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.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The NDP are waiving the rest of their questions.
Any more questions coming from the Conservative side? One.
Mr. Chisu.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you very much, Colonel.
I understand it is a combination of the profession of arms and the profession of law, and there's always a balance here. I think the profession of law is regulated by the provinces. The profession of arms is regulated federally. You need to be a good, deployable solider, and you also need to be a good lawyer. How do you see this combination happening?
9:10 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
With respect to military judges, sir?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes. How can the judges be deployable, for example, in the theatre of operations if it is necessary to be deployed?
9:10 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
That comes back to one of the reasons why we consider that it's important that military judges be military officers, as you very rightly pointed out.
One of the functional attributes required in our system is portability—we conduct operations all around the world—and also flexibility, in the sense that our courts have to be able to sit in all points in the spectrum of conflict, from peacetime in garrison in Canada to a situation of armed conflict in an environment like Afghanistan. So it's very important that military judges need to be deployable, and that is again one of the reasons why they are officers and required to meet the same standards of medical and physical fitness of other officers, to ensure that if it is necessary to hold a court in Afghanistan or in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in any other deployed setting, the officer who is a military judge is fully capable of deploying and sitting with that court in such a demanding environment.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Is a reserve component contemplated for judges?
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thanks, Chair, and I'd like to thank all members for their cooperation on this issue, especially Mr. Christopherson and Mr. McKay, and thanks to our witness. Thanks to our ever vigilant chair and others on our side and analysts.
We have simply noticed, Colonel Gibson, that in the very brief Bill C-16, which only has two clauses, in proposed subsection 165.21(4), in the French translation.... Reading the English, it says, “A military judge may resign”. On the French side, it says, “Il peut démissionner”. In other words, the language “Le juge militaire” is left out for some reason. We will come back to this, no doubt, in the clause-by-clause, but would your professional view be that this is an oversight of translation?
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Actually, if I may just take a moment to confer with my colleague, Colonel Dufour, who is a legislative drafter, I can get a much more authoritative answer for that.
I'm informed that it's a convention of the legislative drafters of the Department of Justice who actually do the drafting. Proposed subsection 165.21(3) uses “Le juge militaire”, and in subsequent paragraphs it is evidently the current drafting convention that one would use “Il”. Colonel Dufour informs me of that.
So it's not an oversight. It was a construction of the drafters.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Good. We're just checking while we have you as our witness.
Thank you.
November 15th, 2011 / 9:15 a.m.
NDP
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
As for the translation, it says "un juge militaire" in one version and "le juge militaire" in the other.
In English it would be “a military judge” versus “the military judge”. It makes a difference.
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Once again, we're informed, this is a drafting convention employed by the drafters at the Department of Justice, which they apply consistently across bills. It's drafting magic to me, but I take the advice given by instructing counsel that this is how it's currently done.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
We'll conclude that part of the conversation.
I think as Mr. Brahmi knows, sometimes there isn't an exact correspondence between indefinite and definite articles in English and French. In a good translation, there's variation.
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Just so members of the committee are aware, as part of the legislative drafting process, the drafts of the drafters are reviewed by jurilinguists at the Department of Justice legislative drafting section, and they ensure that the way articles are expressed in draft legislation conforms to the current drafting standards.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Given that we are talking about legal texts and translation into French. I'm wondering whether it should say "le ou la juge militaire" or simply say "le juge militaire", which would imply "la juge" as well.
9:15 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
The answer to that is found in the Interpretation Act, which specifies that if one uses a masculine article, for example, that is deemed or interpreted to contain both. So it relies on the provisions of the Interpretation Act.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have one follow-up question to that. Do you sometimes do it the other way around? Do you lead in with the feminine?
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
Well, once again, it's not us. We don't actually draft--
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
The standard of the Department of Justice is, as I understand it, to use the masculine article.