TRAN Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met at 11:06 a.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, Merv Tweed, presiding.

The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses made statements and answered questions.

“the operator’s control, namely, the flight number and the surname, first name, sex and date of birth of any person on board or expected to be on board the aircraft, and that is required by the laws of the foreign state.”

The question was put on the amendment of Michel Guimond and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 8.

“that is required by the laws of the foreign state, if the operator of an aircraft departing from that state or of an aircraft registered in that state is authorized, by the laws of that state, to provide equivalent information to Canada in similar circumstances.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(1.1) Before the operator of an aircraft provides information relating to a person on board or expected to be on board the aircraft to a competent authority in a foreign state under subsection (1), the operator shall, in accordance with the regulations, provide written notification to that person of its intention to provide this information, including a statement describing the nature of this information.”

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

“(1.1) The operator of an aircraft that is due to fly over, but not land in, the United States must notify all persons who are on board or expected to be on board the aircraft that information relating to them may be provided to a competent authority in the United States in accordance with subsection (1).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

“(1.1) Every Canadian air carrier that is contacted — and every air carrier that is contacted at a location in Canada — by a person for the purpose of purchasing a ticket for a flight that is scheduled to depart from Canada or take place in a Canadian aircraft and to land in, or fly over, the United States shall inform the person before the ticket is purchased that, if the person purchases a ticket for that flight,

(a) all of the personal information provided by that person will be transmitted to the security services of the Government of the United States;

(b) this information will be used by the security services of the Government of the United States to determine, by checking against their no-fly list, whether the person will be allowed to board the flight;

(c) this information may be held by the Government of the United States for up to 99 years;

(d) this information may be shared by the Government of the United States with the security services of other nations;

(e) the person may have no legal recourse against either the air carrier, the Government of Canada or the Government of the United States should they be denied boarding; and

(f) the person may have no legal recourse in order to remove their name from the no-fly list referred to in paragraph (b) if they are denied boarding pursuant to that list in respect of a flight originating outside the United States.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(1.1) The Privacy Commissioner shall monitor the disclosure of personal information under subsection (1) and shall report on that subject to both Houses of Parliament whenever he or she considers it necessary.”

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

“(1.1) Within three years after this subsection comes into force, a comprehensive review of subsection (1) and its operation shall be undertaken by such committee as the House of Commons designates or establishes for that purpose.

(1.2) The committee referred to in subsection (1.1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as may be authorized by the House of Commons, submit a report on the review to the House, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.”

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

“(2) Section 4.83 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Within two years after this subsection comes into force and every five years thereafter, the committee of the House of Commons responsible for transport matters shall:

(a) commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act; and

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

The question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

“(2) Section 4.83 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Before a regulation is made under paragraph (3)(b), the Minister shall lay the proposed regulation before the House of Commons at least 50 sitting days before its proposed effective date. The proposed regulation shall immediately be referred for review by the House of Commons committee responsible for transport matters, and the committee shall report to the House on its findings and recommendations in respect of the proposed regulations within 20 sitting days.

(5) If a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than 30 of its members, is filed with the Speaker within the time limit referred to in subsection (6), the Speaker shall, within five sitting days after the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.

(6) The time limit for the filing of the motion referred to in subsection (5) is 20 sitting days after the committee reports to the House under subsection (4) or, if the committee does not so report within the time allotted under subsection (4), within 20 sitting days of the expiration of the allotted time.

(7) Where a motion referred to in subsection (5) is adopted by the House, the proposed regulation to which the motion relates may not be made.”

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

(a) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 1 with the following:

“to land in a foreign state or fly over the United States and land outside Canada or of a Canadian”

(b) by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 1 with the following:

“Canada that is due to land in a foreign state or fly over the United States may, in accordance with the”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Sukh Dhaliwal appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Brian Jean, Brad Trost — 2; NAYS: André Bellavance, Dennis Bevington, Lois Brown, Gerry Byrne, Sukh Dhaliwal, Roger Gaudet, Colin Mayes, John McCallum, Jeff Watson — 9.

The question was put on the amendment of Sukh Dhaliwal and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

“(2) Section 4.83 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Every Canadian air carrier shall ensure that all of the computer servers that are used to make reservations on flights operated by that air carrier are located in Canada.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), “Canadian” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Canada Transportation Act.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(2) Section 4.83 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) The Minister shall, within six months after this subsection comes into force, make regulations to establish a process by which a Canadian citizen may apply to the Minister for compensation in respect of costs incurred by the citizen as a result of the citizen's having been denied permission to board an aircraft because their name was included, without justification, on a no-fly list established by the Government of the United States, including any costs incurred by the citizen in undertaking legal proceedings or other action for the purpose of removing their name from that list.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(2) Section 4.83 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Any Canadian citizen who has reasonable grounds to believe that their name is included on a no-fly list established by the Government of the United States, and who believes that the inclusion of their name on that list is without justification, may apply to the Minister for assistance in having their name removed from that list. The Minister shall review each application and, if the Minister agrees that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the citizen’s name is included on such a list and that the inclusion is without justification, the Minister shall make representations on the citizen's behalf to the Government of the United States to have their name removed from the list.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

On new Clause 3,

“3. The amendments made by this Act cease to have effect on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dennis Bevington and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

The Short Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 2.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-42, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

The Committee resumed consideration of the motion of John McCallum, — That the Committee request the Department of Transport to provide the Committee with all documentation, both paper and electronic, related to the $32,885 that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities’ office spent on professional and special services in the fiscal year 2009-2010, and that this information be provided to the Committee in both official languages within five business days.

Brian Jean moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “five business days” with the words “fifteen calendar days”.

The question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

The question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

The motion, as amended, read as follows:

That the Committee request the Department of Transport to provide the Committee with all documentation, both paper and electronic, related to the $32,885 that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities’ office spent on professional and special services in the fiscal year 2009-2010, and that this information be provided to the Committee in both official languages within fifteen calendar days.

On motion of Sukh Dhaliwal, it was agreed, — That the proposed budget in the amount of $ 27, 250 in relation to the study of the consequences of noise caused by airport operations in urban area be adopted.

On motion of Brian Jean, it was agreed, — That the Committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, on Thursday, December 9, 2010.

At 12:07 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.