Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Opening remarks

Thank you for the question. I'm happy to speak to that. That's correct. As you said, in the drafting of federal legislation, the English and French versions are not literal translations of one another. They reflect the same legal objective. In cases where the wording differs—for example, “clipping” and occlusion—the focus is on whether both versions achieve the same legal effect. In this case, occlusion refers to the closing of the edges of a natural bodily opening. In the English version of the definition, our understanding is that this idea is conveyed through the terms “tying” and “cauterizing”, which involve closing the edges of such an opening. In addition, both the English and French versions expressly include any other procedure “that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction”, which ensures that any procedure producing that outcome would fall within the scope of the definition. That said, we took the opportunity to confirm with our legislative drafters and jurilinguists that there is no procedure, according to this current definition, that would not be captured by one or the other, so any variation in terminology would not create a gap in the scope or…