Evidence of meeting #45 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We recognize that there are a number of important corrections to make here. We'd like to consult our colleagues at the Department of Finance in order to give you an accurate, detailed answer to this question.
4:40 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
I'd like to add that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations requested some of these amendments.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
In any event, we thank them. I know how difficult this job is. I thank the staff at the Department of Justice. You have to be very dedicated to do that job. I want to point that out because I know it's important.
I was once the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations with Mr. Runciman, and I sometimes felt as though some members didn't understand the importance of the work that committee does. It seems rather dry. Not everyone is cut out for this job, and we sometimes feel like lay people.
People in your department do some excellent work. They pay a great deal of attention to what they do. Yesterday we were wondering how all this could have gone on for so many years. Tariffs are nothing new.
Thank you. We'll await your answers.
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Thank you very much for the compliment. We'll pass it along to the people concerned.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
We're trying to eliminate all the customs tariffs so you don't have to worry about them.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay.
Based on that, you're getting back to us on everything from clauses 68 to 75. Let's move on then, if that's okay with everyone.
The next one is the Defence Production Act, which is clause 76 in this grouping. The Department of Veteran Affairs Act is clause 77.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
One of the changes proposed in clause 77 is to amend sections 5(g.5) and 5(g.6) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, which establish the regulations that the governor in council may make.
In the English-language version of these sections, the governor in council may make regulations to authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs to establish standards or enter into agreements regarding grave markers, funeral services or related forms of assistance.
In the French-language version, the minister is not mentioned in these subsections, thereby implying that it is the governor in council who must make these regulations. The amendments make the French-language version consistent with the English-language version, thereby authorizing the governor in council to authorize the minister to make these regulations.
How can we be sure that that was the case? The same question has come up here. Was it the legislative intent for the governor in council to have this power instead of the minister? What different implications would there be for the administration of the act if the governor in council or the Minister of Veterans Affairs were to make the regulations referenced in clause 77? This amendment seems to have more to do with the substance of the act, if I may say so.
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Based on how the provision is written in French, if the goal was to enable the governor in council to set the standards himself, it would have been drafted in a much more direct way. The word “l'autorisant” wouldn't have been used. The governor in council doesn't authorize himself. It was necessary to bring in another person—the minister—as in the English-language version.
The correction here would simply re-establish the power at the same level, meaning that the governor in council authorizes the minister to establish the regulations in question.
4:45 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
That makes sense. The error occurred when the lead-in of the provision was amended, which previously mentioned the minister. The lead-in was amended, but not the subsequent paragraphs.
In the French-language version, the word “ministre” is not repeated. Instead, the pronoun is used. Sections 5(g.5) and 5(g.6) use “l'” and “lui”. Before, that made sense, since those pronounces referred to the minister, but when the lead-in was changed to refer only to the governor in council, the legislators forgot to make that change.
In English there was no problem since that version repeats the word “minister”, and the pronoun is not often used, or at least used less than in French. If it was truly a matter of the governor in council, the legislator would have changed the English-language provision. As my colleague said, the way in which the provision is written makes no sense.
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
The pronoun's antecedent was removed. Unfortunately, the legislators forgot to reflect that change in the subsequent paragraphs. That's what we are trying to fix here.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Your analysis of the intended meaning led you to conclude that the text should indicate that the governor in council can authorize the minister. You have no doubt that this was the intended meaning.
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
The next one is the Divorce Act, which I haven't told my wife about. Clause 78.
Nothing?
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We have an answer to pass along about the “vessel” and “bâtiment” point. My colleague Julie Ladouceur will share it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That was way back on the vessels, which was in the Canada Shipping Act, right?
Go ahead with your answer, Madame.
4:45 p.m.
Julie Ladouceur Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section , Department of Justice
I spoke to the jurilinguist at the office. The word “bâtiment” is defined in section 2 of the act. It's the equivalent of “vessel” in English. The definition is as follows:
“vessel” means a boat, ship or craft designed, used or capable of being used solely or partly for navigation in, on, through or immediately above water, without regard to method or lack of propulsion, and includes such a vessel that is under construction. It does not include a floating object of a prescribed class.
The jurilinguist also mentioned that the terms “bâtiment”, “navire” and “vessel” are all terms that have been standardized in this field by the naval standardization committee. Other acts also use the same terms.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you.
Next is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, clause 79.
We added the word “Quebec”. For communities in Quebec, that makes sense for that division, for them to do it in Quebec.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, clause 80. Anything? Clause 81? Clause 82?
Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, clause 83.
The Explosives Act, clause 84.
October 7th, 2014 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Very good.
The Farm Products Agencies Act, clause 85.
Clauses 86, 87, 88?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I have a question about clause 88. I know that this comes up in a few places. It states that paragraph 17(2)(a) of the English version of the act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following. The replacement follows.
The explanation in clause 88 states: “This amendment would modernize the language in the English version to conform to current drafting standards, including standards of gender neutrality”. When I read the English version, I still have a hard time seeing an issue with gender neutrality, because words in this language aren't classified as feminine or masculine. Perhaps you could explain that.
4:50 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
What is going on in that provision is the proposed amendment replaces “he” with “the Governor in Council”, so that a gender-neutral word is used. As for modernization, it replaces “pursuant to” with “under” for plain language drafting.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Anything else on clause 88?
Clauses 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94?
Our next act is the Financial Administration Act, clause 95.
Clauses 96, 97, 98?
The Fisheries Act, clause 99.
The Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, clause 100.
Madame Boivin.
