Indeed. It will be unbelievable.
Evidence of meeting #28 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
Evidence of meeting #28 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Joking.
So we'll start with NDP-26.1, the subamendment that is included here, which I have already provided to the clerk.
(c.1) the council of a band as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, any member of the council or agency of the band, or aboriginal body that is a party to a self-government agreement given effect by an Act of Parliament, or any of their agencies.
I have already mentioned why, so I won't indulge further.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. We are going to vote on the new amendment, NDP-26.1, which has just been moved.
It will be one vote on the three items we have been mentioning.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That removes the schedule from clause 272 and it removes schedule VII from the schedule. I don't want people asking questions later.
(Clause 316 agreed to on division)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do you have a point of order? I've just made a mistake, which I have to try to rectify.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes. We have to get L-28 withdrawn, do we not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm assuming that was done.
My mistake was that we haven't voted on clause 315 yet.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
So amendment L-28 is withdrawn.
We have voted on clause 316, but we haven't voted on clause 315 as amended.
(Clause 315 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 317 agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I guess the schedule has been amended. It's been obliterated. That is a great word. We don't need to vote on that.
Mr. Wild.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Just to be of assistance, Mr. Chair, there are two schedules. Schedule VI, if it hasn't already been voted on, would need to be approved in that it touches the accounting officer. Schedule VII is the schedule that is gone as a result of the vote on clause 315.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have to vote on this because of schedule VI.
(Schedule as amended agreed to)
Now we're at clause 1, on which we have two amendments.
We have to go way back to page 1, which sounds kind of scary. I don't want to do this again.
Monsieur Sauvageau has a proposed amendment, amendment BQ-1, on page 1.
Monsieur Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to move this final amendment, the first proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
The word “accountability” appears on page one of the bill, in the English version of the table of provisions, while the word “responsabilisation” is used in the corresponding French version of the table. If we look at the Roman numerals on page one, we note the reference in the table of provisions in the English version to “An act providing for conflict of interest [...] oversight and accountability”. The French version merely notes: “[...] et de responsabilisation”.
The word “accountability” appears in the short title in the English version. The wording of the English version is therefore consistent. However, instead of “responsabilité”, the French version employs the word “imputabilité”.
So then, there's a mistake somewhere. There's no question about that. The error is contained, in our view, in the short title: “Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité”.
We're proposing that the title of the act be changed to “Loi fédérale sur la responsabilité”, to ensure consistency with the word used in the table of provisions in French.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Before we proceed any further, there is a line conflict with amendment G-1, and I'm going to suggest that we debate these two together. So I don't know where you want to go from here.
Does anyone else have anything to say? No? Then we're going to vote on amendment BQ-1. Are we ready for that?
Monsieur Petit.
Conservative
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
It has to do with the translation and the proposed title “Loi fédérale sur la responsabilité”. I've discussed this with my colleague M. Murphy and the fact of the matter is that “imputabilité” is used even in Quebec legislation. The word appears in the legislation respecting ministers and deputy ministers.
I looked into French laws and discovered some things that I could share with you. Unfortunately, I didn't think we'd get around to clause one this evening. The word is even used in the title of French laws.
This isn't even a question of semantics. The translation is correct. The law clerks used the proper word, the one that's always been used, in the translation. The Office de la langue française even has a chapter on the translation of laws. The word “imputabilité” has always been used.
Consequently, in my opinion, the act is correctly titled “Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité”. It's a very good translation and it shouldn't cause any problems.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Assuming Mr. Petit is correct, there is still an error in the title as it appears in the table of provisions.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
All right then.
If Mr. Petit is entirely correct about this, then it shouldn't say: “Loi prévoyant des règles sur les conflits d'intérêts et des restrictions en matière de financement électoral, ainsi que des mesures en matière de transparence administrative, de supervision et de responsabilisation”.
Instead, it should say: “et d'imputabilité”, assuming he's right.
Furthermore, upon further investigation, the word “imputabilité” is actually used incorrectly in French in this context. The Office de la langue française suggests that people avoid using this word because, and I quote:
En français, seules de choses comme une action blâmable ou une dépense budgétaire sont imputables. Le term imputabilité désigne en fait la possibilité de considérer une faute ou une infraction come attribuable, du point de vue matériel et moral, à une personne donnée. On parle donc d'imputabilité d'un délit à une personne, mais non d'imputabilité de la personne.
That explanation comes from the terminology library of the Office de la langue française as well as from the translation service of the House of Commons.
Clearly then, since there is an error in the table of provisions and in the short title, we're asking, through amendment BQ-1, that it be rectified.
Bloc
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you.
I'd like the law clerks to give me their opinion, if indeed they have one, of the title of the bill. As my colleague mentioned, we've received the same advice on several occasions, namely that the appropriate word to use in this case is “responsabilité”, not “imputabilité”.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can really say on this question is that with respect to the short title, in essence you're free to put whatever you want in the short title. It's a deeming provision, so you can call the act what you want to call the act.
In terms of the question of imputabilité versus responsabilisation, I can't get into whether there was any specific legal advice rendered by the Department of Justice on the title of the act. I'll just simply say I'm not particularly qualified to speak to what would be the precise French word to use, other than to note again that there's certainly no drafting convention that restricts what you do in the short title.