Evidence of meeting #23 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Yes. It's my understanding that, in spirit, everyone seems to be in favour of this amendment.
First of all, if we challenge the chair and it's overturned, then the Speaker may or may not make the same ruling, so it leaves a possible opening to get this bill through in a manner we all respect. But I'd like to also perhaps ask for unanimous consent of the committee to consider these sorts of friendly amendments to the preamble at today's meeting in the spirit of--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Sure. There's no such thing as a friendly amendment, but I understand what you're telling the chair.
Mr. Bagnell is asking the committee to overrule my ruling that the motion is out of order. All those in favour of overruling the chair so the amendment can be put?
The chair is overruled. The amendment is in front of us. Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. Angus.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes. I would implore this committee to come through with language, because it would send a very wrong signal in terms of where we, as a House, came down in terms of heritage hunting rights because we did not have a clause in there that said, “This in no way...”. If we weren't going to go with a preamble, we would have had to take the time to have some language to say that this is not overriding or impeding treaty rights. It opens a whole unnecessary set of arguments that nobody, I think, around this table would wish to open up about what exactly this bill means, what exactly this day means.
Because clearly, under the section 35 rights of the charter, there are specific rights for hunting, fishing, and trapping that have already been defined. If we're seen to overlook them, certainly people will infer that it was through political intent, and I didn't have that sense that this was the desire around this table.
So I would say that either we take this further up or we find a way to get some language in there so the intent of this bill is not misinterpreted by this ruling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
The amendment is in front of the committee because the committee has overruled the chair. Is there any other further comment or debate on the amendment as moved by Mr. Bagnell? Seeing none, I'll call the question on the amendment: shall the amendment moved by Mr. Bagnell carry?
(Amendment agreed to--[See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment has carried, so we'll go to the consideration of the second amendment. Do I have a mover for the second amendment?
Mr. Bagnell, could you read your second amendment?
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I move: That Bill C-465, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 1 with the following:
“from coast to coast to coast;”
Basically we're just adding the other coast in Canada. I think it's just a technical, grammatical, almost friendly amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
That's right. This amendment is in order because it's a clarification of the text of the preamble.
The amendment is in front of us. Is there any debate or comment on the amendment as moved by Mr. Bagnell?
Mr. Del Mastro.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess this is more of a philosophical question. I've always assumed that coast to coast just meant from coast to any coast, because we actually have at least four coasts in Canada. I live pretty close to a major coastline known as the Great Lakes, which is a border between Canada and the United States, so I hope we don't have to move to “coast to coast to coast to coast”.
I'll accept the amendment here, but I think that our country's coat of arms says “from coast to coast”. I think they meant all coasts, all lines, and all borders when they wrote it; I think it was an inclusive statement. But we'll accept the amendment.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I'm prepared to accept my colleague's amendment, even though it is more philosophical in nature. As it so happens, I have another amendment to propose, having just noticed something. The word “national” is used in the expression “national heritage day.” As you know, there are at least two nations within Canada: the nation of Quebec, the existence of which was formally recognized in this House, and, of course, the nation of Canada. If we dispensed with the word “national,” it wouldn't change anything in the bill, but it would be a philosophical amendment. But in short, I support Mr. Bagnell's amendment.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We are now considering Mr. Bagnell's amendment. We'll get to your amendment later.
Mr. Pomerleau.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
I also have a bit of an issue with Mr. Bagnell's amendment. The English is fine, “from coast to coast”, but the French translation “d'un océan aux autres” doesn't have the same impact at all.
Bloc
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
“Coast” is not the same as “océan”. The French translation for “coast” is “rive”.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
I agree, but the French reads “rivières et les fleuves d'un océan aux autres.” That's what the French says.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Translation is a profession, as we all know. Often, we don't have word for word translations. The word “coast” can often be translated several ways.
Bloc
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
I would have had no objections if the expression “coast to coast” had been rendered by the expression “d'une mer à l'autre.”
and that's it.
We understand the meaning.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
The wording in Mr. Bagnell's amendment is “d'un océan aux autres.”
Conservative