Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in making these inquiries, could the solicitor general also take into consideration the fact that the current director general of CSIS is willing to restore the bilingualism bonus, as long as the government and Treasury Board provide him with sufficient funds to do so?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. When CSIS was created, RCMP officers who were integrated into CSIS retained their rights, including the bilingualism bonus. However, after their integration, the then director general of CSIS, acting as a separate employer, abolished this bonus.
Is the government willing to restore, now and on a retroactive basis, the bilingualism bonus for RCMP officers transferred to CSIS?
Petitions March 6th, 1996
Madam Speaker, on behalf of around 20,000 citizens in my riding and surrounding areas, I too present a petition asking that Québec Téléphone be granted a broadcasting license.
In order to give others a chance, I will now sit down.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service February 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General received those assurances from the same people who told us there was no Heritage Front case, no Grant Bristow case, there had been no infiltration of the Reform Party and no file on Preston Manning.
Since these questions cannot be resolved by magic, and considering the Heritage Front, the file that was opened on Preston Manning and these new allegations about the existence of a mole within the service, a mole who is still there today, will the minister finally agree to order a full-scale public inquiry on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service February 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Mr. Pierre Roy was fired by CSIS for informing his superiors that a mole in the service of the former Soviet Union had been working there for 20 years. The review committee said Mr. Roy had a case and asked for the investigation to be reopened. The mole, however, is still working for CSIS.
Would the Solicitor General agree it is astonishing, to say the least, that Mr. Roy was fired and the mole was protected, despite these troubling allegations?
Roland Veilleux February 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roland Veilleux, the spokesperson for the no committee in Beauce and owner of Groupe RGR, is at it again. Last fall he threatened to pull out of Quebec if the no side won. Now he is justifying the closing of his factory in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce by blaming it on the fact that the results were too close.
But, as it happens, Mr. Veilleux is currently negotiating with his workers, and that is what brings about the threat of closure. He has used the same tactics in previous negotiations. It seems therefore that his blame keeps switching from one guilty party to another, sometimes the sovereignists, sometimes the union, as it suits him. This is strangely reminiscent of the good old industrialists of the 19th century.
Constitutional Amendments Act December 11th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have been saying for a long time that the federal Canada of 1867 was a compromise based on a misunderstanding: the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald, who wanted a legislative union, or a single parliament for all of Canada, and the vision of George-Étienne Cartier, who wanted strong provincial parliaments, as well as powers delegated to a federal legislature that would be a creature of the provinces.
However, the creature decided to become the creator and committed the sin of pride like our first parents, who paid the ultimate price, as will the federal system. Earlier, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park told us how nice it is to have a resolution that recognizes Quebec's distinct nature, because of its civil law tradition. But we have known that since 1867. Indeed, subsection 92(13) provides that property and civil rights come under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, we were allowed, at the time, to keep our civil code which, incidentally, was in effect as of 1866 in Lower Canada.
As for our language, one just have to use it in this House to realize that it is different, that it is distinct from that of our fellow Canadians. The same is true for our culture.
Following the speech made in Verdun by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, there was a shortage of Tylenol to bring the fever down, and something had to be done very quickly. Consequently, the government hurriedly drafted a resolution providing that Quebec is a distinct society because of its language, its culture and its civil code. We already knew that. But what comes with that recognition? Absolutely nothing. This is a meaningless statement. No powers are granted along with that recognition.
And to make sure of that, the government has introduced Bill C-110 and told us: under the resolution, Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of its language, its culture and its civil code. That is it. We will not get anything else. And to be sure that nothing will change, Bill C-110 gives veto power to just about everybody. I call that the Colonel Sanders veto power: a big chicken with legs for everybody. That is what our federation with vetoes for everybody looks like.
According to what Mr. Jean Dion was saying last week in Le Devoir , from now on it will take the approval of the equivalent of 91.8 per cent of the population to change anything in the Canadian Constitution. This means that nothing can change any more. And the Prime Minister will be saying: ``There is nothing I can do now for Quebec. I would like so much to be able to do more, but I cannot because of Bill C-110. Heavens, has that piece of legislation ever put us in a difficult situation. I would have liked so much to give French Canadians, to give Quebecers the same rights enjoyed by Canadians in the western provinces and elsewhere''. So we are going to be stuck with that.
The leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, Mario Dumont, was telling us the other day that because of the close results in the referendum, the Quebec government would have to start opening the mail. The one thing we are sure of today is that, with the bill before us, postage will not be very expensive: half a page, 45 cents. And they think that they will buy peace in Quebec with half a page.
As my colleague from Joliette was saying, what Quebec wants is a white horse, not a pony, and I totally agree with that. Let us have something concrete. Before granting veto powers here and there to block any constitutional amendment, the government should come up with concrete proposals involving some devolution of powers to Quebec. It should repeal the preamble of section 91 which authorizes the federal Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.
This preamble has been used by the courts to grant the federal government unforeseen powers, for example, the general spending power, this national dimension theory allowing the federal government to get involved in almost every area, emergency powers and ancillary powers. All of these constitutional theories were approved by the courts, but were never foreseen by the Fathers of Confederation. If there had been Mothers of Confederation, the women would probably have realized at that time that something was wrong with the Constitution.
The government should also repeal section 91(29) concerning the residual powers. In 1867, it was said that all powers that were not specifically granted to the provinces would come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Think about the development of all the technologies, like broadcasting, cable distribution, television, aeronautics-we are now talking about the information highway-which could not have been foreseen in 1867 and which automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, pursuant to section 91(29). These residual powers should be granted to the provinces retroactively, with a transfer period of no more than 12 months, so that the provinces can recover all of the residual powers which have surfaced since 1867 and the federal government can keep the power to subsidize it will need to exercise the powers the provinces will let it have.
The government should also withdraw from section 91 the federal powers in the area of unemployment insurance and give those powers to the provinces as it withdraws from the field of taxation.
If we add a distinct society clause, it should be enshrined in the Constitution and not be limited to the present clause concerning only language, culture and the Civil Code, or Napoleonic Code, as the Prime Minister said the other day, in a rather revealing slip of the tongue. The Napoleonic Code is used in France. We have had our own Civil Code in Quebec since 1866.
So, we should have a distinct society clause enshrined in the Constitution stating that Quebec is a distinct society. The Constitution of Canada must be interpreted in such a way that the Quebec legislature is vested with all powers inherent to the recognition of its distinctiveness.
We would then have an interpretive clause that would colour the Constitution. We now hace a resolution of the House of Commons similar to the ones we use to vote an anniversary or the end of a conflict somewhere. That is not really what Quebecers want.
Section 95 of the Constitution says that agriculture and immigration are shared jurisdictions. The problem is that in the very same section, we see that federal legislation prevails when federal and provincial laws clash. Section 95 should be abrogated and immigration and agriculture recognized as exclusively provincial jurisdictions. The federal government should withdraw completely from these fields.
We might as well abrogate the sections concerning the Senate. In 1995, we certainly do not need this chamber any more, a non-elected chamber which is now delaying Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries, for example. Non-elected people telling us how the House of Commons should be elected, that takes guts. We could abrogate this at the same time.
According to section 91 there is nothing in the present Constitution which specifically addresses the management of foreign policy. It was inspired by section 132, which set out the powers passed down from the imperial Parliament, the Parliament of Great Britain. We could add to section 91, under federal powers, that foreign policy is a federal jurisdiction, but solely in those areas falling under the legislative authority of the federal Parliament. Section 92 could have the addition that foreign relations are also under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Lieutenant-governors ought to be appointed by the legislative assemblies, as should senators if we keep the Senate.
Since today's debate is a bit short, I will skip over a few important aspects I was going to mention. When a package, a binding offer, is arrived at by the federal chambers, Commons and Senate, and the legislatures of all the other provinces, for there are many items that require unanimous consent, when that is done, then mail it off to Quebec and the negotiations can start. That can be the basis for negotiation. I do not expect to live long enough to see the day when postage costs will come down to a level that would allow such a document to be mailed.
So the Mario Dumont yardstick of at least reading the mail is no more, and since October 30, since the referendum results, we have had the proof in all ways possible that what the government is proposing is a totally cosmetic change with no substance whatsoever.
At both the report stage and on third reading, I will be proud to rise in this House to vote against Bill C-110, which has the sole merit of making the Verdun speech even more meaningless.
Quebec's Right To Self-Determination December 11th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for presenting this motion, which I have here before me, and all other members who gave very well documented presentations on the subject.
It would be interesting to see the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce patriated to the National Assembly, if he tries to run for election once Quebec has opted by way of self-determination to obtain its sovereignty.
Historically, the Canada of today, of 1995, which is also the Canada of 1867, was created with the consent of the partners who joined the Canadian federation.
You will permit me to quote the first "whereas" from the British North America Act of 1867. It reads as follows: "Whereas the Provinces of Canada [Upper and Lower Canada], Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom".
There are, however, three other "whereas" clauses. The first "whereas" is crucial. The text continues: "The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled"-that is the Parliament of the United Kingdom of 1867. The imperial Parliament of 1867 would never have enacted the British North America Act without the consent of the colonies, of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Provinces of Canada to form the Dominion of Canada, as we know it now.
So the consent of the colonies already established at the time of Confederation was vital to the existence of the Canadian federation as we know it today. Its existence is contingent on the continued consent, at least of the well-defined colonies that made up the preconfederational British North America and that were joined by the colonies of the Pacific coast, essentially today's British Columbia and, in 1949, the Dominion of Newfoundland, which decided to join the Canadian family.
We can see from the documents approved by the imperial Parliament following the Charlottetown and Quebec City resolutions that the consent of the colonies at the time was fundamental to the creation of the present federation. If constituents withdraw that consent at some point-and the real constituents are those who were asked in London: "Do you give final approval to the Quebec resolutions we agreed on?"-and this is what the British Parliament did in 1867. This was within their right; for all practical
purposes, they ratified the Quebec resolutions by giving them force of law. For all practical purposes, the imperial Parliament gave up its legislative authority over British North America in 1982.
As my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve pointed out earlier, Quebec has, of course, a people, a language, a territory, a history, rules and regulations, legal institutions, and a common will to live together, which are the basic requirements in exercising the right to self-determination.
I want to focus on the issue of territory. As we recently heard, our Reform colleagues, in particular their leader-I think the hon. member for Calgary West put less emphasis on the issue, since he felt uncomfortable with his leader's position-, would like to turn Quebec into a Switzerland-type country, that is to say, full of holes with enclaves and removable parts. This essentially amounts to asymetrical federalism at its best.
I see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands belongs to a totally different school of thought; he is already fully committed to Quebec's right to self-determination.
Although the hon. member for Calgary West was uncomfortable about explaining his party's position, he still referred to this Swiss-cheese Quebec, this Quebec full of holes.
One of the basic elements of the right to self-determination is territorial control. The Quebec National Assembly, our provincial legislature, has control over the territory it was given under the acts that led to establishment of the 1912 boundaries, according to the interpretation given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1927. These are the present boundaries of Quebec, stretching from the Outaouais to the Magdalen Islands, and from the Gaspesian Peninsula to the Abitibi. This territory is clearly defined, here, with the Ottawa river, as well as with the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the U.S. border and the polar circle.
These are clear boundaries, over which the Parliament of Quebec has absolute power, and no one is challenging that. When we hear Quebec being described as Swiss cheese, full of holes, with enclaves, corridors and ports that would remain under federal jurisdiction, that does not reflect the reality.
No one is disputing the authority of the Parliament of Quebec over the entire territory of Quebec. Every rule of international law recognizes that a people, a nation has authority over the territory under its control at the time it achieves sovereignty.
If the people of Quebec had voted yes to the question put to them on October 30, there is no doubt that Quebec would have control over the entire territory of Quebec. No one is denying that every RCM, municipality and local government in Quebec is subject to the legislative and constitutional authority of the Parliament of Quebec under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
That being said, in order for the territorial integrity of Quebec to be affected, the suggestion-I would say the seditious suggestion-would have to made that some portions of Quebec rebel against the legislative authority of the Parliament of Quebec, which neither Reform members nor our other colleagues in this House are suggesting.
I think that the greatest lesson we were taught by the October 30 referendum and will be again in the future is the fundamental respect not only for our institutions and our territories but also, fundamentally, for the people. Because sovereignty is not something that happens first and foremost at the institutional level but fundamentally at the grassroots level.
Because we have been living for decades, and even centuries, under a regime that largely reflects British values and precedents, we have a tendency to rely more on institutions than on the peoples for whom these institutions exist. However, when a people wants to achieve self-determination, there is a basic obligation to respect that fundamental choice.
On October 30, Quebecers said no to the question put to them. And it is with the utmost respect for democracy that everyone accepted that decision, even though it was, for all intents and purposes, taken by the smallest of majority.
In a democratic system, the rule is 50 per cent plus one. In this case, it played in favour of the no side. Had the results been reversed, the Prime Minister himself said that he might not have recognized them. But the rules cannot be set once the game is over.
These rules must be agreed on before the beginning of the game. For example, it would be preposterous if, during a final between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the New York Rangers, the governors of the league decided, at the end of the best of seven series, that the series would now be a best of nine, because Toronto won. Again, the rules are established before the game begins. And the rule here is that the people is sovereign.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, who is here and who supported Bill 150 in Quebec's National Assembly, which affirmed Quebec's right to self-determination, now sits in this House, because she will hopefully convince her colleagues from the Liberal caucus of the validity of these claims.
This said, I will have an opportunity later today to speak at the report stage on Bill C-110 and to talk more about the bogus veto the government wants to give every man and his brother.
Witness Protection Program Act October 5th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition to discuss Bill C-78, which was just tabled by the solicitor general.
It is somewhat surprising that, for all intents and purposes, Bill C-78 is similar to a bill considered by the House on September 26, namely Bill C-206, which introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West and given first reading on February 1.
Indeed, a comparison of both bills shows that there is very little difference between Bill C-78, which is before us today, and Bill C-206, which has already gone through second reading in this House.
The only changes that I could find, and they are not major, are that compensation of witnesses may be better under bill C-78. Also-and to my mind this is not an improvement-under this bill, the RCMP commissioner will now have to make the necessary arrangements with witnesses, or their counsel, to ensure their protection. Under Bill C-206, as considered on September 26, the solicitor general had the authority to reach agreements with witnesses. That, of course, made it easier, under our parliamentary system, to ensure control of government activities through ministerial accountability.
This, I feel, is an issue which the committee will have to look at again. In terms of the principles involved, there is not much difference between the solicitor general's position and the one which I express on behalf of the official opposition. Nevertheless, we will have to take another look at this issue and decide who should be responsible for the arrangements made. I understand that it can be argued that the RCMP commissioner is ultimately accountable to the solicitor general who, in turn, is accountable to this House, which means that the House will have a say in the process. I will come back to this point.
Before getting into the heart of the matter, I would like to begin by stating that the contribution by the hon. member for Scarborough West, not only in introducing Bill C-206 but also in taking part in all aspects of the work of Parliament, particularly in the justice and legal affairs committee, ought to ensure that he will have the opportunity in the very near future of having his point of view heard on legal issues within that committee.
Now, having made that remark, and having voiced these few reservations, I must nevertheless express my pleasure at the care the government has taken with this issue of witness protection. I believe that the government's wishes will result in a change to Canadian law.
We must admit that we lagged considerably behind our American neighbours, who have had witness protection legislation applying to all 50 states of the union for 25 years now. That legislation is is well known by the general public, which is thus aware of its rights.
Here, we do have some legislation in this regard, but it is not as well known and is administered by the RCMP in some cases, by the OPP or the Sûreté du Québec in others, but always sporadically and piecemeal, which does nothing to help the general public understand the system.
In a law-abiding society, I do not believe that we can settle for a piecemeal approach, with decisions depending on the whims of whoever is responsible for policing at a specific time. I feel that instead we need to have legislation that will apply all across Canada and will therefore incorporate in the rules of law those principles we wish to be seen in our public law. This will improve the situation of witnesses, particularly in criminal cases, and more particularly in cases involving serious crimes.
It is my opinion that this will put an end to the application, in a sometimes sequential manner and without any controls, though it was done in good faith, of procedures about which there might be witness confusion as to which policies apply to them. From now on it will be clear, and attorneys will be able to inform witnesses of the protection programs available to them by law. This transparency in application of the law cannot help but be beneficial to the community at large.
As I just pointed out, there should be one set of criteria for everyone, and the public should be aware of those criteria.
Now, how should witness protection be structured and how should it be monitored? Should the courts monitor witness protection or should it be left up to the RCMP commissioner or the minister?
Some will probably argue that monitoring by the courts would involve a certain amount of publicity which may not be desirable in this case, because often the purpose of the witness protection program is to allow the witness, who has put his life on the line many times, to hide behind a new identity so that he can start a new life.
If there is monitoring by the judiciary, every precaution must be taken to avoid undue publicity or releasing names, which could be disastrous and even do the opposite of what the bill introduced by the government is intended to do.
There could, however, be a form of monitoring by Parliament. I have been and still am a member of the Sub-Committee on National Security, and I submit that this would probably be the ideal venue for reviewing, either from time to time or on an ongoing basis, as deemed appropriate by the committee, the entire witness protection system and its implementation by the RCMP.
The expertise of the Sub-Committee on National Security-which I would like to see become a standing committee of this House-would ensure that parliamentarians would be able to monitor the actions of the police in this respect, both discreetly and effectively, I would hope.
Those are some of the issues. I hope that in committee we will have an opportunity to hear witnesses, and we may be able to clarify certain points during clause by clause consideration.
In serious cases involving drug trafficking and organized crime, for instance, often the very survival of the witnesses is at stake. Under our legal system, the crown's case is usually based on the testimony of witnesses as opposed to confessions by the accused. That is the whole point of protecting witnesses. There are no spontaneous confessions. We live in a country that respects its citizens. We have reached a level in our civilization where we can treat people with respect. We cannot force people to confess. The crown often has to introduce circumstantial evidence by calling witnesses, and these witnesses must be protected.
The crown never knows, during the bail hearing, the preliminary hearing or, later, the trial-all of which may or may not be part of the process-whether it can count on these witnesses at a given time. We have to protect witnesses and we also have to protect the evidence that may be collected at some time or other. The very fact that courts across the country have a huge backlog of cases means that preserving evidence is a serious problem in Canada. Evidence collected at a previous stage may often no longer be valid at a subsequent stage if the witness has disappeared from this earth. So in addition to protecting witnesses, we must also protect the evidence.
The Crown prosecutors' big concern is whether they can keep their witnesses until the time of the trial. They wonder whether the witnesses will answer their questions properly, once on the stand. Time is often the Crown's greatest enemy in a criminal trial. Witnesses' memory is inversely proportional to the length of the proceedings. It is perhaps even directly proportional, that is, it fails as proceedings go on or the risk of failure increases. It is a bit like cigarettes. The risk increases with use.
At the moment, there are no ways to deal with this, since witnesses' memories often fail in criminal cases. People at home can see on TV what happens when witnesses do not want to remember anything or when they cannot remember anything, all the pressure that can be brought to bear on people who want to help in the cause of justice, but are unable to because of constraints imposed on them.
So Bill C-78 will remedy this to some extent. It should not be considered a magic formula, a miracle solution. I am one of those who believe that, in politics, nothing happens magically or gets done immediately, we progress by taking one small step at a time in the right direction. I consider this bill, Bill C-78, one such step and, in using it, we will see what sort of contribution it makes to changing criminal law, protecting witnesses and safeguarding justice in criminal matters.
I also think there are two times, in particular, when witnesses need help. Before the trial, naturally. At that point, witnesses' material security must be looked after, and they must be given effective protection. In some instances, they literally have to be hidden for their own protection-I hope it is with their approval-so they may give proper testimony, which will give a court of law the opportunity to assess the quality of the testimony and decide whether the Crown has presented beyond any reasonable doubt the necessary evidence. We must not forget that, under our system, the burden of proof is on the Crown. And the burden is enormous. The slightest failure in this regard inevitably leads to the acquittal of the accused.
In the case of heinous crimes-I will address drugs and organized crime later-the mere disappearance of witnesses can raise a reasonable doubt. Often, if witnesses, who may or may not show up in court, disappear, the prosecution will simply have to rise and tell the court that they have no evidence to offer. This can only lead to an acquittal since there is no evidence. We must then provide protection for witnesses before the trial.
Protecting witnesses before the trial is not enough, however, we must also protect them after the trial, after the verdict, whether it is a verdict of guilty or not guilty, because there is no guarantee that the testimony of a witness protected under the provisions of Bill C-78 will be enough to convict someone. The bill must allow witness protection authorities to assure witnesses that if they testify at the trial, they will be protected whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty, because witnesses' safety cannot be compromised whatever the verdict.
I mentioned it earlier but it always bears repeating: In some cases, because of our legislation-I am not questioning our Criminal Code in any way-because of the presumption of innocence and the resulting reasonable doubt, there may be an acquittal even if the witness is protected. We must therefore provide for the reintegration of those witnesses who have secured convictions or
who have failed to do so through no fault of their own because of the way the evidence was reviewed.
In closing, I wish to express my support for Bill C-78 at second reading and to issue a warning against what we too often see in some courts of law that are probably trying to proceed too quickly. A famous trial recently held in Canada showed us that the prosecution is often much too eager to plea-bargain with some witnesses to get them to testify against their codefendants, an arrangement through which a person pleads guilty to a lesser offence or an offence included in a more serious offence in return for a lighter sentence and a promise to testify against targeted people for whom the prosecution wants stiffer sentences.
In some cases, this practice is quite commendable; in other cases, it is, in my opinion, quite reprehensible. And I do not think that good judgment can be guaranteed by a bill. I call on the solicitor general, on provincial attorney generals, who must deal with these issues practically every day, to use as much common sense as possible when plea-bargaining with witnesses, many of whom are corrupt, who will testify against codefendants in return for a more lenient sentence. This practice deserves a serious examination. It must be the subject of wide criticism and of a broad national debate.
What do we expect from our judicial system? Our judicial system does not make enough room for victims. We, of course, give the accused all the benefits provided by our laws, by our charter of rights and freedoms. We must, however, give victims in criminal cases the importance they deserve. As we heard several times in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, victims of crime very often feel left out. A crime has been committed but the victims are the least of our concerns. It is all well and good to be concerned about witness protection. I nonetheless think that people who have lost a loved one-be it a spouse, a child, a friend or a relative-to murder are entitled to some compassion.
On these words, I will ask the government to provide protection, to provide a much greater compensation for victims.
Corrections And Conditional Release Act September 21st, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-45, in Clause 68, be amended in the English version by replacing line 28, on page 42, with the following:
"68. The French version of the following provisions are".
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-45, in Clause 69, be amended in the English version by replacing line 21, on page 43, with the following:
"69. The French version of the following provisions are".
Madam Speaker, the motions grouped for debate are essentially for linguistic clarification purposes. In my view, these motions do not require extensive debate, but only some explanations.
I myself will only deal with Motions Nos. 22 and 23, which I had the honour of submitting and which were seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
Motion No. 22 seeks to clarify clause 68 of the bill. The beginning of the current English version of that clause reads as follows:
The following provisions are amended by replacing the expression "sans surveillance" with the expression "sans escorte".
The idea is to replace the expression "sans surveillance" with the expression "sans escorte", which is deemed more appropriate in French.
It would be more logical to say that, in the French version, the expression "sans escorte" replaces the expression "sans surveillance", so that the introduction to clause 68 would read as follows, should the amendment be passed. The new merged version would read:
The French version of the following provisions are amended by replacing the expression "sans surveillance" with the expression "sans escorte".
The same logic is applied as in the case of the two preceding clauses, where it is said, in regard to the English version, that:
The English version of the act is amended-
The same goes for clause 66. The logic is the same as that which prevails throughout the bill.
The other amendment which I tabled, namely Motion No. 23 dealing with clause 69, is for the same purpose. I will spare you the reading of the merged text which, albeit short, could nevertheless be boring. However, the objective of that amendment is the same, that is to say that the French version:
The French version of the following provisions are-
I respectfully submit these amendments to the House. As for the other amendments, I do hope that they will be accepted without a long debate.