Status of Women Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm a bit confused by the French version of Ms. Lewis's subamendment. Perhaps I don't understand and I'm way off here. Please tell me if that's the case.

The French version refers to replacing the verb “craindre” with “croire”. So far, so good. According to the English version, though, the new wording would read “believes on reasonable and probable”.

There is a significant difference, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have your legal background, but just from a proof standpoint, there is a difference. It seems to me that the English goes a lot further.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It's not the same thing at all.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

It's not the same thing at all.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I urge the committee to be very careful, here, because as I read it, what appears in both languages isn't at all the same thing and doesn't have the same meaning at all. That said, I understand what Ms. Lewis is trying to do with her subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I have on my list Andréanne, followed by Marc.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What Mrs. Vien just said captures what I was wondering about as well. Earlier, I was focusing on the change in French, and now that I'm listening to the discussion about the wording “reasonable and probable” in the English version, I realize that the French doesn't say the same thing at all. I'm completely confused. The English and French versions don't say the same thing at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's very intriguing to me.

We talk about reasonable grounds all the time in English. What is that word, then? What do they use in French?

Julia or Chelsea, could you share with me what...?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

The French version doesn't refer to that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, the French version of Ms. Lewis's amendment doesn't refer to that at all. The French version simply refers to replacing “craindre” with “croire”—or “fears” with “believes”. It's not at all the same thing.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

We waited a long time for the legal version, and when we got it, only one word had been changed.

The wrong thing was done. We waited five days, and it was never legally translated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Guess what. I've had an amazing person whispering in my ear for the last minute, explaining to me what we're talking about here, with the words in French and English and what is accepted in French as being maybe a little bit grander or more inclusive.

You get the floor, Dan. Explain that to everybody so that we know the difference.

[Dancella Boyi]

I'm not sure that I can totally explain why, but I do want clarify a few things.

It is true that the French version of Ms. Lewis's subamendment refers only to the word “croire”. The reason is that it appears in line 10 of the French version of the bill, replacing the first word of the amendment proposed in paragraph (a) of G‑3. The first line of the proposed text reads as follows: craindre qu'une personne commette contre son

If we look at page 2 of the French version of the bill, just before the lines being amended, we see that line 9 reads as follows: 810.03(1) Quiconque a des motifs raisonnables de

The word “croire” proposed in Ms. Lewis's subamendment would come immediately after the words “motifs raisonnables de” in the bill.

While it is true that the English concept of “probable” doesn't appear in the French version, the subamendment was translated by jurilinguists, who adhere to specific conventions.

That's all I can tell you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Marc, go ahead.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

As was said, we waited five days to get the translation. I think the translation is done. We heard that “reasonable fear” is in the Criminal Code and has been court-tested. Regardless, if there's one word or not, or an added word in French or not, from what we've heard, we'll be voting this down.

It doesn't matter if there's a word or two missing in French. From what the court has said, we'll be voting it down, so we can go to G-3.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's not a problem.

Dominique, were you next?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I have to insist, here. I'm not sure whether Ms. Larouche feels the same.

If I understand correctly, the word “reasonable” will appear in two places in the English version. The first sentence says “any person who fears on reasonable grounds”. Is that where the “believes on reasonable and probable” is going to go? Is that what's being replaced?

In all sincerity, I am not questioning the jurilinguists' competence, but on the surface, I have trouble accepting that the translation reflects the English. It doesn't say the same thing at all.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

For those reasons, I, too, will be voting against the subamendment. There is too big of a difference between the two versions. I don't see why I should vote in favour of a subamendment I don't understand, when I can see there is such a significant difference between the two versions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Seeing no others, does the subamendment to G-3 moved by Dr. Lewis...?

Leslyn, go ahead.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My understanding is that translation in French is a right and privilege. I don't understand how francophones could vote on anything if it's not properly translated. I don't think that's fair.

I don't purport to speak on their behalf, but they should at least have before them the proper context, the proper translation of the document, so that they could vote on it.

I don't think it's fair that francophones should have to vote on an incomplete document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, you already started the vote. You called the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I absolutely did. I will agree with you that I absolutely did.

I am asking to retract that, because as Leslyn called a point of order, I was not necessarily fully.... I'm just letting you know that my eyes were doing my best work, but I honestly did not see her. It's not that I'm trying to mess things around, but I do understand that.

Emmanuella, you had your hand up for a quick second there. Go ahead.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

This subamendment was put forward last week, one week ago from today, and the reason why we were not able to debate it at the time was that it hadn't been properly translated according to legalities, or whatever you want to call it.

Here we are today, a week later, and the translation was not done properly, so the francophone colleagues we have on this committee are not able to properly interpret the change that's being made.

At this point, I would ask Ms. Lewis to retract the subamendment, so that we can move forward with G-3, because, as we saw here in English, it's something that only increases barriers for women and victims of intimate partner violence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Ms. Lewis, there is a request for you to remove the subamendment.