Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Alain Langlois]

Our legal drafters tell me that the term “modalité” in French does not cover the idea of the time when the payment is to be made. So, in order for the French version to be consistent with the English version, which reads:

“amount specified in the notice in accordance with the particulars” ,

the French version has been amended, given that the English term “particulars” is much more inclusive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if we examine the wording in the lines, I think the lines in the text are the wrong ones.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

It's lines 9 and 10 on page 34.

[An hon. member]

Is it not 10 and 11?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On page 34?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

It's 9 and 10 in the French version.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

In English, it says 9 and 10. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall amendment G-5 carry?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Still on clause 52, we have amendment G-6, on page 47.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, my understanding is that this makes the French and English versions consistent with this part and other parts of the act itself, and it also simplifies somewhat the English version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there any comment? No?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 53 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is the committee at all interested in doing a group of clauses, or do you want to continue on with one line at a time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll just keep going then.

(Clauses 54 to 63 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 64—Order in council)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On clause 64, referring to page 48, the last amendment of the docket, we have a Bloc amendment, BQ-11.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

As regards the date of the coming into force of the bill, this amendment replaces the words “on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council” with the words “ninety days after the day on which it receives Royal Assent”.

Is that acceptable?

[Alain Langlois]

Before answering yes or no to that question, I need to know what the intent of the amendment is.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Simply to ensure that things do not drag on forever.

[Helena Borges]

This motion relates to clause 63 and the Aeronautics Act, which the Committee will be addressing briefly, I believe. In order for the legislation to come into force when it is actually passed, an adjustment has to be made. Rather than saying “ninety days”, we can simply stipulate that the Act will come into force when it is passed by Parliament. That would be preferable. That way, we won't have to wait 90 days for it to come into force.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That is better than saying “on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”?

[Helena Borges]

Yes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We could say: “on the day on which it receives Royal Assent”.

[Helena Borges]

Yes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That's fine with me.