Evidence of meeting #26 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, but that is what we are proposing.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, but we agree with eliminating them.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm sorry to interject once more, but the word “directed” is problematic. I don't think it's as simple as saying that “directed” has a simple meaning. It doesn't. Directed can mean channelled or aimed at something. It can also mean compulsory or ordered. They are two quite different concepts.
I had a look at the French. I don't speak French. I'm studying it, but I'm not there yet. What does the word utiliser mean?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It means use.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That is quite different from “directed”. Is utiliser supposed to be the equivalent of “directed”?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, it is “occur”.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Occur is not an active or mandatory thing. That's why the word “directed” is wrong. The suggestion from staff that we use a different term is, I think, reasonable, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I find that the French version does not reflect the English version. I wanted to raise this point because the two versions do not agree. The French version does not reflect what Mr. McGuinty proposed.
So, I simply wanted to intervene so that Mr. Fast would be aware of that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The point, Mr. Chair, just to close, is that the word “directed” does not have one meaning, it has several meanings. Again, we're inviting litigation in the future if we don't resolve this difference of opinion.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a point of order. I can't read the French, but I take exception to the fact that the French and the English are different translations of something that is so imperative in the declaration, and I'd like to see consistency in the wording, first of all, before we call a question on something that has such a great impact.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point of order, I would like to discuss that.
5:28 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So that everyone understands us clearly, we support the French version of what was tabled by Mr. McGuinty. Understand clearly that we support the French version; the translation therefore has to be accurate.
When we vote, it will be on the French version of the text tabled. So if there has to be any adjustment, do it immediately, because we agree with the French version of the text that was tabled.
5:28 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Only for clarification, Mr. Laframboise, and I guess the will of the committee...I think it's important that we have both the French and the English for the amendments so that we can understand that we are talking about exactly the same things. I would suggest we stand this and continue this discussion with an early vote in the next meeting after we see the French and English translations, if that's doable. Okay?
5:28 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:28 p.m.
Conservative
5:28 p.m.
Conservative
