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.
4:35 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
For this provision, we would prefer to ask a representative of the department to come in and explain it to you. I think they'll be in the best position to give you a full answer.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
You'll take note of the exact question and get an answer to that, so we'll suspend that one.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
When you say “come in”, are they going to provide that in writing or do you want them to come to the next committee meeting that we deal with this?
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Whatever you prefer.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I don't want to bring someone in just for the sake of bringing them in. However, if these people feel comfortable answering your questions and feel that it would be better to testify because these questions could lead to others, I'll let you decide. I would be fine with a written answer, and if I'm not satisfied with it, I would follow up as necessary.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Will it be written? Is that what she's—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That's what she's asking for, yes.
All right, on clause 41, is there anything? On clause 42?
The next item is the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, clause 43.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I don't have an objection to clause 43, but I would ask you to explain it. I may have been a bit tired when I was reading it. It can be so complex, especially when we're talking about labelling. I want to make sure that it's not in any way controversial and that it's not bringing in new concepts.
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
It's not a new concept. We want to use the term that is defined in the French version of the act, which is “produit préemballé”. That's what should appear here.
4:35 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
Section 7 has to do with the French term “produit préemballé”.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
It was used correctly in English.
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
The correct term was used in the English version, so we want to do the same with the French version.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, clause 44.
The Criminal Code—I can't believe there are mistakes in the Criminal Code—45. Nothing.
Is there anything on clauses 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56?
On clauses 57, 58, 59, 60?
Madame Boivin, do you have a question on clause 60?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Absolutely none. I looked at the whole section in the Criminal Code and I was thinking now I'll understand all the words.
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
I'd like to clarify something. It's not so much an error in the Criminal Code as it is an update as a result of the reconstitution of the courts or a change in the provinces' names. That's mostly what it is.
4:35 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
For example, it's a matter of changing “Newfoundland” to “Newfoundland and Labrador”, or updating the name of the courts.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
The Customs Act, clause 61?
Clause 62? Clause 63?
On clause 64, we're off to the Customs Tariff.
Anything on clauses 65, 66, 67, 68?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clauses 68 to 75 raise a question. The purpose is to amend the Customs Tariff in order to address a range of errors in the French-language version, many of which appear to pertain to technical matters that might not be easily understood by those not familiar with this legislation. It would be good to explain why these changes are necessary and how they would affect the operation of the Customs Tariff.
Why are there so many errors in the French-language version? They jump off the page.