Evidence of meeting #1 for Status of Women in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
No, it is the word “plus”, and I have not yet checked the French.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I don't have the French text. That might be a good reason I haven't looked.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
We'll take the amendment as soon as we hear from Ms. Young, who had her hand up.
June 21st, 2011 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Thank you very much, Ms. Chair.
I just wanted to note that, in the English anyway, by including and adding the word “and”, it separates out the two functions, for me anyway, in my reading of it, so that it then reads: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings and to also receive and publish evidence, etc. I don't think that's the intent.
Picking up on my colleague Ms. Bateman's comment, I don't see the reason for the change in the wording, because I think it takes away from the original intent, which was just that the chair would be in a position to receive and publish evidence if a quorum is not present.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
I'd like to move a motion to add to the amendment where it says “including one member of the opposition”. Could we also add “and member of government as well”?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
We'll discuss the amendment that was put forward. Just to clarify, it would be adding to the last sentence “and one member of the government”.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Yes, on the amendment. I totally concur with my colleague's amendment to add “one member of government”, but I would like a ruling of the chair on the amendment. Are we keeping the “and”? As my colleague Ms. Young said, that really does give it a different meaning, so are we going with last year's take? A ruling from the chair is fine.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
It seems that there isn't a problem with the last version in the last Parliament. Is there any opposition to adopting that elimination of the “and”, with the amendment as well? It would be this version plus the amendment. Okay?
Is everyone in agreement? Excellent.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
There is no issue. We are working with different versions. We do not have the same problem in the French. Unless my francophone colleagues tell me otherwise, the only change in the French text is that the word “présidente” is to be changed for the word “président”. I think that the previous text was very good. Writing “[...] the chair be authorized to hold meetings [...] was very good. I would leave everything as is, adding my colleague Ms. Truppe's amendment about “and a member of the government”. We need to make these two adjustments. The amendments are in different places in the French and English texts.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Okay. With that agreement, it seems that we're okay to move to number four.
Is there any discussion on distribution of documents? Do we have a motion to approve that?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Niki Ashton
Thank you.
Number five is on working meals. I've seen some interesting discussions take place on this one. Are there any thoughts on this?
