Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I tried earlier to bring this matter to your attention, but you asked me to do it later.
On January 30, I raised this question in the House, pointing at the discrepancy between the English and the French wording of the Senate amendment before us today.
In French, it says:
Toutes les sanctions applicables, à l'exception du placement sous garde qui sont justifiées dans les circonstances, doivent faire l'objet d'un examen—
This is a requirement. In English, it says “should be”. This is a suggestion. There is a significant difference between the two.
On January 31, in response to my question, the Deputy Speaker of the House said that he had checked the texts from the Senate and that there was no mistake, namely that the French version said “doivent faire l'objet d'un examen” whereas the English version said “should be” and that was as far as the Chair's responsibility went.
I walked across to the Minister of Justice, who told me to seek a decision by the Supreme Court on this matter. But we have to decide. In addition, closure was invoked on the bill, and we will be forced to vote on this amendment tonight.
I would like you to shed some light on whether the French version or the English version will prevail eventually, since the aboriginals themselves are wondering. I checked with English-speaking lawyers and they told me that, indeed, there was a problem as far as any future interpretation of this text is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, before the vote, could you shed some light on this issue for us and for the House, especially since the government has invoked closure and seems determined to expedite this matter. I would like us to be able to make an informed decision.