Message
adressé à Linda Laflamme,
présentatrice du journal télévisé de CTV.
Dear Ms. Laflamme,
I am a religious
follower of the CTV newscast.
However, I was
somewhat disappointed by your ill-advised attempt to ridicule the draft Charter
of Values tabled last Thursday in the National Assembly of Quebec. The report
correctly stated that the title of the bill was quite long and you added, by
way of conclusion, with a hint of contempt : "Those lawyers [read: French
lawyers] must be paid by the line".
In response, please
be advised that long(ish) titles are far from unusual in legislation. Allow me
to draw your kind attention to this excerpt from "House of Commons
Procedure and Practice", Second Edition, 2009:
The title is an essential element of a bill. A bill may have two
titles: a full or long title and an abbreviated or short title.[110] The long title appears both on
the bill’s cover page, under the number assigned to the bill, and at the top of
the first page of the document. It sets out the purpose of the bill, in
general terms, and must accurately reflect its content. The short title is
used mainly for purposes of citation, and does not necessarily cover all
aspects of the bill.[111] The first clause of the bill
normally sets out the short title (except in the case of bills amending other
Acts, which do not have a short title).
…
[110] For example, Bill C‑15 (2007)
gives the long title as follows: An Act respecting the exploitation of
the Donkin coal block and employment in or in connection with the operation of
a mine that is wholly or partly at the Donkin coal block, and to make a
consequential amendment to the Canada‑Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources
Accord Implementation Act. The short title reads: Donkin Coal Block
Development Opportunity Act.
In addition, note
that, in the old days, in England, private instruments (wills and
contracts) were drafted by lawyers who were, indeed, paid by the line, and
hence developed an excessively verbose style; unfortunately, legislative
drafting was contaminated by the same technique, which plagues common law
jurisdictions to this very day: even the substantive clauses of statutes are
generally considerably more prolix, less elegant, and, yes, less readable than
those of statutes in force in civil law jurisdiction.
(In
that regard, I refer you to this classic treatise, authored by Louis-Phillippe
Pigeon, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada: "Rédaction et
interprétation des lois, Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère des
communications, ©1986; of course you might prefer the English-language
translation: "Drafting and interpreting legislation", Toronto :
Carswell, 1988.)
Next time you want
to regale your redneck viewers with a thinly-"veiled" anti-Quebec
witticism, Ms. Laflamme, at the very least, do your homework and consult a
legal correspondent on your staff. If you ask Lloyd Robertson about my
suggestion, I am confident that he will approve.
He has class.
Yours truly,
Lupus
Protospatharius
PS. I will remain a
faithful viewer of CTV News: I just love Robert Fife's coverage of the Senate
scandal.
No comments:
Post a Comment