I will try to keep this short, as I don't want to drag out the discussions needlessly. The motion is fairly clear; it's self-explanatory. What's more, I've had the opportunity to speak with most colleagues in this room about noise caused by airport operations in urban areas. A number of colleagues broached the subject first, since the noise issue is causing problems.
Each year, a number of Canadians file complaints. They claim that they are inconvenienced and that their peace and quiet is disturbed. We know that quality of life is becoming increasingly important and that airports are not always located in agricultural or isolated regions. Municipalities have policies aimed at reducing urban sprawl and increasing urban densification in order to get the most out of their municipal budgets. More and more Canadians are now moving to locations near airports or have been living near these facilities for years. Their peace and quiet is affected by the countless landings and takeoffs.
In certain areas, small sightseeing aircraft and private planes add to the daily number of landings and takeoffs. We're talking about an increasingly popular hobby or career. Since the number of small private aircraft is rising, the number of flying schools is also increasing. Air carriers have responsibilities. Airports also wish to make their operations profitable. In 1995, the government began transferring the management of airports to regional authorities.Various interest groups, provincial and municipal governments, users, and so on, are represented on the administrative council.
We have been through a similar situation. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport from 1993 to 1997 during which time the Government of Canada transferred responsibility for the management of airports and ports. This motion should be adopted by the committee members, especially since it concerns a country-wide issue. We would potentially go on tour, meet with regional representatives, hold meetings outside of the Ottawa ivory tower. We could go on site and have the opportunity to determine the scope of the noise problem ourselves.
I think we can agree on the fact that we are not too inconvenienced by airplane noise in this room. I doubt that any of you have heard these noises, since there is a safety perimeter to be respected for flights over Parliament Hill. It would be a good idea to have a few meetings in the regions to be able to study the issue. That's what I wanted to bring up.
Like you, I have taken part in discussions. The meeting is now public. Today, we will begin with the Minister of Public Security. Some of our witnesses wish to speak to Bill . I'm not sure what the best way to proceed would be.
Other committees have already proceeded in the following way: dividing the committee into two, while respecting quorum and the membership breakdown typical of a minority government. This way, we can hold hearings on Bill , and, at the same time, hold hearings on the noise issue.
As it stands now, given the number of witnesses we'll have for Bill , we might have to consider meeting on Christmas Eve, December 24, or on the morning of January 1. That's not what I want.
I think that we should begin discussions in the near future on the serious issue of noise caused by airport operations in urban areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Let me take this opportunity to thank the committee for the invitation to appear before you today. It's a pleasure to be here to assist with your deliberations on Bill .
Before describing the legislation in front of you, I'd like to take a few moments to briefly put it into context. Members of this committee will know that shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the United States government quickly implemented a number of security measures, as did Canada. One of these involved enhancing the ability of Canadian air carriers to work with their international partners, in particular our American friends to the south, to deter and detect terrorists.
Specifically, the former government, the Liberal government of the day, introduced Bill C-44, which amended section 4.83 of the Aeronautics Act. The amendment was designed to allow Canadian air carriers to provide the U.S. with passenger and crew information for all flights destined for that country. That is what it did, and the bill received royal assent on December 18, 2001, less than one month after it was introduced in the House. Simply put, the legislation before us today will do the same thing for any Canadian flights that fly over the continental U.S. airspace on their way to destinations such as Mexico or the Caribbean.
Aside from general security considerations, the rationale for passing this bill is much the same as it was in 2001. As the then Minister of Transport, Minister Collenette, noted at committee hearings:
Any sovereign state, whether the U.S., Britain or anyone else around the world, has a right to know who is coming into its country, whether by land, sea, or plane.
He also noted:
Under the Aeronautics Act, carriers are obliged to operate under the legislation of another country once they enter its air space.
This is in line with international law, which recognizes the right of any country, including Canada, to regulate foreign air carriers entering that country's airspace.
In response to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent 9/11 commission report, the U.S. passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which among other things called for the government to repatriate from airlines the responsibility for checking passenger manifests against the U.S. no-fly and selectee lists.
In 2008 the U.S. published the secure flight final rule, spelling out how the U.S. government intends to implement the law. The secure flight final rule outlines what steps all domestic and international air carriers will need to take for flights to, from, within, and over the United States.
The final rule stipulates that airlines are required to provide each passenger's full name, date of birth, and gender to the Transportation Security Administration before departure for all domestic and international flights landing in the U.S., as well as those that fly over U.S. airspace. The TSA, under the final rule, has assumed responsibility for checking airline passenger manifests against selectee and no-fly lists so that individuals who have been identified as posing a security threat are prevented from carrying out a possible act of terrorism.
The United States is implementing the final rule in phases. Domestic flights and most flights to and from the U.S. are already sharing secure flight information. The U.S. hopes to implement secure flights over continental U.S. airspace by the end of this calendar year.
Members of this committee will know that our government is committed to working with our international partners to enhance aviation security, both here in Canada and around the world.
Last December, the world was once again reminded of the threat terrorism continues to pose to those of us who choose to travel by air. A man on Northwest flight 253 on its way to Detroit attempted to detonate an improvised explosive device. We know that the flight spent a lot of time over Canadian airspace.
The threats to our country are real. We therefore need to remain vigilant and continue working with our partners to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. And that is what our government is doing. Over the past 12 months we have actively engaged with the United States and other international partners around the world to strengthen our collective capacity to address aviation threats.
At the International Civil Aviation Organization general assembly meeting this past September, nations agreed to adopt strengthened aviation security measures. In addition to Canada's Passenger Protect program introduced in 2007 as a way to prevent persons who pose an immediate threat to aviation security from boarding a flight, in the weeks following the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day the Government of Canada took additional steps to strengthen aviation security.
This included purchasing explosive trace detection equipment and full-body scanners; announcing its intention to develop a passenger behaviour observation program; and providing funding of $1.5 billion over five years to help the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority strengthen the security of our aviation system and protect air travellers.
We have also published our intention to introduce changes to the Canadian aviation security regulations in order to ensure that our domestic airports have the safest and most effective security systems possible. But the threats remain and they are evolving.
On October 29, 2010, cargo planes en route from Yemen were found to have explosives on board. Canada acted quickly. All air cargo originating from Yemen or transiting through Yemen is now banned from entering Canada.
We are well-placed to further strengthen our air cargo security measures moving forward. Our government committed funds of $95.7 million over five years to further enhance air cargo security at Canadian airports by building on the air cargo initiative unveiled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in June 2006.
These are all important initiatives. All will go a long way toward helping to fight terrorism and protect the safety and security of Canadians--something that our government has made a top priority since we were first elected in 2006.
As important as these initiatives are, however, our government is also acutely aware of the need to protect privacy and individual rights, as in the United States. During the development of the Secure Flight program, we reminded the Americans that our countries have bolstered security on both sides of the border and in our shared airspace, in line with our respective legal requirements, and in line with our interest in protecting the privacy and human rights of passengers.
We formally raised a number of issues with them as they were developing their final rule, in order to influence its final outcome. We stressed to them that every effort would need to be made under Secure Flight to guard against false matches, which are not only inconvenient and disruptive to both the professional and personal lives of travellers, but also potentially damaging to their reputations.
We noted that transparency and redress are key elements to any passenger-matching program. We indicated that passenger information should not be vetted against any list other than those used to maintain aviation security. We also expressed concern about data retention periods.
The United States is of the view that Secure Flight will enhance the security of domestic and international commercial air travel through the use of improved watch-list matching, while also facilitating legitimate passenger air travel and protecting individual rights through the use of mechanisms such as a comprehensive privacy plan, and the Department of Homeland Security's traveller redress inquiry program, otherwise known as TRIP.
Our government also pushed for and received an exemption from Secure Flight for all Canadian domestic flights. These are flights from one Canadian city to another that fly over U.S. airspace. That's important, since some of our domestic flights will normally spend a majority of their time in U.S. airspace.
In a perfect world, initiatives such as Passenger Protect and Secure Flight would not be needed, but the reality today is that every government can and will take action to protect its citizens against the threat of terrorism. We therefore need to work together to ensure that we continue to facilitate the legitimate movement of our citizens across each other's borders, while also taking action to enhance our joint security. This is what Bill will do, while also helping to ensure that Canadian travellers can continue to fly to international destinations in the easiest and most cost-effective way possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.
:
My information, first of all in respect of the second question, is that the American law outlines that Secure Flight is a program designed for aviation security and terrorism purposes, and not for any other purpose. My understanding of the American law is that it would be unlawful to use it for any other purpose.
Second, passenger information that is confirmed as not linked with terrorism will be erased within seven days. Where there's confirmation that there's no connection, it will be erased within seven days.
In respect of the issue you've raised and we've raised, as a government, because we wanted some redress mechanism to ensure that if someone was mistakenly put on the list there would be some mechanism to address that, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's TRIP program, which I talked about earlier, was designed to assist all individuals, of any nationality, who seek assistance and resolution regarding difficulties they've experienced during travel to or across American borders. So the Americans have specifically set up a program to deal with that.
One of the concerns, of course, is the issue of French language because it's not a Canadian program. The Americans don't offer that program--this is their program, not ours--in French. The American government recommends that Canadians who prefer to use that official language contact the U.S. embassy or consulate to obtain bilingual assistance in their native tongue.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for attending our transport committee meeting.
A number of issues come up from what you've said. In your speech you mentioned there were three requirements for information, but from the background document we received, the Secure Flight program actually can ask for much more information, including reservation control numbers, record sequence numbers, passenger update indicators--a whole number of things.
As well, under the Patriot Act, once a passenger's information is given to the U.S. government, they have the right to access many files that are carried by airlines, most of them located in the United States. You say that passenger information should not be vetted against any other list. Where is the guarantee from the United States?
Under their Patriot Act, they're allowed to look at many other sources of information on any person entering the United States. They have that. Above their privacy act, they have the Patriot Act.
How do we protect Canadians' privacy when the U.S. is using an act like the Patriot Act to access any other kind of information they want on Canadian passengers?
First, I'd like to offer my congratulations, Minister, for a great job negotiating with the United States to ask for that exemption. I think it's great work indeed that you did that, and to take off exactly on what Mr. Bevington said, the very instance of that put forward by Mr. Bevington in relation to what's provided means that you did great work and your department did great work on that.
My first question is really a comment. I had a chance to meet with Air Canada and WestJet a couple of weeks ago, and they advised me that if this was not implemented, there would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of an increase in tickets of 40% to 50% for Canadians who are travelling to Mexico or to points in the south. I know when I look at an airline ticket, I'm very cognizant of how much it costs, so I think most Canadians would agree that this is a very necessary thing to do and very necessary, in fact, to get done before the end of this year.
So I want to congratulate you on that as well, and I think it's very important, especially in regard to what's taking place in Plattsburgh, New York, with Air Canada, and what's going on in Montreal and in Vancouver in Mr. Dhaliwal's riding. A lot of people are travelling by cars to south of the border and getting cheaper airline tickets. My comments would be that, indeed, Air Canada and WestJet have both identified to me that if this law is not implemented, that is going to accelerate far beyond what it currently is and I think that would be a real cash drain on our economy and certainly be an inconvenience to Canadians.
Now, my understanding also, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are actually going to be providing less than what is currently being provided on a passport. Is that fair? The law actually states, except for the airline information, the name, the birthdate, and the gender of the person are actually going to be provided and that's all that's going to be provided. But that is actually less than what is currently provided on a passport. Is that fair to say?
:
What I'm recommending is something similar. I have no problem with the noise study. I just.... I mean, we have study after study after study, and none has been completed. That is a concern to me.
I would rather see us focus on something. If it's noise that we focus on, then we focus on noise, we deal with it and get it done, and we report it to the House, if necessary.
The “if necessary” is the reason I'm saying this. We as a committee have studied this issue before. I'm familiar with some issues that are going on in Quebec, for instance, with noise and small planes. I think Turtle Bay is one of them, and some different areas.
But what I'm recommending is a little bit different. I don't even think we need to have a notice of motion and pass it. I'm fully prepared to sit down at an extra meeting, at a different time, to study the issue of noise and to start with the department to ask what the situation is today with the regulations and what we can do about it. My understanding, after studying this before, is that there is not really a lot we can do, except to make recommendations to airport authorities to restrict the hours of services and different things like that.
But before we do that, let's take a look at what's happening with the airline industry in Canada. I have a copy of “The Economic Impacts of the Member Carriers of the National Airlines Council of Canada”. I asked for a copy in French, but they didn't have a copy in French. So I can't table it, but I'm going to continue to look for a copy in French.
If you look at what airlines contribute to the Canadian economy, it's unbelievable, and if we start throwing up restrictions on the industry itself—which is fragile, to say the least, especially Air Canada, if you look at their books—I am nervous about that.
I think what we should do and what I would propose—and I'm fully prepared to support a motion, but I don't think it's necessary, because I think all parties are unanimous on this—is to study airport noise; to have one day and have the departmental officials here and ask them the questions: what can we do about it; what is the situation right now?
Then, if we need to continue with that study...which I would suggest we don't, unless it's a political exercise and you want to hear from particular towns and reeves and mayors, etc., and then that's what we do--a political exercise. But if it's an exercise to change the regulations or to change the legislative authority to deal with these things, I think it's going to be a much bigger study.
What I'm recommending is that we have an extra meeting, that we bring the department in, we sit down, and we talk about noise. And then the next day, if wants to study something else in relation to the regulations or whether the regulations are broad enough or the legislation is broad enough, let's study that.
Let's deal with noise, if that's what it takes, and let's find out what the situation is in Canada. Then, after we figure out what the situation is, if you want to have four or five meetings and have extra meetings, I'm prepared to sit until midnight every night next week, if you want to. But let's not grab this additional study along with our other six or eight studies and the five pieces of legislation that are before us and the other pieces of legislation that are going to come in and just have a study sitting in the background on which nothing is done.
As Mr. Jean mentioned, there has been study after study after study. It's not only issues to do with Quebec. I can tell you that where I come from, in British Columbia, the people of Surrey, Delta, and Richmond are facing the same issues of quality of life.
Mr. Guimond said that the committee should travel, go out, and reach out to those people so that we can have public input into the studies Mr. Jean is mentioning, as we have in previous years.
I had the opportunity, as I mentioned earlier, to take Madam Marlene Jennings into my riding of Newton—North Delta, and she met with the stakeholders. She met with the councillors and mayors and different authorities, and we came up with this: there is no opportunity for public input. And the roles of Nav Canada, Transport Canada, and local airport authorities are all blurred. There's no clear delineation of responsibilities among different departments.
That's why this is a very important study, because it affects health. And it's not only the flights during the day. In fact there are the cargo flights at night where we live, in the part of Canada I come from, the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. That's a key issue.
Thank you.
I really want to urge my colleagues to take this motion seriously and to support it. The situation in certain regions in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada, for that matter, is very serious. I would imagine some Quebec and Canadian cities are in the same boat. I'm talking about Quebec because that's what I know best.
In my riding, the noise issue has been a major problem for several years. However, it's important to note all the other effects of airport proximity on people's daily lives. We're talking about noise, but the environment is affected as well.
Some people have told me about dust and residues. Some are even saying that there are liquid residues, but we need to look into all those claims. A study would provide us with a balanced snapshot of not only the current situation, but also its effect on Canadians.
There's one thing we shouldn't forget to do. We can invite department or ADM representatives, for instance, and they could talk to us about decibels and about noise, but they'll give us an “administrative“ view of the problem. I think my colleague Mr. Guimond was right in saying that we should meet with those affected and talk to them. We should also talk to their representatives to get an idea of what takes place on a daily basis, so that we can determine if health or the environment could be affected.
Public health or environmental experts could probably talk to us about this issue. They could provide us with an accurate portrait of the situation so that we can draft a report with interesting recommendations. That would enable us to either resolve the issue or to find ways to do so.
People in my riding have had about enough, not just of airplane noise, but also of everything that implies. We're talking about airplane noise, but it has gotten so bad that people can't eat on their balconies in the summer. This example may seem overly simplistic, but it is part of people's daily lives. Some of them can't sleep at night because they are regularly awakened by airplanes. These kinds of disturbances can drive people crazy.
Therefore, I urge you to begin working on this study and, as my colleague said, to go to the regions to meet with people. It would be my pleasure to welcome you in my riding and introduce you to many people who, depending on the day, may be either in a good or in a bad mood. They could tell you what they think about their daily lives.
I invite you to come to my riding and am prepared to bring together about a hundred people from Ahuntsic and even Cartierville, so that you can meet them. All they would do is talk to you.