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.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Can you go clause by clause? You say the title like—
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, clauses 6 and 7.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I might not have anything with 6 or 7, but I might have questions on 8.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I'l do the numbers from the text.
Okay, so clause 3, we're done, right?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We're all the way at clause 6, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Clauses 7, 8, 9?
You have a question on clause 8.
October 7th, 2014 / 4:10 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Actually I'm going to quote from our Library of Parliament—
I will do so because it is excellent. I put a question mark beside this as well.
This is my question. Clause 8 “proposes to amend section 73(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in order to “correct terminological errors” in both the French- and English-language versions”. The English excerpt reads as follows:
[...] the costs of distress or, in the Province of Quebec, the costs of seizure are a security on the property [...]
It is replaced by the following:
[...] the payment of the costs of distress or, in the Province of Quebec, the costs of seizure, is secured by a security on the property [...]
The French version states “les frais de saisie constituent une sûreté de premier rang”. It is replaced by “le paiement des frais de saisie est garanti par une sûreté de premier rang”.
I would just like you to explain to us why the change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Moreover, this speaks to a question Mr. Dechert asked you. Even though you are not necessarily aware of any cases, is it because you checked how it was interpreted in the jurisprudence? Have any problems been identified in that regard? If not, is it because checking the jurisprudence is not part of your mandate and we do not have an assurance that there has not been debate in that regard? In closing, the very intelligent question that one may well ask is as follows: Is this the most logical and least disruptive way to address these errors?
4:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
That was one of the questions raised by the Senate committee and we have an answer. We were not informed that there had been a problem with enforcement of the law because of it. You can rest assured on that point.
However, it really is about being precise when expressing the rule. The current text reads as follows: “...on production of a copy of the bankruptcy order or the assignment...the costs of seizure are a security...ranking ahead of any other security....”
The costs of seizure are not a security. A security is a legal tool used to guarantee something. The correct way to express the rule would therefore be “...the payment of the cost of seizure is secured by a security”. The present wording of the rule is colloquial. In our opinion, this is the type of proposal that belongs in this kind of exercise.
In fact, short of waiting for a complete revision, for example, of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act—when we could try to suggest this correction—there is no other way to do it. That is why we use this exercise to try to reformulate the rule to be enforced with a high degree of precision of language. The costs are not the security; it is the payment that can be secured by a security. That is the correct way to express it.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
When I practised law, I did not often have cases involving the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However, I know that all these issues surrounding security, especially ranking, are at the heart of the legislation and the debates. Before giving you a blank cheque to proceed with the amendment, I would really want there to be at least a cursory review to ensure, in terms of the jurisprudence, that this did not give rise to certain problems of interpretation at the time.
However, if that were the case, perhaps they all came to the same conclusion and that resulted in the proposed amendment. I think that would make sense.
Could such an amendment make a difference? In case of doubt, would a judge have ruled one way rather than another? I have no way of knowing that. In fact, I was rather concerned when I read the provision because it seemed to touch on the controversial. It seemed to me that the explanation accompanying the proposed text was somewhat lacking, even cursory. I don't know what Senator Runciman's letter says, but it might be worthwhile taking a closer look in order to determine whether there was debate, whether this question has been asked already, and whether it has always been interpreted this way.
I think it would be more prudent for us to arrive at this conclusion.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
Since the question was asked by the Senate—we are actually preparing a response—we have already carried out an initial consultation with our colleagues at the department concerned and we were assured that there had not been any problems. We will check with them again and, as this is part of the reply that we will be providing to the Senate, you will also be entitled to it given that you requested it.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
It is not that I do not have confidence in the department. I don't want you to think that. However, it might perhaps be worthwhile doing even a quick analysis of the jurisprudence. I was going to Google it while listening to you, but I wanted to focus on your answer. By clicking on the section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, we can see it pretty quickly. However, it might be helpful to obtain that information before the next meeting,.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
I would like to add something. My colleague pointed out that we consulted the legislative services unit of the department concerned. We will check that again.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay. So with the Senate report and asking the library to look at it we'll have it covered the next time.
We're on to clause 9 under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Is there anything on clause 9?
Clause 10?
Then we're off to the Canada Agricultural Products Act. Is there anything on clause 11?
Then we're off to the Canada Business Corporations Act. Is there anything on clause 12?
Okay. On to our Canada Corporations Act, clause 13. There's nothing.
The Canada Evidence Act, clause 14.
Madame Boivin.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I would like you to clarify something. The following explanation is found under the section on the “Canada Evidence Act”
This amendment would correct a grammatical error in the French version. The feminine pronoun "elle" must be changed to the masculine pronoun "il" because it replaces "juge" (a word that is masculine).
Never mind. That is clear.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
The only change is in French.
Thank you very much.
We're off to the Canada Labour Code. Is there anything on clause 15?
The Canada Marine Act, clause 16?
The Canada Marine Act, clause 17?
We're off to the Canada National Parks Act, clause 18. Is there anything?
Clause 19? Clause 20? Clause 21? Clause 22?
The next act is the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. Clause 23.
The Canada Shipping Act, 2001. It's clause 24.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I would like to ask the question posed by our analysts concerning this proposal.
The change proposed by clause 24 of the document deals with the English-language version of section 99 of the Canada Shipping Act, which sets out circumstances in which the Minister of Transport may adjudicate a dispute between an authorized representative and a crew member.
In the English-language version, the conjunction “and” is found between the parties, which leads us to believe that the request must be presented by both parties. In the French-language version, the conjunction “ou” is used, indicating that either party can request an adjudication. Clause 24 replaces the word “and” with “or” in the English-language version to make it consistent with the French-language version.
How can we be certain that this was the legislator's intent? Are there no other way to make such changes than to go through this committee? These are two completely different concepts.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
You have a great deal of insight. That was another question posed by the Senate committee.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We are currently consulting Transport Canada in order to obtain an even more precise answer. I would ask you to bear with us in that regard.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
That is fine. I was wondering about that, but my thoughts were not as clear as your text. I am pleased to see that we have identified the same issues.
That is fine as long as I get an answer.
We can suspend those that we're waiting for answers on.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Clause 25, still under the Canada Shipping Act. Any questions?
Clause 26? Clause 27? Clause 28?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Yes. It stirs my desire to learn more, maybe.
In clause 27, the proposal refers to a vessel. Is “bâtiment” the correct French translation? I am just wondering what the difference is between a “foreign vessel” and a “bâtiment étranger”. If I recall correctly, “bâtiment” is defined as an asset that does not move, one that is immovable.
4:25 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
I have seen this term in legislation.
I would like to check the definitions at the beginning of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. I will take note of your question because it is an interesting terminology question. I would also like to consult our jurilinguists who work with us and who are language experts. Yes, the term “bâtiment” is there.