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.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I understand. I'm just pointing out that it's in the masculine. I wonder if they ever do it in reverse. Do we ever see it in the feminine and it's deemed to include the masculine?
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
No, the current drafting standard, having regard to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, would be to use the masculine.
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
That's what Parliament has prescribed in the Interpretation Act.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That's another piece of legislation we'd have to tackle.
I think we'll leave that to the official languages committee to handle.
Monsieur Brahmi.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
I'm sorry to be persnickety, but the English version reads "his or her request". So to be consistent, the French version should read "le ou la juge militaire". In my opinion, it would be very heavy. We usually use a neutral masculine when we want to talk more about the position than the person.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Again, it has been reviewed by jurilinguists, and we're assured that it conforms to current drafting standards.
I take the sensitivities about masculine and feminine articles, but that's really a different argument.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I've just been advised that this isn't a translation issue. This is the way it was drafted in French and in English by the department.
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
That's exactly correct. For members who may not be entirely familiar with the process, when one drafts legislation, one sits in a drafting room with legislative drafters, and it's drafted contemporaneously in English and in French. It's not a translation from one to the other. There's an English drafter and a French drafter, and they have to ensure that the meanings are the same. It may not be a literal translation, but the meanings are the same. It's drafted contemporaneously, and again reviewed by jurilinguists.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I see no other hands. I'm going to move to consideration of the bill. As everyone knows, under Standing Order 75(1) it says:
In proceedings in any committee of the House upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and if the first clause contains only a short title it is also postponed; then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and the title are to be last considered.
Under that standing order we will set aside the consideration of clause 1. It's postponed. We shall move to clause 2, which is subclauses 2(1) and (2).
Are there any comments?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We are moving to clause 2, which includes subsections 165.21(3) and 165.21(4)?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, subclauses 2(1) and 2(2) include proposed subsections 165.21(2), (3), and (4) as they all appear in the act.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
There is only the mistake that was highlighted in subsection 165.21(4). The French version reads "Il peut démissioner…", but it would be better to write "Le juge militaire peut démissioner…". So it involves simply replacing "Il" with "Le juge militaire". It's a syntax error.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If you wish, you can move an amendment, and then we'll debate that amendment.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I propose replacing the word "Il" with the words "Le juge militaire" in the French version.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm going to accept that amendment, as it is consistent with proposed subsections (2) and (3). The French version would be consistent in all three paragraphs.
Are there any comments on the amendment? We're taking out the word “Il” and replacing it with “Le juge militaire” in proposed subsection (4), which is under clause 2 of the bill.
Is that understood? Are there any questions or debate?
I see none. We'll call the question. All in favour of the amendment?
9:25 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Where are we in terms of the issue? Give me some signal here.
Are you okay with this? Does this work for you folks?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
It was drafted in both languages. It would work without this amendment, but I think it also works with the amendment.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I don't think it changes the intent. As chair, I'm ruling that this amendment is admissible. It is consistent with the bill itself.
Are there any other paragraphs?
Mr. McKay.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'd just speak to the drafters. Are we interfering with some major drafting convention here? It's not only the consistency in this bill, but it's consistency in all bills. If we are, in effect, imposing a new convention of some kind or another, then maybe we should be informed as to what this amendment might mean, not only for this bill but for any other bills.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If we apply the same rule as we move to Bill C-15, my understanding of C-15 is that they use the term “he” versus a “military judge” routinely in the bill.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Yes. I understand Christine's sentiment, and there's a certain logic and consistency in it. However, there are also drafting conventions built up over time that have their own logic and consistency, and I would simply be reluctant to change the drafting conventions on the basis of what appears to be a much more sensible.... I'm in a big conflict here, because I think she's actually making a good point. On the other hand, they do these things for good reasons. I don't know what the good reasons might be, but they do these things for good reasons.