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.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Exactly. The correspondence is addressed to the minister, and they are sent to us internally, via the department.
NDP
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
You mean the law amendment acts?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
That is some of what we do. We at the justice department are responsible for the program.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I would like to ask a final question.
Because I am studious, I read the document. I noticed that there are a lot of corrections to be made to the French versions.
How would you explain that?
As a francophone, that bothers me.
Does that mean that the necessary effort is not being put into analyzing legislation to ensure that the two texts are watertight and say the same thing?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
First of all, I can tell you that we're not happy about that either. That said, there are changes to be made to the English versions as well. The process of co-drafting is still the best way to ensure linguistic equivalence; however, inconsistencies can still creep in at times during the process.
The French drafting process is quite rigorous. However, upon closer examination, it can sometimes happen that we realize that the French wording of certain provisions could be improved.
I think we can all agree that legislative texts require a high quality of language, in both English and French. Therefore, when we realize that we can improve the wording in French, we use this process to submit our requests to you.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I have just one question.
Thank you for your presentation. This is certainly a painstaking task.
You have looked closely at all of the proposed amendments, correct?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We worked on them together.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I will put this question to all of you, then.
In your opinion, do the proposed amendments meet all of the criteria, namely that they must not be controversial, must not involve the spending of public funds, must not prejudicially affect the rights of persons and must not create a new offence, nor subject a class of persons to an existing offence?
In your opinion, do each of these amendments meet the criteria?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
Yes, these proposals have been included in the document submitted to you because each of them has been rigorously analyzed and we concluded that they were worth proposing to you. That said, we are fully aware that the term “non-controversial” can be somewhat subjective. That is why I underscored the fact that if you do not agree, you are entitled, as committee members, to ask that proposals be rejected.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.
Mr. Bélanger, I understand the Senate justice committee has also reviewed these proposals. Can you describe to us if they raised any concerns about any of the provisions that we have before us, or sought any clarifications from you?
I have a copy of a letter from Senator Runciman dated September 23, and he indicated that the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs reviewed it on May 15 of this year. They've asked for some clarification.
I just wonder if you've had an opportunity to respond to those yet. Maybe you could describe them to us.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We are in the process of completing our reply to the various questions, and we are set to attend a meeting of the committee tomorrow to provide them with our various answers. In some instances we referred to particular departments that are responsible for the application of the various laws, but we will have answers for all of these questions.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
In your view, do any of the concerns raised by the Senate committee violate any of the four basic criteria that you outlined for us in your opening remarks?
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
We will have answers to reassure them at least of the soundness of our initial conclusion. That being said, it will be that committee's right, of course, to decide if they nevertheless want to withdraw any of the proposals.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
At this point in time though you're not aware that they are going to object to any of the provisions.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice
No, we are not.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I understand also from analysis done by the Library of Parliament that the standing committee on scrutiny of regulations has proposed some of these amendments.
Special Advisor and Legislative Counsel, Office of the Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice
Not directly to us, but they had raised issues and they communicated with the departments. In those cases, the departments were in agreement that the amendments should be made and forwarded them to us and asked if this would be appropriate for this vehicle. So, yes, in some cases, some of the amendments addressed concerns of the—
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
They just made a general suggestion, but they didn't suggest the actual wording.
