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.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
From a departmental standpoint, we're always willing to work to improve proposals. Yes, it is feasible; we've done it in the past.
I don't know if there are other comments on....
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I don't mean to put anybody on the spot. I'm interested in developing what we've had going.
Maybe Mr. Jean is right, that we've been discussing this for quite some time. But clause 12 really goes to the heart of all of the discussions that were introduced by the witnesses. So while some of us on this or that side might not have been as struck by the witnesses' perceptions as others, it doesn't matter; the point is that if we want to preserve the integrity of what the government has proposed through legislation, both this amendment by Mr. Jean and the linking of some of the language--and I'm not talking about changing entire sentences or phrases, but about choosing the appropriate words to provide a linkage that will give everybody else comfort. The point is whether or not that might be technically feasible.
If it is—and that's all I'm asking you—then I'll continue and suggest, Mr. Chair, that we avoid a confrontation by calling for a vote.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm actually looking for a response from Mr. Laframboise. I had proposed the issue of the friendly amendment and dealing with it.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a problem. According to the order in which the bill's clauses are presented, this amendment would come last. So, I need unanimous consent so that we may immediately vote on the 36-month period. If we do not agree—I'm trying to discuss this with my colleagues—we will not be able to talk about this part of the legislation, because I think that I cannot include the three-year term here. That is why I need us to immediately agree that this part of the legislation will come into force in three years time. Then, we can begin clause-by-clause consideration. I have no problem with that. However, currently, we are not in agreement on this.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Actually, clause 49 is the appropriate place. But it doesn't need to be in clause 49; it could be at the end of this clause. Legislative drafters like it at the end, so they can see it quickly; but quite frankly, I've seen it in other bills--in the bill itself.
So indeed it could be a friendly amendment. It's up to you, Mr. Laframboise. I don't want to belabour the point, but we have had a month to—
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It does not bother me. I want to move this amendment, but I don't have the wording to do so in this specific clause. My colleagues may challenge this. I am making an amendment. I don't know whether we can add clause 5.31.1, which would state that clause 12 would come into force three years after the legislation. I so move.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have done the wording, Mr. Chair, and I would suggest that the friendly amendment could be under (1.12). It would read:
Section 5.31 shall come into force three years after Bill C-6 receives royal assent.
So indeed, it can be put there. It would be totally legal, and draft-ready to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Again, I think what you want has to be clear. The wording has to be clear.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If it is not in both official languages... Pardon me, you have the floor.
Liberal
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's totally legal. It's totally appropriate.
I think I have the microphone, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's that proposed subsection (1.12) would read:
Section 5.31 shall come into force three years after Bill C-6 receives royal assent.
In fact--since I still have the microphone on--I've seen many sections that actually say, “This section will not come into force until three years after...”. So it's not always at the end of legislation; it certainly is included in particular sections.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The wording is that proposed subsection (1.1.2) states: Section 5.31 shall come into force three years after Bill C-6 receives royal assent.
Bloc
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I would suggest that it should be paragraph (e) of proposed section 5.38.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I hope that members of the committee will accept this. I think there has been a very positive effort throughout the group here today, and on previous days, to make progress on this bill, but there are some basic procedures that we should respect. I'd like to see amendments in writing in both official languages before we vote on them. We've already had variations here. We are also beyond the time allocated to it today.
Mr. Chairman, in the constructive spirit of trying to move forward on this bill, I will reiterate my suggestion. I'll move that we proceed with the clause-by-clause study next Monday at 3:30.