Bill C-42 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 17, 2010
- Debated in principleOct. 26, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 2, 2011
- Passed the second chamberMarch 21, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Michael L. MacDonaldSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian JeanSponsors the bill at third reading and stresses it is needed for safety and security.
- Dave MacKenzieExplicitly rises in support and explains how the bill aids travel and security.
- Brent RathgeberRises explicitly in support of the bill to maintain access and strengthen security.
- Scott SimmsAccepts the bill's balance between security needs and privacy concerns.
- Judy FooteStates the party will support the legislation after amendments.
- Stephen WoodworthArgues defeating the bill would harm Canadian interests and jobs.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On June 17 2010, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced Bill C-42, Strengthening Aviation Security Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Aeronautics Act and provides that the operator of an aircraft that is due to fly over or land in a foreign state in the course of an international flight may provide information to that foreign state.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport · 2010-10-26 · Passed
How it changed on the way
83% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (521 words introduced, 530 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill narrowed from allowing aircraft operators to share passenger data for flights over any foreign state to only the United States, while adding mandatory notice to passengers and periodic parliamentary review. These changes replaced the general foreign-state language and inserted two new subsections on notification and committee oversight.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The text sets fixed timelines for parliamentary review and a clear notice duty for overflights of the United States, but leaves the actual sharing of passenger data to unspecified regulations and foreign legal requirements. This mix of concrete dates and open-ended discretion produces both black-and-white rules and areas open to argument.
Open to argument
“in accordance with the regulations”
The operative permission to share data is conditioned on rules that are not supplied in the Act itself.“a competent authority in that foreign state”
The term is undefined, so it is unclear which foreign officials may receive the information.“any information that is in the operator's control relating to persons on board or expected to be on board the aircraft and that is required by the laws of the foreign state”
Scope depends on changing foreign statutes rather than fixed Canadian criteria.
Clear-cut
“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”
The duty is triggered by a precise geographic condition and uses mandatory language.
Discretion. The manner, format, timing and limits of disclosure are left entirely to regulations that the Governor in Council may make, and the Act supplies no criteria those regulations must meet.
Challenging the law itself. Section 8 Charter privacy claims could be brought because the Act authorizes disclosure of personal information without statutory limits or judicial oversight, though the permissive wording and foreign-flight context may narrow the argument.
Disputing a charge under it. The core power is permissive ('may ... provide'), so an operator is unlikely to be accused of breaching the sharing rule; the only mandatory duty is the notice requirement, which turns on readily verifiable facts about the flight path.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.