Evidence of meeting #50 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was camera.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
It isn't what it says in the English either.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
The French version is actually more accurate. Is that what you're saying?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No, not in this case. It's absolutely not. It throws in a word. It's the same, if you were to use the English version, “should the bill pass and this provision, modified”. I mean, it doesn't make sense.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
You need to change one in the sense that you need to make it and then get a proper translation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
On that note alone, I'm not going to ask for approval on this letter, because we're not going to get it. We're going to check to make sure this is exactly correct in the way it should read in both official languages, and we'll bring it back.
On any other issues with this, Madam Redman, and then Monsieur Proulx.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I realize it may have felt like an election was more imminent when we discussed sending this letter than it is now, but I am looking for clarification. Why wouldn't we wait until it received royal assent and it went to the Senate?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm not sure where it is in the Senate.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
May 10th, 2007 / 12:25 p.m.
James Robertson Committee Researcher
The bill has received second reading. It has been referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I believe it has started its hearings, but I'm not sure exactly when those hearings will be completed.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I was just looking for a clarification. I don't feel really strongly one way or the other. We're assuming it's coming back unamended. I guess it was the fact that this clause would come back unamended. I don't have any inside information. I'm just wondering.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
To start with, we're talking of divulging the identity of the elector who's exercised his or her right to vote. Indirectly or directly, that's what it does. They'll be giving us the number of the voter, the number that reflects that particular voter on the list.
In point number two we're saying, “Could you provide the Committee with a draft of what section 28(i.l) of Bill C-31 describes as 'the prescribed form'...?” Maybe we should say, “provide the Committee with a draft of the form or the described form mentioned in...”. We don't need a section on what clause 28 is. We need a draft, or maybe an example of what the prescribed form is.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
That's what they're asking for. That's what it says, the way I read it.
You're probably looking at the French version. Maybe there's a problem with translation again, but in the English version, I think, Marcel, it's pretty clear: “Could you provide the Committee with a draft...?”
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
He wants to see what their prescribed form looks like. He wants a draft of it.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
And whether it's similar to the bingo sheet is the next point.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Maybe the wording could be tightened up a bit, but it's pretty clear in the English version anyway, I think, what we're asking for.
