Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Would it be possible to put the same concept in brackets? We do it everywhere else.
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We normally don't indicate to the editors of the Criminal Code what their marginal notes should be; however, we could attempt to rectify it. But it's the same provision of the Criminal Code we're referring to.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's just a marginal note. It's not in the--
1:15 p.m.
NDP
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It is in the title. So we would have to get a different version of the title and have that amendment made. That's why I was suggesting that if it were desired we could check with our drafters. They could check with the jurilinguistics to see if there were other implications to changing that subtitle.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
As a lawyer, I think that would be better, personally. Put yourself in the shoes of a lawyer defending his client under this section. We have already seen cases before the courts which have headed off towards consequences that should never have happened.
Rather than saying that the answer is satisfactory, I personally would find out. I am not sure that it is. I understand your logic, but I agree with Mr. Harris that we should put off the vote on this clause. Mr. Jean said that it is not necessary to put it off until tomorrow; my suggestion is to put it off until the end of our study. We can't know how much time we need or whether we will finish today or tomorrow. Let's say that we give you until the end of the clause-by-clause consideration. You could then come back to us with an answer that will tell us if it can be changed without causing a lot of drama in Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would need an opportunity to discuss that issue with the legislative drafters. I don't think that opportunity will present itself today, because we will be here for most of the day. We could attend to it first thing tomorrow.
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I do have a BlackBerry.
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
However, we have to figure out which drafters were involved in this particular case.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Let's give you until tomorrow. We'll make sure that we're there tomorrow.
1:15 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The other point I would make is this. With all due respect, I don't think it would cause any confusion, because it's the offence that is important. It refers to section 153.1, the offence. You would have to look at the content of the offence, and that's what governs, not the little subtitle that indicates--
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I've seen lawyers use whatever in their disposition, and rightfully so in a sense. We have an opportunity to make it say the same thing. I mean, come on.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
But none of this adds anything to the nature of the offence. It adds nothing, it takes nothing away. It is just a marginal note that makes it easy to consult. Maybe the key in French is one word and the key in English is another word. It is just to make it easier to consult. It has nothing to do with the clause. So I can't see how a lawyer could use it to defend his client or how a judge would be fooled by it.
Really, it is just to make it easy to consult. It adds nothing to the meaning or the substance of the clause.
I would move that we vote on it now, not even defer it, because it really brings nothing to the substance of the section.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The problem is in the Criminal Code, don't you see?
That's where the correction must be made, and it is not within our power to correct the Criminal Code.
If we decide that in the amendment to this act we are going to use different terminology from what is in the Criminal Code, then we're creating confusion. If a French-language lawyer, a francophone lawyer, looks at what we have before us, he will know exactly the section in the Criminal Code to which it refers. If we change this in any way, then that will no longer be the case. There will be in fact confusion sown about what section of the Criminal Code is being referred to. He will look and see one marginal note here and will find a different marginal note in the code and this will cause doubt and confusion.
I think the correct solution must be to change the Criminal Code, and that's not possible for us today. Barring that, this act simply should make reference to what's in the Criminal Code.
I think we should vote on it.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I just wanted to point out the fact that the rest of the translation is perfect. This is the only clause that could cause confusion, in my opinion. Maybe the Criminal Code should be changed, if that is what has to happen, because that is where the confusion may be coming from.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would agree with Ms. Borg, in that my preliminary assessment was confused, but I'm satisfied with what the officials have said.
I guess my question would be does this change the law? Does the vote on this one change the law? That is really the question.
1:20 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, not at all. Section 153.1 remains as it is in the Criminal Code.
