Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Apparently, we want to avoid the word “personne” because it would include corporations.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I know, but according to the dictionary definition, it's a human being, regardless of gender. If, by any chance, we have another definition, that's fine, no problem. As I'm saying, I won't fight over a word, but this appears to be the word that best describes what we're talking about here, which is human beings.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm not a lawyer, I assure you, but I believe that in the field of law, the word “personne” has a rather specific meaning, which is a legal person.
1:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, and that's under the federal Interpretation Act, Mr. Chair. It's codified in law that it gives that broad interpretation.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Even then, we'd be playing with fire a little. I consulted with the legislative clerk and my understanding is that changing one word in one part of the bill could have cascading effects. So we could get bogged down doing it that way.
I've been assured that the word “particulier” refers to people, not businesses or entities we call corporations.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before I say yes, I'm going to ask for some advice. I'd rather wait before I test the room, Ms. Collins.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
The French word “particulier” doesn't refer to humans.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If we have unanimous consent, we can leave the word as is in the original version of the amendment.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'm prepared to go back to the original wording if necessary, but according to the Larousse, the word “particulier” is defined as follows: which belongs to or is specifically assigned to someone, to something; which distinguishes someone or something; or which is characterized by something unusual. In short, that's a far cry from the individual or human being, along with the unborn child we want to protect.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Apparently, the federal Interpretation Act assigns a different meaning to those words. I'm going to ask Mr. Moffet to weigh in because he's the expert. As you say, he has a lot of legislative experience.
Ms. Collins, is your hand up from before, or is it new?
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thanks, Chair.
Under the federal Interpretation Act, unless a term is explicitly defined otherwise in a statute, then it is to be defined according to the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act provides that the term “person” in French and English has the broad definition that I just described. That includes—I'm not sure what the term is—“body corporate”, I think, as well as a human. If we insert that language into this text, then we would be acknowledging a right held not just by Canadians or people in Canada but also by corporations in Canada.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That seems pretty clear. Using the word “personne” would give rights to both corporations and individuals, and I don't believe that's really the intent of the bill.
Mr. Moffet just explained the need to look at the Interpretation Act, which tells us how to interpret federal statutes. In other words, the Larousse doesn't have the final say.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
In that case, Mr. Moffet, can you clarify how the word “particulier” is defined in federal statutes, according to Interpretation Act? Do you have an example? This isn't the first time human beings have been referred to in federal legislation. What French word is used for “human being”? We understand that it's not the word “personne”. Is it “particulier”, “individu”, “gens”? Give me the specific French word used in other federal statutes to refer to humans, and we will use it immediately.
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The term “particulier” was the term that the Department of Justice drafters used. It is a term that already appears in the French text of the existing—
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point or order, Mr. Chair, there's a French interpretation coming through on the English channel.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That adds to the problem.
Okay, can we resolve that? Then we'll get back to Mr. Moffett. Can you hear me in French, Ms. Collins?
Are you hearing the English interpretation of what I'm saying?
Yes. That's perfect.
Okay, Mr. Moffet, it's back to you.
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Okay. The term “particulier” is the term that the Department of Justice drafters used in drafting this amendment. It is a term that is already used in other provisions in the existing CEPA to refer to humans, so it would be a consistent usage of the term throughout the act.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
What you're saying, Mr. Moffet, is that if we go with “personne” rather than “particulier”, we have to bring in another CEPA amendment act to amend all of CEPA as it stands now, because that's the term they use in CEPA.
