44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023
- 03:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, before I get into my amendments by the government side, I just want to assure the members opposite that we have reached out to the members and the stakeholders—Ernie, Manny, Mr. Calla—and we made sure that we showed these to them and that they were in support of this.
With that said, we want to amend clause 27. I'll read this. It's under government amendment one, G-1.
We want to amend subclause 27(7) of the bill by replacing the term “imposed” in proposed paragraph 53(6)(d) with the term “assumed”, for consistent use of terminology throughout the act. There will be two of those to ensure consistency within the language.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, as stated before, with this amendment we are asking to amend clause 28 of the bill by once again replacing the term “imposed”, in proposed paragraph 53.1(8)(d), with the term “assumed”, for consistent use of terminology throughout the act.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:48:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I would like to amend subclause 41(2) of the bill to align the English-language version with the French-language version. We would amend subclause 41(2) of the bill by amending proposed paragraph 86(4)(b) to clarify that the circumstances referred to in the paragraph must be related to a loan secured by local revenues.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:49:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, the Bloc is going to have to forgive my French on this.
I move that Bill C-45 in clause 43 be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 1 on page 37 with the following:
113b)(i), révoquer pour un motif suffisant un conseiller mentionné au para-
Did the interpreters get that, Madam Gill? Was that not so bad?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:51:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Okay.
Madam Chair, we would like that Bill C-45, in clause 52, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 36 and 37 on page 46 with the following:
l’emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles d’un texte législatif sur les recettes locales ou d’un texte législatif pris en vertu du paragraphe 97(1) d’une première nation.
An hon. member: Well done.
Mr. Jaime Battiste: I practised all day.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, I asked our technicians to consider this and give us their feedback on what they think this impact could be in terms of overall thoughts around official languages. We want to make sure that those first nations and indigenous people in Quebec have access to that service. I just want to make sure that our technicians are okay with taking away the word “significant” and just going with “if there is a demand”. That's the gist of this question we're asking.
If we say “if there is a demand” rather than “if there is a significant demand”, what is the impact in terms of the considerations around what we should be doing moving forward on this legislation?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 03:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Madam Chair, we will support this. There has been some discussion, and the folks in the organizations have let us know that they have several French members and that they can accommodate this. They're confident, so we're happy to support it.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
