Evidence of meeting #58 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Clause 47 has been withdrawn.
Is clause 48 okay with everyone?
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
In several of the clauses, we're changing the French language version—clauses 50, 51, 57, 58, 59. I know the legislation is drafted in both languages at the same time. I'm just wondering, is there a reason behind some of the errors in the French?
I attended a conference recently on legislative and judicial bilingualism, and this was a concern that was raised in the drafting of the legislation at the same time. Do you feel the department had enough resources in doing this just to make sure that no errors are made in the future? I'm just curious.
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
First, I want to assure all members of the committee that regarding federal legislation, equal importance is afforded both the English version and the French version. As the member of the committee pointed out, bills are drafted simultaneously by anglophone and francophone law editors. This means that one version is not subject to the other. There is no translation.
I can assure you that they are revised with equal care in English and in French by law revisors and jurilinguists.
There are a lot of people involved. Sometimes we have the flaws that are inherent in our good qualities. Despite all of this care, it can happen—that is why we are here—that we subsequently pick up things that could have been drafted better in one language or the other.
There is also something else to be considered. Legislative language is a living thing. It evolves. Over the years, some expressions may become archaic, and other terms may be considered preferable. In those cases as well, improvements can be made.
That said, it should be acknowledged that given the volume of legislative texts that are submitted to you on a yearly basis, and the small number of corrections required, if I may say so myself, I would say that our batting average is pretty good.
As parliamentarians, you may rest assured that the bills you are called on to examine were the subject of meticulous care, both in English and in French. We also take into account the two Canadian legal systems, the common law and civil law.
In addition, I can ensure that at the end of an exercise like this one, we take the lessons we learn from comments that are made on one or the other version.