Dear colleagues, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-17, whose short title is the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. As the Library of Parliament summary indicates, Bill S-17 is:

 . . . the 13th in a series of bills introduced under the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment (MSLA) Program. It amends 58 Acts and three related regulations to correct errors in grammar, spelling, terminology and punctuation, erroneous cross-references, archaic wording and discrepancies between the English version and the French versions.

The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program has an important feature. Unlike the other government bills we study, in the case of a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill, the Minister of Justice must submit a draft bill to the Senate Legal Affairs Committee and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice for their consideration. Accordingly, the committees studied the measures now contained in Bill S-17 before it was tabled on March 19. During their study of the draft bill, the Senate committee heard from public servants on October 19, 2023, and the House of Commons committee did likewise on February 8 and 12, 2024.

On concluding their examination of the draft legislation, these committees asked to have eight of its provisions stricken. The Department of Justice complied with this request. Accordingly, Bill S-17 contains the same text as the draft bill, except that the eight clauses the committees asked to have stricken were removed.

That said, Bill S-17 contains 165 clauses and is still massive.

I support this omnibus bill at second reading and the consensual measures it contains. Here are two examples. First, Bill S-17 replaces the French word “vérificateurs” with “auditeurs” in certain sections of acts to reflect the internationally accepted linguistic standards of professional organizations. Second, Bill S-17 replaces the names of certain organizations used in acts to reflect their new names. For example, Bill S-17 amends sections of acts to henceforward refer to the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, which became an independent institution in 2018 and is no longer a division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I support Bill S-17 at second reading, I think it needs to be referred to a Senate committee for study. As Senator Cotter told the Senate committee on October 19, the committee had only one meeting to study the draft bill, with the result that, and I quote:

We are studying it in kind of a short period of time, so I think we’re not giving it necessarily due diligence but some diligence.

Oddly enough, however, in my colleague’s speech at second reading of Bill S-17 on March 21, 2024, he suggested that the Senate not refer Bill S-17 to the Senate committee for study, since that wasn’t necessary given that the draft bill had already been studied by that committee.

I don’t share his point of view. Personally, I would have some important questions to ask the public servants when they appear before the committee, if need be, on aspects of Bill S-17 that could not be explored because of the very short duration of the committee’s study of the draft bill. Let me give you three examples.

First, clause 141 of Bill S-17 proposes to amend subsection 48(3) of the Pest Control Products Act by replacing the term “dwelling house,” or “maison d’habitation” in French, with the term “dwelling-place,” or “local d’habitation” in French. However, a document from the Library of Parliament analysts, dated September 13, 2023, states that the term “dwelling-place” does not seem to be a term that is used in English for “local d’habitation” in other statues. That is the case for section 109 of the Canada Marine Act and section 46.13 of the Pilotage Act, which are two provisions that are not included in Bill S-17. I am also wondering what the difference is between a “dwelling house” or “maison d’habitation” and a “dwelling-place” or “local d’habitation,” since the term “dwelling-house” or “maison d’habitation” is used in 23 provisions of the Criminal Code and is even defined in section 2. This is an important question to ask public servants, to ensure that Bill S-17 does not cause confusion by using the term “dwelling-place” or “local d’habitation” rather than “dwelling-house” or “maison d’habitation.”

My second example concerns clause 18 of Bill S-17, which proposes to amend paragraph of 27(1)(c.1) of the Citizenship Act to empower the Governor in Council to make regulations. According to the explanatory notes in Bill S-17, clause 18:

 . . . adds cross-references that should have been included in paragraph 27(1)c.1) when it was added to the Citizenship Act by the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

If Bill S-17 is referred to committee, I would like to ask the public servants to explain how, in their opinion, clause 18, which is intended to correct the omission of cross-references, is not in itself a substantive amendment to the regulatory power provided under paragraph 27(1)(c.1), given that the Governor in Council cannot exercise regulatory authority in any matter where cross‑references were not included.

Third, clause 44 of Bill S-17 proposes to amend the French version of subsection 8(5) of the Public Service Superannuation Act. The explanatory notes state that clause 44:

 . . . corrects an error in the French version to make it consistent with the English version. The English version creates a coherent legal fiction while the French version creates one that is nonsensical.

I am of the opinion that the public servants need to give us more details to assure us that this measure in Bill S-17 will not change the substance or scope of subsection 8(5), which would be prohibited under the conditions of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program. I note that the House and Senate committees did not ask any questions about clause 44 during their brief study of the draft bill, perhaps because they were short on time.

On another note, I would like to remind senators that the Senate committee has examined many miscellaneous statute law amendment bills after examining the draft versions. In fact, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs examined Bill C-60, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Bill, 2017, on November 29, 2017, Bill C-47, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Bill, 2014, on February 18, 2015, Bill C-40, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Bill, 2001, on December 5, 2001, Bill C-125, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, on June 9, 1993, Bill C-35, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, on February 12, 20 and 26, 1992, and Bill C-53, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1977, on June 16, 1977.

These many precedents show that there would be nothing unusual about Bill S-17 being sent to the Senate committee for an in-depth examination, even though the committee already examined the draft bill.

For all these reasons, I invite you, honourable colleagues, to vote in favour of the principle of the bill and refer it to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Yes.

Yes, obviously, given the nature of the bill, I think that we must act rather quickly, but with all the depth that is possible at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.