National Defence Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Alexander.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

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

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Madam Moore.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will withdraw my amendment; it will be easier.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Do I have consent to withdraw the motion?

First we'll hear from Mr. Brahmi.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Colonel Gibson.

[Col Michael R. Gibson]

I would like to make the point that the drafters actually do pay a great deal of attention, and, for somebody who looks at it from a policy side, an unbelievably great deal of attention, I can assure you. The convention is that the first time it is used in a particular section it would be

"le juge militaire"

and in subsequent paragraphs it would be “Il”. That's why you see both. The convention is consistent usage, so the first time it's used in that section it would be the full phrase.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

This is not the case with section 165 of the act addressed by Bill C-15. What you are saying is contradicted in subsections 165.21(2) and 165.22(2) that Bill C-15 intends to amend. I think that is another liberty the person who drafted it took.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Madam Moore is withdrawing her amendment, but to do that I need consent from the committee. Do I have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

(Amendment withdrawn)

So we're back to clause 2. There being no other comments on clause 2, shall clause 2 carry as written?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Shall I report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So moved, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.