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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
And I am suggesting that perhaps Monsieur Laframboise will be amenable to withdrawing it--perhaps.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Before proceeding, I have a question for Ms. Stanfield, if I may, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You say that you have never seen an act that is subject to other pieces of legislation. We often see legislation that takes precedence over other legislation. For instance, the Canada Labour Code takes precedence over all other legislation. However, you say you have never seen a piece of legislation that is subordinate to other legislation. Is that right?
May 16th, 2007 / 4:15 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
That is correct. I have never seen it drafted in such a way that the statute you're dealing with says, this statute is subordinate to anything else. It's usually done in terms of another statute being superior because there's more certainty that way. You know what you're dealing with. By making a statute subordinate to everything else, you don't actually know; it's very difficult to know, unless you've read the whole statute book, that this is your intent, that anything else dealing with the same subject matter should take precedence over what you've put in the Aeronautics Act.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Laframboise concerning his intention in presenting amendment BQ-5. In fact, there are two amendments that are very similar to one another. I would like to know what your intention is.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My intention was for this act to be subordinate to all other legislation, particularly the Canada Labour Code and other legislation that could be enacted concerning the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, as well as other programs.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
For the same reasons, we are going to discuss other legislation a little later on. You are quite right, there are so many pieces of legislation that could apply. Conversely, one day, we will probably see legislation that is subordinate to other legislation. You say you have never seen that. However, at some point, if legislators want to draft legislation but do not wish to upset labour relations in a certain sector, we could see legislation that is subordinate to other legislation. As a solution, you are proposing that one piece of legislation always take precedence over others, but there is never one that is subordinate to others. One day, we will see legislation that is subordinate to other pieces of legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
It really only comes into question when the two statutes are in conflict. The scope and the authorities of the Aeronautics Act, fortunately, are put into a fairly confined space; it's pretty identifiable.
You do get the possibility of conflict when other statutes affect people affected by the Aeronautics Act. Examples are the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. I think the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is the other one you're concerned about. But you only need the overriding clause when there's going to be a real conflict. It's been my experience with the Aeronautics Act that generally either there is a shared jurisdiction and the two things are compatible, or it's not really a conflict; the two things operate in separate spheres and don't intrude on one another.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If I want the Aeronautics Act, or the part of the act that we are going to amend, to be subordinate to the Access to Information Act, will the latter take precedence over this act?
4:20 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I believe it does. I believe it's considered quasi-constitutional law, so it automatically has precedence.
4:20 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I'm sorry, but I can't answer that question definitively.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If you add an exclusion in this piece of legislation, you have to be careful.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That's fine. Monsieur Laframboise, it is my understanding that you will--
