|
Constitution (Non-Charter) - Navigation and Shipping. Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General)
In Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General) (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada allowed appeals, here respecting "the contours of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity", where a Quebec provincial statute was applied against a federal undertaking.
Here the court locates 'navigation and shipping' in the federal-provincial division of power:[59] Parliament has jurisdiction over navigation and shipping under s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is a broad power that “encompasses those aspects of navigation and shipping that engage national concerns which must be uniformly regulated across the country, regardless of their territorial scope” (Marine Services, at para. 61, quoting Tessier Ltée v. Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), 2012 SCC 23, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 22). This Court has held that “dockside unloading and storage operations are ‘integral’ to shipping” (Lafarge, at para. 35, quoting ITO — International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc., 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752). In Lafarge, Binnie and LeBel JJ. stated the following about this exclusive head of power:Historically, the federal navigation and shipping power has been broadly construed (Queddy River Driving Boom Co. v. Davidson (1883), 1883 CanLII 60 (SCC), 10 S.C.R. 222). The transportation needs of the country cannot be allowed to be hobbled by local interests. Nothing would be more futile than a ship denied the space to land or collect its cargo and condemned like the Flying Dutchman to forever travel the seas. Authority for the proposition that transportation undertakings need facilities to pick up and drop cargo, if any is required, is to be found in Attorney‑General for Ontario v. Winner, 1954 CanLII 289 (UK JCPC), [1954] A.C. 541 (P.C.). Effective regulation of harbour facilities are as essential to shipping as airports to aeronautics. [para. 64] [60] Even without any specific precedent in this regard, there is no doubt that the security of marine facilities and their operations is at the core of the federal navigation and shipping power. A port facility plays the same role for ships that an aerodrome does for aircraft. As in the case of air transportation, [translation] “[w]ithout robust and uniform safety and security measures, there could be no navigation and marine commerce” (C.A. reasons (QMS), at para. 60, per Ruel J.A., dissenting). The security of marine facilities is therefore a condition that is absolutely necessary for Parliament to “achieve the purpose for which exclusive legislative jurisdiction was conferred” (COPA, at para. 35, quoting Canadian Western Bank, at para. 77).
|
