You'd better start campaigning.
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.
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.
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
You'd better start campaigning.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
The question is not that we object at nothing; it's that you're going to come up—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Is there anybody on clause 145, clause 146, clause 147, clause 148?
On the Privacy Act, clause 149?
The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, clause 150? No?
The Public Sector Compensation Act, clause 151?
The Railway Safety Act, clause 152?
The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, clause 153?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
With regard to clause 153, I am tempted to let my friend Philip Toone put the question, but I see that he insists I take the floor.
Clause 153 amends section 17(q) of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, which establishes in the English-language version that the Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the following:
“any other matters that are necessary for carrying out the purposes of this act”.
In the French-language version, the words “qu’il juge” have been included, which could be interpreted as meaning that the Governor in Council may make the regulations that he or she considers necessary, rather than being required to apply a more objective test. The amendment will remove the words “qu'il juge” in the French-language version.
In your view, does the French-language version imply a subjective element as to what regulations may be necessary? If so, what implications would a subjective element have on how the act is administered?
Why is the English-language version not being corrected to be consistent with the French-language version?
Lastly, how can we be sure that this proposal does indeed reflect the legislative intent?
October 7th, 2014 / 5:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
This is another issue that was raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Indeed, the French-language version seems to be adding a subjective element that does not appear in the English-language version. When we made this proposal, we were told that the English version was the one that actually reflected the intent of the provision.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Will this have any impact? I gather that you will come back to us with a more detailed answer, right?
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Regarding the legislative impact, you will understand that we would feel more comfortable if we consulted our colleagues in the department that sponsored the proposal.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I can see the value in not placing subjectivity in the hands of a minister or the Governor in Council. However, I want to make sure that this will have no impact on past decisions. It is important to be consistent.
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We should also check on how the other provisions of the act have been drafted, to see whether this subjective element exists elsewhere
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
If not, then—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Merci.
The Seized Property Management Act, clause 154.
The Species at Risk Act, clause 155.
The Tobacco Act, clause 156.
Do you have a question?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Clause 156 seeks to add a missing cross-reference to section 42.1(3) of the French-language version of the Tobacco Act.
Please explain why this change is necessary and how it would affect the operation of the Tobacco Act.
5:15 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
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.
We can verify that and get back to you.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Maybe ask them precisely what impact this will have on the application of the law, if any.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Is clause 157 okay, then? Good.
We're off to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. Clause 158?
The Trust and Loan Companies Act. Clause 159?
The Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act. Clause 160? Clause 161?
The Visiting Forces Act. Clause 162?
Clauses 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168?
Then we're at the War Veterans Allowance Act. Clause 169?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Could you explain what is involved in the “repealing”? I know it is a repeal but could you explain it to us, please?
That's the thing that Mr. Casey was talking about at the beginning.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
All right, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act.
Clause 171? Clause 172? Clause 173? Anything on those?
Madame Boivin on clause 173.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
This amendment would correct errors in the French version, making it consistent with the English version, as follows:
The term “insuffisant” is not logical in this context and should be replaced with “suffisant”. [It is not “insuffisant”, but rather “suffisant”!]Further, the term “alors que” is incorrect and should be replaced with “auquel cas”. “Alors que” does not create a link to the situation previously described while “auquel cas” (in English, “in that case”) does so.
I understand that the term “insuffisant” is being replaced with “suffisant”.
This is a big step. It seems to me that these two terms are completely different. Can you explain why? There may be a very logical reason.
5:20 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
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. The error arises in the French version when it describes the second scenario as “à moins que l'actif ne soit insuffisant pourdésintéresser intégralement tous les réclamants”.
In English, this would correspond to, “unless the assets are not sufficient to pay all claimants”, which is the exact opposite of what is intended.
Then the words “alors que” are incorrect and should be replaced with “auquel cas” because “alors que” does not create a link to the situation that we previously described, whereas “auquel cas” does.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Your explanation is perfect, it makes sense. My only question now is, did it create problems, because there is a big difference between “insufficient” versus “sufficient”, or they acted like it was not written and just thought we were all stupid legislators?
5:20 p.m.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
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.
