Evidence of meeting #58 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Why wouldn't you say “tous paiements” and then reference subsection 25(1.3)? That would have been much clearer, at least to me as a reader in French.
May 30th, 2017 / 3:45 p.m.
Mélanie Beaudoin Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Good afternoon.
Indeed, as my colleague mentioned, it could have been written a number of ways. In this case, it was felt that the same result was obtained by using the word “ces”. So, the subsequent subsection was referred to and, therefore, restricted the payments referenced in subsection 25(1.3).
Yes, there was more than one way of doing it. However, in this case, we are working in the context of statute law amendments. We want to be as little invasive as possible and make as few changes as possible to the text of the provision. For all these reasons, we have simply decided to substitute the word “tous” for the word “ces” which happens—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You mean that you substituted the word “ces” with the word “tous”.
3:45 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
We are replacing the word “tous” with the word “ces”. The initial expression was “tous paiements”, which wasn't clear because “tous paiements” could mean “tous paiements dans la loi”. By replacing the word “tous” with the word “ces”, we are referring to the payments involved immediately prior, in subsection 25(1.3).
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm not a legislative drafter. If you're telling me that this is what you intended, I am not going to object. I feel that it would have been clearer the other way.
Members of the committee, are you good with that explanation?
3:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
All right, now we move to clause 6. Does any member of the committee have any points on clause 6?
If not, I have the same question on paragraph 50.4(8)(c), where we have amended the English to refer to paragraph 50.4(8)(b.1), but the French has not been modified.
3:45 p.m.
An hon. member
It's in there.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The old French is not being modified; it doesn't reference (b.1).
3:50 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Again, this is a very similar explanation to that which my colleague and I gave when we spoke to the previous clause.
In this case, there is no current cross-reference in the French version of paragraph (c). In the English version, there is a cross-reference to paragraph (b) in the current (c) and that needed to be corrected to (b.1).
In the interests of being minimally invasive in making the corrections that are necessary, we try to be as conservative as possible when drafting the MSLA.
Again, there is an equivalence between the English and the French. It just reflects what we call le génie de la langue. Each language has its own way of expressing things, its own rules of grammar, and its own rules of linking words, so the English and the French come to the same substantive result without being exactly word for word identical, because that would actually cause problems.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand that, but again, in the English we are saying “five days after the day the certificate mentioned in paragraph (b.1) is issued”, and in the French we are saying “dans les cinq jours suivant la délivrance du certificat”. We are not saying “visé à l'alinéa b.1)”.
When we are making the English precise, I just don't understand why we are not doing an equivalent thing with the French.
3:50 p.m.
Jean-Charles Bélanger Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Good afternoon.
The French legislative style tends to use more demonstratives because the principle of reading the article from beginning to end is applied. When the same generic term and a demonstrative are used, there is no possible confusion, and it is clear that we are talking about what has just come before, the French version tends to omit the internal references.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is this the only certificate of surrender referred to throughout the legislation?
3:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
With respect to this section, as it reads from beginning to end, it must be clear that the certificate of surrender referred to above is the one just mentioned in the preceding subparagraph.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
I'm still having difficulty understanding why the English version is clear and very precise, and the French version isn't. If you, the drafters, say that this is the right way, I won't object, but I find that it's much less clear now in French than it is in English.
Again, I'm not the legislative drafter.
Is everybody good with proceeding? I've offered my comments.
Is everyone okay with clause 7?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
In clause 8, we have exactly the same thing again, where paragraph (b.1) is referenced in one language and not in the other, but I'm not going to push it any further.
Is clause 8 approved?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
I wonder why you're changing the words there. The current words refer to a “gift or settlement without adequate valuable consideration”. Everybody understands that, something you get without adequate valuable consideration, or a gift. Now you have this new term in there, “transfer at undervalue”. Are you trying to consolidate the two? Is that what it is? Most people understand if you say, “I got a gift,” or “I got something without adequate valuable consideration.”
What is the rationale for the new wording?
3:50 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Absolutely.
In this case, “transfer at undervalue” has now become a defined term in the act. When we use a defined term, we go back to the definition in the definition section. Previously, the word “settlement” was defined. It said, “settlement includes”. Then it had “gift,” “contracted without valuable consideration,” and a few other things.
In this particular instance, the current version speaks to a gift, or settlement without adequate valuable consideration, which means that they were using “without valuable consideration” to restrain the dictionary meaning of “settlement”.
When the defined term has “includes”, you take the definition and you add to it, so it was taking a portion of the defined term.
When they replaced the defined term “settlement” and used “transfer at undervalue” to speak only to things that were a disposition of property with no consideration and without fair market value, what it did was to clearly bring in “gift” and “settlement without valuable consideration”. That only deals with those things, and not with a regular settlement where we have fair market value.
In order to have consistency within the act, we are asking to substitute the defined term, which clearly includes both “gift” and that portion of the defined term “settlement” that is “at undervalue”, and that defined term no longer exists.
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
It's very technical. I understand.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
While Mr. Nicholson is thinking about that, may I also ask you a question?
3:55 p.m.
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
Absolutely.