National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

Evidence of meeting #12 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was judges.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges)

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael R. Gibson Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I would simply echo Mr. McKay's sentiments. I think the place to address that issue would probably be if it were dealing with the Interpretation Act.... We've been informed previously by our witness that this is the convention, and if this becomes a precedent, we could spend quite a lot of time in future committee business amending language that does not actually affect the intent of the bill.

I would hope that if we're making amendments we would be doing it to affect the actual outcome of the bill, not to address the language. I think the appropriate place to address those concerns is probably in considering the Interpretation Act, if that ever comes up.

But I think we've been informed that this is in keeping with the convention. It's legally correct. It's what the drafters intended. So while, like John, I understand the concern, I think what's written there is fine as is.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Are there other comments?

Mr. Alexander.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Chair, I think I'm persuaded by that last comment. I think it works either way. The meaning is clear either way. But if there's any danger of us violating a convention that has been used elsewhere in legislation or that is universally used in translation of legislation, we should probably err on the side of caution, which would militate in favour of keeping the current version.

I don't have any objection, but I'm not sure of the consequences. I don't think it's a major convention that would be trampled upon, but it might be a minor one.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'm going to let Colonel Gibson get in here for a minute.

9:25 a.m.

Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence

Col Michael R. Gibson

I would agree with the comments that have been made: that it wouldn't make a substantive change in the legislation.

I would just point out, as I think Mr. McKay very correctly observed, that it's the current drafting convention. To inform members of the committee, it's used multiple times in Bill C-15, which we're certainly hoping will be before you relatively soon, so if you were going to make that change here, you're going to have to be prepared to make it multiple times in Bill C-15.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Madam Moore.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

I will withdraw my amendment; it will be easier.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Okay.

Do I have consent to withdraw the motion?

First we'll hear from Mr. Brahmi.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC

I have just one comment to make. I have no objection to withdrawing the amendment. In Bill C-15, using "le juge militaire" sometimes and sometimes "il" is confusing. The person who drafted it did not pay attention. It was not very important to that person to put either "il" or "le juge militaire". The fact that the translation is not equivalent is solely due to the fact that the English and French versions were drafted by two different people without consulting one other. In my opinion, that is the bigger problem.