Justice committee  The question was on the removal of clause 24.

Justice committee  No, we have it. The correct name in French of the corporation is “Loi sur la Corporation commerciale canadienne”. The way it was written in error was “Loi sur la Corporation canadienne commerciale”.

Justice committee  Okay, I see.

Justice committee  Yes, that says—

Justice committee  The error was in the name.

Justice committee  I have an answer all written out for that one. The word “insuffisant” is not logical in this context and should be replaced with “suffisant”. When you read the provision, it seems clear that the provision is addressing two scenarios: a first scenario in which the assets are not sufficient to pay all the claimants and a second scenario in which the assets are sufficient to pay all the claimants.

Justice committee  We can contact the legal services and confirm whether there are any problems. I don't want to commit myself to saying that there were not any, because when you read it, it's clearly not logical. I don't know if it's ever been considered by a court or not, but they have the power to interpret provisions in a way that makes the most sense.

Justice committee  How long? I would have to look it up.

Justice committee  When Bill C-31 was introduced, it had the effect of changing the provision that we are changing now. Unfortunately, no one noticed this error. However, the coordinating amendment ensures that the error will be corrected. If the amendment in Bill C-31 comes into force first, the coordinating amendment will effectively correct the error.

Justice committee  Again, with the provision we were told by the client department that the correct version is the English version. It corrects a discrepancy between the two language versions, and it's also consistent with subsection 42.1(1) of the act that also makes reference to.... I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it makes reference to those same provisions.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  The proposed change would correct a cross-reference. Clause 9 of Bill C-3 was deleted at report stage, but the corresponding amendment was not made to clause 4. Then, clause 9 was reinstated at report stage. Or rather, when clause 9 was deleted, the corresponding amendment was made to clause 4.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  I'd like to add that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations requested some of these amendments.