Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 157
View Anne Minh-Thu Quach Profile
NDP (QC)
View Anne Minh-Thu Quach Profile
2019-03-22 12:47 [p.26487]
Mr. Speaker, regarding the motion currently before the House, you will note that the English and French versions in today's Notice Paper are inconsistent. There are in fact several errors in the French version. It is rather difficult to follow. I would ask that you come up with a solution, since there are several errors.
For instance, the English version refers to the Standing Committee on Finance, which is correct, while the French version talks about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It goes on like that in the paragraphs that follow. This makes it somewhat hard to follow the debate.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 12:51 [p.26487]
I thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for her intervention concerning an error in the Notice Paper. With respect to notice of Motion No. 539, there appears to be a small concordance error between the English and French versions. We will try to determine what caused the error, but I suspect it is probably simply an administrative error. We will correct and clarify the translation of the motion in question.
The hon. member for Carleton.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2019-03-22 12:52 [p.26487]
Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the error in question is in my motion. As a solution, I could read the motion in the language of Molière, since it was already read out in the language of Shakespeare. I can also give my speech again in French, to make up for the error in the French version of the motion.
I am prepared to give my speech in French and to read the motion in French, out of respect for bilingualism and for francophone Canadians who have the right to hear our messages, our debates, our deliberations and our motions in both languages.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 12:53 [p.26487]
I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention.
I would like to add some clarification to this motion. It seems that the motion was moved in English and that the English version is correct, but that a number of words were added in the French version by mistake. It is an administrative error found in a number of other motions, including the mention of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The Clerk of the House will immediately see to having the necessary corrections made.
Again, I thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for pointing out this error. These things happen from time to time, but it is important that all motions are submitted correctly to the House.
The hon. member for Malpeque on a point of order.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2019-03-22 12:55 [p.26487]
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, and I am not good in the French language, but I agree with the remarks of the member opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I think you have to look at this motion and the source of the motion, which is the member for Carleton. As you stated, there are clearly errors in this, just as we heard in the speech earlier from the member for Carleton; there were factual errors in many areas of his remarks.
However, in terms of the motion itself, there is no question. I chair the finance committee. The member for Carleton is on that committee. The motion was drafted in great haste, and you will see several motions that are just changing the number of days that the committee would travel. This is coming from a member who represents a party which is constantly blocking travel by the finance committee, and this motion, being written in haste, is all about trying to delay the debate on the budget, which was tabled this week, so that Canadians cannot hear about all the good things that are in that budget for Canadians.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 12:56 [p.26488]
I appreciate the hon. member for Malpeque's addition to this discussion, and I see the member for Carleton is on his feet.
This is a matter that was brought to attention by the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît. I have given an explanation on the corrections that will take place for these motions that, I will say again, were properly entered and properly disposed of in the finance committee. It was just an error in the translation when that became reflected in the Order Paper.
I will accept the hon. member for Carleton on a brief intervention, and then we must get back to the debate at hand.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2019-03-22 12:57 [p.26488]
We are into another area of debate, I believe, rather than points of order. We know these things do happen, but we do need to get back to the debate that is before the House.
We are going back to the member for Foothills for the continuation of his remarks.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-12-07 10:05 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the notices of motion that were tabled for the report stage amendments. They are government amendments, since royal recommendations were made.
More specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Motion No. 17. I want to begin by saying that my intention here is not to point the finger at the Journals staff or the translators. We know that last night, at ten to midnight, they were very quietly given some government amendments to a bill that was criticized by all of the witnesses who appeared in committee.
With regard to Motion No. 17, we see that, contrary to usual practice, the French and English versions of the motion do not match up at all. That makes members' work more complicated, particularly the work of members who are bilingual like me, because we want to ensure that the French and English versions match and that everything is consistent. The fact that the two versions are not the same interferes with the work that needs to be done. Once again, I am saying this with the utmost respect for the translators. It is particularly shameful that the government did not submit these notices until last night at 10 p.m., knowing that the debate was taking place today.
I would therefore like to draw the Chair's attention to the government's amateurism since it prevents me, as a bilingual francophone MP, from properly examining the amendments tabled. I would like the Chair to consider this matter and issue a ruling to prevent this type of thing from happening again. I would also like the Chair to verify the admissibility of what is being presented today, of course.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2018-12-07 10:07 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue. The government is, in fact, aware of it and is working to make sure that we can resolve it in a satisfactory fashion. I just want to emphasize that.
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-12-07 10:07 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, I am not suggesting the government acted in bad faith, but we are debating these motions today, so when we are told not to worry and that the government is aware of the situation, that is hardly satisfactory. This is what we are debating today, so the whole situation is utterly deplorable.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up an important point. When we get improper text and are expected to debate it within a couple of hours, it is probably not a point of order. It is almost a point of privilege.
Therefore, I want to share my concerns about the sloppiness of what the government has done, whether it was intentional or not, and the significant challenges it places on a member to ensure proper debate when there are only a couple of hours.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2018-12-07 10:09 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, just to further expand, there is nothing mischievous being planned. We have a subamendment to address the issue that has been raised. If we continue, we will see that the subamendment brought forward will address the concerns of the House.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2018-12-07 10:09 [p.24553]
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I am very torn. I would say that normally, I would want to accept what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. I have an amendment at report stage. I am prepared to speak to it. However, I do not think the rules of this House would allow us to proceed with an imperfect amendment placed before us at report stage. I do not think we can say that we will proceed and hope it all turns out all right, as much as I would like to. I think it would violate our rules to proceed in such a fashion.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 has been problematic from the start. Committee members even moved a motion to stop this bill. The witnesses were unanimous in their assessment that it does not work. We wanted the government to take the bill back and re-evaluate it, but the government refused.
This morning we were provided with a very sloppy French version that was all wrong, and this in the context of a conversation about how profoundly important official languages are in Canada. The government goes on and on about how it is fighting for this, and it keeps accusing the Conservatives of not being pro-French, but that is totally false.
I am the public safety critic. I am a francophone and a Quebecker. When the government hands us a document like this, as my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly said, we do not blame public servants. We blame the government for forcing everyone to do things too fast because it cannot get its own act together.
I do not think we should debate this today. It does not work.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2018-12-07 10:11 [p.24554]
Madam Speaker, we are at a crossroads right now with regard to making the situation better or worse, and by continuing, we will make it worse. I would like to point out that this was predictable in the sense that the government is making these amendments and changes at the last minute. This was entirely brought on by its own course of action. This was not the responsible action of the people behind the scenes that make this place work. This was brought about because the Liberals did so at such a late time that it caught up to them. At this point, are we going to make things worse or better? I would suggest that we make them better by deferring.
Results: 1 - 15 of 157 | Page: 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data