moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-8 be amended in Clause 1 in the English version by replacing line 30, on page 2, with the following:
"grounds that the inmate or any other inmate of the".
Madam Speaker, the amendment I am proposing this morning is very simple not only because it is short and self-explanatory, it is simple in every way. It proposes a simplification of the wording of the bill. In other words, I am suggesting we express what is clear in clear terms and that we state the two possibilities separately in both official languages. I am trying to give the legislative purpose of the bill a comparable, equivalent and similar form in the two official versions, French and English.
I am not questioning the content of the bill because I agree with it. I do not feel that these amendments to the Criminal Code will modify the state of the law. They simply give a structure to parameters the courts have already established around section 25 concerning the use of deadly force by policemen.
I am not convinced that all policemen will submit themselves to the five-step test imposed by the bill when faced with a life and death situation; on the other hand, I do not think this new legislation is changing anything much. Our consultations with
the judiciary and police forces have shown us that the spirit of the bill is accepted almost unanimously. It is not the content which is questionable but the form.
This bill gives us the opportunity to discuss a very serious legislative problem, a problem in the drafting of legislation. For a few years now, federal bills have taken on a very specific style in each of the two official languages and I am not talking about their literary aspect. I invite members to read at random parts of federal legislation.
Earlier this week, during the debate on Bill C-7, I commented on this obscure new drafting technique. I will certainly come back to it some other time. Let me just say for now that any piece of legislation, particularly in the case of criminal law, must be easy for ordinary people to understand.
What concerns me in the case of Bill C-8 for which I am proposing an amendment, as for all federal legislation, is the fact that the French and English versions generally do not match. My amendment is very simple and proposes to make both texts identical, not only similar or comparable but absolutely identical.
The statutes of Canada are enforced all over the country and both versions are equally official. They are enacted, printed, and published in both official languages. According to the Official Languages Act, both versions are "equally authoritative".
It must then be concluded that, where the English and French versions are diametrically opposed, two different laws must apply. Besides, the Official Languages Act itself illustrates that point perfectly as it includes its own contradictory clauses. Members of the House will understand what I mean merely by skimming through that act.
In Canada, we really have two official languages acts, just as we usually end up with two laws whenever we adopt a particular piece of legislation. No doubt, this situation is unique in the world, and we must make do with it, for better or for worse.
As I just said, even the Official Languages Act has two different official versions. Section 13 of the Act, which declares both versions equally authoritative, does not say it with the same meaning and effect in French and in English.
As one might expect, since the Official Languages Act has two official contradictory versions, so do all federal enactments.
For example, in the English version of Bill C-8, section 25(5) authorizing the use of deadly force against an inmate who is escaping reads as follows: "any of the inmates- poses a threat of death- to the peace officer or any other person-"
In the English version, the threat of death comes from all inmates and is directed against the peace officer concerned and any other person. In the French version, the peace officer can use deadly force against that inmate and any other inmate.
We understand that "all inmates" includes the inmate who is escaping. We also understand that, in spite of a different wording, the peace officer is justified in using deadly force whenever he is threatened by an inmate who is trying to escape.
But why must we say it differently in English and French? Why must we always complicate things and risk creating confusion? "Any of the inmates" does not mean " ce détenu et tout autre détenu ''. We must say clearly <em>un détenu</em> '' to translateany of the inmates'', or this inmate and any other inmate'' to really translate ce détenu ou tout autre détenu ''. Let us stop complicating simple things.
That is the purpose of my amendment. As I said, it is simple and it is aimed at ensuring simplicity, and, if I may say so, at ensuring clarity and agreement between both official versions.