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?