Technical Fixes Across 58 Federal Laws

Summary#

This bill is a housekeeping law. It fixes typos, updates out‑of‑date names, aligns English and French wording, and removes clauses that no longer apply. It amends 58 Acts and 3 regulations. It does not create new crimes, spend money, or change people’s rights (Background: MSLA criteria (a)-(d)).

• Updates court names and definitions across many laws, especially for Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories (e.g., “Supreme Court,” “Court of Appeal”) (e.g., Criminal Code s.2, s.812; Interpretation Act s.35(1)).
• Renames the “Review Tribunal” to the “Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal” and updates related processes in food and agriculture laws (Agriculture and Agri‑Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act s.27(1); Feeds Act s.9(3); Seeds Act s.8(3); Safe Food for Canadians Act s.31, s.36).
• Cleans up French terminology for “auditor” in federal financial laws and modernizes titles like “Chairperson” at the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (Bank Act various; Insurance Companies Act various; CCOHS Act ss.3, 7–8, 11, 14, 19, 21, 23).
• Clarifies procedures for appeals, returns of seized goods, and registration of penalties in several regulatory Acts (e.g., Motor Vehicle Safety Act s.16.2, s.16.21–16.22; Pest Control Products Act s.53.2, s.55; Health of Animals Act ss.45–47).
• Repeals provisions that have expired or are obsolete, such as Department of Transport Act s.12 (Bill: Department of Transport Act s.12).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • No change to taxes, benefits, or everyday services. The bill is technical cleanup (Background: MSLA purpose).
  • Passport holders who face cancellation for security reasons keep a 30‑day appeal window; the law clarifies the wording, not the right (Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act s.4(1), s.6(1)(a)).

• Farmers, ranchers, food processors, importers

  • If inspectors seize products or issue violations under food and agriculture laws, your reviews go to the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal for violations, and to a court for offences. The bill standardizes this pathway and forfeiture rules (Feeds Act s.9(3); Fertilizers Act s.9(3); Seeds Act s.8(3); Health of Animals Act ss.45–47; Plant Protection Act ss.32–34; Safe Food for Canadians Act s.31, s.36; Pest Control Products Act s.53.2, s.55).
  • The tribunal’s name now matches what agencies already use (“Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal”), which should reduce confusion on forms and notices (AAMP Act s.27(1)).

• Vehicle manufacturers and dealers

  • Clarifies that, if ordered, you must fix a safety defect or non‑compliance before the first retail sale; appeal and penalty registration wording is tidied up. No new obligations are created (Motor Vehicle Safety Act s.10.61(1), s.16.2, s.16.21–16.22).

• Banks, insurers, and trust/loan companies

  • French‑language terms change from “vérificateur” to “auditeur,” and related audit wording is updated. This aligns with current professional standards but does not add new compliance duties (Bank Act various; Trust and Loan Companies Act various; Insurance Companies Act various).

• Mariners and shippers

  • Court jurisdiction references for certain applications (e.g., stays) are updated to the correct court names by province/territory. This helps file in the right place (Canada Shipping Act, 2001 s.264).

• Legal professionals and tribunals

  • Use updated court and tribunal names and definitions in pleadings and orders across many statutes (e.g., Criminal Code s.2, s.812; Federal Courts Act s.28(1)(b); Extradition Act s.2).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: CAD $0 (ongoing).

• Under the MSLA program, amendments must not involve spending public funds (Background: MSLA criteria (b)).
• The Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal already exists; the bill only aligns its name in statutes and rules (AAMP Act s.27(1); Rules of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal).
• Data unavailable for any one‑time administrative costs to update forms, websites, or signage.

Proponents' View#

• Improves legal clarity and reduces errors by updating 58 Acts and 3 regulations, which should lower interpretive disputes and filing mistakes (Bill Summary; multiple Act updates).
• Aligns court names and jurisdictions with provincial and territorial court reorganizations, reducing misfiling and delays (e.g., Criminal Code s.2, s.812; Interpretation Act s.35(1)).
• Standardizes the path for reviews, returns, and forfeiture decisions in agriculture and food enforcement, which can speed up cases and reduce confusion for regulated parties (Feeds Act s.9(3); Safe Food for Canadians Act s.31, s.36; Pest Control Products Act s.53.2, s.55).
• Modernizes language (gender‑neutral titles; consistent French “auditeur” and “audit”), matching current practice and professional standards (CCOHS Act; Bank/Insurance/Trust Acts various).
• Maintains safeguards of the MSLA process: no new offences, no new spending, no prejudice to rights, and committee consensus, reducing risk of unintended policy change (Background: MSLA criteria; committee process).

Opponents' View#

• Even small wording changes can shift legal meaning. For example, cross‑reference updates in the Impact Assessment Act could affect when time limits are suspended; the intent is technical, but effects depend on how courts read them (Impact Assessment Act s.112(1)(c)). Assumption flagged.
• Frequent renaming (courts, tribunal) may cause short‑term confusion for the public and practitioners, and require updates to forms, guidance, and websites. Costs and timelines are not quantified (Data unavailable).
• Broad find‑and‑replace terminology changes in complex financial statutes could have unforeseen drafting knock‑ons, especially in French audit provisions, until all guidance is updated (Bank/Insurance/Trust Acts various). Assumption flagged.
• Adjustments in criminal and regulatory wording (e.g., firearms definitions; penalty registration procedures) are presented as non‑substantive, but any change in phrasing could prompt litigation over scope (Criminal Code s.84(1); Motor Vehicle Safety Act s.16.21–16.22). Assumption flagged.
• Repeal of obsolete provisions could affect edge cases if agencies or stakeholders still rely on legacy references; careful transition management is needed (Department of Transport Act s.12). Assumption flagged.