Actually I'm going to quote from our Library of Parliament—
I will do so because it is excellent. I put a question mark beside this as well.
This is my question. Clause 8 “proposes to amend section 73(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in order to “correct terminological errors” in both the French- and English-language versions”. The English excerpt reads as follows:
[...] the costs of distress or, in the Province of Quebec, the costs of seizure are a security on the property [...]
It is replaced by the following:
[...] the payment of the costs of distress or, in the Province of Quebec, the costs of seizure, is secured by a security on the property [...]
The French version states “les frais de saisie constituent une sûreté de premier rang”. It is replaced by “le paiement des frais de saisie est garanti par une sûreté de premier rang”.
I would just like you to explain to us why the change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Moreover, this speaks to a question Mr. Dechert asked you. Even though you are not necessarily aware of any cases, is it because you checked how it was interpreted in the jurisprudence? Have any problems been identified in that regard? If not, is it because checking the jurisprudence is not part of your mandate and we do not have an assurance that there has not been debate in that regard? In closing, the very intelligent question that one may well ask is as follows: Is this the most logical and least disruptive way to address these errors?