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.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Mr. Laframboise, would you like to reverse the order and deal with amendment Lib-2?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Then it's withdrawn by agreement?
Okay, we'll go to amendment Lib-2. Thank you.
What page is amendment Lib-2 on?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
So you're moving amendment Lib-2.
I should clarify. We didn't withdraw the BQ motion; we just stood it while we went back to this.
It has been moved. Is there any discussion with respect to amendment Lib-2?
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would move an amendment to Lib-2, that after “provisions of the Canada Labour Code,” we would add, “the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act”.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Okay, so it's not a friendly amendment.
In effect, you're moving a subamendment to the amendment.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Okay.
Is there any discussion on that? Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On these three acts, again, when it comes to inconsistencies, when there is a confrontation between the two pieces of legislation, we are simply saying that the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act prevail.
I certainly appreciate the Liberal amendment on the Canada Labour Code. That's good. These other two pieces of legislation are vital as well, and witnesses have testified to that effect. So we're certainly not contradicting anything that came out of the committee hearings. In fact, adopting the subamendment to the Liberal amendment respects what witnesses told us.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm obviously going to support the subamendment moved by Mr. Julian. I repeat that including acts in this bill merely clarifies the position with regard to businesses so that they know it well. I clearly understood about the Canada Labour Code, and I'm going to support the Liberals.
Mr. Reinhardt or Ms. Stanfield, what is dangerous about the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, 1992 or the Canada Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act? In my view, the act in any case applies to the Canada Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. I don't see who could be opposed to that. Could a legislative conflict apply to the transportation of dangerous goods? Is it because it is an act that it is constantly evolving?
Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
I'm not a specialist in the TDG Act, but it seems to me that the same minister administers both pieces of legislation. So in the event that there were a conflict, it would be his responsibility to resolve it one way or another to fulfill his duties under both acts, because both acts speak to safety in one way or another. So I don't see that it's necessary to highlight it in the Aeronautics Act, because both acts exist.
I know I've argued this before, but every time you have acts that contain provisions that say they prevail and then you repeat it somewhere else, you raise a question for another piece of legislation governed by those acts that doesn't have a prevailing clause, whether or not they prevail over that act.
I could use as an example the Bank Act, which governs federal undertakings; therefore, the Canada Labour Code would apply. If we add something to the Aeronautics Act that says even though the Labour Code says clearly that it prevails, the Bank Act doesn't say that. The question will be asked that we look at the Aeronautics Act, which repeats that the Canada Labour Code prevails, but the Bank Act doesn't. So what is the status of the Labour Code with the Bank Act?
That's my concern with repeating things that aren't technically necessary to be repeated, that it may raise a question in a judge's mind somewhere down the road, because they look at the whole statute book sometimes when they're trying to interpret legislation. That's my concern.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My next question is for Mr. Reinhardt. We're also going to touch on the transportation of goods. The SMSs do not just concern the transportation of passengers; they also concern air transport as a whole.
I understand why employees who testified before the committee asked us to include the transportation of goods. An employee may be called upon to decide whether he should apply the safety management system or the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. A manager could tell his employee to do something, and the latter could report to the former that he must transport dangerous goods. In my view, the employee should rely on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, not the safety management system.
I understand why we want to clarify, but these kinds of situations may arise. Do you think that employees will know what to do if we don't clarify matters? Usually they must comply with a series of rules when they transport dangerous goods. It's probably you who issue these directives.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We have always thought that an SMS should never conflict with other acts that already apply.
Merlin Preuss Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Another point to be made here is the responsibility for enforcing the Canada Labour Code and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Aeronautics Act.
Those are my responsibilities.
It's up to me to determine what tool I need to keep the transportation system safe as it applies to the Labour Code and as it applies to dangerous goods in the air.
Ultimately, everything is in my hands,
as an agent of the minister, obviously.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Are you ready for the question on the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Are you ready for the question on the amendment, which is to the addition of the Labour Code, Lib-2?
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Now we are in a position...because amendments BQ-6 and NDP-3 have in effect been covered by virtue of Lib-2, as I understand, and what I need to do....
Amendment BQ-6 was stood. Are you in favour of withdrawing it? I have agreement from the committee to withdraw amendment BQ-6?
Liberal
