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.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I have a question. Since we're talking about a relatively recent bill, could you explain how this error happened? Furthermore, what is the purpose of clause 100?
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
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. At report stage, clause 9 was reinstated, but the correction was not made to clause 4. That's the reason for the error.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Our next bill is the Government Employees Compensation Act, and yes, we do pay our employees, clause 101.
The Health of Animals Act, clauses 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Do you have a question on clause 110?
Madame Boivin.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 110 amends section 16(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make the English-language version more consistent with the French. The current English-language section establishes that an officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order, any evidence—photographic, fingerprint or otherwise—that may be used to establish their identity or compliance with this act.
The English-language version states:
(3) An officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order, any evidence — photographic, fingerprint or otherwise—that may be used to establish their identity or compliance with this Act.
The French-language version contains another possibility, namely, that such evidence may also be obtained from a permanent resident or foreign national who is “subject to an examination” (“fait l’objet… d’un contrôle”).
What evidence is there that the legislative intent was to permit an officer to obtain such evidence from a permanent resident or a foreign national who was subject to an examination?
What would the effect of changing the French-language version to match the English be for the administration of the act?
Has this created any problems? How long has this been in the act?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
That is a very specific question that requires an equally specific answer. Our colleagues at the sponsoring department received that question in Senate committee, and they were to provide an answer. We would be happy to pass along the answer, which we should be getting very soon.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 111 amends section 37(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the list of grounds of organized criminality that would make a permanent resident or a foreign national inadmissible to enter Canada. The English-language version of subsection (b) currently includes:
b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or money laundering.
In the French-language version, the last item is “le recyclage des produits de la criminalité”, a term which may be translated as “money laundering” or “the laundering of the proceeds of crime”. Clause 111 changes the last item in English to read: “or laundering of money or other proceeds of crime”.
Could you provide an explanation of why this change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Would this amendment change the meaning of the English-language version by expanding the scope of what is covered by section 37(1)(b)?
Does the French-language version need to be amended to reference the laundering of money as well as the proceeds of crime, or does the language already cover these two concepts?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Once again, since the question was asked by the Senate committee and it required an answer from the people responsible for enforcing these acts, we submitted a request to these individuals. We should be receiving their answer to this question shortly, and we'd be happy to pass it along to the committee.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 114 concerns subsection 77(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, where the English-language version establishes that when the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sign a certificate stating that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, this certificate shall be referred to the Federal Court.
The French-language version of this provision does not state that the ministers must sign the certificate. Therefore this clause seeks to make the French-language version consistent with the English one. Is this change significant? What would be the effect of not requiring the ministers to sign the certificate, as currently indicated in the French-language version of the act? The explanatory notes state that there is also a grammatical error in the French version. What is that error?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
In reference to the question about the intent behind the change, once again, the minister responsible for the act will provide us with a detailed response that we will pass on to you.
I referred earlier to the grammatical error. We are trying to avoid repeating “qu'”. Since there is just one clause, it is preferable not to repeat it. We would therefore like to delete the second occurrence and keep only the first one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Okay, so more response from...because they basically have the same question as the Senate, so they are doing it once
Clause 115.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 115 amends the French-language version of paragraph 92(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make it consistent with the English-language version by replacing “une autre autorité” with “un autre gouvernement ou organisme public”. Why is this amendment necessary? I imagine that you are going to pass on all the answers to these questions to us.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We will be sure to do so, madame.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I would like to know whether the definition of “gouvernement” and “autorité” will apply when the terms change. Is that set out in the French version?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
That is part of the question we asked our colleagues.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We're on clauses 116, 117, 118, and 119. We're getting a detailed response to the issues within that act based on what the Senate has already asked for, and I'm assuming they got the questions from the Library of Parliament also.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
They've had it for a while.
Indian Act. Is there anything on clause 120? No? Okay.
Insurance Companies Act, clauses 121, 122, and 123.
The next one is the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, clauses 124 and 125.
The Interpretation Act is clause 126.
If no one has any comments on that one, the next one is the Judges Act, with clauses 127, 128, 129, and 130. Nothing?
Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act. We're not over-legislated at all. Is there anything on clause 131?
The Library and Archives of Canada Act, clause 132.
The Meat Inspection Act, clause 133.
The Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, clauses 134 and 135.
The National Defence Act, clause 136. Questions?
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 136 amends paragraph 250.42(c) of the National Defence Act, which provides reasons why a hearing might be held in private, including where information may be released that affects a person’s “privacy or security interest”.
The change corrects the French-language version by replacing “ressources pécuniaires” with “la sécurité d’une personne”. While the original French-language version appears to simply be a mistranslation, can you explain why this change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the National Defence Act?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Once again—and I believe you raised this yourself—we were told that the English version was the correct one.
As for the effects on the rest of the act, I would ask you once again to be patient. This is a new question that we will ask our colleagues at National Defence so that we can get a specific answer.