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.
June 11th, 2007 / 5:50 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
I have a proposal for you to consider.
Right now, it says “three years after this Act comes into force”, but the way the bill is drafted, various provisions may come in at various times. If you want to be certain, I'd recommend you change it to “three years after this Act receives royal assent”. Then you have a definite timeline to start counting your three years.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The government would certainly be open, Mr. Chair, to a friendly amendment on that basis.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
An hon. member
The amendment.
5:50 p.m.
An hon. member
The amended amendment.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Wait a minute now.
It was a friendly amendment, in terms of royal assent, so that's part of it, so now we're dealing with G-7.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 49 as amended agreed to)
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Now we have clauses that were stood.
BQ-11, page 27, and that was by Mr. Laframboise.
(On clause 8)
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
We are moving an amendment to clause 8 at lines 19 to 21.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
In effect, deleting after the word “aeronautic” on line 20, and then through to 21.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The amendment reads as follows: “and on the part of providers of services relating to aeronautics, and the”.
5:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
We're back to clause 8.
Mr. Julian, it was identical, as I understand.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, I understand, Mr. Chair. However, just because the Bloc has withdrawn their amendment doesn't mean necessarily that the NDP would draw its amendment.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
My understanding, from the clerk, is that because the two are identical the withdrawal of one is of the other.
I understood that the committee had made the decision not to proceed with that amendment previously. It would be considered inconsistent. It dealt with it at the time the original BQ-11 was brought up.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I don't want to belabour this, Mr. Chair, because I do have the intention to withdraw ours since the Bloc has withdrawn its amendment, but the mover is the person who can withdraw the amendment, no other. Even if it is an identical amendment, if the Bloc chooses not to proceed with its amendment, the NDP could choose to proceed with its amendment.
I don't want to belabour the committee's work on that, but I just want to make sure the principle is clear.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
I understand that principle. My advice was that the committee had made that decision.
If a motion is moved, then it's up to the committee to withdraw it. If the motion has not been moved, then it's up to the mover to withdraw, as I understand.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, a point of order. I'm just wondering if we could deal with that when it becomes necessary to do so. It's not necessary.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
You're withdrawing. Thank you.
So we're ready to now deal with the issue of clause 8 as amended. There were previous amendments. BQ-9 was adopted previously, so there was an amendment.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
