(d) a reference in the French version to “billet de contravention” shall be read as a reference to “procès-verbal”; and

(e) a reference to “offence notice” or “parking infraction notice”, where the offence notice or parking infraction notice is served on the defendant, shall be read as a reference to “ticket”; and

(c) a reference to “offence notice” shall be read as a reference to “ticket”; and

(i) confirm the ticket, appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or (ii) cancel the ticket, appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and issue, in accordance with section 507, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence and endorse on the summons or warrant that the ticket, appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, has been cancelled; and

The opinion referred to in the first subparagraph shall be recorded in the minutes of the general meeting.

Also: an explanation that the only portion of our meeting on March 25, 2010, that was published in the official minutes was the body of a motion that had the public meetings and did not mention whose motion it was and that it received all-party support, a fact that could be seen as misleading without the context of the debate that occurred on March 25; an explanation that the public minutes did not mention when the committee would be scheduled or hearing testimony, and that, in fact, there was consensus among the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that this motion would not take precedence ove ...[+++]r the other committee business already discussed; and, a statement that this breach of privilege and/or that a contempt may have occurred in this instance, and a request that action be taken by the House. That is the context of the motion.