Evidence of meeting #57 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Fast essentially made my point for me. I appreciate his asking the question.
As we have it in the clause right now, proposed subsection 5.396(1) states:
If a person reports a contravention under the program referred to in subsection 5.395(1), they may not, except in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), be found to have committed the contravention in any proceedings under this Act before any court or other body that has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Mr. Fast has just proved my point that essentially what the amendment does is take away the right of the employer, the aviation document holder, the operator of aircraft, to simply get around a contravention that may have occurred. Here they may not be found to have committed the contravention in any proceedings under this act before any court or other body that has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Mr. Fast has actually made my point for me, and I thank him for that.
Essentially this is a “get out of jail free card”, unless there is some circuitous route by which other information, not contained through the proceedings, comes to Transport Canada. The likelihood of that is less, so essentially what we have here is a “get out of jail free card” for operators. Very clearly, witnesses testified to the fact that they did not believe that would be helpful in increasing the safety and security of Canadian aircraft.
I thank Mr. Fast for making my point for me.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
It seems to me that the amendment can hardly apply because section 5.395 refers to a person who would be designated to administer the program in question, but, further on, it refers to any person who can report a contravention. So the word “person” has two different meanings. Subsection 5.395(2) states: “The Minister may designate a person or body to administer [...]” Here we're talking about a person who is designated for one thing, whereas, further on, in the other clauses, we're talking about a person who can report a contravention. It seems to me these are two different persons.
3:40 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
In legislative drafting, Mr. Carrier, the word “person” may be used to designate a corporation, an individual or an association. The word encompasses virtually everything.
In the case of subsection (2), which mentions that the minister may designate a body, that can be a person, but the intention of course is to designate a government body that is independent and objective, such as the National Research Council of Canada or the Transportation Safety Board.
Where it states that a person may report a contravention, it refers to any “person”, which could be an individual or a corporation, that is to say any person that has a legal entity, and that could also be a non-profit association. It is in that sense that the word “person” is used.
Consequently, the word is correct in both cases.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
That's why it seems to me that the amendment can hardly apply to both possible definitions of the word “person”.
3:40 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I agree with you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Okay. Are we ready for the question on the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I just want to know how we're proceeding. I thought you were going to ask us whether or not we had accepted this concept of grouping all of these amendments as being consequential one of the other. If we're talking about, as we have just heard, an explanation of “person” meaning essentially an entity, whether it be personal or corporate, or if we're talking, for example, about employees or operators, or whether we're talking about document holders, certificate holders, owners of certain documents, all of these are captured by these amendments. So are we now going to have a discussion on each and every one of them to repeat the same thing, or are we taking into consideration that any discussion or voting on these cannot contravene what we've already just done? This was the discussion last week that prompted this grouping, so I'd like to know how you're going to proceed.
Shall we just include all of these as having collectively discussed the issue of voluntary reporting, and therefore being consistent with the vote we just took, or do we just go ahead and repeat this exercise over and over again?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Just before I go to Mr. Laframboise, I did ask the question, in terms of grouping, if you wished to deal with them all. I understood that was not the pleasure of the group.
Do you wish to then group and deal with and discuss from amendment BQ-17 to NDP-12 as a group?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Before Mr. Jean enters into the conversation, the reason I raised this as a point of order is that you had simply deferred until Mr. Julian finished with his motion, because he had moved this item, but we were going to discuss this afterwards, so here we are after the vote. I want to know how we're proceeding.
I'm not in the chair, but I didn't hear that the committee pronounced itself one way or the other against this. Since this has been produced at the request of one specific member--yours truly--I want to know whether we are going to proceed this way or not.
If you need a motion in that regard, then I shall so present.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Procedurally what we would do is take the motion on amendment BQ-17 now, as I understand it, and then ask the committee if there's a motion to include discussion on all of them.
Is that correct?
Excuse me a moment.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I simply want to tell you that I am withdrawing amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18 because BQ-16 has already been negatived. I would just like us to be careful and I would like to add a comment on the debate that Mr. Volpe's starting. It should never be forgotten that we are conducting a clause-by-clause consideration.
I think the document that was tabled explains very well the decisions that were made, and that is why I am withdrawing amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18. But voting as a group on amendments without discussing them one by one... I would say that the Chair can rule that an amendment is contrary to the meaning that has already been given to the bill. I believe it is a choice that the clerk can make with the Chair to say that such and such an amendment must be withdrawn, as I am doing with amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18. However, I think we'll have to obtain a legal opinion in order to adopt amendments as a package and to make it so that this committee stops studying what has been tabled clause by clause. I wouldn't want us to proceed backwards with the clause-by-clause consideration.
In the case of amendment BQ-17, among others, I've decided to withdraw it because we've already dealt with it. So I'm going to withdraw BQ-17 and BQ-18. If the Chair tells me that amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18 are not consistent with what we've already adopted, I agree to talk about it, but if we decide to vote together on a series of amendments and do not consider them one by one, I think that it's contrary to the procedure that should be followed in a clause-by-clause consideration.
For the moment, I withdraw amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
My understanding procedurally is that we can discuss all of the amendments in a grouping here and then vote on them individually if we wish, because the discussion, as I understand it, crosses from one amendment to the other. We can deal with each amendment, discuss it only, and then vote on it individually, or we can discuss all the amendments in one grouping and then vote on them individually, or if there is consensus, vote on them as a block.
From my understanding from the staff or the clerk, that's procedurally correct to do if it's the will of this committee. So the question at this point would be that you've withdrawn amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18. Is there a desire to in fact discuss amendments BQ-21, BQ-22, and NDP-12 in open discussion and then either vote on the motions independently or vote on them as a block?
Mr. Jean, and then Mr. Julian.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say, from the government's perspective, I agree with Mr. Volpe, but I think it depends on the individual mover, and certainly, from our perspective, it's up to the person who's moving any one of those groups of amendments in that particular grouping.
In this case, Mr. Laframboise did not want to. I think it's appropriate that we deal with it separately, and he has graciously removed it. So I think we should move forward and deal with it. If members don't want to have them grouped together and it's one of their motions, then they shouldn't be grouped together and they should be dealt with individually.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied that you have said that Mr. Laframboise has accepted that the chair would say, in this particular group, for example, amendments BQ-17 and BQ-18 are consistent with the decision of the committee, and ask for any comments before we move on. As long as you say that, I'm happy.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with Mr. Laframboise. We have a responsibility to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration. So we will have to continue in the same way as we have done until now.
I don't understand the urgency either. We've gone through three-quarters of the amendments now. We're on page 56. We've done three-quarters of the amendments that we have worked through. We have only a handful to come back to, so it does not make sense procedurally to change at this point.
I certainly don't think it's recommended to try to change our functioning of procedures, and the reality is that nobody is filibustering here. We're working through what is a complex bill that has ramifications. So I think continuing to proceed the way we have, as Mr. Laframboise has suggested, is the right route to go.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
My understanding is that the amendments were grouped so that the discussion, even if it's done individually, at least could follow the theme. So rather than moving on to amendment BQ-19, we'll stay within that amendment group, amendments BQ-21, BQ-22, and NDP-12, and then we'll move on to the next group and we'll deal with them individually, so at least there's a consistent discussion on the issues, because they overlap.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, we have an agenda, and the agenda includes the clauses. We're working through the most complicated clause now, which is clause 12. When we finish the amendments, we would then go to clause 12 and then go on to clause 13.
I do not suggest at all that it's advisable to start jumping around. I think that complicates what's already a fairly complex bill. I would suggest that we just continue to proceed as we have for the first three-quarters of the bill.