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.
5 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
You can see that this is worth the effort. This is a new question. The Senate did not think of it. I congratulate our analysts.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I'd like to thank them also.
The Newfoundland Additional Financial Assistance Act, clause 137. Anybody on that? No.
The Nuclear Safety and Control Act, clause 138.
The Oceans Act, clause 139.
The Patent Act, clause 140.
Madame.
5 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 140 amends the French-language version of subsection 73(3) of the Patent Act, which pertains to the conditions that must be met for the reinstatement of a particular patent application that had been deemed to be abandoned. In the French-language version, it states that the application may be—“peut être”—reinstated if the conditions are met; by contrast, the English-language version states that it “shall be” reinstated. Those are two very different concepts. This amendment makes the French-language version consistent with the English by using mandatory rather than permissive language.
How do we know the legislative intent was to include the mandatory language in the English-language version, rather than the permissive French-language version? Why not do the opposite for people?
5 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
To answer this question, we were told that the correct version was the English version and that the French would have to be modified. This is one of the provisions that addresses an issue raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
To answer your question about the impact that it has on the rest of the act, we would have to refer that question to the department responsible for that act, and we can get back to you. At this stage we can tell you that what was communicated to us was that the English version was really the one that reflected the intent.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I'm trying to keep track myself of which ones we need to get responses on.
We are now to the Pension Act, clauses 141 and 142.
The Physical Activity and Sport Act, clause 143.
The Plant Protection Act, clause 144.
October 7th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I would like to go back to something, please.
I would like to get back to clause 141.
The French-language version preceding the amendments reads as follows:
Le ministre peut ordonner le versement, au survivant d’un membre décédé des forces, de la pension à laquelle il aurait droit au titre des paragraphes (2), (2.1), (3) ou (3.01) mais qui fait l’objet d’une suspension au moment du décès.
The intention is to replace this subsection with the following:
Le ministre peut ordonner le versement, au survivant d'un membre décédé des forces dont la pension faisait l'objet d'une suspension au moment du décès, [here the end of the sentence has been moved to the beginning] de la pension à laquelle le survivant aurait droit au titre des paragraphes...si la pension n'avait pas fait l'objet de la suspension.
I am wondering whether we are adding a new condition here. If the pension had been suspended, even if it was suspended at the time of the member's death, how would the person not get it? Or, alternatively, how would the person get it?
I honestly do not understand this subsection. If I were taking a law class, this is the sort of thing that would make me look at my professor as if he was not making any sense. If the pension had not been suspended, then what exactly was suspended, if not the pension?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
In fact, you are saying that this is contradictory and impossible.
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
There is some ambiguity in the existing provision that we are trying to clarify. I will reread it:
Le ministre peut ordonner le versement, au survivant d’un membre décédé des forces, de la pension à laquelle il aurait droit au titre des paragraphes...mais qui fait l’objet d’une suspension au moment du décès.
The following is the improved version:
Le ministre peut ordonner le versement, au survivant d'un membre décédé des forces dont la pension faisait l'objet d'une suspension au moment du décès,...de la pension à laquelle le survivant aurait droit...
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
The purpose of that amendment is to clearly identify the intended subjects here.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
However, the phrase “si la pension n'avait pas fait l'objet [...]” is added at the end.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I will just explain for my English colleagues. When you read it in English, you don't see an ambiguity?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Like:
the Minister may direct that the survivor be awarded the pension to which the survivor would be entitled under subsection (2), (2.1), (3) or (3.01) if the pension had not been suspended.
But we start the sentence by saying:
Where the payment of the pension of a member of the forces was suspended at the time of the member's death.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
He can do it as long as it has not been suspended. It makes no sense.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section , Department of Justice
There are just a lot of people in this provision: there is the survivor and the deceased member. The amendment states that if a member who died was no longer receiving their pension because he or she was suspended for the reasons mentioned, the minister may decide that, even if the pension of the deceased member had been suspended, the survivor would be entitled to receive it, because the minister thinks that the survivor should not pay for the deceased member's actions.
That is what the amendment is saying. I admit that it is not very clear.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section , Department of Justice
I agree that it is not very clear, but that is probably the least—
disruptive.