Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-6, the Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4.

Before I begin, I would like to thank Senator Clement for the “harmonization 101” lesson she gave during the second reading of this bill. I’m sure that the new senators who weren’t here during the last Parliament really appreciated it.

It also allows me to cut straight to the heart of the matter.

But for a few changes, this bill is essentially the same as Bill S-11, which we considered during the previous Parliament. That bill died on the Order Paper.

This bill is undeniably a technical and particularly voluminous bill. It contains 216 pages and 640 clauses, plus 160 pages of explanatory notes. Quite frankly, though, despite its length, this text will doubtless not stir up much passion in this Chamber.

However, its importance must not be underestimated, as it constitutes an essential step in the implementation and preservation of what we call Canadian bijuralism. Its purpose is not to alter the substance of the law, but rather to ensure the consistency, clarity and legal equivalence of federal legislative texts within the country’s two legal traditions: common law and civil law. Bill S-6 is part of an ongoing effort to give full expression to Canadian bijuralism.

Indeed, as the summary of the bill clearly states:

This enactment is the fourth in a series of enactments drafted in the course of the harmonization of federal statutes by the Department of Justice of Canada as a result of the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec in 1994, which substantially changed the concepts, institutions and terminology of civil law. It amends 51 statutes, including the Acts governing financial institutions — the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act — and other Acts including the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Interpretation Act and the Official Languages Act, in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

Given the purpose and limited scope of this bill, I support it.

It’s also important to recognize that this bill was introduced following long-term efforts by government officials, preceded by an extensive consultation process. According to the information we received during the consideration of Bill S-11, more than 400 stakeholders were consulted.

I can’t anticipate the results of the work ahead, but I think that the technical nature of the proposed measures should enable both chambers to conduct an efficient study of this bill. Previous harmonization bills were passed easily following a thorough review, since they clarified terminology without impacting the substance of the law.

I therefore support Bill S-6 at second reading.

The Honourable Michel Bastarache, a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, said the following regarding bilingual drafting:

[F]ederal legislation must be drafted in the English and French languages and in a manner which is compatible with two legal systems. Canada is blessed with four different legal languages and federal legislation must not only be bilingual but bijural. Indeed, federal legislation must simultaneously address four different groups of persons . . . .

I recommend passing this bill.

I was the sponsor of Bill S-12 and Bill S-11, the third and fourth bills, which both died on the Order Paper, so I hope that this bill will not meet the same fate.