Evidence of meeting #69 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was record.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Am I right in assuming that because only one language is being fixed, it's to bring about conformity with the English-language text?
4:35 p.m.
LCol André Dufour
Basically all the amendments for clauses 80 to 96 include amendments to replace
the words "la personne mise en cause" with "la personne qui en fait l'objet"
and also to replace prévôt by grand prévôt. Those are the only amendments being made in those sections.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Can we group clauses 80 to 96 together since they involve changes in language?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
These are historic amendments, but perhaps we could group them together.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm satisfied to have them grouped, but I will note that when we suggested that the English language ought to conform to the French at our last meeting and we made numerous arguments about it, it seemed to be totally unacceptable to the government for some strange, odd, and very disagreeable reason. But we're quite happy to ensure that the French and English work together and say the same thing.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I wanted to make sure we had conformity.
(Clauses 87 to 98 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 99)
Mr. McKay.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Again, as a point of clarification, this is essentially a limitation clause, so you can't actually sue Her Majesty after two years.
What's the reason for that?
4:40 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
Mr. Chair, this clause is essentially changing the limitation period that's already in section 269 of the act from six months to two years. So it's more generous and beneficial to potential plaintiffs.
That's being done largely in an attempt to harmonize the limitation period with the period of two years, which has become more or less standard across all the provinces in Canada.
As Mr. McKay may know, there used to be wild disparity among the provinces with regard to the limitation period, so this is in essence an attempt to create harmony across the country and also to ensure that the limitation period under the NDA is congruent with other limitation periods and fair to potential plaintiffs.
4:40 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
Proposed subsection 269(1) is in the realm of torts. Proposed subsection 269(1.1) provides a limitation period in respect of prosecutions under other acts. For example, under the Fisheries Act, if there were an allegation that there had been an oil spill into a body of water that was protected, as is already in the act, there would be a limitation period in respect of prosecutions under the other act, but the exceptions carved out there in that section are, first of all, the NDA itself, so this doesn't create a limitation period in respect to the NDA, and also for civil prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions Act or the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No, but on the next page, page 55, proposed subsection 269 (1.1):subsection (1) may not be commenced after six months from the day on which the act, neglect or default occurred.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The question is, how does that compare to the six months to two years? It seems very odd. Is that a typo? What is that at the top of page 55?
4:40 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
No, it relates to proposed subsection 269(1.1) I know the brackets in subsection 269(1) are confusing but it's just a continuation of proposed subsection 269(1.1). It's a six-month limitation period for prosecutions other than the ones that are specified, in other words, the NDA and Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That is referring to subsection 269(1). It's not a new subsection.
4:40 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
That's right. It's not a new subsection. I know it's confusing but—