Evidence of meeting #7 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 amendment.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
June 6th, 2006 / 11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have a comment to make concerning the translation. It reads: “[...] avec un agrément obtenu en vertu de la présente loi”. I would suggest the word “consentement” be used. I do not like the word “agrément” very much. I would like the translators to tell us their opinion.
11:25 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Mr. Laframboise, the word “agrément” is the term used in the bill to designate the approval given by the Governor in Council, her consent. The word “agrément” is used consistently thoughout the bill to express the equivalent of the English word “approval”. For example, in clause 7, it reads: “L'obtention de l'agrément [...] est subordonné à [...]”. This is the word that was chosen and that is used in the bill. So to respond to your comment without giving my opinion on the merits of the question, I think that the word “agrément” is the appropriate word here, since that it is consistent with the terminology used in the rest of the bill.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I’m not sure that the word “agrément”, even though it is used in the rest of the bill, is the most logical one. That is my personal position. The choice is up to you.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
For our legal people, there probably are a good number of municipalities involved with this, all the way from cities back in New Brunswick, probably local service districts.... What implications would that have on the operation of the bill?
11:30 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
International bridges are a federal jurisdiction, which means that the federal government, Parliament, can basically govern every action that relates to it in the way that Parliament deems appropriate.
This motion has to do with the interplay between provincial and federal legislation. As I read it and understand the intent, the impact would be that in fact all this legislation would not prevail over provincial legislation. In other words, provincial legislation pertaining to international bridges would prevail over a provision in federal legislation that would say the contrary. That's my understanding.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
The amendment proposed dealing with municipalities is what I was speaking of. Is it acceptable?
11:30 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
If you do that, all of a sudden you'll have to refer to all the provincial legislation to see whether what you want to do is correct. In terms of whether it's acceptable or not, it definitely impacts the scope and the application of the bill to the point where the federal jurisdiction over international bridges would be limited at times, depending on the legislation applied by the provinces and municipalities.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I might have misunderstood, but I'm not sure that's what I heard Brian say. I think I heard Brian say that this would compel the government to know where these inconsistencies are and perhaps consult. I thought he said at the end that it would not in fact constitute paramountcy. The paramountcy would be in federal legislation. I think that's what I heard Brian say.
11:30 a.m.
Evelyn Marcoux Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
That's not how we understood it. The way we understand this is that the municipal bylaws would override the federal jurisdiction. For us, it's an unworkable process.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That would only be the case if the federal government wished to break a municipal bylaw. My understanding of the consent here is “any provincial or municipal law, except in the event of a conflict with an approval issued under this Act”, so....
What we're seeking here is reassurance that provincial and municipal laws will be adhered to as the implementation of the act moves forward.
11:30 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
I have to say that I don't think it's correct to refer to the fact that the federal government would break a municipal law. The federal legislation applies, and when it applies it governs what it's aimed at governing.
If the intent, as Mr. Scott is suggesting, is to have a consultation, you don't do that through this mechanism. What you're doing here is giving a degree of priority to this legislation vis-à-vis provincial and municipal legislation. This has nothing to do with consulting. It's really the operation of legal, binding rules. It's not a consultation provision.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Fortunately enough for all of us, our forefathers, in the British North America Act, set down the jurisdictions of the federal government and provincial government and allowed the province to delegate some authority to municipal governments. The situation you're suggesting, as I read it, is that we have to comply with municipal governments in matters related to international border crossings.
I mean no disrespect, but I've dealt with many municipal governments in the past, and some were made up of very intelligent people, and some were not. The reality is that we have a federal government that has specific jurisdiction over one of the most important things we have as a country, our international border crossings. Are we going to allow municipal governments to decide to have their laws override the federal government's laws?
I've seen many laws from municipal governments, which say, for instance, you can't have people sleeping on the streets. In fact, there's a law in the United States, in one particular town, which I'm sure everybody has heard of, that says you can't live together unless you're married. To suggest that a municipal government is going to be able to have a knee-jerk reaction and pass a law that's going to be supreme to federal government legislation in relation to international border crossings....
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I've seen it happen in my jurisdiction that sometimes knee-jerk government decisions actually have proposals that affect municipalities and are in the best interest of not only the local municipality but the corridor itself. I remember getting proposals from some officials to build expressways along the Windsor waterfront to connect the border crossings. The municipality was asked to come up with a plan, and they did in our particular situation.
I don't view this as an interpretation, with great respect, of trumping the act in itself. I believe it provides a window for municipal and provincial laws to be part of the process. I think that's the important aspect.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
They already are part of the process. I have packages here in both official languages in relation to the Expropriation Act, the Customs Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and some other acts. In all these acts, municipal governments are consulted, and so are provincial governments. The reality here is that it's under federal government authority, and I think something as important as this should be left there. It's beyond jurisdiction; it's ultra vires the provinces and the municipal governments.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are times when we have to be able to respect jurisdictions. I understand our colleague, Mr. Masse, because I know that it is not always easy. As the former President of the Union des municipalités du Québec, it’s not easy for me to discuss municipal issues. Interprovincial bridges and tunnels, however, are under federal jurisdiction. I do not think that we have to amend this clause. That is the point of the bill; you wanted to clarify the situation. The municipalities have to understand that these bridges and tunnels are under federal jurisdiction.
We are going to oppose what has been tabled.
