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.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Notwithstanding the comments across the table, I'm very uncomfortable with any of these amendments--B-6, L-2, and NDP-3. In fact, I sense there's considerable unease, even in the mind of our legal counsel here.
Having practised law for some 24 years, I had to deal with hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation. Quite frankly, what you commonly see is a superseding clause, in which you see “notwithstanding”, and we've seen that in the Canada Labour Code here. What you don't see is a clause like this, where you make the legislation that you're trying to pass subordinate to other legislation.
My question is this. Does Mr. Laframboise have specific concerns? And if so, at the very least, what we should be doing is focusing on the very parts of those other acts that he has concerns about, that he wants to make sure supersede this legislation, and then address them specifically. If we make this blanket statement that this act is subordinate to three other acts, we may regret that some day. We may be wishing that this act should supersede, in some cases, other pieces of legislation like the Labour Code.
I have great discomfort moving forward in this direction. Obviously we're trying to come to some consensus here, but I'm concerned. I wouldn't be proceeding along this road.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We do have a list continuing to grow. I'm going to give Mr. Laframboise an opportunity to address that, and then I think we will adjourn this part of the business meeting to move on to the next that's on the agenda.
Mr. Laframboise.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
On the contrary, this bill targets only private enterprise. The bill has to do with a safety management system for private businesses. Some private businesses have already managed to get around certain enabling legislation. As a result, we think we need to send a clear message that, even if they implement safety management systems, there are other acts of Parliament that apply and must be respected.
After your explanation, Ms. Stanfield, I am left to wonder why you did not accept amendment BQ-5. It would have been much easier to tell businesses that this legislation does not give them the right to do whatever they like. Implementing safety management systems does not give them the right to violate other legislation. This is the message we must send.
Some businesses have implemented safety management systems and violated other legislation. Those businesses used such systems to justify their actions and to circumvent the Canada Labour Code. We want to send them a clear message here today, to the effect that implementing a safety management system does not mean they can disregard acts of Parliament. We want to send them a message.
I agree with my colleagues. We are going to list the legislation. However, I do not understand that, having obtained what we wanted, you did not accept amendment BQ-5. It would have been easier to tell private businesses that there are other pieces of legislation that must be respected that take precedence over the bill before us here today. It is important that businesses are aware. This applies to private businesses. I want you to understand the difference between this legislation, which is very specific and targeted directly at private businesses, and other pieces of legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before we adjourn this part, do you want to comment and then we'll move on?
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
Yes.
I understand your concern and that you want to send a message to the companies, but the legal reality is that all of the statutes apply to them all of the time. So if they're violating another statute, then the people responsible for the enforcement of that statute should be doing something about it.
The Aeronautics Act governs certain specific aspects of aeronautics, but aeronautical activities, as federal undertakings, are also governed by other statutes and other departments have the responsibility for administering those.
My concern with making a broad, sweeping amendment in general here is that we raise statutory interpretation questions in other areas and we don't know the exact effect we're having; whereas with the approach that I believe Mr. Fast advocated, where you would specifically identify the issues that you have vis-à-vis the operation of the statutes and you then address those specific issues, you at least have the certainty of knowing the effect you're having and you won't be inadvertently doing something you'll be sorry for later.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I just want to point out here that we're not talking about this act being subjected to. All the three amendments proposed read, first, “In the event of any inconsistency”, the will is that those acts prevail. So it's not subjected to.
If there is inconsistency, that's what we're addressing. I think the committee ought to keep that in mind.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'll advise the committee that's something they will have a couple of days to reconsider.
I thank our guests today. We'll see you back on Monday in the second hour. We'll be reviewing Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Not this Monday, the following Monday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, May 28. I'm sorry. I wouldn't dare want you to have to work overtime on the long weekend.
Thank you very much.
We'll take a short two-minute recess and then come back with committee business.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Welcome back.
As previously discussed, on the agenda we now have a notice of motion from Mr. Julian. For the committee's benefit, I received a document earlier this afternoon and I've had it translated and sent around, more for your information.
I'll ask Mr. Julian to move his motion and then speak to it.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I don't think we need to take a lot of time with this motion. I think it should have support from all four parties.
This is not a governmental decision. It is a decision of Air Canada.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The e-mail you've received, Mr. Chair, from Air Canada I think attests to the importance of actually adopting this motion. What this motion does is essentially give us a period of a couple of hours. When I say “study”, I mean one session in which we would bring Air Canada in, bring in the machinists who are affected by these layoffs, and look to see what the justification is. As Air Canada points out in its e-mail, it is essentially opening up a technical heavy maintenance facility in El Salvador at the same time as it is laying off jobs in Vancouver.
Mr. Chair, the people who are affected by these layoffs, these hundreds of people who are losing their jobs in Vancouver, received their layoff notices yesterday and are also receiving them today. They have seven days to respond, seven days to indicate whether or not they're going to bump somebody in a place like Montreal or Winnipeg. So it has repercussions right across the country.
As a transportation committee, I think it's important for us to have Air Canada here to answer what are legitimate questions about their starting up a heavy maintenance facility in El Salvador at the same time as they're laying off heavy aviation engineers in Vancouver, which has impacts right across the country.
I'm simply, through this motion, requesting of the committee that we undertake a session of two hours in which we bring Air Canada and the machinists in. We get to the bottom of what the issue is around the layoffs and around the issue of maintenance services in low-cost facilities outside of Canada and then report our findings back to the House. Rather than taking a position, we bring folks in, hear from them, ask the tough questions, and then after that, decide on what our position is and report that to the House.
I hope that two-stage approach to getting the study done--bringing folks in and asking the questions first—will meet with support from all four parties.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I looked at Mr. Julian's motion. It's my information that Air Canada has in fact not chosen in any way to shift maintenance jobs to low-cost facilities, as it's been contended in Mr. Julian's motion. As I understand it, Mr. Chair, the decision was in fact a decision of Delta Airlines, not Air Canada, to cancel their maintenance contract with Air Canada, which is what happened, and this is beyond the realm of Air Canada. They were just the recipient of commercial news. They're not a charity; they're a public company. It seems to me that we, as parliamentarians, shouldn't be interfering in a commercial arrangement that's occurred. This is not Air Canada's fault, if they lose a contract.
I do acknowledge that it is indeed very unfortunate that there's been a significant reduction in the facility, and there's no question that there will be several hundred workers affected. But I just don't see a sanction of Air Canada as being.... It's not their fault, and I don't see us, as parliamentarians, getting involved in a commercial transaction dispute. It's not even a dispute; it's a decision of a commercial transaction.
That's my reaction, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Julian's motion.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I had the same reaction, Mr. Chair.
Air Canada is no longer—I want to bring Mr. Julian up to speed—a government crown corporation. So SCOTIC does not have jurisdiction over its decisions or in fact any influence in relation to that. It's a corporation that has to answer to its shareholders. Indeed, it sounds more as if Mr. Julian wants to bring Delta Airlines in here and rake it over the coals as to why it would fire Air Canada's technical employment staff in Vancouver. It's just not appropriate. Indeed, Air Canada, I understand, is growing in the rest of Canada and had no choice whatsoever with the decision.
So I would be totally against this motion.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, the way this motion is currently worded, I would have to agree with the previous two speakers that indeed this may be seen as interference in the normal ongoing internal affairs of a corporation. However, Air Canada is not any normal corporation, in that it is subjected to some pretty stringent conditions and regulatory and legal requirements. If this is defeated...or perhaps Mr. Julian would be willing to entertain an amendment to the effect that, as a rule, it wouldn't be a bad thing for this committee to have Air Canada appear in front of it on a general discussion of aviation in Canada. In that sense, I would welcome having the ability to discuss with Air Canada certain matters--not this one, I wouldn't do that. Others may wish to raise it and they'll get the answer that such a question would deserve.
But if it remains this way, I can't support it either.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I quite like how Mr. Bélanger presents things. I have a some questions about the no border agreements that Canada is signing with all the other countries that are meant to promote Canadian businesses. But will we not in fact lose jobs here in Canada, because our businesses will go set up shop elsewhere, where it will cost less? This worries me.
As for the rest, I understand that a business decision is a business decision. However, I would like to be assured that the government's decisions, which I have not disputed so far—we did not dispute the decision to sign no border agreements, because I have no problem with that decision—will not affect employment rates in Canada. But if they do start to affect jobs here in Canada, we would have to ask ourselves some questions.
If a company such as Air Canada, for instance, moved jobs from Canada to other countries, I think even government members would have to ask some questions to find out why. If it is merely what Mr. Zed indicated, I have no problem with that, but if there are other hidden factors and if we should expect additional layoffs in Canada or further job relocations to other countries, well, then, we would have to see. If we wait for that to happen, it will be too late.
Perhaps through a motion, as amended by Mr. Bélanger, we could see very quickly if there are any other hidden factors behind this decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I can make a comment here, the open skies policy is a government policy, not the policy of Air Canada. They could probably have a general discussion about it, but if you want to ask questions about the direction, impact, or implications of it, it might be better to deal with people in government with regards to the aviation.
That said, as the chair, I'm certainly prepared to write a letter inviting Air Canada to appear before the committee, if that's the will of the committee, to discuss several issues that the committee may want to discuss in regards to safety, transportation, and those types of issues. I'll put that out there.
I'll go to Mr. Julian, whose motion is on the floor.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I think if we're building a consensus around this, that's an important step, but we also need to have the machinists who are affected by the layoffs in Vancouver.
If the intent is to have Air Canada respond to questions around the layoff, the opening of the other maintenance facility, and other questions that members of the transport committee may wish to offer, I'm very open to that.
If there is a proposal for an amendment to this motion, so that essentially what we are doing is getting Air Canada and the machinists here to answer questions on this issue and others, I would be perfectly comfortable.
I believe we need to proceed fairly quickly on this, even potentially to the extent of adding another meeting of the transportation committee, because these layoff notices have gone out now. We've spent a number of committee meetings talking about layoffs that may eventually arrive in other sectors; this is something that's happening right now. These layoff notices are arriving in mailboxes throughout the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia. Each of those layoff notices carries with it impacts that potentially will go to Montreal, Toronto, or Winnipeg, as people who exercise their transfer option bump somebody else who's working in those other facilities.
So we're talking about implications that are nationwide. They are real, not theoretical, and as a result of that, it's important that we take action. I'll entertain any amendments to make the motion do what I'm hoping it will do, which is to get Air Canada and the machinists here to talk about that issue, but certainly not limit it to that issue.