Evidence of meeting #41 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'm in favour of both amendments, but I'm wondering how appropriate it is to insert a caveat because, in my opinion, it should go without saying.
However, I have no major objection to that. If everyone agrees to adopt NDP‑2 and NDP‑3, including the caveat, I'll agree.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Moore. That was good.
As to NDP-4, I have a ruling—
I've just been advised of a technical thing. I can go to the next clause, which is clause 13, but I can't go to the next amendment now until we revert back to that.
I will go to clause—
Mr. Anandasangaree.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, if we do go back to amendment NDP-2, if that's what you're suggesting, then I do have language that I think may give us a bit of a....
Liberal
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I have it in writing, but it's only in English. I would probably need to read it out for the record.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I think Mr. Bachrach has some as well.
I'll briefly suspend while our great staff get it translated and sent to you in real time. We'll suspend for a minute.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We'll resume.
I believe in a few seconds you should all have in your P9 email accounts the subamendment to amendment NDP-2 as well as amendment NDP-3. It should be in both official languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I think he's still sending it. I was a little eager in my announcement that it had been sent. We'll send it to the two witnesses as well, to Ms. Azimi and Mr. Xavier.
I think everyone has it now.
Is there any debate on the subamendment to NDP-2? Are we good?
Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I just received the subamendment, and I'm reading it now, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
The translation of “shall not include” should instead be “ne devraient pas inclure” or “ne doivent pas inclure” instead of “n'incluent pas”, which I don't think is a good translation.
December 1st, 2022 / 4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
[Technical difficulty—Editor] just grammatical. It's nothing personal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Do we just want to agree—I don't want to amend an amendment—that the wording in French shall be as Monsieur Fortin says?
Marie-Hélène Sauvé Legislative Clerk
I'd just like to confirm with you whether we are going with “ne doivent pas” or “ne devraient pas”.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
It's “ne doivent pas” because “devraient” is conditional, and since the conditional isn't in the English text, it would be inappropriate to introduce it in French.
Liberal
Lena Metlege Diab Liberal Halifax West, NS
Again, just on the proposed subsection 94(3) and the other one 94(2), there is no 94(1). Do you know what I'm saying? There's 103(a), (b), (c), so that first one needs to be (1) and then this one as (2)—like subsection (1) and subsection (2). There's no proposed subsection (1) already.
Are you following me?
Legislative Clerk
Proposed section 94 would become subsection 94(1), and we would add subsections 94(2) and 94(3).