Evidence of meeting #53 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That's actually why I was so convinced about amendment NDP-3.1. Indeed, if there were a desire to put in a reference to an international body or organization, I would suggest it would be a minimum standard.
How would that be, Ms. Stanfield? Would you have any kind of conflict there if it were put as minimum highest international standards?
3:55 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
Yes, if it said that it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set out. The only other concern I would have would be in the case where it really isn't appropriate for Canada to follow the standards set out. You may have tied the minister's hands. You may not have left him an out in the legislation to say that the standard isn't really appropriate and they need to do it a different way. That would be my concern with the wording of this text, that there's no option for the minister except to meet the standard.
I'm talking about amendment BQ-7 here.
May 28th, 2007 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
The point I was going to raise--about meeting or exceeding--has been raised already.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Well, the fact of being subject to International Civil Aviation Organization standards would not prevent us from applying even stricter standards.
Ms. Stanfield, you said that we could decide not to comply with ICAO standards, and I have a problem with that. The government says that it is complying. Could you give me some examples of instances where ICAO standards would not be complied with?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
As you may recall, probably the most eloquent example already read into the record came from Captain Maurino of ICAO. He gave the example of the AQP program. This is a qualified program to ensure currency for pilots, which is not in compliance with ICAO; this is an FAA requirement. We have a similar one that has a bridging process. Clearly, if you're attempting to ensure a higher standard of currency than what is in the ICAO standard, you would not be allowed to do that in the strict interpretation of what's being proposed here.
So there's a specific example--read into the record when our ICAO representative was here--of what Susan Stanfield was talking about.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you.
Perhaps Mr. Reinhardt put his finger on it when he said we might be encroaching on the regulations, or the establishment of the regulations themselves, by trying to be extremely precise.
I'm going to ask this question of the department's legal counsel. It is my understanding that the minister is going to be held accountable for legislation made in Canada, not for legislation made anywhere else. No matter what's in the standard established by that legislation, the minister is accountable. If the minister establishes standards that are superior to those seen in North America or indeed in other continents, then he is held responsible and accountable for the standard that he has implemented under this legislation.
Am I right so far?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
So are we in fact giving him or her a way out by saying things like this, that it would be the highest standards established by another jurisdiction?
3:55 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a way out, but it might not achieve the goal the minister wants to achieve.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I guess my concern is one that was expressed by my colleague Mr. Bélanger a moment or two ago on another amendment, and that is that I'm not aware of the precise details of any of the other standards. I can only hold the minister accountable for the standards with which I have become familiar, or will become familiar, and which are codified in Canadian law. So I'm just wondering whether I'm holding the department up to a standard that we, as parliamentarians, really have no jurisdiction to impose directly. Willy-nilly, we say, okay, we want the standard that's established by ICAO, we want the one that's established by the Chinese, or by the Swiss, or whatever, without knowing what it is, unless we say “Please refer to the appendix”.
3:55 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
Yes, that's the concern I would have with this. It's an uncertainty issue, as we've had with some of the others, where you're making a blanket statement and you're tying the minister's hands, and you don't actually know what the effect may be.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
So now I'm in the same position as Mr. Jean. I've kind of talked myself out of supporting two amendments so far by simply asking that question. Very simply, do we need it? Do we need NDP 3.1?
4 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I would argue that you don't, because there's already a requirement for.... We're a signatory to the convention, so we've already made the commitment internationally that we will, to the best of our abilities, comply with the standards of ICAO as set out, and in the case that we don't, we're required to notify the world that we're not meeting those standards. So we've already got that commitment on an international level.
I don't know that you need it in here, and I have concerns about the way this provision is drafted, that it may have other effects that aren't intended by the committee. Specifically, the words “by regulation” at the end of it are a concern. I'm not sure that actually helps the minister do what he needs to do in section 4.2.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Perhaps from the point of view of members of Parliament who have a legal background, does that put the minister in an environment where he now has a phrase that's disculpatory because it cannot be enforced by Canadian law?
4 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I'd have to think about that, but I think “by regulation” in this provision, at the very least, would cause some confusion when it's read with the rest of the provision, because section 4.2 is a listing of the responsibilities. It's kind of a high-level list of responsibilities and authorities that the minister has to administer the Aeronautics Act and to enter agreements and things like that. Not all of those responsibilities can be fulfilled by means of a regulatory instrument, and you wouldn't necessarily want it to have to be done that way. Some of those responsibilities...it would make it very difficult to negotiate the agreements if everything had to be done by regulation.
I'm not sure what the intention was of “by regulation” at the end of that provision, but I don't think it achieves a goal that you would want to have.
The only other concern I have is with the wording itself. I think it really constrains the minister, because it says:
shall ensure that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner
There's no ability in that wording for him to do anything different, and “shall ensure” is really difficult wording to live up to.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The officials will even argue against amendment NDP-3 because they don't want to hear anything about compliance with higher safety standards.
I do not agree with Mr. Preuss. Far from binding the government's hands, the amendment we are moving would oblige the government to maintain the highest safety standards established by international organizations. We're talking not about countries but about organizations. We ourselves are members of most international organizations. In other words, we would commit one way or another to applying the highest standards. That would not prevent us from applying standards that are even higher than those in place today.
In my view, we must make a commitment to complying with the highest safety standards. My amendment has the advantage of bringing them within the framework of standards established by the international organizations of which we are a member. There is no question of setting aside the standards Canada has established. On the contrary, we can establish our own standards, while remaining in compliance with international standards. Mr. Chairman, I'm having some difficulty with the department's explanation.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Chair, I listened and I sort of buy into the arguments that would speak against BQ-7 in the sense of the confusion that might be created by having a reference in the law to the International Civil Aviation Organization and if they have lower standards, and so forth. So I'm prepared to vote against BQ-7, which will then bring us to NDP-3.1.
I was following with some agreement the arguments that I heard from the Justice representative, in that last sentence of that, “The minister may by regulation...”--and perhaps the minister may also by “executive decision”, by “Privy Council decision”, by “agreement”, and so forth, so there may be more than just “by regulation” as a way of ensuring that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety standards.
So I'm very comfortable with that, and that's where the representative lost me. I do believe that it's quite normal to have in a law a statement such as “The minister shall ensure that at all times the highest standards shall be met”. I don't have a problem with that, and it should be in this law. The difficulty, I'm starting to realize, is in the last part of that sentence, and I'd like to know how to replace it. Some suggestions might be in order here.
From the arguments and discussions I've heard, that's where I'm at. Perhaps we can dispose of BQ-7 and focus on NDP-3.1. I'm just trying to get us moving along here a bit.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
