In—
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
But there's none in French. When I read it in English, I'm asking if I have to.... Those are criteria for the court. They are all stand-alone criteria, and we could add
ad vitam aeternam
if we wanted. You have that “and” between proposed paragraph 34(2)(g) and proposed paragraph 34(2)(h) in English, but we don't have the same. Am I supposed to read them together?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think the drafting convention in English is to have the “and” between the last two items in a list, but not to have it in French.
I think if you look in all the other areas of the bill, it is consistent—
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The “and” is there in English, but it is not there in French. I couldn't explain to you why that is, but I do think that is a firm drafting convention.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
It's going to be on record that it's not two clauses that read together.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's right.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chairman, in light of the discussion, I would withdraw NDP-6 with the consensus available at the other side.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
In light of the previous vote, I don't see any point in having the debate and another vote on this, so I will withdraw it.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended simply to clarify the French version of the legislation. As we heard from the Barreau du Québec, the word “lawfully” in the English version is not appropriately translated by the expression
“de façon légitime”.
in the French, so I would encourage members to accept the change in French to
“façon autorisée par la loi”,
to ensure that the bill has the highest quality translation and there's no discrepancy between the meanings of the English and the French translation. You are correct to have noted the NDP has a similar amendment.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
We have a similar amendment, but I would like some assistance, being an ignorant Anglo here, with the nuances. I discussed it with my colleague yesterday and I asked—
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Is the word “unlawful” in English the same as what we have here, saying something is not authorized by law?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Being authorized by law seems to me to be a positive requirement that there be an authorization. This is not to denigrate the Barreau's suggestion here, but they aren't the legislative drafters.
Could you give us some enlightenment as to whether this wording has been considered by you since the Barreau made the suggestion? Maybe you could enlighten us.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, subsequent to the Barreau's submissions, I did discuss this issue with our drafters. One thing I can relay that they mentioned was that in their view the existing language
“de façon légitime” in French
is more consistent with similar types of provisions in the Criminal Code, but more importantly, I do think it's true to say that
“autorisé par la loi” in French
is not exactly the same as de façon légitime in the same way that “authorized by law” in English is not exactly the same thing as “lawful”. Authorized by law and
“autorisé par la loi” in French
would require basically a statutory grant of authority—
