Evidence of meeting #37 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
They were deemed moved by this bizarre process, but I'm happy with Mr. Scott's decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I know, that's what Ms. May was saying when we went to her, because it was deemed moved when she did it. So what method could we take if none of them wants this to proceed?
If you indicate you don't want us to proceed, we won't proceed.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This gets closer and closer to the member at the table who doesn't have any status being able to do things. Are you sure? I will seize the precedent and remove my amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right. So those three, which were identical, were not moved and not proceeded with.
It brings us to amendment G-11, Mr. Lukiwski.
Or should we return to amendment G-8? No, not yet?
Okay, G-11.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I do move it, and this is the oath-taking attesting process at advance polls.
Conservative
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Yes, I have the same question about the French and English versions of amendment G-8, which was discussed earlier.
Could someone clarify that for me?
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
Yes.
In the English version of amendment G-8, paragraph (a) changes the amending clause. The following is stated in subsection 53(1):
The portion of subsection 161(1) of the French version of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
There is also the text we want to add to the Canada Elections Act.
In order to do the same in the French version, paragraph (a) states that the amending clause of the current bill is changing. It states the same thing as subsection 53(1), as follows: “The portion of subsection 161(1) of the French version of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:”. There is also paragraph (b), since the text we want to insert in the French version is already partially there. So we only need to change the last line of that part. That is why changes are being made from line 40 of paragraph (b) on page 26 to line 3 on page 27 in order to insert the words “scrutin, s'inscrire en personne”, which is the last part in the English text.
As for the current English text, there is no French version, but it has to be included to point out that the French version has changed.
It is complicated, but I hope it makes sense.
NDP
Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
I have not looked at it, but I assume the same thing will happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's because they're trying to change the French version in English. We're saying it in English, but the purpose of the amendment is to change the French version. Therefore that part has to be changed in French in the English amendment. Close enough?
So that would be the same thing on both of these. So on G-11, although there are French sentences on the English side, that's what they're changing. It's apparently appropriate.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I just wanted to make sure that the version was not amended only in French for the same consideration.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm assured now that it is not and that it's moving forward in the appropriate fashion.
Who else do I have on my list? Nobody.
I'd like to point out that Mr. Scott has moved away from Mr. Christopherson.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
So I'm on G-11. We have a couple of conflicts with it, also. If G-11 is adopted, LIB-24, NDP-38, and PV-35 can not be proceeded with. So we know that as we are about to vote on G-11.
Yes, Mr. Scott.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just a quick statement of vote, we will be voting for this, but under the same protest as before because it's the same provision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
So all in favour of G-11?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
So we move to clause 56 as amended.
(Clause 56 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 53)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Shall we return now to G-8 and the appropriate things that went with G-8?
Mr. Lukiwski, you had already moved this. We had a question on the French language in the English section. We now have some great help that tells us what that is all about. So is there any discussion on the content of G-8?
We went back to G-8 and we have our ruling that it was the French and the English thing.
On the content of G-8, Madam Latendresse.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
In this amendment, it's once again a matter of vouching, which was introduced by the government.
I still see some issues with using the term “personally”, as it would be a crime to vouch for someone we don't know personally, but the word “personally“ cannot be defined exactly. I think it would be better not to use that term, but unfortunately, we will have to accept it. We tried to have that term removed in another version of the bill, but our recommendation was rejected.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I read the same sense, but we'll vote on G-8 and we'll see what happens.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That also moves or negates NDP-36, LIB-22, and PV-33.
