Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You're asking for permission to do that and then circulate it in English only, right?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Then I could have this copied, just the English version, and circulate the English version so that those who are unilingual English.... Otherwise, I have to read it and have the translators go through it. I have to do that anyway.
Mr. Nadeau.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. These people are interpreters and not translators. There is a difference. Interpreters render the gist of what is being said, whereas an accurate translation focuses more on words, the proper rendering of the words. As far as I know, we are in Canada and we have to ensure that both official languages, French and English, are respected. I think it would be good to have this document translated properly and have it become a working document. Otherwise, we may be dealing with maybes and nuances and we will not be respecting both official languages, French and English, nor translation and interpretation.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, Chair, I hear your dilemma, and I sympathize. I certainly respect absolutely my colleague's right to have it translated properly and to have it circulated as an official document. I accept and respect that entirely, but I hope that everyone would respect my right to have a motion in front of me so that I can look at the exact wording in either language and so I know what I'm voting for and I can defend it. That's my problem.
It's a little bit complex and there are some nuances to the motion. I'm not trying to stand on technicalities here, but I would like to see every word that's in there because we may have quite a debate coming, and I don't feel equipped for that unless I have the wording of the motion in front of me.
Chair, I don't want to make your life complicated, and I realize this does, but you're into a situation of rights versus rights and it seems to me the losers in this case are going to be time and efficiency. But I don't know how else to get out of this unless we pass the main motion as amended and then give Daryl the right to place a stand-alone motion. Even if it is technically an amendment, we would see it as a stand-alone and deal with it at the next meeting. That would allow us to have the timelines that are in the main motion here carried.
I would ask the Conservatives to bend a little extra to help us given that we sort of went out of our way. I'd hate to see the main motion lost with its deadlines in there because we were good enough to open it up, got ourselves caught up in some technicalities, and then when 5:30 comes along, we won't have passed the main motion. That would be a real loss.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely. We have to have the document before us in both official languages. I made a small sarcastic comment before, but that is reality. This has always been the case. We want both documents in both official languages before accepting them. If I understood correctly Mr. Chairman, a document was tabled earlier and I think it was in one language only. On that, if that is the case, we had said previously that Mr. Kramp could table a stand-alone motion. We could work on the main motion, Ms. Faille's motion with the amendment or amendments I have presented. During that time, Mr. Kramp will have the opportunity to have his motion translated and to submit it on Tuesday. Then we will be able to study it, analyze it and vote on it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I appreciate these interventions. I'm going to entertain these other two and then I'm going to move on.
Mr. Kramp, and then Mr. Saxton.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Once again, with respect to my colleagues, I can assure them that I absolutely have the greatest respect for the duality of languages, and if I were to be presenting a motion I would certainly have prepared it accordingly, with the respect for our second language. I only wish I could speak the language or had that capacity the way you do, but I respect that totally, and if it were to be a motion brought forward, I definitely would have done that. But this came off the floor per se, as an amendment. As such, we aren't afforded that luxury, so it's not a question of disrespect for a language.
When I brought it forward, I did realize just in bringing it forward that it is lengthy, and with the cooperation of the clerk, who has rewritten this in a very abbreviated form, I would respectfully just ask for the right to read that form into the amendment now. It's pretty clear. It's pretty short, it's pretty clean, and it's pretty simple, and you can either agree or disagree. If you don't agree with that premise, then I guess we just have to carry on with some additional discussion.
But if the chair would permit me to read the form it's in, or if the chair wishes to read the form that was provided to him by the clerk in her work to really abbreviate this, I'd be pleased.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I think we'll let Mr. Kramp read it since David is d'accord avec ça.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I would love to move that amendment, yes. Thank you, Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
We have no document in front of us. Is this a version that was amended by the clerk?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Yes it is an amendment modified by the clerk to solve the complexity issue.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
You are going to limit the discussion on the motion so that we can vote on it before 5:30 p.m.?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I think that the matter is quite simple. In my opinion the members of the committee can make a decision quite quickly. It's a matter of saying yes or no. Perhaps we will have comments, but I am going to be very strict regarding their duration. So if you are in agreement, allow me to tell you if you have spoken too long. I want us to hold a vote on the amendment and the main motion afterwards, and to wrap everything up before 5:25 p.m.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
All of the members have to give their consent. I invite Mr. Kramp to submit his amendment.
5 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
As long as we vote by 5:30—I just don't want the clock to be run down.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
No, I'm not going to allow that to happen. If there are any interventions they will be very quick and I'll call the vote.
Mr. Kramp, please read your proposed amendment.
As I understand it, for those of you who have a sheet of paper in front of you, if you'll take a look at Madame Faille's main motion, after the words “February 19, 2011”, I guess, Mr. Kramp, that is where you want to begin with your amendment.