people want to see into in terms of railway safety. However, there is not one simple answer.

To understand whether this bill would actually improve railway safety in this country would be to understand how some of those questions will be answered by the regulations and the changes to the safety act that have been put in place.