Evidence of meeting #94 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
That is precisely my point. The wording is really quite different, although I believe that the purpose and intent of the French version is similar to that of the English version, at least with my limited knowledge of the French language.
Why wouldn't you have just taken the opportunity to rewrite all of subsection 31(2) of the French version to align more closely with the English version? How it ended up being so different in the first place, I suppose, would be a relevant question as well.
11:20 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Maybe I can respond. First of all, maybe I will see if we have a colleague from....
11:20 a.m.
Philippe Denault Senior Counsel, Advisory and Legislative Initiatives Services, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Before we perhaps get a colleague to explain, the word “jurisdiction” is used in French in subsection 31(2), and it would be the equivalent. It's a different notion, but it captures the institution itself, which we changed from “commission” to “tribunal”.
Perhaps my colleague here would have something to add.
11:20 a.m.
Shawna Noseworthy Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Agriculture and Agri Food Legal Service Unit, Department of Justice
Good morning, Madame Chair.
My name is Shawna Noseworthy. I'm not with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I am counsel with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in food inspection legal services.
My understanding of the various acts that are administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that are part of this package is that the intent was in fact to change the name of “Tribunal” to “Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal” and also, to correct any anomalies in the translation from English to French, to change “commission" to "tribunal".
If there is in fact an omission, I would be happy to take it back to my clients and bring it to their attention.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I do have something on a different matter. I'll pass while I collect my thoughts.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, everyone.
I'd like to comment on the first proposed amendment, which pertains to the Aeronautics Act.
You want to eliminate the definition of "directeur" in the French version. However, in the current English version, at the end of the definition of the word "authority", there is a reference to the term "directeur" in French. I think the word in parentheses should be changed so that the two versions match.
11:25 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Advisory and Legislative Initiatives Services, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Could you repeat the section number?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
In the amendments, it's section 3, with respect to the Aeronautics Act.
You are proposing to eliminate the definition of "directeur", but in the English version, at the end of the definition of the term "authority", there is a reference to the term "directeur" in French. The word "directeur" should be removed in the English version.
11:25 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Allow me to clarify. English words or French words in parentheses were inserted there by our software from the other language version. It will be modified accordingly.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Further to Mr. Van Popta's comments, I'd like to clarify that the name "Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal" is in the title. So I don't think there's a problem. The same goes for the English and French versions. The name is changed in the title.
11:25 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
I'm advised that what appears in the text is a marginal note, which is not technically part of the legislative text, but it would be modified administratively when we are updating the law. The marginal notes are a guide, but they are technically not part of the legislative text itself.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I will go to Monsieur Fortin and then come back to anyone else who has any other questions.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning and welcome to the witnesses. Thank you for being here with us.
I have a general question. I believe that many of the proposed corrections are necessary for reasons pertaining to the transcription of the French and to the adaptation of English versions into French. I am wondering why this is the case, given that prior to their adoption, the wording of the provisions has already been examined in the House and studied clause by clause in committee by the members. Staffers for the various parties also examine them.
Why do you think so many translation mistakes make their way into legislation?
11:25 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you very much for your question.
First of all, I'd like to reassure you by pointing out that we do not translate legislation. We draft both language versions at the same time, simultaneously.
Given that it's a parallel process, errors do happen from time to time. It's a human endeavour. We're not machines. There will be things that are identified as discrepancies. As many of you are lawyers, you can also understand that there may be disagreement about whether there is actually a discrepancy or not between the two versions.
The proposals are drafted not only by the legislative services branch, by legislative counsel, but we also have revisors and jurilinguists, so there are many levels of review.
Having said that, from time to time some errors or discrepancies slip through. That's also the case in Parliament.
We do our best. I am confident that we maintain a very high level of quality.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you.
I acknowledge that Parliament's legislative counsels do extraordinary work. I'm not about to criticize what they do. I simply want to understand the process.
Here in committee, when we are studying a bill clause by clause or revising a report, it strikes me that the translation doesn't look quite right. I understand what you said and you are perfectly correct in saying that to err is human. We all make mistakes.
Be that as it may, I am wondering whether there is something inherently wrong about the way we work. Why do we find errors like that so often? Once again, I'm not blaming you. I simply want to understand. How can we reduce the number of mistakes? Is the review process being skipped or being done too quickly? As experts in the legislative process, what's your view?
11:30 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
My view is that even the parallel writing process, which respects both language versions and both legal traditions in Canada, is not perfect. As we are not machines, it's not always easy to find the right way of wording things. There are often lively disagreements between legislative counsels who are working together.
I acknowledge that in today's world things are done increasingly quickly and that there is perhaps not enough time to find every mistake. That's why we use this particular corrective action process. On the other hand, the process was introduced in 1975.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I have a final question.
In response to a question from my colleague Ms. Brière about the parallel between the words "directeur" and "authority", you said that this review was not something done by you, but rather by a software application.
Am I to understand that the translation is being done by software?
11:30 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
No. It's not a matter of translation. I was talking about our database's drafting and consolidation software. The word that appears in parentheses is the word that matches the definition in the other language version when a provision receives royal assent. It is taken from the other version. It is therefore not necessary to make the amendment in the English version because as soon as the correction has been made, the right word will also be inserted into the other version.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Excuse me for perhaps being a little slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure I understand.
You mentioned an application that addresses the issue we were talking about, namely using the term "autorité" instead of "directeur".
What does the software do? Does it translate words? Does it suggest words?