Evidence of meeting #138 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd 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.
3:50 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
The amendment is that Bill S-203, in clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 8 on page 3 with the following:
7.1 Il est interdit, sans licence délivrée en vertu du paragraphe 10(1.1) ou contrairement à celle—
3:50 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
We've heard it in French, very fluently. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Fraser.
3:50 p.m.
West Nova, Lib.
I'm understanding this submission by my friend, but we've heard from Jacqueline Yost, legislative counsel on this very issue, that:
...there is no discrepancy between the two language-versions of the proposed section 7.1. You will frequently see an explicit cross-reference in the English version of a section where there is none in French. The French language generally relies on the implicit, or notional, reference to the concept being referred to rather than the location of the object of the reference. In this case, the English version refers the reader to subsection 10(1.1), which is the subsection under which a licence is issued, whereas the French version relies on the inherent link between having a licence and being issued a licence.
While adding a cross-reference in the French version would add to the “structural” parallelism of the section, it would not respect the “génie de la langue” and so I would recommend against making an amendment in this case.
That was helpful to my determination that no amendment is required in this case, and I thank Elizabeth May who worked with the legislative counsel in having that forwarded to our committee. Therefore, I won't be supporting the amendment.
3:55 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
I just want to read you one paragraph for the record, and I'd like to hear the opinion of Ms. Klineberg.
The letter from Justice Major says:
Section 7.1 of Bill S-203 is an enforcement provision under the Act. Given the conflict in the English and French versions of the proposed legislation its passage without a clarification amendment would, in the event of an illegal violation and subsequent prosecution, present a dilemma to the court. An obvious example being that an application under the English version would be required to meet the conditions set out in s. 10(1.1) whereas an application adhering to the French version would not. In the result the same law would be different depending on the site of the application. Should a charge be laid under the proposed Section 7.1 the difficulty described would be left to the court then to attempt a reconciliation of the conflict in the language and if not possible to strike down the section and order an acquittal.
I think that's very clear.
Ms. Klineberg, I don't know whether you have had a chance to compare both versions here, but Justice Major is saying that we should do what we have to do to make them coincide with each other and not just take a chance and have this dilemma presented to the courts.
3:55 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm not going to be able to provide very much helpful information on this because my expertise is in criminal law. This is really a question about the conventions related to legislative drafting more generally. However, I can say that in my experience drafting legislation, sometimes the English and the French don't look the same. What matters is that they have the same meaning rather than they look exactly the same. I would only say that on a question like this, I would defer to experts in legislative drafting.
3:55 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
Don't you think, though, it's a bit unusual that in the English version it specifically references a particular section in an act, yet there is no reference in the French? Whether we're drafting things through the Criminal Code or policy and everything else, wouldn't it make sense that, if the English refers to a specific section that has to be adhered to, the French be amended to say the same thing?
3:55 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can only say that at first blush, that does sound like a reasonable proposition. However, the explanation from my colleague at the Department of Justice, who is a legislative drafter, sounded exactly like the sort of thing that she would be an expert in and it also sounds reasonable to me.
April 2nd, 2019 / 3:55 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Jacqueline Yost.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
What does he know?
3:55 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
Well, when you've been on the Supreme Court for quite a time, you do develop some expertise or you bring your expertise to the role here. It seems to me a fairly straightforward thing just to make sure they both coincide with the exact wording. I don't know.
(Amendment negatived)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, this amendment adds a greater degree of precision in determining who may make the determination and assessment of animal welfare by specifying it must be a competent scientific team operating on a federal mandate. It adds species conservation, writ large, as an additional ground for approval consistent with the principle of animal welfare. The amendment proposes that Bill S-203, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 3 with the following, “interests of the cetacean's welfare, as determined by a panel of veterinarians and marine scientists designated by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans—”
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
We dealt with CPC-3.2, which was defeated, so therefore we move to CPC-3.3. If it had been approved, we wouldn't bring forward CPC-3.3. I think you jumped ahead a little bit.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Well not really, because I thought the argument was pretty straightforward in terms of the French language issue that we had in terms of clause 4, but I'll go through it.
Mr. Chair, as you heard during the testimony previously, there is some confusion in clause 4 between the French and English. What we are suggesting now is that Bill S-203, in clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 9 on page 3 with the following:
with a permit, im-
4 p.m.
Niagara Falls, CPC
Again, the differences between the French and English are referring to subsection 10(1.1), All we would be doing is removing that from the English version so that it would be identical to the French version here. I'm not quite sure why that would be controversial for anyone, but there you have it. It would bring them both into line.
That's all we were trying to do with the previous one, but this is the English version of it. Okay, remove subsection 10(1.1) from there so it will be identical. This is, I think, our job. That's what we have to do.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
4 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, it's funny you should ask. This amendment adds a greater degree of precision in determining who may make the determination and assessment of animal welfare by specifying it must be a competent scientific team operating on a federal mandate. It adds species conservation, writ large, as an additional ground for approval consistent with the principle of animal welfare.
We are suggesting that Bill S-203, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 3 with the following:
interests of the cetacean's welfare, as determined by a panel of veterinarians and marine scientists designated by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to do so; or
(c) conservation efforts relating to the protection of a vulnerable species.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 5 agreed to)
(Clause 6 agreed to)