Evidence of meeting #52 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I need you, Mr. Laframboise, to tell me what it is that you want me to do.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to intervene, but I think, just from the government's perspective, amendment BQ-4 and amendment NDP-2 are excellent motions combined. I'm not so certain about amendment BQ-3, and I think as a result of the controversy with amendment BQ-4 and amendment NDP-2, amendment BQ-3 has to be removed.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If we can agree on amendment BQ-4, I will withdraw amendment BQ-3, Mr. Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So BQ-3 has been withdrawn, and we're moving to amendment BQ-4 on page 7.
Monsieur Laframboise.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It is a question of adding “under this Act" at the end of paragraph 3.1 b), on line 20.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Excellent.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'll advise Mr. Julian that his motion was identical to that, so we will be moving past amendment NDP-2 to amendment BQ-5, on page 9.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify the following: still on page 3, after paragraph 3.1 e), thus after line 33, we would like to add a clause, clause 3.2. It would read as follows:
3.2 In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act or anything issued, made or established under this Act, and the provisions of any other Act of Parliament, the provisions of that other Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
The clause specifies that this act is subordinate to all other acts of Parliament. It is as simple as that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's very odd to see legislation that restricts the legislation itself, or at least shows precedence between legislation.
I'm wondering, if we have somebody here from the Department of Justice—
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
—whether she could provide any input in relation to it.
4:10 p.m.
Susan Stanfield Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
You're right, it is an unusual thing to see in legislation. Normally when an act is to be preferred over another act, it states in that act that, “Notwithstanding any other act....”
It's highly unusual to see an act that's made subordinate to everything, because there's no way of predicting in the future what other legislation may be made that perhaps Parliament doesn't really want the Aeronautics Act to be subordinate to, but an amendment like this would have the result of making the Aeronautics Act subordinate to anything until you had an opportunity to come back to the Aeronautics Act to amend the clause.
From the Department of Justice's point of view, it's not sufficiently concrete. It would lead to vagueness and uncertainty in the future. It would be confusing to interpret the statutes and to know with certainty whether that's really the intent. If other statutes were passed, each one would have to take into consideration the status of the Aeronautics Act in order to make it clear whether Parliament really wanted the Aeronautics Act to be subordinate to that piece of legislation. You would have to take that into consideration with each new piece of legislation, and perhaps with what's on the books now, go through everything to determine if that is indeed your intent.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Ms. Stanfield. Indeed, I do not recall any act being subject to all other acts. I appreciate her remarks, but I have a question for her. Is it normal for an act to be subject to another act, or two or three other acts? Is this a common occurrence in Canadian legislation?
4:15 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I haven't read the whole statute book of course, but I've seen more commonly the type of drafting where it says, “Notwithstanding any other act of Parliament, this provision has effect”. And you in fact see that in the statute you're concerned with, which is the Canada Labour Code. It has a provision in it that specifically says that it takes precedence over any other legislation in the respect that it's concerned with, and that's in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which you were concerned with because it deals with federal undertakings.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point order, I think I have a copy of that particular section under the Canada Labour Code, if I can have that passed out, Mr. Chair, just for all the members' benefit.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's not a point of order. You can pass it out.
Monsieur Bélanger.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that four amendments propose adding clause 3.2. Mr. Laframboise proposed two such amendments. I suppose the second amendment was proposed as an alternative. I presented one and, I believe, Mr. Julian also presented one. I believe all the amendments refer to the Canada Labour Code. Others refer to other pieces of legislation. I wonder if we can agree to drop amendment BQ-5. Thus, we could focus our attention on amendments BQ-6, L-2 and NDP-3 in order to come up with a solution. We would eliminate one amendment from the beginning.