THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 4, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-6, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Institutional Affairs. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I will now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from the province of Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome, minister.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Chéticamp, Nova Scotia.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We’re meeting to study Bill S-6, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law. For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome the Honourable Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He is joined by his officials from Justice Canada: Robert Dufresne, Chief Legislative Counsel and Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister; France Allard, Senior General Counsel and Comparative Law Expert; and Moïra Létourneau, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel.
Minister, the floor is yours for your opening remarks.
Hon. Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: I sincerely thank you, chair.
Before I begin, I will share with you an anecdote. My colleagues on the House side of Parliament are starting to question which chamber I hope to belong to, given the regularity with which I have appeared on this side. I am not fishing for an appointment. If the Prime Minister is listening, I am happy with the job he has assigned me.
It is a real pleasure to be before the committee to discuss your study of Bill S-6. As the chair aptly described, we’re seeking to ensure that both official languages reflect both the common and civil law traditions, which are essential to Canada’s bijural legal traditions. This fourth harmonization bill supports the government’s commitment to improve access to justice by providing Canadians with access to legislative texts in both official languages that are respectful of both the civil and common law traditions that govern them in private law matters, depending upon which jurisdiction they call home.
As the title of the bill indicates, this is the fourth of its kind. Bill S-6 is also the most substantial of the harmonization bills to date. The purpose of the bill is to amend a total of 51 separate statutes under the jurisdiction of nine separate federal departments. A significant portion of this bill deals with statutes governing financial institutions.
The changes resulting from the harmonization, importantly, are terminological and not intended to alter the legislative policy underlying the provisions concerned. This bill is substantively the same as former Bill S-11, which passed the Senate in 2022 and was awaiting second reading at the time of the dissolution of the House during the last Parliament.
There have only been minor and technical adjustments made to some of the acts to reflect the evolved state of the law in Quebec’s regime for the protection of persons in vulnerable situations, notably eliminating the notion of curatorship, a curator or advisor, which has unique distinctions in one tradition but not necessarily the other.
This reform in Quebec has required minor technical adjustments to 13 provisions in 7 of the 51 statutes covered by Bill S-6.
[Translation]
While the interventions are only terminological, the harmonization work requires an in-depth analysis of the legislative texts in terms of substance. This analysis consists of reviewing all federal statutes and regulations, the application of which requires recourse to provincial or territorial private law, and then reconciling, where necessary, the content so that it incorporates both Quebec civil law and common law notions, principles and concepts.
[English]
As you might know, in the province of Quebec, private law rights and obligations are generally governed by the Civil Code, which came into force in 1994, while other provinces and territories are governed by the common law. The purpose of the harmonization initiative is to ensure that each linguistic version of federal statutes and regulations considers civil law and common law traditions. The coexistence and interaction of these two traditions are referred to as bijuralism. The characteristic is an expression of Canada’s history and its legal and constitutional structure.
Our legal system in Canada is a mixed system of laws defined, in part, by its legal pluralism. The pluralism reflects a diversity of multiple sources of law and multiple legal systems that coexist and interact. Obviously, this legislation is specifically about the common law and Civil Code, but Canada’s legal pluralism also includes Aboriginal Traditions, orders and legal systems, whether they be those of Inuit, Métis or First Nations.
Bijuralism, which underlies this harmonization initiative, is one manifestation of that pluralism that we have discussed. I will spare you the history lessons that I brushed up on regarding the origins of our bijuralism, but, suffice it to say, it is a unique reflection of how Canada has come to be.
In matters of private law, it is generally provincial or territorial law that determines concepts to be used. When Parliament adopts legislation referring to private law concepts, it has to do so with the knowledge that it is relying upon existing provincial or territorial law. When it is necessary, our understanding of federal legislation is supplemented by the private law of a province or territory in which federal legislation is applied.
That is why Bill S-6 proposes to amend certain acts: to ensure that each language version takes into account the common and civil law.
It is highly technical work and doesn’t result in substantive policy changes, but it is important work, as much for coherence and consistency as for accessibility, importantly. Every Canadian deserves to know what federal statutes mean in accordance not only with the language of their choice but with the legal tradition in which they operate.
I am accompanied here by some officials from the Legislative Services Branch, who will be able to answer your technical questions about specific portions of the bill more capably than I could.
Of course, in amending more than 50 pieces of legislation across a multitude of departments, you will appreciate that the Department of Justice is not solely responsible for the work that has gone into the bill, despite the fact that I am the one here who will be happy to take your questions today.
In the interest of time, I expect I have exhausted what you will find interesting in my remarks. Suffice it to say, this is an important, if routine, exercise. Once we get through the fourth harmonization bill, I expect we will have more efficient processes going forward and will be better able to build into the drafting of laws the need to reflect our bijural tradition.
[Translation]
Thank you all. It’s good to be here having this conversation with you.
[English]
I’m very happy to take what questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks, minister.
Colleagues, we will proceed to questions and discussion. I ask that both questions and responses be limited to four minutes. We will have to be very succinct so that all senators have an opportunity to participate.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning to you, minister, and to your departmental officials.
As you said, this work, which began more than 30 years ago, is complex and rather technical. There was an extensive consultation process that included Quebec. Bar associations and Government of Quebec experts participated.
Here’s my first question: I’d like to know if the consultations revealed any significant concerns, differences of opinion or areas in which harmonization of federal law remains incomplete. You specifically referred to matters pertaining to financial institutions. Are there any areas that consultations haven’t touched on yet where significant amendments and updates might have to happen?
Mr. Fraser: If you were to ask another person that question, you might get another answer. I myself am satisfied.
[English]
The current bill reflects a consensus view in which we have been able to largely highlight most of the areas that need to be addressed. There are some examples. The Chambre des notaires du Québec asked a question, I think, about section 27 of the Canada Evidence Act; you are testing my memory here. However, our view was not that we’re choosing not to do it because they have raised an issue, but our assessment as a department is that it could result in a potentially substantive change to law rather than a terminological change, particularly with the extra provincial application.
So there will be some cases where you become aware of an issue through the consultation that an individual or an organization may have raised that is not, in fact, in the bill. That is rare, I would suggest. However, when we learn of such an issue and choose not to pursue it, it is usually because we have made the determination that there will be a substantive impact rather than a terminological correction to accurately reflect both common and civil law traditions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a second question, but it is more administrative in nature, so I’ll ask your colleagues. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to the minister, the officials and the sponsor. In 2022, when former Minister Lametti was before the committee on Bill S-11, he indicated that Canada may eventually move toward a formal recognition of the legal pluralism that already exists in Canada. Four years later, this bill remains focused exclusively on the bijural nature of civil and common law.
I’m curious — Indigenous Peoples, particularly those engaged with the justice strategy, which is particularly germane, given other legislation before this committee in the past and coming forward, as part of the Indigenous Justice Strategy consultation process, have repeatedly expressed concern that the current justice system and Indigenous-led traditions are fundamentally different. They describe the Canadian system as focused on incarceration and reintegration, whereas Indigenous justice systems would place colonial trauma at the forefront with a focus on culture, healing and return to community.
Given this work, why does Bill S-6 continue to focus exclusively on common law and civil traditions, and how does the government envision Indigenous-led traditions being reflected in future federal law reform initiatives of this sort?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. This is a really important question. Let me first address the narrow scope of the bill as appropriately, in my view, applying to the reconciliation of the bijural nature of our legal system. Separately, I’ll deal with the pluralism you mentioned, including Indigenous legal traditions.
We will always have some need to reflect the officially recognized legal systems in Canada as between the common law and the Civil Code. We will have separate work to do on Indigenous legal traditions, which are important.
Routinely, there will be laws that change in provinces that require harmonization over time. Federally, we can do it at the drafting stage. The 13 amendments that pertain to changes in Quebec demand that we look at the very technical terminology changes.
The issues that I come across when dealing with legal pluralism that engages Indigenous legal traditions more often engage in substantive discussions on what policy should operate, particularly when there is a difference in policy adopted by an Indigenous government and the Government of Canada or a provincial government.
We have separate initiatives that are presently under way that help build in recognition of those Indigenous legal traditions. There are commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan and within the Indigenous Justice Strategy that are designed to better recognize those legal traditions and, frankly, to better inform the perspective of Indigenous Peoples through the development of federal legislative processes, not just executive decisions.
So we have to run on parallel tracks. I think we would make too cumbersome a process the bijural assessment that needs to be updated in a harmonization bill, particularly when you recognize — as you would well appreciate — that Indigenous communities, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, are not monolithic in their legal traditions. With more than 600 First Nations alone, we actually have to account for the specific legal tradition of an individual nation in the case of First Nations. Doing that through a more streamlined harmonization process that is terminological in nature demands, in my view, a separate process.
I would agree that we should work toward more formal recognition, both in terms of how our laws must adjust to be reconciled and in the enforcement of laws that are duly adopted by an Indigenous government.
It is a very big project, and it is one we are working on. It is far more complex and substantive than the terminological changes we are dealing with in a bill like this.
Senator Pate: In consideration of Bill S-11, Minister Lametti referenced the department’s work in response to TRC Calls to Action 42 and 50. I’m curious about what particular progress has been made since then in supporting the revitalization and recognition of those Indigenous legal systems pursuant to those provisions.
Mr. Fraser: In the remaining 30 seconds I assume I have, that will be a difficult discussion to have. This is the subject of conversations with advisory councils we have on the Indigenous Justice Strategy. It is the subject of work we are doing on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan.
There is no one simple answer; suffice it to say, there is policy work that goes on with the department. It often requires tripartite tables with federal and provincial governments and Indigenous leadership to understand in a given jurisdiction how we can move forward. Those conversations are not at the same level in different places in Canada and on different issues. But we continue to work with provincial partners and, most importantly on the issue, with Indigenous rights holders to ensure that we can advance the recognition of Indigenous laws that are in accordance with the desires of the rights holder.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you, minister, for being here. Minister, in 2022, the Senate was asked to proceed quickly with Bill S-11, which dealt with the same subject matter as Bill S-6. The Senate did that. Yet, after it was adopted by the Senate, the government allowed it then to die on the Order Paper in the House of Commons. The government never did proceed to second reading of Bill S-11, instead leaving it at first reading for two and a half years.
Why did the government ask the Senate to accelerate its study of Bill S-11 if, once it was sent to the House, it had no intention at moving it forward? I note you were in cabinet at this point. Can you also commit today that Bill S-6 won’t meet the same fate as Bill S-11 and will actually be prioritized in the House of Commons should it pass the Senate?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you for the question. I do not fully know the nature of why there would have been a request to have it expedited under the previous Parliament. It is not a conversation I have had with my predecessors.
I can say, perhaps, that this has moved too slowly. The work was done; it did sit dormant. The consultation period, first of all, took a significant period of time. Of course, when you’re engaged across many departments, you want to do a robust job and engage hundreds of voices. However, it is unique that it did sit on the Order Paper as long as it did. I expect, near the end of my time sitting at the cabinet table in the previous Parliament, that there were a number of different bills left on the Order Paper. There was an unusual set of circumstances, including a lengthy prorogation that pre-existed the dissolution of the previous Parliament, and a number of different bills died on the Order Paper.
You have my commitment that I will work internally to the government to expedite this bill. We are in a stage in which we have an opportunity and potentially a little bit of runway to work with, provided the Senate adopts the bill in the same manner it did with the previous Bill S-11.
I am happy to work to accelerate its adoption. I don’t know why it was asked to be expedited a number of years ago.
Senator Batters: The consultations would have been done long before the bill was actually drafted and not while it was still sitting in the House of Commons. Prorogation happened two and a half years after it went to the House of Commons and just sat there, not even going to second reading, meaning that no one made any speeches on it in the House of Commons, including the Minister of Justice.
Minister, consultations on this project date back to actually 2017. More than 400 key stakeholders and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were consulted. We’re now in 2026, nine years later. How do you explain that a bill presented to us as technical, by consensus and not changing the legislative policy underlying these provisions in question is taking this long to be adopted?
Mr. Fraser: This committee will be well aware that there are many competing priorities in this Parliament on the Justice portfolio. You have been excellent partners, frankly, without exception, in getting a lot of the work done that we have been asking of you.
This is another bill. It is important. It may not be at the same level as certain other bills in terms of the number of Canadians who are asking for the change out of the social imperative. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it or should move it down the priority list significantly.
The work is ready to go. I expect if the Senate adopts the bill, there will not be significant changes proposed on the other side, given the fact that there are no substantive policy changes by design. I can’t speculate as to why it sat in a lengthy consultation process, beyond ordinary reasons. I am not aware of why there was a request a number of years ago, before I was in cabinet, to expedite the work of the bill.
I know that we have an opportunity to advance the work here today. I will work diligently within the House of Commons to advance this bill through the legislative process.
My hope and expectation is that we can work in partnership together to make these changes. Despite the fact they may be technical, they are important. Both for legal reasons and for the symbolism, we need to demonstrate that, regardless of which legal tradition you ascribe to or which province you call home, you need access to justice, and that includes knowing what the law is and how it applies in your jurisdiction.
Senator Batters: Could you follow up with your officials, many of whom I’m sure were the same officials from before the previous bill, and find the answers to those two questions, since you said you aren’t sure why it was asked that it be expedited and why the consultations took so long? Could you provide that to our committee in writing, if possible? That would be great. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Welcome back, minister. We have had the pleasure of seeing a lot of you, and I’m glad to hear you acknowledge today that we have been working diligently and not dawdling to move through government legislation. I trust when Bill C-16 eventually arrives, we will be accorded the same opportunity to do that work.
I am not from Quebec, so I have a really basic question that may be too simple for this forum, but I want to understand: This law pertains to Quebec specifically, but are there any knock-on effects for other jurisdictions?
Mr. Fraser: This law applies nationally. It is often viewed to have a unique application in Quebec, but that is because Quebec uses the Civil Code as opposed to the common law tradition. In fact, the changes would apply to ensure that, in both the common law jurisdictions and under the Civil Code, there will be a common understanding in both official languages in both systems. Although many of the examples may come from Quebec, particularly in this example, with 13 amendments reflecting a change to Quebec’s provincial law, in theory, there could be changes made in other provinces that would necessitate a similar exercise.
However, I expect this conversation revolves around Quebec more often because of its distinct use of the Civil Code in the federation.
Senator Simons: What would be the implications for other jurisdictions, whether it’s Alberta or New Brunswick? How might this pertain to what is going on in other provinces?
Mr. Fraser: It depends on what is going on in those other provinces. However, by and large, this is a matter of appropriate use of terminology. There are words that mean something specific in the common law jurisdiction that have no reflection in the Civil Code.
“Agent,” for example, has a particular meaning.
[Translation]
In French, the word is “mandataire”; it’s the same in both common law and civil law.
[English]
In the Civil Code in English, there is no recognition of what an agent is, so we have to update the code to say something like “mandatary.” It is a word I have never come across, being from the common law tradition, but there are changes we need to make to reflect the same meaning in both the Civil Code and common law. It depends very specifically on the nature of a given existing provision. It could be a result of changes to private law. It could be residual from harmonization exercises that never caught something over the course of Canada’s history — because they didn’t look as much into our financial institutions, for example — but technical changes like that would be necessary, whether in Quebec or elsewhere.
Senator Simons: To complete the parallel. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning, minister, and thank you for joining us. I would also like to thank Senator Clement for sponsoring this highly technical but necessary bill. I thank your entire team for being here. Can you provide more details about what happens after the bill passes, specifically, what kind of communication with the public needs to happen?
Upon closer examination, we can see that the bill will amend 51 acts. Some of those acts, such as the Canada Evidence Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act, have a direct impact on citizens. Others are more technical and apply mainly to legal practitioners and institutions.
In the case of those that directly affect citizens, how will you ensure the amendments are clearly understood by the general public, given that they have certain consequences? Can you tell us about your plans for communicating with the public, such as through short videos or other means?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, this is an issue that, in my view, illustrates the importance of access to justice, but the changes in the bill — the changes to substantive policies — are strictly intended to identify the different interpretations of terms in the civil law tradition, as compared to the common law system.
[English]
In my view, there are not substantive legal changes, but part of the exercise in making the public aware of what the law is involves the update to the legislation. In most instances, the people who need to understand these changes most in the financial sector are institutional players in the financial sector. It is less common that an individual on the street is thinking about the unique interpretive differences between legal systems, but when you run into these issues in the sector in which you work, you need to know that when you look up the law, you are getting an accurate reflection of what the law is. The changes that are being made in this bill reflect differences that were not properly accounted for in one or both official languages across both of our legal traditions in the common and civil law.
We will have ordinary government communications when the bill is adopted, but the real value, in my view, is actually updating the law so that when a person searches for the rule, they get the correct answer, without concern that it may be interpreted differently in one province or another or under one system versus another.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Good morning, minister. It’s good to see you. Out of curiosity, aside from the areas listed — such as mortgages and the Bank Act — were there any departments for which the harmonization process was more difficult and problematic? I’m curious about that. I’m glad we can finally harmonize these laws.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: No. I want to be careful because a lot of the policy work was done before I held this position, so speaking to the relative difficulty of managing different departments was an exercise carried out by my predecessor.
That said, where I foresee the greater challenges on a go-forward basis is being able to continuously monitor for changes that may be made in different jurisdictions in the future. For example, the 13 amendments come from specific changes that were made in Quebec dealing with a law concerning the protection of vulnerable persons. We will need to ensure we maintain capacity to monitor legal changes that could, in fact, lead to different interpretations under one system or another.
By and large, this is now the fourth exercise departments have gone through with a harmonization bill, and it is the third time on the fourth harmonization attempt. There is no one department that stands out as being particularly difficult. This is very routine, technical work. We had a disproportionate focus on the financial sector in this round of harmonization, where the focus would have been on different items during previous rounds of harmonization.
[Translation]
I don’t think the process was more difficult for any particular department, but I do think it’s a normal part of how government departments operate.
[English]
Senator Clement: I want to thank my colleagues. You all know I am the sponsor of the bill because most of you heard my speech in the Senate. I was the sponsor of Bill S-11, so some of you also heard that speech.
I want to publicly thank Emma Meldrum, who is my Parliamentary Affairs Advisor. She has been on this journey with me, writing these speeches and trying to keep things light because this is the most technical of technical briefings. However, there is a real history in this — and real pride in the fact that we have the common law and civil law systems in this country.
I appreciated the question from Senator Pate around Indigenous laws, which came before all of that. Every time Emma and I engaged with government officials on that, we received some good answers. I think people are struggling to understand and bring in these concepts, but they are actually thinking about it. So, I did appreciate that from the government officials.
I also want to publicly thank those government officials. I was with them for Bill S-11 and Bill S-6. They are the king and queen nerds of the public service, and I mean that with love in my heart. They are fantastic, and it has been wonderful working with them. They take this seriously. It means a lot for this to be passed.
I also took note of the comments made by Senator Batters, and I understand them. I am going to express the hope to the minister that this be passed. People have been waiting — lawyers, nerds — but so have the four audiences, including the francophones who practise common law in French and the anglophones who practise civil law in English in Quebec. There are audiences for whom this is important.
Thank you for listening and participating in this conversation. I will be giving another speech — it will be brief — highlighting the feelings I have as a civil law and common law lawyer about this legislation and expressing my gratitude to the government lawyers who have worked on this for years.
Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to ask a question, and I want to move the discussion from theory to measurable outcomes.
Minister, can you identify a concrete legal problem currently affecting Canadians, businesses or governments that Bill S-6 will solve? More importantly, can you explain how Parliament should measure success five years after the enactment of this bill?
Mr. Fraser: Sure. I might defer to officials for deeper dives into some of the specific problems.
In one of the proposed amendments, the concept of a curator, for example, is being amended under this particular law. It doesn’t have the same legal meaning in both the common law and civil law jurisdictions. By making amendments to the law, we’ll be able to ensure that, in English or French, or in the common law or civil law, when you actually are sitting in your office doing legal research, you are going to get the same answer as to what the federal law is in the jurisdiction in which you practise. I think that’s the least we owe to Canadians.
It is a little bit difficult to say what success looks like five years from now because it might depend upon events that have not taken place, which we cannot predict with any degree of certainty. We should be able to maintain some ability within the Department of Justice to scan laws that might have a residual need for harmonization based on provisions that were missed over the course of many consultations and over many years, but the most important marker for me will be whether we have the capacity to keep up with changes that take place in the future. That will include changes that take place at the provincial level, but it will also include that we build into the system of drafting federal laws — and, in my view, we do a good job of this now — that we have our minds turned to the unique impacts that certain choices of words can have in the common law and civil law jurisdictions. So, when I’m trying to determine what a good outcome is — and this is more of a personal opinion — it is maintaining the capacity within the system rather than saying we have harmonized a certain number of laws. That number would depend upon events that have not yet taken place.
The Chair: Which enactment in Bill S-6 does the government consider the most consequential?
Mr. Fraser: It is odd because we have taken great care to ensure the changes are not consequential. Let me explain that in a little more detail.
This bill is not intended to have substantive policy changes. It is purely meant to align the meaning of different words across legal systems. Ideally, the changes will ensure that life continues as it was before and there are challenges that could potentially be avoided based on differing interpretations of words that mean different things in different systems.
It is an odd thing to say as a minister that you hope your legislation doesn’t have a substantive impact, but it is to prevent future harm from occurring based on differing interpretations. I apologize if that’s an odd response, but my hope is that there will not be significant impacts from the changes other than an alignment of what words mean.
If there are specific examples officials would like to dig into for various important sectors, feel free to add.
France Allard, Senior General Counsel and Comparative Law Expert, Department of Justice Canada: For financial institutions, although the amendments don’t change the policy, when you have accurate wording to describe different legal institutions, it will have impacts on having the right concepts to describe — for example, if you are a client at a bank, when you have forms to sign, they will be changed if the regulations are changed after the law is changed so that the wording is adequate and in conformity with the legal institutions of the civil law in Quebec in both English and French as well as the common law in French and in English. So, your form will then refer you to the adequate types of transactions or the adequate types of rights or interests. For example, if you deal with interest in real property or rights in immovable property, then, for the persons who live in Quebec, they will read what they know and what applies directly to them, even in very technical things, like forms in a financial institution.
So it addresses making sure that we adequately describe legal institutions so that people recognize their own legal norms.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you again to all of you for being here. Thank you for your comments, Senator Clement.
I want to push harder on this idea of legal pluralism. We were certainly told in 2022 that work was afoot within the government to look at legal pluralism and the recognition of Indigenous legal traditions. I’m presuming that work has evolved since 2022 and Bill S-11.
I would be curious if there is any further documentation or any information you could share. If it needs to be in writing following this, that’s fine.
I want to clearly put on the record that it is a concern — maybe only for me, though I’m quite confident it is a concern for a number of senators — that the complexity, number and plurality of Indigenous legal traditions and consultations seem to be trotted out when it is convenient for the government to not act while also being used as excuses to not move ahead with some of the more progressive initiatives that could be in place. I am thinking, in particular, of the criminal law perspective, of which I’m most familiar.
What are the specific steps that have been taken? What can you point to in terms of really looking at legal pluralism in the context of the overarching work that Canada has to do, particularly given the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? If there have not yet been steps taken, please provide some commentary on what the process will be going forward.
Mr. Fraser: Certainly. It is a complicated question because we are dealing not just with pluralism but pluralism within pluralism, given the role that many provinces have to play, particularly in areas of concern in private law, as is the case with this bill.
In terms of the stage we are at, it depends upon what specific issue you are dealing with; which province you are dealing with; and, in some instances, which individual First Nations you are dealing with.
There is a commitment we have made that will better align federal laws with Indigenous legal traditions. That work continues through the support of an advisory council and discussions with rights holders and provinces, but there are some provinces, for example, with which we do not have a tripartite table and can’t, with the rights holder and the federal government alone, move forward to implement reforms that concern key areas of provincial jurisdiction.
There is also work going on, including conversations and formal meetings I have taken part in, in addition to the work of the department, to understand how we can better consult with rights holders when adopting federal legislation. This is different than the section 35 duty to consult on a project decision — but on legislative or regulatory initiatives. This is a relatively new conversation, despite the fact we have had significant debates over the past four or five years in the House of Commons, around the UN declaration in particular. Between the UNDRIP Action Plan, supported by experienced members of Indigenous communities who were informing that work, and the work of the Indigenous Justice Strategy, there are a multitude of related items. The ones that most closely come to mind are the work to better align federal laws with laws adopted through Indigenous legal traditions and a separate but related issue of trying to figure out how we can better consult with rights holders on the development of federal laws.
Despite being within the environment of federal politics for the past few years, those are both recent in terms of Canada’s legal landscape and in terms of formal commitments to work on such things. Right now, I’m not finding it challenging, but it is very complex to understand how you can consult, for example, with rights holders on legislation to be adopted by Parliament. Obviously, there is a sovereignty of Parliament issue, and there is a range of different perspectives you are going to hear based on which nation or government, Inuit and Métis included, you might be engaging with. There is also a difference in terms of the nature of the issue or right that might be engaged that will determine if there needs to be a deeper level of engagement.
So, it is not a question I can answer succinctly because it is so complex, but if it would be helpful, I would be happy to provide to the committee a summary of some of the work, both in better engaging Indigenous rights holders in the development of federal laws but also in terms of other work or commitments that have been ongoing to better recognize the legitimacy of Indigenous legal systems within the federal government’s operations.
So, perhaps, for a more fulsome answer, I could provide something subsequently to the committee.
Senator Pate: That would be extremely useful, minister. Despite the complexity, there are discussions that a number of us are having with First Nations, Inuit and Métis folks on their often principled commonalities that align with the UN declaration.
I don’t expect you to be able to respond to this, and I think it would be unfair of me to ask you to, but I want to make this statement: I’m reading increasingly about the chill on cabinet members being able to even raise these kinds of issues in caucus. It causes significant concerns for many of us, especially, I would suggest, for those of us in the Senate who see our responsibility as being to represent the interests of what are often referred to as “minority folks” to be able to further those issues.
There are excellent initiatives that have been undertaken by you and other ministers, but we are also seeing the chilling effect in cabinet. I wanted to say that, and I don’t expect you to respond to it. It is an important observation that needs to be on the record.
Mr. Fraser: Maybe building more upon your first question than the second, I want to communicate to the committee on my own behalf and that of the government, as well, that it is a good thing to embrace the development of local laws by the people who know their needs more clearly than people who do not belong to a given community, particularly when you have governments and communities that pre-existed the federation. There are long-standing traditions that, in my view, deliver positive social outcomes. It is not something we wish to do or not do because it falls somewhere on the spectrum between progressive and conservative; it delivers positive social outcomes for people who are subjected to decisions if the decision-maker lives close to the problem they are trying to solve.
From my perspective, we do not just have a legal obligation under the UN declaration but a social obligation to serve the interests of Canadians. By better recognizing laws that are adopted in accordance with Indigenous legal traditions, over a lengthy period of time, we are going to see better social, environmental and economic outcomes.
Those are all things I am committed to, despite how complex it all might be and no matter how long they take. It is all-important work that is worth doing for the outcomes it will provide.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: I don’t have any other senators wishing to ask questions. That being the case, thank you, minister, for coming to help us with our deliberations on Bill S-6. Thank you, officials. I know the officials will be staying for clause by clause later, but again, minister, thank you for attending and helping us.
Mr. Fraser: Only because there is a bit of time left, I didn’t get an opportunity to respond to our sponsor’s intervention, which was more commentary than a question.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. The government cannot move legislation forward on its own to modernize our bijural system. I am glad that you’re also acknowledging the efforts of your team.
[English]
Emma, wherever you are, thank you for your work. These institutions don’t work without good people who often work outside of normal hours, sometimes for years longer than they anticipated. To the entire team of senators, staff and to the sponsor of this bill, a big thank you on behalf of the Government of Canada for your work.
The Chair: Honourable senators, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome, from the Chambre des notaires du Québec, by video conference, Mr. Antoine Fafard, Chief, Governmental and Institutional Affairs; and Mr. Bruno Larivière, President.
Welcome, gentlemen, to our meeting. We thank you for your attendance and for helping us with this work. I know it was at short notice. You collectively have five minutes to make some opening remarks; then we will move to questions from the senators. Please proceed. Thank you.
[Translation]
Bruno Larivière, President, Chambre des notaires du Québec: Thank you, chair, and members of the committee. My name is Bruno Larivière. I’m a notary and the president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. I am here today with Antoine Fafard, a notary and the chambre’s chief of governmental and institutional affairs. I would like to thank you for having us here today as part of your work on Bill S-6. I represent the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the professional body that governs nearly 4,000 notaries and whose primary mission is to protect the public.
The Chambre des notaires also actively contributes to the advancement of law and has participated in efforts to harmonize federal law with Quebec civil law for several decades now.
Since the mid-1990s, the Chambre des notaires has been involved in preliminary discussions with the Department of Justice Canada to better align civil law and common law concepts. We choose to participate because we recognize the basic fact that Canada is a bijural country.
Common law and civil law are two legal traditions that coexist. This duality is a defining feature of Canada’s legal identity. It requires that federal laws be drafted and interpreted in a manner that fully respects both traditions. That is why the Chambre des notaires welcomes the introduction of Bill S-6. The issues arising from harmonization are very concrete: They directly affect citizens’ legal certainty, transaction predictability and the proper functioning of institutions across the country.
Bill S-6 represents significant progress in this regard. Consider, for example, the incorporation of the concept of hypothecs into certain financial sector laws, which better reflects the reality of Quebec civil law, where the concept of a mortgage doesn’t exist. That said, some adjustments are still necessary; certain terms used in federal laws no longer correspond to the current legal reality in Quebec. For example, the term “exécuteur testamentaire” has been replaced by “liquidateur”, and the term “curateur” became obsolete following the 2020 reform of protection regimes.
In addition to the terminology, recognizing the legal institutions themselves is essential. The Chambre des notaires would like to point out the unique nature of the notarial profession in Quebec. In Quebec, a notary is a public officer, a legal adviser and a key player in the judicial system. They are not the same as the notary public found in other provinces, whose duties are much more narrowly defined. This distinction is important because similar terms can refer to very different realities. Federal law must therefore clearly reflect this unique nature.
Several provisions of the bill address that by recognizing the value of notarized documents, particularly in inheritance matters. In this regard, the Chambre des notaires welcomes new measures that allow financial institutions to obtain a certified copy of the notarial minutes of the probate in order to transfer the assets of a deceased person.
Furthermore, federal statutes must recognize notary-client privilege. In Quebec, this privilege is protected to the same extent as that of a lawyer and is fundamental to ensuring public confidence in the justice system. This bill better reflects this reality, which the Chambre des notaires welcomes.
Finally, allow me to briefly address a broader issue that falls outside the scope of this bill but is closely linked to the conversation about harmonization. Bill S-6 is intended to better reflect Quebec’s legal reality in federal law. That same thinking should apply to our constitutional framework. Since 2023, notaries have been eligible for judicial office in the Court of Quebec, which is a significant step forward.
However, they are still excluded from the superior courts because of section 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which limits such positions to members of the bar. This situation creates an inequity that is no longer justifiable today. It deprives the judiciary of significant legal expertise and does not reflect the contemporary reality of the Quebec justice system. The chamber therefore invites the committee to look at this issue as an opportunity to modernize our institutions and to fully recognize civil law within the Canadian federal framework.
In conclusion, Bill S-6 is a step in the right direction. It reinforces a fundamental principle: Canada fully recognizes and respects its bijural character. To be entirely successful, however, this bill must be part of a process of ongoing harmonization that is consistent and respectful of both legal traditions, which are themselves constantly evolving.
The Chambre des notaires du Québec will remain a committed partner in this work because it wants to contribute to greater legal consistency and greater legal certainty for all citizens.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to answering your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Larivière, for your opening marks. We will now turn to senators for questions.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good morning, witnesses, and thank you for being here with us.
First, I am pleased to hear that the Chambre des notaires du Québec remains a committed partner in this process. Can you tell us a little more about the development of the civil law system and how important it is to continue consultation between the two systems — common law and civil law?
Antoine Fafard, Chief, Governmental and Institutional Affairs, Chambre des notaires du Québec: Both common law and civil law are evolving. It is important to take this evolution into account and apply the necessary adjustments and harmonizations.
As the president said in his speech, these are very real interpretation issues that can affect citizens if such a legal concept cannot be applied because of changes in the law in Quebec or Canada. I believe it’s important to ensure that citizens’ rights are respected and that the law is clear to everyone. As we all know, federal laws apply in Quebec.
Due to differences in interpretation between common law and civil law concepts, this law could be unenforceable or ineffective. In a more favourable scenario, a judicial intervention would be required to ensure that the federal legislature’s intent is upheld in the case before the court. The goal is to ensure that the intent of the law is applied and that it is clearer for citizens.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, it is important to stay abreast of these developments. The law is evolving, and the concepts are no longer necessarily suited to present-day realities. There must therefore be a dialogue between civil law in Quebec and the applicable federal laws.
Senator Clement: Once again, thank you for joining us, for continuing to share your thoughts and for participating in this consultation to let us know your views on the harmonization bill.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us on fairly short notice, with the timing changed around because the minister could only come at a certain time.
To the Chambre des notaires du Québec, in your brief on Bill S-11, you proposed replacing the current wording of section 27 of the Canada Evidence Act with different wording. Could you concretely explain what legal or practical problem you believe the current wording in Bill S-6 could create for notaries, courts or citizens?
Also, did you receive an explanation from the Department of Justice as to why your proposal was not accepted in Bill S-11 previously and now again in Bill S-6?
[Translation]
Mr. Fafard: With regard to the evidence referred to in Bill S-6, that work has been going on since 2017. For section 27 of the Canada Evidence Act, the suggestion was to replace the entire sentence about a copy of the original, as it was redundant. Section 27 is about notarial acts in Quebec and the clerk, but it also addresses the admissibility of a copy in place of the original.
In civil law, a copy certified to be a true copy of the original is admissible as evidence in all cases. The copy may be certified by a notary or by any other competent public officer under exceptional circumstances. The Chambre des notaires had proposed completely replacing the phrase “conforme à l’original” in order to ensure a clear understanding of the notarial institution and to confirm that a copy certified as true by the notary is admissible as evidence in all cases. There has not necessarily been any follow-up on this issue. However, we wish to reiterate this recommendation in the brief we’re going to submit.
Please excuse us. We did not have time to submit a formal brief. We will do so in the coming days.
However, we did not receive a response following the 2017 consultations and we see that this is still included in Bill S-6.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. Yes, if you wouldn’t mind providing that, that would be helpful. Our committee may not be dealing with it still at that point, but it likely will still be in the Senate Chamber. It would be helpful if you could provide that to our committee so we can receive it prior to any third reading debate in the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Fafard: Okay. Perfect.
Senator Oudar: Thank you both for joining us today.
My question is for Mr. Fafard.
Thank you to the Chambre des notaires and to notaries for the work you do every day with everyone. I believe that each of us develops a very trusting relationship with our notary. I often say that this is one of the professions that accompanies us through every stage of life, from beginning to end. Notaries play a special role in people’s lives.
I’d like to talk to you specifically about hypothecs, which are obviously part of many people’s lives. Quebec notaries are indirectly affected by amendments to acts, particularly the changes in connection with financial institutions. With regard to the concepts of security interest and personal representative, a notary who executes a hypothec granted by a federally regulated bank must ensure that the notarial act complies with the legal concepts of federal laws, as well as the Quebec Civil Code.
In your practice, have you encountered any difficulties or inconsistencies? In your view, are the amendments proposed in Bill S-6, particularly the new definitions, good enough for us to move forward?
Mr. Fafard: In Bill S-6, we noted the addition of the term “hypothec” in the English version. That was raised, and it was something people wanted.
We ended up with the word “mortgage”, which isn’t exactly the same thing. As the president said in his speech, it’s not in the English version of the Civil Code and it can also refer to other things: it can refer to both the mortgage security and the mortgage loan.
So, if we really want to talk about security, the term “hypothec” is really more appropriate. It’s good to add it, and I believe it appears in several laws: in Part 1 on financial institutions, it’s added to the definitions of “security interest”. That’s why it’s appropriate to add it to the term “mortgage” so as to cover all security interests that could be granted by financial institutions and arranged by the notary when conducting a real estate transaction.
There are a lot of technical aspects. We made a comment the last time, in 2017 — as I said, quite a while ago — about equating a bank or financial institution with an individual, something that is really at odds with Quebec law. It would be more accurate to talk about a legal entity than an individual, because the bank is a legal entity within the meaning of the Civil Code. Equating that with an individual creates ambiguity. So perhaps a change could be proposed whereby the bank, subject to other provisions of this act, is a legal entity in Quebec. I think that might be a good idea.
In concrete terms, I think notaries are used to having interactions with financial institutions. In some cases, there are differences in interpretation between financial institutions that operate from coast to coast, but that are not always accustomed to the Civil Code of Quebec. Bill S-6 nonetheless still gives financial institutions more tools to properly determine the rules and fees that apply in Quebec to real estate and mortgage financing transactions.
Senator Oudar: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you to my colleague Senator Oudar for her comment on the notary profession. I am a former Quebecer. Can you say “former Quebecer”?
Senator Oudar: No, we remain Quebecers for our entire lives.
Senator Clement: We do indeed! I am now a proud Franco-Ontarian, but my entire family stayed in Quebec. What you say is true: The relationship between the public and notaries is very special. Thank you for those meaningful comments.
[English]
Could I have the government officials to react to some of the comments that our witnesses made in response to Senator Batters’ questions about how their recommendations were received or not received? I also want to point out there is a really good table that’s been provided — sent to all of you by the GRO — comparing the differences between Bill S-6 and Bill S-11. Because this has been an ongoing project, government officials provided the difference between them so we’re all on the same page, but I wonder if I could ask the government officials to react.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Allard: Mr. Larivière and Mr. Fafard, thank you for being here. We always appreciate the contribution of the Chambre des notaires, Quebec’s chamber of notaries, which is very involved in all our bills, from start to finish. The chamber is probably the group that tries the hardest to provide detailed comments and do a real analysis.
I want to go back to the two examples you gave, the first being section 27 of the Evidence Act, which was the subject of a lot of discussion during the study of Bill S-11. That is well documented in the record of proceedings. There are a number of points.
First, it is not a matter of refusing to take into account the comments of the chamber of notaries, but we cannot simply incorporate what is found in the Notarial Act. The Evidence Act, in section 40, provides that the evidence must apply according to the provincial law of evidence, subject to other federal statutes or the Evidence Act, which is also a federal statute. So section 27 has a scope of application that was determined based on the specific legislative direction that had been established. There are also aspects that could potentially be amended, but not through a harmonization act, insofar as some of the comments on section 27 would first change the legislative direction of where the documents are to be received.
Also, some of the elements you had proposed would have changed the legislative direction taken in section 27. Among the amendments that would take into account all of your comments on section 27, there are some that could not be included, because it would have resulted in a change in the legislative direction of the statute, and we would have had to consult the experts at the Department of Justice, which is responsible for the Evidence Act. We could send them your detailed comments, if you wish to repeat them, so that they can consider whether or not it is desirable to change the substance, but we can’t do that through a harmonization act.
I don’t want to repeat all the analysis we’ve done on Bill S-11; I invite you to read the very detailed discussion that Senator Dalphond also collaborated on. I don’t see why we would resume the discussion here, so I invite you to look at the record of proceedings. Essentially, it would have resulted in changes in the legislative direction. That’s the very basis of harmonization bills, the fact that we can’t do that.
In terms of legal capacity, it should be noted that we have analyzed in depth each of the comments from the chamber of notaries. The reasons often came down to four types of comments.
There were questions about the choice of the statutes harmonized. When we harmonize laws, we do so by choosing a group that falls under the responsibility of a responsible department to avoid spreading ourselves too thin. So we don’t necessarily harmonize all the remaining laws, which will be done in future measures. We chose the nine departments, including the Department of Finance, which was very involved because of financial institutions and the Financial Administration Act. We really work by groups, according to specific departments.
The choice of statutes that are harmonized is based on the departments that collaborated on the Harmonization Act No. 4, so there are other departments — for instance, all pension legislation, which is multi-departmental, would itself be a specific group, because it is related to various departments with respect to the same legislation. We had already done some work on that one, but we did not include it because it would have delayed consultations with the departments and with the various stakeholders who might have been interested in pension issues with respect to the Harmonization Act No. 4.
Your proposals raised legislative direction issues, so they were set aside. It’s not wrong to comment on a provision, unless it results in a change in legislative direction. The purpose of harmonization acts is not to make an intervention or an amendment.
Some of the comments were to clarify the legislative intent. That can be done to some extent if it doesn’t change the direction. Sometimes, we could choose different wording that might be clearer than the current wording in the act, but in the case of harmonization interventions, to avoid having to redraft everything and to avoid long-term interpretation risks, we stick to the current wording of the act as much as possible.
That could lead to interpretation problems, when we can simply change the relationship with certain institutions. When harmonizing common law and civil law, there are often doublets; whether they are simple doubles or paragraphed doubles, they are more easily identifiable in those cases.
There were also questions about drafting choices. As you know, the way a code is drafted has nothing to do with the way federal statutes are drafted, just as the way legislation is drafted in Quebec is not quite the same as federal legislation. The coexistence of civil law and common law, in addition to the two official languages, therefore creates a very specific drafting method.
We also have drafting standards within the Legislative Services Branch. I’ll give you an ordinary example that relates to solicitor-client privilege — whether that’s with a solicitor or a notary. I think it’s in the Privacy Act, further to the decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec. So the act was amended to prevent having different ways of drafting. So it was drafted in exactly the same way, and the “or” can be interpreted as an “and”; in this case, I think it’s clear that it’s an “and.” There are instances like that.
I would like to come back to your question about legal capacity, if I may. On the issue of legal capacity as amended, I understand that in Quebec the term “legal personality” is used for the most part, whereas federal legislation includes a number of definitions relating to the capacity of corporations, whether in the Canada Business Corporations Act or in other statutes about corporations, so we maintain the same drafting method to prevent discrepancies.
We even made consequential amendments so that the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act and the third — I can’t remember its name — would use exactly the same terms. Referring back to part of the definition is a way of describing legal capacity further to Supreme Court decisions on the capacity of corporations and the capacity of banks under common law. Referring to an “individual” is also found in common law, meaning that we say they have the rights, powers and privileges of an individual.
As to the manner in which it is drafted, neither capacity under common law nor the capacity of an individual is contrary to Quebec civil law per se; even section 303 of the Civil Code of Quebec provides that corporations have the capacity required to exercise all their rights and the provisions of this code relating to the exercise of civil rights by natural persons. We are not referring to the exact wording of the first sections dealing with the legal personality of corporations, but thanks to section 303, it is still acceptable to refer to the capacity of natural persons in drafting provisions on the capacity of corporations and banks. In this case, it was deemed not contrary to what was in the code and it was clear that reference was being made to legal personality.
Does that answer the question? I don’t know if my colleagues want to add anything.
Senator Clement: You can see why I enjoyed working with Ms. Allard; she knows her stuff. It’s very impressive.
Ms. Allard: Thank you.
Senator Clement: I am pleased that we were also able to hear live testimony from the chamber of notaries.
[English]
I have one last question to the officials. If this doesn’t pass now — because it has been a while — what will the impact be? I ask because we went through this with Bill S-11, and now we are back with Bill S-6. We are far away — as Senator Batters pointed out — from the last consultation. What will the impact be if we don’t get it done this time?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Dufresne, Chief Legislative Counsel and Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada: I can answer that.
[English]
What is the impact? It would presumably be that, at some point, we would want the changes in the terminology to be introduced so that the legislative text is constant with the civil law and common law tradition. In order to do that, we will have to reassess and redo the work to make sure those provisions have not been done already. There would be a lot of fine combing of the bill again to make it ready for another round, whenever there might be an appetite to table it again. I guess that would be it: It would entail a lot of redoing.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Ms. Moïra Létourneau, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: It would be much more direct, though, and it might respond to Senator Batters’ comment from earlier today.
Over the past 30 years, a great deal of effort has been made to harmonize federal legislation. Senator Batters asked what took so long. It’s true that it took a long time. We keep coming back, so it’s very important; it’s the largest harmonization bill. Our efforts will continue and we want to move forward, but we also don’t want to go backwards, because there is still a lot of work to be done. Thank you.
Ms. Allard: I think it would nearly call into question the whole idea of harmonization if we keep waiting and if this bill is not passed. It is very voluminous because there have been delays. The work has continued and new provisions were added compared to what would have been in a previous bill. The longer we wait, the more massive the bill will become.
I know senators and parliamentarians hate omnibus bills with so many clauses. Although it’s a technical topic, these are still terminological issues that require in-depth analysis. It also means that it will always have to be reviewed to ensure that amendments have not been made to every provision. We need to review everything, and my colleague Moïra Létourneau’s team did exactly that for this bill. Those people double-checked all the work on all these provisions to ensure that there were no amendments. As to curatorship, we knew about that amendment because it was adopted in 2020, except that it came into force two days after it was introduced in the Senate, so we knew that an amendment would have to be made at a later date. We’re doing it now, because it wasn’t the right time then.
Senator Clement: Thank you for the work you do.
[English]
It has been an absolute pleasure for me to sponsor this bill. Thank you so much. It has been an honour to work with you.
Senator Batters: With respect to the last comments, I hope you encourage your minister to actually call this bill forward in the House of Commons if and when it passes the Senate, rather than have it wait on the Order Paper for two years because, of course, that is solely the government’s call. Once they table a bill, it is solely their call as to when they start the debate on it, which failed to happen for a period of more than two years with the previous one.
My question was to our witnesses online that we have from the Chambre des notaires du Québec. I wondered if that explanation that you received a few minutes ago from the officials as to why your proposed wording for that change had not been included in either the previous bill or this one is the first explanation that you’ve ever received from the Department of Justice officials as to why your proposed wording was not included in either bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Fafard: We did have ongoing discussions and received responses when we commented on Bill S-7. It’s more or less the same thing in terms of the directions and the harmonization bill.
We understand very well that a provincial act such as the Notaries Act cannot be completely incorporated into a harmonization act.
We still accept the answer. I think what’s important for us is to continue to collaborate and be involved in this harmonization work, which is ongoing, as the chair said in his remarks. The law is evolving, so the work must be ongoing. There is also the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, where the chamber of notaries has delegates.
That is our mindset. We are interested in collaborating and finding solutions, and we continue to work with the authorities.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you, and thank you very much for continuing to do that work to try to make our laws better.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is for the senior department officials. You made it clear that the terminology issues are complex and require in-depth analysis. At the same time, you said there is still a lot of work to be done. I am also thinking of all the work that will follow to harmonize the regulations, especially in the common law system where laws are more general in scope.
On this day when the federal government’s artificial intelligence strategy is being announced, do you see a place for artificial intelligence in accelerating work on quality control, since there are several aspects that are also very technical? Do you expect to use artificial intelligence?
Mr. Dufresne: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes, we’re considering that; we’re looking at what we can do. We are developing tools that we are testing internally. They are not yet fully deployed, but we are conducting some tests and looking at what we can do.
Obviously, there is a large and extensive body of federal legislation; the same is true for regulations. So there are certainly efficiencies to be made in terms of identifying, proposing preliminary solutions, if you will.
As you said, these are complex technical issues that require in-depth analysis, so someone will have to deal with them. But yes, it is something we are looking into to try to make some gains and adopt a process that is as consistent as possible with our approach when studying this type of problem.
Senator Saint-Germain: That would speed things up and give lawyers more time to work on less technical cases, so thank you.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you for your comments.
My question is for the departmental officials and it concerns the future. With the new Official Languages Act — Bill C-13 — there are regulations for businesses that will now be subject to the act.
In terms of those regulations and the harmonization of common law and civil law, have you looked at how that would apply? I haven’t had the time to read all the amendments, but are those aspects addressed? Are there terms that will have to be studied in the future?
Ms. Létourneau: What hasn’t been mentioned since the beginning is that, whenever there is a new act or regulations, the team conducts a detailed review to ensure that the new regulations or acts are bijural. So the analysis is indeed done.
In terms of the overall analysis, since we’ve been working on bijural issues for 30 years, I can tell you that my colleague France Allard and my other colleagues have worked very hard. Almost all the legal analyses have been completed, unless new issues arise in new legislation.
The problem, before we started this new technique of harmonizing as we go, so to speak, or conducting our bijural analyses as we go, is what existed before — the entire body of legislation that was already in force. That’s what we’re trying to do, and that is also why artificial intelligence will be very useful to us if we can find a way to apply what we’ve already analyzed to what remains to be analyzed and harmonized in the body of legislation.
Ms. Allard: If I may say so, there have been many analyses over the years; indeed, to feed artificial intelligence, you need documents and analyses, but artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly efficient and can sort through all of this.
So, if we have tools capable of making connections among different types of context, once these tools are developed, that’s where the difficulty will lie: In the documentation and analyses, the terms may be the same, but the contexts are not, and we could arrive at different solutions.
There is certainly some preliminary work that can be done, but the tools must be developed internally, particularly for reasons of professional secrecy, and must also be adapted to our own needs.
According to my colleague, there is a future in this, and I know that these issues are being discussed, so I will leave all that to my colleagues.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other questions from senators. This being the case, I would like to thank the witnesses from the Chambre des notaires du Québec, Mr. Larivière and Mr. Fafard, for attending today and assisting us in our deliberations on this bill. You are now free to go. Thank you very much for your assistance in our work. Take care. Thank you.
Colleagues, are we now ready to move to clause by clause?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All right. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-6, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the two parts of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill S-6 when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We now move to Part 1, “Financial Institutions,” clauses 2 through to 507, inclusive, page 1 to page 175.
Shall Part 1, entitled “Financial Institutions,” which contains clauses 2 to 507, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
We now move to Part 2, “Amendments to Other Acts,” clauses 508 to 640, pages 175 to 216 inclusive.
Shall Part 2, entitled “Amendments to Other Acts,” which contains clauses 508 to 640, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Colleagues, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: There will be no observations.
Colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate, in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Colleagues, thank you for your brevity. Are there any other comments from my colleagues on any issues?
Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Clement, for sponsoring this. I want to especially thank you for including in your statements — and I’m sure you will on third reading too — the issue of pluralism, which needs to be undertaken from this time forward. I want to thank all the officials for all your work and for continuing on that work as well. Thank you very much.
The Chair: To the officials, thank you for staying with us and being kind enough to remain to help answer these technical questions. Your answers were helpful, and the dialogue between you and the Chambre was instructive. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)