Evidence of meeting #57 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
My last question concerns bilingualism.
Ms. Pledge said that, with respect to case law, if a document is too complex or too lengthy, there is no obligation to provide it in both official languages. I understand that. However, if the document comes from outside, from a country that does not have the same bilingualism rules as Canada, is it automatic that the regulation will never appear in both languages? I hope that isn't what you said.
4:35 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Advisory Services and Legislative Revision Group, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice
That isn't what we said. Sometimes, the regulatory authorities translate the documents themselves so that there are two versions and the regulated persons can have better access.
Obviously, the decision to translate a document comes under the regulatory authority. However, harmonization and international co-operation or even a highly technical document are usually considered by the Supreme Court to be acceptable reasons for a unilingual version. A unilingual document is sometimes acceptable so as not to compromise the unique nature of the expertise of the document that will be incorporated by reference.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Take for example a French-speaking individual who has an English document and understands none of it. Would that not be an acceptable reason, even if we aren't required to produce it in both languages? This might be justification for not complying with what is in the regulation.
4:35 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Advisory Services and Legislative Revision Group, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice
Accessibility does not really apply to official languages. For example, if a court decided that there was a real reason for not having the document available in both languages, I imagine that the case would go forward. However, if it was proven that there was no legitimate reason for unilingual incorporation by reference, the person could not be found guilty, in effect.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Thank you, officials, for being here today. Thank you for those answers.
We will be dealing with this item again on Tuesday. We have three guests who have confirmed that they are coming to speak to it. My goal is that if we can get through the witnesses—this is a four-clause bill—we may do clause-by-clause at the end of the meeting.
There may be another motion coming that we'll deal with at the time, but we'll see if we can get through. We'll definitely get the witnesses through.
If you have any amendments that you're planning, it would be great if you would bring them forward. You obviously can move amendments at the table based on the presentations that we have, and if we are not able to get through clause-by-clause, it will be the first item of business when we get back after the Christmas break, because I'm not planning on having a meeting on Thursday afternoon at 3:30 to 5:30. I'm not sure the House will be sitting at that particular time, so we'll see. That will be my Christmas present to the committee.
With that, if there is nothing else, we will see you on Tuesday. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.