Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Natasha Kim Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office
While my colleague is looking for this, I'll note that there are actually two timelines being changed: the overall timeline, which is 60 days from 45 days, as well as the consultation period, which is moving from 30 days to 15 days. That's why the two, 60 and 15, are being used.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
So they're not parallel on the page. Although it's the same clause, they're at different places.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I just have a point of clarification or information.
You've shortened the response for the parties, from the political advisory committee—
11:50 a.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
It's going from 30 days to 15 days, the response of the parties to the advisory committee. You'll find that under paragraph (c). Within the bill, it's in line 2 on page 6.
It's a little short isn't it? You're cutting in half the response from the party in this particular situation. It might be a little bit onerous for some of the parties, maybe not so much for ours, but maybe smaller parties as well. I mean, you have a two-week—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
How about we have this conversation in two years?
11:50 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Anyway, it is what it is. We think it's appropriate, Scott. That's what I'm saying.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'm just trying to get a clearer sense of this. I'm really mixed up.
I have the amendment here. At point (c), the English version talks about replacing line 2 on page 6, and the French version talks about replacing line 16 on page 6.
You're saying they don't match up in the bill, and that's true. But does that mean I don't have the right translation? I don't understand.
11:50 a.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
The change proposed in point (c) of the English version is the same change contained in point (b) of the French version, where it says “dans les quinze jours suivant la date”.
Since the changes to the provisions didn't involve adjoining lines in the English version of the bill, the two changes had to be split into two points. So the English version of the amendment contains an extra point.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I see.
It's the same in other spots throughout the amendment, point (h), for example.
11:55 a.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
In the English version, point (h) amends line 5 on page 7 of the bill, affecting new subsection 16.2(2) of the act. The same change is proposed in point (g) of the French version of the amendment.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
That makes it really hard to compare everything. We're trying to follow the French, but it's hard to know whether it all lines up or not. It's extremely tough to get it all straight.
11:55 a.m.
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
Basically, the consultation period went from 30 days to 15, and the timeframe the CEO has to issue guidelines and interpretations went from 45 days to 60, in a coherent way.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
As long as that's done in each spot, then it will be translated. Are you okay with that?
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I guess so, but it makes it difficult to compare the amendments to the bill with the provisions in the bill or even the act, and to do the proper checks.
