House of Commons Hansard #228 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.

Topics

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. The question will be put if Motion No. 10 is negatived. We will now debate group 4, Motion No. 9.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page 24, with the following:

"an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person or a sexual offence involving a child".

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Still it should be intelligible. Bill C-45 is already a very complex piece of legislation as far as calculating the period of sentence and eligibility for parole is concerned. So if even the drafters stumble over words and sentence structure, it will take a clever person indeed to understand.

As the Barreau du Québec indicated in its brief on Bill C-45 submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice, and I quote: "In fact, although we brought together the varied expertise of a number of professionals from academia, the prisons and private practice, they were not able to conduct an exhaustive review of clause 34 of the Bill and the related provisions because both the methods of calculation adopted and the wording used seemed so recondite".

Clause 34 of the bill is the key element of the methods for calculating sentence and eligibility for parole. If experts have a hard time making out what it means, how is a judge expected to benefit from a reform that is far from being as crystal clear as requested?

Motion No. 9, which I just moved, is not designed to amend clause 34, which will serve as an example however, but to complete in clause 43 of Bill C-45 the information that is missing in the French version. I do not know if the drafters were making fun of us or not, but there is a limit.

Francophone readers must refer to the subsections listed in order to know what it is all about, while the English version mentions the subsections and goes on to describe the offences in extenso.

Either the drafters assumed that francophone readers know by heart the sections referred to in Bill C-45 and their content or they were trying to make the clause difficult to understand in the French version.

Either way, this is adding insult to injury. I will not stand for this kind of abuse any longer, for myself or francophones in general. There is a plethora of instances where federal legislation makes a mockery of the language of Molière. Drafters are misusing the French language under the pretext of simplifying.

The new section 120.1 proposed in the bill is another example. In English, this section sets a basis for the computation of the prescribed time, yet this information is missing in the French version. It will be easier for an anglophone judge to understand what it is all about. At any rate, in either language, the bench is not likely to be able to make head nor tail of it.

That is why is important to set a start point, this point being the day on which the additional sentence was imposed. This correction is essential. However, this will only be a partial solution to an endemic problem.

The following is typical of Bill C-45, and I am referring to the wording of clause 34. Let me first get my breath, because there are no commas in the next paragraph, which is a simple sentence. And I quote:

Le délinquant dont la peine d'emprisonnement n'est pas expirée et qui est condamné à une peine d'emprisonnement supplémentaire à purger à la suite de l'autre n'est admissible à la libération conditionnelle totale qu'à la date à laquelle il a accompli le temps d'épreuve requis à la fois sur la partie de la peine non encore exécutée au moment de la condamnation et sur la peine supplémentaire.

If you understand this, Madam Speaker, congratulations. The point is that the additional sentence was consecutive. In the English version, however, we read:

-"commencing on the day on which the additional sentence was imposed".

We do not find these words in the French text. So in English, an individual can find out when he is eligible for parole, while a Francophone cannot because he does not know where to start counting.

A judge who cannot interpret a legal text will have to judge in equity and ignore the text, which is so convoluted that the results would be absurd. That is how the rule of law ends up at the bottom of the culture gap.

Another striking example may be found in clause 45 of the English version, and I quote:

-"any factor that is relevant"-

The French version says, and I quote: "tous les facteurs utiles". This must be corrected. The use of the word "utiles" in the French version is not appropriate. This is about the relevance of the information concerned, not about its usefulness.

For years I have tried to tell this House that respect for Francophones starts with respect for their language. I find this bad habit editors have of making their French translation a carbon copy of the English extremely annoying. When will they realize that the French language is not well served by a translation from a text originally written in English? When can I expect to see federal legislation drafted in correct French? Certainly not before October 30.

I have been a member of this House for nearly seven years, and there have been few occasions when I could say that both the English and the French versions of a bill were drafted with the same care. Aside from awkward syntax or grammatical errors, there is also the fact that the law may be interpreted in such a way

that the intent of the legislator is obscured by semantics and our work here in the House will be for naught.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like some clarification. Is the hon. member speaking to the motions in group 4 or has she moved to group 5? I am a little confused.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The hon. member is debating motions in group 4.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC

To continue, Madam Speaker, it is we who are the legislators. In answer to my colleague who wonders where we are up to-I imagine he had had to absent himself-we are indeed still in group No. 4. It is our duty therefore to see that our intentions are respected. The best way to do this is to make them intelligible.

In conclusion, I have a piece of advice to give those drafting texts: they should take a look at the Quebec civil code and our code of criminal procedure in order to learn how to write in French. These are both bold pieces of legislation, the Quebec civil code in particular, whose legislative texts have been able to stand the test of Quebec's changing times, customs and habits without becoming outmoded, ever since 1866. If only out of respect for the francophones of this country, I am therefore requesting that this House support Motion No. 9.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is obviously raising an issue beyond the technical scope of this motion. We have covered the role of French here in the House of Commons, within the federal government. I would like to point out to the hon. member that everyone tries to speak and write proper and correct French.

What I am saying to you could certainly apply directly to English speakers. Sometimes I myself go over and correct texts that have been given me by anglophones, and that are full of mistakes. There are syntax problems, and I often find these texts completely incomprehensible as the hon. member for Saint-Hubert claims happens in French. Unfortunately it seems to be the case for both official languages.

However, I am keeping to this text and to the motion as such. I do not think this is the time to politicize the debate and I do not think this motion has anything to do with the probable results on October 30, which will be, as we know full well, that a majority of Quebecers will vote no.

By deleting the words "serious drug offence", the motion would exclude serious drug offenders from the effect of the provisions on detention. It would defeat Parliament's purpose in expanding the scope of the provisions on detention to include serious drug offenders.

The aim of this measure was to calm the growing concerns of the public over the persistent problem of drug trafficking. In short, this is to some extent what the work of the legislator is about-making society as we know it safer. The measure is one of the initiatives in the national anti-drug strategy.

Under section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the provisions on detention shall be subject to a comprehensive review by a committee of the House of Commons three years after coming into force-which was November 1992. So, very soon.

This review will be more appropriate for the consideration of an amendment of this scope. I therefore invite the hon. members to vote against this motion and I would like to remind the hon. member that we are always careful in our use of French.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Resuming debate on Motion No. 9, group 4.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments. The previous speaker was talking about the confusion in these bills, how they are written and how they are having a difficult time trying to get the same meaning in two languages.

There is one thing on which I can agree with the hon. member. Not only with this bill but with every piece of legislation I see coming from the government, whether it is the Income Tax Act, GST rebates, transportation or whatever it is, it makes sure it words these bills in such a way that a common, ordinary guy like myself is not going to be able to understand everything. We have to hire legal minds to give the proper interpretation. That is one thing to which I certainly object. If we are going to make laws for ordinary Canadians it would not hurt to put them in language that ordinary Canadians can understand.

I have a comment as well for the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general who made the comment that now is the time not to politicize. I would like hon. members from the Liberal Party to realize one thing. What they are really saying is: "Let us not get these things on the floor any more than we have to because Canadians might realize what the devil we are doing". Not only do we want to confuse them on how we write laws but let us conduct the business of the House in a manner that anybody watching television really does not know what is happening.

I will take every opportunity I can to try and illustrate what is happening so the people out there will know what is happening. Reformers are the only ones willing to do that. The little puppets in the back row in the Liberal Party wait until the cabinet barks so they know who to bite. We do not operate that way. There are things happening with documents coming through like Bill C-45,

things the Canadian people need to know. No, let us razzle-dazzle them with several hundred pages of a law and then we will pass it off as doing our job.

We and the Liberal backbenchers will then go to our constituencies and will be asked what we did in Bill C-45. Most of them will be like me, struggling because we really do not know. They will be able to pick up a few little things here and there but they really do not know.

Are we living in a country where the whole idea is to confuse ordinary Canadians so we can really run this show? If that is the case it is time to change. What a shame to say we are trying to politicize.

Motion No. 9 is dropping off drug offences. It states we should keep dangerous offenders and murderers behind bars but let us drop off the drug offenders. It so happens that drug dealers are a serious and major problem in our country. We do not know how to treat major problems.

What we want to do is take this member's motion and drop those kinds of things off because the government is attempting to get a little tougher. I applaud the government for its attempt. If it needs some advice it should talk to Canadians. They will tell the government what to do with drug offenders.

Listen to the old guy from Wild Rose, the old backwoods kid who was born yesterday. He is not smart enough to pick up legislation and say: "My, my, is that not pretty". All my little lawyer friends over there in the justice department or the solicitor general's department have put this wonderful document together that nobody can understand. Try reading the Income Tax Act sometime if members want some fun.

Back in the 1960s I used to teach how to do income tax. By the middle 1970s I had to hire somebody to do my own. They are doing a good job if they are trying to confuse people.

One thing that is really confusing is why the member who is introducing this motion would think for a second that serious drug offenders are not a problem and should not be classified in some of these areas.

We will be opposing this motion.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Corrections And Conditional Release ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.