Translation of "Preuve extrinsèque des intentions des parties " (French → English) :

Other amendments include requiring calling service providers to keep copies of scripts and recordings for three years instead of one; allowing the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections to exchange information and documents; allowing the commissioner to publicly disclose information about investigations where it is in the public interest; increasing the spending limit for elections, with a longer writ period than the 37-day period; adding a clear prohibition against a third-party unable to show a link to Canada incurring more than $500 in an election; clarifying the intent of giving the commissioner the unr ...[+++]estricted ability to begin investigations by removing the bill's proposed evidence threshold before the commissioner may begin an investigation; clarifying the intent of having no limitation period for offences under the Canada Elections Act that require intent; making the term of the Chief Electoral Officer non-renewable; clarifying that all those who apply for a special ballot and vote at the office of the returning officer must prove their identity and residence, as they would at a polling station, thereby closing a potential loophole; and clarifying that the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions must contain a section prepared by the Commissioner of Canada Elections through which the commissioner would report on the activities of his office, without providing information about specific investigations.

In particular, they should not absolve infringing parties from paying damages to victims, nor lead to excessive protection of information needed by claimants as evidence in order to bring an action for damages.

However, when read in conjunction with Article 25(2) of the Vienna Convention, it becomes clear that provisional application cannot continue once the European Parliament has objected to an international agreement since, in international law, that objection must be seen as demonstrating the European Union’s intention not to become party to the agreement.

36. Welcomes the direct political dialogue that the Government of Turkey has recently opened with Abdullah Öcalan; deems that a perspective for negotiations has been opened which could lead to a historic agreement that would settle the Kurdish conflict in a peaceful and democratic way; encourages the conflict parties, therefore, to transform these talks into structure ...[+++]d negotiations as soon as possible; underlines the constructive role that all political parties, media and civil society in Turkey must play if the peace process is to succeed, and praises the cross-party and civil-society support for this initiative; notes that Turkey has continued to demonstrate resilience to the terrorist attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); considers that true and sincere political dialogue is necessary, and calls on Turkey to invest renewed efforts in working towards a political solution to the Kurdish issue; asks all political forces to ensure an appropriate political platform for, and to debate in a constructive way, the Kurdish issue, and to facilitate a real opening to the claims for basic rights in the constitutional process that reflects the pluralism in Turkey and in which all citizens can find themselves and their rights fully recognised; asks all political forces to work in alliance towards the goal of reinforced political dialogue and a process of further political, cultural and socio-economic inclusion and participation of citizens of Kurdish origin, in order to guarantee their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and to promote the peaceful inclusion of citizens of Kurdish origin in Turkish society; welcomes the new legislation that opens the possibility for people’s native language to be used in trials and the positive discussion on the use of Kurdish in education; recalls that a political solution can be built only on a truly democratic debate on the Kurdish issue, and expresses concern at the large number of cases launched aga ...

2. Where there is clear, objective evidence that a ship navigating in the areas referred to in Article 3(1)(b) or (d) has, in the area referred to in Article 3(1)(d), committed an infringement resulting in a discharge causing major damage or a threat of major damage to the coastline or related interests of the Member State concerned, or to any resources of the areas referred to in Article 3(1)(b) or (d), that State shall, subject to Part XII, Section 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and provided that the evidence so warrants, submit the matter to its competent authorities with a view to instituting proceedings, including detention of the sh ...[+++]ip, in accordance with its national law.

Many may say the examples I have cited here in opposition to this bill are just further proof of the Reform Party's desire to shut Canada's borders to immigrants.