Evidence of meeting #94 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
No, that's not it at all.
As the two versions are written at the same time, the word used in one language is inserted into the other version by the software to show the equivalence.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
In Ms. Brière's example, didn't the software come up with the term "autorité" instead of "directeur"?
11:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Advisory and Legislative Initiatives Services, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
That's because it's not considered part of the statute as such. It's like a marginal note. The word is placed at the end of the definition in the other language to indicate that it is the equivalent term in that language.
It's corrected when the final version of the bill is being prepared. After that, it's all inserted into the coding and done automatically.
It's not really a proper legislative amendment. It's the term that indicates, as a guide, the equivalent term used in the other language version, which in this instance is French.
It's a drafting application that uses the XML language. Everything in the statute is coded. The coding indicates what non-legislative changes need to be made in the other version.
11:35 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
No.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You said that the drafting was done in parallel. How does that work? Are there two law clerks, one a francophone and one an anglophone, who do the drafting?
11:35 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
That's right. They do the drafting at the same time. We always have them working in pairs, one anglophone and one francophone, who are responsible for their respective versions. They need to work closely together to ensure consistency between the two versions.
We also have other professionals who revise all the legislative texts. For example, we have legistic revisors who revise each of the two versions. We also have jurilinguists who compare the two versions to ensure consistency and equivalence.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I would agree that it must be very difficult work.
You were saying earlier that legislative drafters sometimes disagree and argue over it. One of the two will no doubt end up winning the argument. So am I to understand that when you make legislative corrections like the ones we are currently looking at, it means that the other drafter comes out on top, not the one who initially won the argument. It's a form of ongoing debate, if I've understood correctly.
11:35 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
That's right.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Out of all the different amendments that are in here, I want to draw attention to clause 35, which is modifying the Farm Products Agencies Act. This is the only place where I find that the change is actually a substantive change.
The old text refers to a person “who is engaged in the marketing of any regulated product”. Now that has been changed to any person “who is engaged in the growing, production or marketing of any regulated product”. It is a huge creep in scope to extend those regulations to people who are growing and people who are producing and not just to those who are marketing, which was the intent, I think, of the legislation.
Could I hear some commentary on that?
11:35 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Agriculture and Agri Food Legal Service Unit, Department of Justice
This is Shawna Noseworthy with the agriculture and food inspection legal services.
Basically, this is one of those provisions on which there was agreement for amendment, pursuant to a recommendation of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The intention was to have consistent definitions throughout the same piece of legislation, and for that reason, the wording was added to paragraph 22(1)(g) to reflect what was in paragraph 22(1)(f).
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
What is it forcing the marketers to do, and what will that change in terms of what growers and producers then have to do to comply with the legislation?
11:40 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Agriculture and Agri Food Legal Service Unit, Department of Justice
I would have to look into that question and come back to you, please. I'm sorry.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Now we have Mr. Van Popta, followed by Mr. Moore, unless Mr. Moore wishes to speak on the same point. Is it on the same point, Mr. Moore?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My understanding of what we're doing here is obviously to correct things, to bring things in line, to coordinate between English and French, and to change Queen to King where necessary. I think anything should be flagged if it would have any substantive impact, but we're not in a position to know if that broader definition doesn't change the scope.
Regarding what Ms. Gladu just raised, we're not in a position to know whether that broader definition is just reconciling two different provisions and has no impact, or whether passing this broader definition here would mean that someone who is not currently subject to some rule or regulation would now, by virtue of the broader definition, be subject to that broader rule or definition.
If in fact it's the latter, and if in fact by a change that we're making in this legislation someone is impacted by some law who currently isn't impacted, we would have to remove that provision and not pass that provision, because this committee is not in a position to pass judgment on farm products or the impact of that legislation or who would be impacted by the legislation.
We would need some clarity on that, on whether there's any individual anywhere in Canada who would now be subject to something they're not currently subject to under the act by virtue of passing this legislation.
11:40 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Agriculture and Agri Food Legal Service Unit, Department of Justice
I absolutely understand the issue. Thank you.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I do have a specific question about the definition change that Ms. Gladu just mentioned. I think Mr. Van Popta was ahead of me, but I do want to come back to another change that I'm flagging.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I don't want to belabour this issue about the French versus English versions, as Mr. Fortin was alluding to, and which I had talked about in my earlier question, but I want to go back to subsection154(1) on the Safe Food for Canadians Act. I pointed out that in subsection 31(2), the English and French versions are quite different.
Mr. Denault pointed out correctly that the French version doesn't actually have the words “tribunal” or “commission” in French, and therefore no change was required. That's exactly my point. It's a substantial difference in drafting style.
Should it be my understanding that under the miscellaneous statute law amendment program, you're not going to make a substantial change like that? Is it at least on somebody's radar that it's going to be looked at some point in the future?
11:40 a.m.
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel of Canada, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice
I want to clarify that one of the tests for being part of this program is not necessarily that it's not substantial but that it's not controversial. To my mind, there can potentially be amendments that are substantive in nature but wouldn't be controversial, because the stakeholders are aware there is a clear oversight or omission.
I don't remember the details of, for example, the other issue, but it does seem that the words were omitted from that provision but not other provisions. That oversight was brought to our attention through the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Again, it's not necessarily not substantial; it's just not controversial.