Evidence of meeting #52 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Good, okay, because that's in fact not what transpired. Mr. McGuinty put forward an assertion, which he's reasserting today, and she just stated that this is “not what I'm dealing with here today”. I could read that if you want.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That was the chair's recollection.
So is 19 as it stands accepted?
Conservative
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
There's a note from the analysts that this paragraph could be deleted as the information
is more or less connected to the current review.
Conservative
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Having read paragraph 20 twice now, I agree with the analysts' potential suggestion. I don't see how this links at all. It's great, again, from a tutorial perspective, as Madame DeBellefeuille mentioned last time on another couple of paragraphs, but I don't see it.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I concur. This is absolutely as irrelevant as Mr. McGuinty's former intervention is. Neither of them has anything to do with the substance of the matter here today. I agree that it should be removed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm hearing that we should strike this paragraph. All in favour of striking paragraph 20?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let's leave these numbers until we're done and someone else can do the rest. You're just causing trouble.
Any question on 20--sorry, 21?
Seeing none, shall we accept the paragraph as read? All in favour of 21?
Conservative
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
There's a bit of a mess here in the French version, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The French version is divided between pages 7 and 8, so for corrections, let's go to page 8. The first line says:
“In a document tabled at the committee on March 17 [...]”
The “le” is an extra word. We can take that out.
The analyst will have to help us on the first subparagraph.
One can read this: “Des renseignement supplémentaires ont bel et bien été fournis aux parlementaires, l'on fair la comparaison [...]”; “Additional information has indeed been provided to parliamentarians when compared [...]”
Committee Researcher
It is in the passage that contains the words “l'on fait”: f-a-i-t.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
It would be “[...] l'on fait la comparaison avec les documents [...]”.
Committee Researcher
There is also an s missing from the word “renseignement”.
Allow me to give you the context. You are quite right as to the typos, but the bullet points mark quotes from a document that comes from Mr. Page's office. The heading “Des renseignement supplémentaires”, additional information, naturally, as André was saying should be plural and the sentence would then read as follows: “Des renseignements supplémentaires ont bel et bien été fournis aux parlementaires, l'on fait la comparaison [...]”, additional information was indeed provided to parliamentarians, when compared.
