Evidence of meeting #50 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
It came back around to me quickly, Mr. Chair.
I would like to hear the opinions of Mr. Quell, Ms. Boyer, Ms. Terrien, Mr. Fallu or Mr. Newman regarding the word "attributions". Would they have different wording to suggest?
In my opinion, that term is not clear. When amendments are made to an act, we try to make it so there are as few interpretations as possible, so we are less often faced with...
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Just a moment. Mr. Godin. An amendment can't be suggested to a subamendment.
We are now debating Mr. Drouin's subamendment. I understand what you wanted to do, but amendments to the wording can't be proposed at this stage.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I understand your wishful thinking, but we have to stay on Mr. Drouin's subamendment.
Do you have something else to add?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
In fact, Mr. Chair, it's a procedural issue. Could Mr. Drouin correct his subamendment?
How should we proceed in order to correct his subamendment?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
It requires the unanimous consent of the committee.
Mr. Drouin, the floor is yours.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The word "attributions" seems to be causing a problem for Mr. Godin, so I would like to know what that word means to him.
We asked the officials the question and they confirmed what the word meant. However, we can ask them to read the definition of the word "attributions" officially, for clarity.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I am going to answer my colleague's question.
In my opinion, the word "attributions" is restrictive. It does not include governance instructions and instructions from superiors that guide day-to-day activities. It sounds as if it is referring only to the tasks assigned every morning, and that's all. That's how I would explain my understanding.
Otherwise, your subamendment is fine with me. I do think it would strengthen amendment CPC-18. However, I would like to try to find some formulation other than the word "attributions".
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
If I may, Mr. Godin, while you are looking for a solution, I would like to tell you that this text was prepared by law clerks—professionals in the field. I understand your concern. I don't use the word "attributions" ordinarily, either. However, the answers we have been given may persuade you that in this context, we are on the right track. I don't want to make you do anything, I just want to tell you that the drafting was actually done by law clerks.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I'm going to start questioning the decision to elect you chair.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
You assigned me the position of chair. I would even say it was voted on.
Did you want to look for a synonym, Mr. Godin?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
With all the respect I have for our friends the law clerks, I have to say that the fact that they wrote this wording does not mean it is perfect.
The goal is not to criticize anyone; the goal is to strengthen the act so it is even more effective.
I have stated my views regarding the word "attributions". However, if we can't consult the experts further and we don't have a way of making a correction, I am going to suggest to Mr. Drouin, who proposed the subamendment, that he go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Is there any further debate?
There being none, we will proceed to the vote on Mr. Drouin's subamendment to amendment CPC-18.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
We will now come back to amendment CPC-18 as amended.
Is there any further debate?
There being none, we will proceed to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Since amendment BQ-21 is a line conflict, it cannot be moved.
Do you have something to add, Mr. Beaulieu?
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Basically, there is a line conflict in the English version only. In the French version, the amendment is an addition, while in the English it is a replacement. I don't understand. Our intention was to add language, not to replace the existing language.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
On that point, I would draw committee members' attention to the fact that the drafting discrepancies in the English and French versions of amendment BQ-21 are consistent with the rules of legislative drafting. The law clerk has already confirmed with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who drafted the amendment, that the French and English versions are correct and equivalent. If the amendment is adopted, the final result will be the same in both languages.
In the English version, it say it's an addition. In fact, it replaces lines 15 to 23, and that is what conflicts with amendment CPC-18.
It has been confirmed to me that in legislative drafting, that is exactly what had to be done. The proposed amendment to the French version required that the English version be amended that way. So there is a line conflict.
Does that answer your question?
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Was there no way to do it by adding, rather than replacing?
In any event, we can always revisit it later.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, my colleague says that we can revisit it later, but we will not be able to. The amendment has to be debated now.