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.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Since my colleagues asked me to, I am going to withdraw amendment BQ-5.
(Amendment withdrawn)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We are now going to move to amendment BQ-6 on page 10.
Would you speak to it, Monsieur Laframboise?
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Of course, you understand that it aims to subjugate this legislation. We want it to be made very clear that this legislation is subject to the Canada Labour Code, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
Ms. Stanfield was saying that we have no way of knowing whether or not certain pieces of legislation would apply one day. Yet, we know that these pieces of legislation can come into conflict with this legislation. We therefore want to see the Canada Labour Code, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act take precedence over this legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to Mr. Jean, but before I do, I'm just going to advise the committee that amendment BQ-6 and amendment NDP-3 are identical. That is just for the record.
Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
From the government's perspective, Mr. Chair, you've been fairly flexible. I can see Liberal amendment L-2, which is the next one, as being much more appropriate, given the circumstances.
I was wondering what Mr. Laframboise saw as any potential conflict under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act or the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. How would he see that there would be a conflict there?
I can understand the Canada Labour Code, and that's why I think the Liberal amendment is good, but I just don't see the practical effect of the other two. In fact, I foresee that it could lead to danger. I am just wondering if there is any particular incident--
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No particular incident comes to mind, but it must be clear that this legislation will never come into conflict with the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. The best way to ensure our safety is to give the board all the flexibility it needs. It should not have to analyze all the legislation before getting to work.
The same thing goes for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. That legislation is already accepted and we would not want to see this legislation allow anyone to come into conflict with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to go to Mr. Julian, and then I'll go to the department for a comment.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I will comment on this after hearing the representative from the department.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to mention that with respect to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, they already have overriding authority, and it's clear. There is a section in the Aeronautics Act that spells it out clearly, and also one under the CTAISB Act. In the CTAISB Act it's section 14, and under the current bill, proposed section 4.2(2), it's already there.
In the Canada Labour Code it's section 123, and the Access to Information Act has a “notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament” clause. It's all covered.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If I may, since it is already included, I would say, better safe than sorry. So, why not include it?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Laframboise's point that it only strengthens the bill. There is good reason to mention those three pieces of legislation and, in doing so, it strengthens the safety provisions. From the beginning, we have made it very clear that we want to strengthen this bill. I therefore fully support Mr. Laframboise's proposal to strengthen this bill for the safety of Canadians.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Can I ask for clarification? You're saying that basically everything Mr. Laframboise is referring to in his amendment is referred to throughout the document?
4:25 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
It's referred to either in one piece of legislation or the other. However, we did discuss it with the Department of Justice--the motherhouse, the legislative drafter--and they told us they don't like to do this type of thing because they create precedence, and every time there'll be other legislation, they'll have to make reference like this when they say it is not necessary.
I'm just passing on the information that was obtained from the Justice motherhouse.
4:25 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
It's because it will make your legislation more certain, but it will raise a question in respect of other legislation if it's amended to state this, because now other legislation will be looked at, and a court interpreting it could say, well, yes, the Canada Labour Code says that it applies, notwithstanding any other act.
But when we look at the proposed Aeronautics Act, it also says that, so that's clear. But this other statute--I'll pick one off the top of my head, rail or something--that doesn't have that type of clause, if there are court proceedings to interpret that legislation, the Aeronautics Act amendment may have created an uncertainty for the court in how to interpret other legislation.
There's a lot of legislation that the Canada Labour Code takes precedence over, and the Department of Justice hesitates to see any uncertainty raised in what is now considered to be a fairly certain matter.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
There is, though, the recognition that the drafting of legislation evolves over time, and that a particular philosophy, if you want to call it that, such as you're describing may have been popular or acceptable, but because of incidents, because of experience, Parliament may decide that they want to start being more specific, without necessarily going back and redoing every act there is, but providing that additional certainty as they deal with new legislation.
4:25 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
Absolutely, Parliament has the prerogative to direct how the legislation should be promoted and drafted.
But also, I don't believe Parliament wants to create any uncertainty in the law, especially where the law is clear where acts apply. There would be a period of uncertainty, I believe, if this type of approach were taken. I'm not saying that it won't be taken in the future and can't be taken; I'm just passing on a concern of what the effect of it might be.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I guess my comment would be that in the testimony we heard, we heard references to labour, to dangerous goods, and specifically again to the issues covered by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
I think the focus this committee has in dealing with this legislation in terms of safety.... The one example you pulled out is a good one, and that's rail. It may not be in there now, but wait until we get finished with it. We've just begun, and I think the concerns about safety and the incidents that we've become aware of over the last few years, both with aviation and with rail, may lead us to want to be more directive or more specific in our concerns.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
First of all, I accept the arguments presented by Mr. Laframboise. In my view, this in no way contradicts what Ms. Stanfield was saying. This only clarifies even further the legislator's intention to add the Canada Labour Code, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. I can support that. It was very important to me that the Canada Labour Code be included, but I can support this amendment.
Someone said earlier that the Access to Information Act is quasi-constitutional. Would you be willing to confirm here today that the Official Languages Act, which, in my opinion, is also quasi-constitutional, takes precedence over the legislation we are examining at this time?
4:30 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I would have to review the statute. I'm not very familiar with it, not familiar enough to make a statement like that. I do believe, from what I understand from speaking with colleagues, that yes indeed, the Official Languages Act is quasi-constitutional legislation, but I haven't read it recently.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I think the advice we are receiving will allow us to strengthen this bill even further. There is no doubt. If that were not one of the government's practices in the past, that is another matter. However, there is no doubt that it will strengthen this bill.
That being said, I think it is important to adopt Mr. Laframboise's motion, in order to respond to the concerns raised by the witnesses who appeared before the committee and to make the bill more effective.