Evidence of meeting #57 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 employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I would love to have a debate on that, but very clearly we've had the same amendment withdrawn by the Liberals and by the Bloc. I sense that what they're saying is that they would not support the NDP amendment.
So in the interest of time, given that they have signalled that they will not support my amendment, I will withdraw it.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
So NDP-12 is withdrawn.
Moving on--still on clause 12--to the provisions of other acts where they prevail, I guess we should go back now to BQ-22 and NDP-12.1.
We'll start off with BQ-22, which is page 64....
Hold on a second. To my understanding, we'll just go to the chart we have here, under this section of “Provisions of other Acts prevail”. Amendment NDP-8.1 was stood because we had similar amendments in BQ-6, NDP-3, and Lib-2.
Mr. Bélanger.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I don't know what the committee may think, but we've been running into many of these references to the Canada Labour Code. We had stood it early on, and I'm just wondering if now may be a good time to deal with clause 2. If resolved that indeed there is a reference made in the law to the Canada Labour Code, and perhaps other laws, that may expedite then the rest of these. If it's done as I hope it will be, then every time it comes up we could just delete it or defeat it and carry on.
But I don't know if it would be appropriate to do so at this time.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
We would ask Mr. Reinhardt where that would be appropriate, the reference to the Canada Labour Code.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
There were legal opinions, I believe, and I think this committee sought a legal opinion specifically about this issue here. I got the information that HRSDC themselves said they don't want this and don't think it's necessary. They believe they have full authority with their legislation over any other thing that is a federal activity covered by the Labour Code.
I'm just reporting what HRSDC said. I know there were numerous legal opinions to the effect that it is not necessary. I believe the committee itself sought an opinion on this.
5:05 p.m.
John Christopher Committee Researcher
Our legal people, as you know, don't give legal opinions, but they were of the view that, generally speaking, specific acts take precedence over general acts. So the Labour Code would have application. But to be fair, they also did say that, in their opinion, if the committee wanted to add it in, it wouldn't necessarily harm the act.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I was looking for an opinion not on the Canada Labour Code--I've pretty well made up my mind on that one--but on the other two acts that were referred to in the Bloc amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
There again, they said that acts of specific application generally take precedence over this act, and they wouldn't need to be included.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
It's the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the safety board act.
What are you suggesting, Mr. Bélanger, at this point?
June 11th, 2007 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If I recall, I think it was Lib-2. The amendment I was proposing is not quite the same, but I was proposing that we reference the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-6 for greater certainty.
If we need to have the phrase “for greater certainty”, then I'm quite prepared to do it, if somebody wants to recommend it. It would be a friendly amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'm suggesting that if we clear it, we'd then know where we're going later on.
I'd move it too, if you're allowing me to do so, Mr. Chairman, but I don't want to break the goodwill here.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
At this point, we're now on NDP-8.1, which was stood because of the similarities with BQ-6, NDP-3, and Lib-2.
Mr. Jean.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, if we were to deal with this matter now, it's certainly agreeable from the government's perspective.
But are you also seeking the inclusion of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, etc., Mr. Bélanger?
