Evidence of meeting #75 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was english.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I believe the clerk can distribute the document electronically right now.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Colleagues, the legislative clerk has asked for a couple of minutes to consider this. I'm going to suspend to allow for that to happen.
The meeting is suspended.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I call the meeting back to order.
Thank you for your patience while Monsieur Thériault and the legislative clerks had a discussion around the amendment that's about to be presented. I'm hopeful that will expedite the discussion so that we won't have to get mired in the technicalities that they did during the suspension.
Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to read the amendment. Some minor amendments have been made to what you've received, but they're minor. They're for the spelling issue and to respect what we've already adopted.
We move that, in the English version, on page 2, lines 9, 10 and 11, the entire paragraph be changed. I'll spare you by not reading it. We propose to replace it with the following:
identify the professionals' needs for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye
The word "disease" is deleted since we've already adopted amendment LIB-1. I'll start over:
identify the professionals' needs for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye
It stops there. The rest of the sentence continues with what we've already amended.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The amendment is admissible. Debate is on the amendment.
Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
For clarification, in the translation, my understanding is that proposed paragraph 2(a) on line 9 would now be “identify the professionals' needs for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye diseases, as well as vision rehabilitation”.
Is that correct?
12:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Kitchen.
For clarification, it's not precisely correct, but I'll reread it.
Monsieur Thériault is changing lines 9, 10 and 11 only on page 2 to read, “(a) identify the professionals' needs for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye”
That's Mr. Thériault's change. However, since LIB-1 was adopted, it would read in its entirety, “(a) identify the professionals' needs and training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye disease and to vision rehabilitation;” and that's it.
I will repeat that one more time. It reads, “(a) identify the professionals' needs for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye disease and to vision rehabilitation;”.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
First of all, this is the first time I've heard Monsieur Thériault speak English in this committee, so I would like to congratulate him.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Speaking of English, I understand the intent. I have some concerns about the phrasing, because we've now deviated from standard English phrasing. Either we can accept the spirit and then work on the English or I would suggest on the fly that we try to fix the English.
It sounds like translated French, with all respect. It's not the way that the English phrasing would read.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Clause-by-clause proceedings on a piece of legislation are not the same as drafting a report. We have to settle on the wording. It isn't an option to clarify it outside the room without suspending and coming back.
I now give the floor to Mr. Thériault.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I tried as hard as I could to correct the way the the English and French versions were distorted. If the English version had been drafted in French, I would have voted against it. That's quite significant.
I didn't understand why the Conservatives were talking about potential interference, among other things. At one point, I started reading the English text and realized that I was satisfied with the French version but that the English version went way too far. However, I think the wording of the English and French versions now conveys the intent of the text. Earlier Ms. Sgro told us that the points our Conservative friends opposed weren't consistent with what she intended as a legislator. It seems to me that the wording now includes more suitable terms. I don't think it's particularly poorly drafted.
That being said, in clause 2(2)(b), the words "promote research" are translated as "promouvoir la recherche"; in clause 2(2)(c), the words "promote information" are translated as "promouvoir l'échange de renseignements"; and at clause 2(2)(d), "ensure that Health Canada is able" is translated as "faire en sorte que Santé Canada soit en mesure". The only distortion is in clause 2(2)(a). The English reads, "identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care practitioners", which is very different from "déterminer les besoins des professionnels de la santé". It should read, "déterminer la formation". That's why we made that amendment.
I also propose another amendment, but one that affects the French version. The word "déterminer" should be replaced by "identifier".
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important that we stick to standard legislative language. The clerks are the experts on that. I don't want to get too lost in our interpretation of the various semantic differences between things and how to translate. I'm glad I'm not the person in charge of translating any documents or legislation. It's not an easy thing. I think we should leave that work in the capable hands of our legislative clerks.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Is there any further discussion on the amendment proposed by Mr. Thériault?
Dr. Hanley.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I'd simply like to clarify a point.
Is it the word "formation" you want to delete?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Could I suggest "identify the needs of professionals for training and guidance on the prevention and treatment of eye diseases and rehabilitation needs" after that?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You could suggest it, but if you want it to be a subamendment, you'll need to provide it to us in writing and have our legislative clerks opine on it.
