Are you asking why the term “bâtiment” is used?
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.
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.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
Are you asking why the term “bâtiment” is used?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
There may be different definitions, but according to the usual one, the French term “bâtiment” is an immovable asset. The English term “vessel”, depending on the definition provided by different departments on the Internet, is translated as “vaisseau” in French. Compared to “bâtiment”, a vessel is probably a moveable asset, but perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the definition is different.
4:25 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We are consulting our jurilinguists right now and we could perhaps give you an answer shortly.
4:25 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Please do.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, that's good.
We went back to clause 27. We are at clauses 28 and 29. Is there anything on clause 29?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
On 29, I read it and I'm not sure I understand what it says.
It states “de cette loi”. Will this proposal simply insert the title of the act? Is that what is being proposed?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
The amendment corrects the French version so that it refers to the correct act, the one mentioned in the opening words. The existing text reads as follows:
Les bâtiments, à l’exception des embarcations de plaisance, qui sont inscrits sous le régime de l’article 108 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada, chapitre S-9....à l’entrée en vigueur de la partie 2 sont réputés être inscrits dans la partie du registre... b) soit, dans le cas d’un bâtiment...en vertu de la présente loi,...
And that act is...
4:25 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
It is the amending act.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
The proposed amendment corrects the French version to refer to the correct act, the act that is mentioned in the opening words.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
That is because we are referring to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, but it is referring to the act on watercraft or something like that. It says “la présente loi”, but that is really a mistake. It does not refer to the correct act. It is not this act, but the one governing watercraft. Is that right?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes. It should not state “de la présente loi”, but “la loi visée dans les...”
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
...which is mentioned in the previous paragraph.
All right, the more often I read it, the more I was confused. It is clear now.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, our grammar lesson is over with.
Okay, let's keep going here. We're on to the Canada Transportation Act, clause 30.
Clauses 31, 32, 33, 34, anything? No?
Okay, the next one that I have, unless you want me to slow down a little bit here, is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and it's clause 35. Is there anything on 35?
The next one is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, clause 36.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
On this one I had two question marks and we've got a great question from our analyst.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
The fact that our analysts are flagging the same things gives me confidence.
Clause 36 proposes to amend section 11 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act by replacing the term “possesses” with “processes” in both language versions. This section pertains to a list of actions that prompt a requirement to provide information and keep certain records. While the explanatory notes provide some information with regard to how the use of “processes” would be consistent with international agreements and an internal cross-reference in the act, it is not entirely clear that the inclusion of the word “possesses” was an error.
Could you perhaps tell us why this change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act? I would like to know if the use of the word “possesses” was an error. If so and if both the English- and French-language versions were meant to be drafted concurrently, how would such an error be made in both versions? Last of all, I would like to know who pointed out this error. I am very curious to see where the request for correction came from.
4:30 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We will check the source. My first instinct would be to say that it came from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. However, we will check that. We are about to provide the Senate committee with a fairly complete answer to this question.
In the meantime, I can tell you that the text as it is written here does not reflect the provision of the convention that it is supposed to enact. In English, the term is “process” rather than “possess”. Representatives of the sponsoring department will be coming with us tomorrow to explain this to the Senate committee.
We were unable to determine how the error was introduced, why “possess” was substituted for “process” and why the French version seems to be closer to the English version than the text of the convention. We might assume that, when co-drafting the bill, the legislative drafters were more concerned with mirroring their texts than verifying the provision of the convention that they were supposed to enact with the help of their project officer. No matter, we really are speculating here.
When the request was made, we were assured that the concept to be expressed here was not possession, which is rendered by the term “possess”, but rather the idea of processing, which is rendered by the term “process”.
4:30 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
It was from 1995.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
This means that we've had an incorrect version since 1995.
Yes? Okay.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Anything else on clause 36?
Seeing none, we're off to the Coasting Trade Act. Does anybody have anything on clause 37?
The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Anybody on clause 38?
We're off to the Competition Act, clause 39.
Clause 40. Madame Boivin.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 40 would add a missing cross-reference to sections 104(1), 106.1 and 124.2(3) of the Competition Act.
Could you explain why these changes are necessary and how they would affect the operation of the Competition Act?