Justice Committee on Oct. 7th, 2014

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I'd like to come back to the 12 proposals in question. Are those all of the provisions that you received from the regulation committee? Were all of the committee's recommendations and suggestions included in the document, or were certain ones left out? If that is the case, I'm curious to know why they were not included.

I want to come back to the question I asked earlier. When departments ask you to make a correction to a statute, do they provide an explanation? What does the process actually look like? How does the analysis work?

[Claudette Rondeau]

The joint committee held a meeting shortly after we met with the Senate committee. The members said that some of the changes they requested had been included, but not all of them. Not all of their recommendations were included. Any that were not included were left out because we felt they did not meet the program's criteria. It is up to the department to find another process for addressing the committee's concerns.

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

We treat each of the amendments we receive with the same care, whether they come from the committee or from the various departments. Each one is studied closely. If there is any doubt, we leave it out. If there is even the slightest possibility that the amendments could be controversial, require spending public funds, create a new offence, subject a class of persons to an existing offence or affect the rights of persons, we do not include them. In such cases, we share our conclusion with the various departments that suggested the amendment and recommend that they find another way to make the amendment, if absolutely necessary.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many of these amendments address differences between the French and English versions. Some examples come to mind, but I don't want to get into the details right now.

I'd simply like to know at what point you are made aware of the differences between to two versions. Is it in the wake of a ruling or an interpretation by the courts? Is it because the differences have caused a problem?

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

I want to start by saying that these discrepancies were not detected when the bills were being written. Otherwise, they would have been avoided.

As for how we are made aware of them, it is part of a process: statutes are constantly being examined to see if they are still up to date or if they need to be modified. Perhaps the government wants to move ahead with other legislation. We are always looking at the existing statutes. During that process, there are times when we, or the departments responsible for enforcing the legislation, notice errors.

You asked if these discrepancies are pointed out to us following court rulings. I need to be careful here. If this were the result of a legal decision, or part of one, it is reasonable to think that it could spark some debate. In such cases, it would not meet the criteria of being non-controversial.

Basically, these proposals are the result of re-reading statutes, as written by the federal public service. The nature of our work is such that we are constantly studying statutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Toone

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

I, too, would like to thank you. The work is quite detailed, and it's not necessarily easy.

You verify legislation, but do you also cover the schedules and the oaths that are included in the legislation, or only the legislative text?

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

In our work, we must look at everything that is part of the text of the statute.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to continue in the same vein as my colleagues. I'm trying to understand the process by which you determine that the French and English versions do not line up. We have often noticed that the translations seem to have been done quickly.

Those who remember the referendum question in the 1980s know how much controversy a single comma can create. There are also texts that we have discussed in committee or in the House of Commons that have been poorly translated or that have grammatical errors.

Do you look over debates in the House and in committees? Who checks those? I would like to know more about how you detect and take note of inconsistencies and reject shoddy translations.

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

If I may, I would like to clarify and say that we avoid talking about translation when it comes to federal statutes. They are co-drafted simultaneously in English and French.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

If you say so.

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

Yes. They are co-drafted by legislative drafters. They work together in an environment that involves various processes, including revisions, printing of bills and so on. The quality of federal statutes is very tightly controlled, in both English and French. We work with revisers and jurilinguists.

Despite the control mechanisms in place and all of the care that goes into drafting legislation, errors can creep in and need to be addressed. To be honest, if these are the only ones we have found in 13 years, we're not doing too badly.

As I mentioned earlier, it can sometimes happen that we realize after the fact that a provision could have been better written. In that case, it's not really a question of discrepancy. For example, in one of the provisions, a conjunctive phrase is repeated, which is not necessarily a good thing in French. We're taking advantage of this process to make these kinds of improvements or corrections.

That is an overview of the way statutes are written, in English and French. The writing is done very carefully. You asked if we review what happens in the House and I can tell you that our colleagues who are responsible for instructing us on writing bills pay close attention to the work being done in the House. Everything we need to know, as the people responsible for writing statutes, is communicated to us.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The next time this process takes place, I hope it won't take 14 years.

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

We hope so, too.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to point out a discrepancy.

In the Parliament of Canada Act, in the oath taken by members of the Board of Internal Economy, there is an element the covers the board's in-camera meetings. I would like to quote the French version of the passage in question: “ni de lui permettre [...] l'accès aux documents”. It is because of that element that the board's meetings are usually kept secret. The word “lui” is not defined in the French version. Who does it refer to? That word should be clearly defined because without that clarity, the sentence losing its meaning. French is both a science and an art.

I know that this is a cumbersome process that requires attention to detail and there may be omissions. I would like it if legislators who notice issues in a statute—imprecise sentences and so on—were able to share them with your group. I'm not talking about translation. How can we go about sharing such issues with your group?

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

Legislators should do what the standing joint committee does, which is notify the Minister of Justice. At that point, the message will be forwarded to us and we will duly note it.

Unfortunately I do not have the text you referred to in front of me, but we did take note of it. We will have a closer look at it to determine whether it could be improved. In fact, it would be an interesting element to consider for a future exercise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

We discussed a moment ago that some of the amendments here were suggested by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I understand that various departments and agencies of the government have made suggestions to you over the years with respect to the statutes that they are involved in enforcing. Can you tell us how that process works? They suggest that some change is necessary. How do you review it and how do you respond to them? Have they seen and signed off on the changes that we're looking at today in terms of anything that originated from a department or agency?

[Claudette Rondeau]

I can take answer and then you can add if you feel there's something missing.

In some cases, in a drafting session maybe something will be noticed, and there's no authority to include that correction in the bill they're working on, so they might think it looks like it may be a candidate for the miscellaneous statute law amendment program. They communicate to the group responsible, and then that group will look at the proposed amendment and will have to get in touch with the department that's responsible. That's one way.

Sometimes it's found internally within the legislative services branch; sometimes it comes from different departments. It's possible that someone from the outside wrote in to signal an error they found in legislation and that message gets transmitted to the legislative services branch.

In terms of whether there was sign-off on these, yes, there was.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, so if there was a suggestion that was made by a department, your office drafted some proposal, they looked at it and they approved, and now it's in the bill that we're looking at. Is that correct?

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

Before that we would, of course, proceed to the examination to see if it meets the criteria.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Of course, yes.

[Jean-Charles Bélanger]

And then, yes, whatever we would write, we would submit to them and ask for their sign-off on this.