Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Did you really vote against BQ‑11? If you voted against this amendment, that means we have two texts that don't say the same thing in English and in French. Don't you see the problem there?
I didn't spend much time speaking to it, because it seemed so obvious to me—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I wasn't ready to vote. Hold on a second.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I had a question for the departmental officials.
Mr. Fortin explained this as being a translation issue. I'm asking you, having looked at the amendment, whether you consider that the French version is made better by the translation that Mr. Fortin provided. Is it now equivalent?
Acting Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Department of Justice
For background, the proposed amendment in the bill to proposed section 49.1 models a provision that already exists in the Criminal Code in subsection 719(3.2). That requires a court to place on the record of the case and in the warrant of committal any credit for pre-sentence custody that is credited at sentencing. The language that's used in English is, “any credit” that is to be given by the Youth Justice Court as opposed to what the motion is presenting, which is, “the credit”.
Perhaps that could be read as stronger language, almost mandating that credit be provided when it's not mandatory to provide credit for any time spent in detention prior to sentencing. The proposed motion removes some of the French language regarding if it is decided to give credit; that would be the difference. Maybe what the motion is proposing is something a little more direct about giving credit for time spent in detention, as opposed to the nuance of if any credit is given.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
The existing language proposed in the bill is found elsewhere. Is that what you're saying?
Acting Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Department of Justice
In English, it tracks almost identically to what's in the Criminal Code. There are some slight changes in the French. In terms of equivalency between English and French, it's intended to have the same meaning.
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay.
Repeat the answer, please. Then we'll get to the speaking order.
Acting Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Department of Justice
In English, it's quite closely tracked to exactly what's used in the Criminal Code. There is some difference in terms of the French in the provision, but it in essence gives the same idea: that if a court is deciding to allocate credit for pre-sentencing detention, what it's required to do in terms of how much credit it gives on the record of the case.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, can I have a couple of minutes? If we can suspend, my reading of BQ-12 is where I thought we had the issue of the language of both texts, and BQ-11 was more on the substance. I want to make sure I'm reading the right....
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, I get that, but I want to make sure I understand.
I want to be able to understand what we're doing here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry. I heard “point of order”. I didn't hear who said it, though.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
To confirm, we have already dispensed with BQ-11, right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes, but if there was a translation issue.... That's why I went back to it. If it was a language issue, I wanted to make sure that there was nothing left hanging in that respect.
Yes, you're correct. We did vote on it.
Conservative
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but to go back to you, Ms. Reynolds, what BQ-11 proposes is not just fixing translation. It may amount to a substantive change in instructions to the sentencing officer, to the presiding judge. This is not a translation change. This would amount to a substantive change, correct?