Evidence of meeting #20 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I was asking you that question, Mr. Chairman. If I understand correctly, we have laws in this Parliament that are drafted in English and have a certain meaning. The same law, when drafted in French, has a different meaning. That's a little surprising! Is that a common practice?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I recognize that. I don't know if that's the case. I wonder why--
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I hope that we will have the correct answer before we vote on this bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The difference seems to be in the amendment and not the bill, so I wonder why you would ask me. It's Mr. Julian who is proposing the amendment.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
According to what Mr. Julian said, he is proposing an amendment because the English version is different from the French version. Did I get that right?
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I have a question for the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I understand what you're saying, but it really is a linguistic question. It's just a different interpretation of the words. There isn't a word in French for what is proposed in English.
Bloc
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I'd like to go back to Mr. Guimond's question, Mr. Chairman, and put it to our witnesses.
In the English version, it says “no person” has any cause of action, as I understand it, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. That is what this means.
In the English version, it says that no person has any cause of action whereas, in the French version, the word “person”, is not mentioned; it only talks about a cause of action. It does not refer to someone, it only says “le droit de poursuite”, but I imagine the same thing could have been said in English, or vice versa.
Why is that? In any case, the translation is wrong, in my opinion. Mind you, I am no expert. There may not be a big difference, but there definitely is a difference.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
No. Really, it's legal jargon.
Let me ask Mr. Kronby to explain.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thanks.
I'll say at the outset that it's not a question of translation. The bill, as with all government bills, is drafted concurrently in both official languages, with the involvement of expert drafters.
So what you're looking at is a matter of drafting convention. This is the way these ideas are expressed in each official language. The same wording or form of expression was used since this is a standard provision that was used in previous legislation, such as the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
I suggest, without being an expert myself on the fine nuances of French versus English, that this is something that has been examined carefully and is simply a question of drafting convention in the two languages.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you.
As you are well aware, there is an issue around the ability of judges in the Supreme Court to switch back and forth from English to French; in other words, to understand French as they understand English, and the person--
And yes, to understand English as they do French; Mr. Keddy is quite right.
So the issue is the person who did the editing or the revising of this text. Was it somebody who was able to edit and perfectly bilingually able legally to read through both clauses and understand that the...to eliminate the differences that exist, even if they are slight?
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
As I say, I'm not an authority on the individual qualities or expertise of those particular drafters and reviewers at the Department of Justice who examined this legislation, but I can say that as a matter of course the people who engage in these exercises have a very high capacity in both official languages. That is a prerequisite for involvement in those activities.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay. I think we get the point. It's really only legalese and jargon; it says the same thing. Anybody who is interpreting it in either official language would get it. It says you can't take action without consent of the Attorney General.It's pretty straightforward.
In any event, I think we've heard all we need to hear on that. Unless there's further debate, we'll call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay. So we're clear, we're voting on the amendment of Mr. Julian, which is NDP-4.
Mr. Julian, just a moment. I'm looking at your next one, NDP-5, and it seems to me it's consequential. Would you agree that a vote on NDP-4 would apply to NDP-5? It's a similar context; it seems to be consequential.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
All right. Thank you.
So we're voting on amendment NDP-4. It's my view that NDP-5 is consequential, so essentially we're voting on the same two at once here. Yippee.
Those in favour...? We're going to again have a recorded vote. Was that your request, Mr. Julian?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Actually, Mr. Chair, given that it's a consequential vote, I'll withdraw my request for a recorded vote on this particular clause.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
Those in favour of amendments NDP-4 and NDP-5 of Mr. Julian, please raise your hand. Those opposed?
(Amendments negatived)