Public Safety Committee on April 17th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm in the hands of the committee. Do you wish to speak to it? Just introduce it, at least.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Sure. The amendment clarifies that, when investigating complaints, the review agency has access to information that is subject to common law privileges under the law of evidence not otherwise named, such as police informer privilege. The intent was always for the review agency, again, to access this class of information, but making this explicit removes any ambiguity.

Finally, Bill C-58 makes explicit reference to privileges under the law of evidence. This raised the possibility that the absence of such language from Bill C-59 could be interpreted as suggesting a lack of access. This avoids that risk by making the review agency's access clear in legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have an issue with the translation. Amendment CPC-9, which you just defeated, is identical in French to the French version of amendment LIB-5. Since the committee has voted against amendment CPC-9, it would be logical for everyone to vote against amendment LIB-5.

What is done when this kind of an issue arises?

The two French versions are exactly the same. You just said “opposed”. Does that mean everyone is voting against the amendment?

Amendment LIB-5 must be defeated because amendment CPC-9, which is identical, was also defeated. That said, the wording is not the same in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I just received French lesson 101, and I'm going to let our legislative clerk explain why the problem that you've identified is not a problem.

Go ahead.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

You are right to say that the French versions are identical, but sometimes the English version, unlike the French version, requires more clarifications in terms of deciding whether to use “and” or “or”. Sometimes, the French version is clear de facto. In this case, the “et” includes “et” and “ou”. That is why it is not necessary to use both words in every case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm not sure I follow you.

In the English version, it says “or any privilege”, but the French version says, “et toute immunité reconnue par le droit de la preuve”.

I don't see the distinction you are making. In my opinion, the meaning is different. It would not have said, “malgré toute autre loi fédérale ou toute immunité reconnue par le droit de la preuve”.

If we decide to adopt amendment CPC-9, the translation must be accurate.

[Philippe Méla]

I cannot discuss the translation, as I am not a translator, but specialized translators would be able to do so. I assume that the translators who worked on the amendments had the amendments of the Conservative Party, the NDP and possibly the Liberal Party at the same time.

At the end of the day, “and” and “or” are translated in the same way. If you look at the federal body of legislation, sometimes “and” and “or” are translated in the same way in French.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the point that has been made. As someone who's bilingual, I try to go through both versions. It's not always possible because it can be a time-consuming thing. I'm okay to be corrected on the difference being different in French, but the fact is that the wording is exactly identical. Procedurally, an identical wording would mean that the follow-up one would be amended. I'm wondering, in terms of our privilege, especially for French-speaking members, how that plays in and if that means that LIB-5 is even in order.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I agree. I am not currently reading the English version; I am reading only the French version. I was forced to vote against one of my proposals, and the wording of amendment LIB-5 is identical to the wording of amendment CPC-9. The English translation changed the words. I agree that the subtleties of the English language are different from those of the French language. However, I must vote on an amendment today. In French, the two amendments are identical. So I think that amendment LIB-5 should be defeated, just like amendment CPC-9 was defeated.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a question for the clerk.

If you look at CPC-10, Mr. Paul-Hus is exactly correct. It says “et”. It doesn't say “mais”. So, if “mais” actually includes the word “and” as well, then CPC-10 is wrong. I'm wondering if, in LIB-5, we could amend the French version to say:

“de la preuve et sous réserve de la”?

Could we change “mais” to “et”?

[Voices]

It says “et” now.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Not in LIB-5, it says “mais”.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It is “et”.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Not in the one I'm looking at.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Everyone has the same. They're different in English, but in French they're exactly the same.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Right. In the French version of LIB-5, in the very last line where it says, “mais sous réserve”, it should be “et sous réserve”, right?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It replaces “or”.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

But this is wrong here.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

They're talking about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Just a moment please.

I think we're crawling towards a solution here.

Mr. Paul-Hus, and then we'll ask our clerk to comment.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will provide a very simple explanation.

In the Conservative Party's amendment CPC-9, it was “mais” in French and “but” in English. In amendment CPC-10, it was “and” in English and “et” in French. Finally, in amendment LIB-5, it is “but” in English and “et” in French.

In the LIB-5, if we decide that “but” is the right one or “et” is the right one, you have to vote for the Conservative one, depending on which one you want.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I ask for a five-minute break so we could discuss the nuance of gray on this one and agree on one version. The idea of the legislator is there; it's just the word. With the help of the expert, we'll manage to find the proper wording for something that seems to be the exact same thing.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

You can't go backwards, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm prepared to suspend for a couple of minutes to see if we can sort this out.

I can have Mr. Motz weigh in here.