Evidence of meeting #54 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Why use the word "possible"? The word "possible" alone could have been taken out.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That is a drafting issue which was raised by the legal drafters. I can tell you that there was no interference by the department in qualifying the words used herein. We told them the idea they had to convey. As you know, we often draft a provision or amendment ourselves. Then, when it is reviewed by the Privy Council Office and Department of Justice, some changes are made. I can tell you quite honestly, Mr. Laframboise, that this does not come from the department. They have drafting protocols, they have other legislation, and they often want the wording contained in one statute to correspond to the wording contained in other statutes. I think that is the explanation for this.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, there are two elements, as Mr. Laframboise has identified. It waters down, to a certain extent, “highest safety standards” to “highest possible safety standards”. I like the addition of “security”, but I don't like the watering down of the setting of that ultimate objective, which I think we all share.
The other element is that we don't have the words “at all times” within the government's version. So even though I think there are some elements of the government's version that are improvements, those are two key aspects that actually water down the intent, which is to set the bar high. I believe that is an objective we all share, so that we have the highest safety standards in Canada.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Let's complicate the matter a little further, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps find a way out of this.
The current proposed subsection 4.2(1)—current, I got it today—reads: “The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics, and in the discharge of those responsibilities the Minister may”, and then we go on to (a), (b), and (c).
I believe that if we took that and stopped at “aeronautics”, it would read: “The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics.” Then we would add Mr. Julian's NDP-3.1: “The Minister shall ensure that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety standards established, and in the discharge of that obligation the Minister may”.
I think if we combined those two, perhaps that could satisfy everyone and include the committee's common desire, I sense, to impose this meeting of high standards upon the minister and the department.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The government would consider them all friendly amendments, except putting in Mr. Julien's “and security standards”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think it should be put in. I would suggest it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
There's another point too. The minister doesn't conduct aeronautical activities; other parties do. The minister can require that they conduct them at the highest level possible. You see? There's a difference from a drafting protocol standpoint.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Well, “shall ensure that they are conducted” doesn't mean by whom.
4 p.m.
Susan Stanfield Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
The argument would be made that the minister doesn't conduct them, so how is he supposed to ensure that they're conducted, except through making rules?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would reiterate that I quite like the new wording tabled by the government, because the minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics. The only word there that poses a problem for me is "possible". You say that it would be deleted. Inserting the word "at all times" before "the highest safety and security standards" is not a determining issue. Provided the minister himself is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics, is responsible for ensuring that activities are conducted in accordance with the highest safety standards, I would be prepared to support the amendment if you could take out the word "possible". However, I would like a consensus. I do like the wording in here because you make the minister responsible. I like that.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I think you're giving your resumé, aren't you, Mr. Chair?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I was just going to suggest that we are starting to muddy the water a little bit with two and three different amendments. We could maybe deal with NDP-3.1. If we want, we can deal with the government's amendment, but it doesn't close the door necessarily to a subamendment that we've seen before.
Mr. Julian.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, if Mr. Bélanger would like to repeat the amendments he had offered through NDP-3.1, I think that would move this along.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the government has taken up subsection 4.2(1) as put forward in the amendment, and added the concept the committee wished to introduce by establishing compliance with the highest safety standards. If we wished to combine the two amendments, we could draft subsection 4.2(1) as follows "The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics." Then, we could add amendment NDP 3.1, put forward by Mr. Julian:
4.2 (1) The Minister shall ensure that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety standards established, and in the discharge of that obligation the Minister may,
The rest would follow. It's really six of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't want us to get bogged down in this.