Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Subject Matter of Bill C-36

Issue 1 - Evidence, October 17, 2001

The Special Senate Committee on the Subject Matter of Bill C-36, to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism and explore the protection of human rights and civil liberties in the application of this Act, met this day at 4:00 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.

[English]

Dr. Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Senator Fraser: I nominate Senator Fairbairn.

Dr. Lank: Are there any other nominations?

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser that Senator Fairbairn be chair of this committee. All those in favour? Opposed? Abstentions?

The motion is carried and invite the Honourable Senator Fairbairn to take the chair.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators, and thank you very much for the nomination, Senator Fraser. I thank all of you for supporting that nomination.

If I may, I would like to continue with the motions that are required for this organizational meeting and perhaps, as soon as we finish that, I will say a few words and hopefully hear from all of you.

The next motion is the election of the deputy chair. I open the floor for a motion.

Senator Andreychuk: I move it be Senator Kelleher.

The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Andreychuk that the Honourable Senator Kelleher be deputy chair of this committee. Are there any further nominations?

Hearing no further nominations, could I have an indication from the committee whether you are in favour?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: The motion is carried.

Next on the list is a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, that it be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation, empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda and procedure, and that it be empowered to invite witnesses and schedule hearings.

Could I have a mover for that?

Senator Kenny: I move Senator Furey.

The Chairman: That would be a motion in amendment.

Senator Andreychuk: There is usually consultation.

The Chairman: The motion, Senator Kenny, was that one other member of the committee be designated after consultation.

Senator Kenny: I am sorry. He is my choice anyway.

The Chairman: That is clear. I was looking for a mover of the motion for a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

Senator Kenny: I so move, but I would also say that he is a good guy.

The Chairman: Senator Kelleher and I will take that under consideration.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: The next motion, number 4, is to print the committee's proceedings, and that the chair be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand. Could I have a mover of that motion?

Senator Fraser: I so move.

The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Number 5 is a motion on research staff; that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to this committee, and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee, and that the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff - and I underline "on behalf of the committee" - direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, and draft reports.

Senator Andreychuk: It is so moved.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Number 6 is a motion on the authority to commit funds and certify accounts; that pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act we request the authority to commit funds to be conferred on the chair or, in the chair's absence, the deputy chair, and that pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee.

Could I have a mover?

Senator Stollery: I so move.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stollery.

Number 7, travelling and living expenses of witnesses; that pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses' expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.

I understand that that requirement for no more than two witnesses is a directive passed by internal economy.

Could I have a mover for that motion, please?

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Bacon.

Number 8, electronic media coverage of public meetings; that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings at its discretion, certainly in consultation with the committee.

Could I have a mover for that, please?

Senator Bryden: I so move.

The Chairman: Now we will consider the time slot for regular meetings. At this point I would like to say a few words about the committee and what it is supposed to do. I will begin by indicating to members that our clerk for this special committee will be Heather Lank, who I do not think needs to be introduced to any of you, and who, I know, will serve us extremely well.

I do want to express my thanks to members from both sides for agreeing to the motions today and, as individuals, for agreeing to serve. This has not, as we all know, been a regular practice for a considerable period of time. It used to be a long time ago; in recent years it has been used very sparingly, in times of stress such as national strikes, as in the West Coast situation some time ago. With this issue, as with those in the past, including those in my early days as a senator when it was often used in committees of which I was part, it was done, as it is today, under the concern of a certain urgency. I think the context of the work we will do in this committee will fall within that urgency because we are responding to what is an extraordinary, if not unprecedented, situation.

If I may refresh everyone's memory, including my own, about the process of pre-study - and that was done in the speeches in the Senate this afternoon, for those of you who may not have heard - in pre-study we study the subject matter of a bill although we do not formally have the bill before us. Our goal in the committee will be to hear witnesses and discuss amongst ourselves recommendations - not just recommendations; this is a much more open process than dealing with the bill in terms of your ability to give a more discursive kind of report at the end of our study. Therefore, we will make recommendations and also provide points of view about the subject matter that we discuss.

The key point of the pre-study in this case - as certainly was made very clear by Senator Carstairs and particularly by Senator Kinsella this afternoon in the house - is that it is important that we know there are time constraints on this legislation. They are not set in stone but the indications - and I really know no more than was said this afternoon - would be that there is an expectation for the bill to come out of committee in the House of Commons, in the other place, in the beginning days of November.

The challenge for us, honourable senators, is to have productive and intensive hearings that will enable us to put forward suggestions, recommendations, perhaps, for amendment to the legislation before it is approved and processed by the House of Commons justice committee.

We have been assured that this is not just a window-dressing opportunity, that this is an opportunity for the Senate, with its usual insight and skill, to offer critical suggestions that will be taken seriously and that hopefully will find expression in the bill as it is returned to the House of Commons for report stage and third and final readings there.

Then the bill will come to us in the regular way as a piece of legislation. Certainly commitment was made in the Senate this afternoon that will be done the will to move forward on the bill as quickly as we can. It will definitely receive the regular process in the Senate. There will be a committee hearing as well as debate in the Senate. My understanding, Senator Lynch-Staunton, is that this committee will be the committee to which the bill will be referred when it comes from the House of Commons.

Therefore, we will have two opportunities. Now, to help the overall process, we will try to be pervasive in our efforts to have changes made before the bill is cast in stone in its final form in the House of Commons.

As I say, our work is not on the bill itself, it is on the subject matter. Later, when it comes to us as a piece of legislation, we will deal with clause by clause consideration and that kind of thing, but we can suggest substantive amendments in general terms or carefully crafted terms. We will have support from the library and our researchers to do that. We can also talk about differing forms of language that we would rather see in the bill than is there now, as well as our own overall perception of the piece of legislation and the context in which we find it before us.

With the time limit that we have, if we want to do that, if we want to be considered, I would say that we will must begin our hearings no later than Monday. I would suggest Monday morning. We would sit while the Senate is sitting.

Senator Stollery: Item 9, is it, Madam Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes. I am just putting forward the suggestion that we would wish to begin Monday morning and continue until next Thursday. At that point, if we wish to have our information before the House of Commons, we should be able to have drafting and translation done over that weekend so that we can present our suggestions as early as the following Monday, which we are able to do by the motion. We can table that with the clerk and get it to the House of Commons, at the latest, by the following day, October 30, so that our material will be there in time to be studied and incorporated in what is chosen on the other side.

I would envisage that we would sit in the morning, afternoon and evenings. We, in the steering committee, can perhaps work out the hours. I would like to hear from the committee about that. It is an ambitious and intensive period of hearings. Frankly, I cannot envisage being able to do our task unless we work with that degree of intensity and commitment. I open the floor to suggestion and discussion on that.

Senator Tkachuk: Are you talking about 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. each day?

The Chairman: As well as in the evenings, yes. Obviously there will be time to get sustenance to keep us going.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You obviously are aware of conflicts for all of our members on this one. Have you been able to weave your way through to reduce them as much as possible?

The Chairman: That is the challenge, Senator Lynch-Staunton for each side.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Bacon is saying we should devote all our time here and ignore the others, but the constitutional affairs committee, for instance, is meeting on Bill C-7.

Senator Andreychuk: That is a bill on which I am the critic. The government seems to be pressing ahead with due diligence and adding times. That must be worked out. Should we be pressing for that in this period and sitting extra times? Also the immigration bill has priority, I understand, for Monday and Tuesday at least. That will entail at least two of our members' participation.

I would appeal for consideration of that and for flexibility so that, if some of us must come and go, we can get through the questions and comments we want. We may not be as orderly as you might wish because of that.

The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk, I understand exactly what you are saying. It has been felt that what we, around this table, are about to start is a high priority item. I have been pulled off social affairs for the duration of this. As we move along through this, we would hope that we could have interested senators as replacements in the event that committee members could not be here. If I could be provided with a list of conflicts I would be amenable to that and conscious of those who have other places to be.

Senator Andreychuk: Senator Fraser, Senator Beaudoin and I are on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which will deal with Bill C-7. I wonder if consideration could be given to not sitting next week on that committee because I think another week or another two on youth justice is not critical. That bill has been four years in the making and that would be the greatest way to relieve the time conflict. Are you actually confident that it is next week we are talking about?

The Chairman: Yes, it is next week that we are talking about. There is no doubt about that.

Senator Andreychuk: If you could delay the youth justice issue one week further you would resolve a great dilemma.

The Chairman: We have chairs here who are in these predicaments. I think that leadership can perhaps consult on this to see whether there are opportunities to accommodate this committee with some of the work of other committees. Senator Robichaud, it is perhaps something that can be discussed on both sides in order to free up the members to be here as much as possible. Each side must decide whether or not replacements can be used in the other committees, if that is not possible.

Senator Stollery: This is, of course, our high priority, but that does not mean that all members of this committee must be here all the time. I am not suggesting that people should not be here, but we must be realistic. Perhaps a couple of bills, if there are actual bills, could be extended another week or something. That would be up to the leadership, I understand. It would be unrealistic to think that everyone will be here all the time for this extended period, but we will be here most of the time.

Senator Fraser: On our side, the leadership has undertaken to substitute for my presence at those committees where I otherwise would have been. In the case of the youth justice bill, it is an extremely complex piece of legislation. One can substitute in terms of getting the head count up, but in terms of proper examination of the bill, that is asking a great deal of anyone. The most expert lawyer will have trouble entering in the middle of that. The committee is scheduling, I believe, three long sittings next week.

I hope that is not unpleasant for my leadership to hear, but if it could be shoved off one week, I think that would be helpful.

The Chairman: All I can say to that is you are getting more of a smile than I got when I made the suggestion.

Quite seriously, and I would put it to leadership, we have gathered together to do a special thing. To that degree, if we are to do the special thing and we are going to get it done and if we are going to give it a chance to have meaningful input at an important time on what we hope will be almost a never again kind of situation in terms of this kind of legislation - if we are to do the job, we do not have much bend here. Therefore, the bend must be elsewhere and that would be in the realm of leadership, or in terms of everyone, as Senator Stollery said, being here most of the time and by getting people who are truly interested in this to help out. I am sure that the leadership on both sides would be helpful in doing that. It is pretty clear, however, that we must set a course and do this.

Senator Kenny: Are you open to discussion about the nature of our work and how we go about that work?

The Chairman: Yes. I would like to get through point 9, concerning the time slot for regular meetings. That would be the expectation.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: We would like additional details concerning your committee's work schedule. The fact that you can sit at the same time as the House already affords you greater flexibility in setting your schedule. If you could assess your workload, we would be better able to determine when we were available to meet without interfering with the work of other committees.

[English]

The Chairman: I take that point, Senator Robichaud. It is a valid point. What we are trying to determine - and that will be our next discussion - is how we will pursue our meetings. The point made here is we will have many conflicts and so there must be some bending on individuals and times. Otherwise, we will work with what we have. Depending on the witness lists that we choose, hopefully we will be able to have a good range of solid contributors, in terms of witnesses, who will have a chance to make proper presentations and have proper time for asking questions. I do not think we want this to be a committee that is like a sausage machine, rolling them out every half hour. We want to have meaningful discussions.

What that tells the members of this committee is that we must be judicious in the choice of witnesses we have and how many we have so that we can perhaps make some of those accommodations, Senator Robichaud. The fact of the matter is that we will have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That is four days. This is a very important issue and we will want to deal with it in that spirit but we obviously will work in a spirit of cooperation.

Now, could I have, even this quickly, a general idea from members of the committee as to preferences on our witnesses. The reason we are having this meeting today is that if we want to start on Monday we must start calling tomorrow. I will just throw open a thought on this: We should be thinking of the most productive representatives of the various areas that are of concern to members on this committee with the bill.

Senator Stollery: Is this not a subject for the steering committee?

The Chairman: Yes, it is, Senator Stollery.

One of the reasons I am saying what I am saying is that I urge every member of the committee to get thinking overnight about particular people we wish to pursue so that we will be able to get them. We will have to start that search right away. If I have the agreement of the committee, we would start with the minister responsible for the bill. Certainly, the steering committee can hassle out the list. However, I would like an indication from members, over the evening or even tomorrow perhaps, as to the degree to which you wish to pursue other ministers. I think it would be good to start with the Minister of Justice and encourage the Minister of Justice to bring with her a backdrop of significant people who are experts in the government, whether they be deputy ministers, the Commissioner of the RCMP, or Mr. Alcock. In that way, we can start with a pretty thorough discussion.

My point, Senator Stollery, is that we want to be able to respond not only to what the steering committee wants but to what some of the members around this table would view to be absolutely essential people to speak on this bill. We do not have to do that now. The phone line is open, the door is open so we can do this. Tomorrow, Ms Lank and her crowd can get going on phone calls.

If it suits the committee, I would certainly want to have the Minister of Justice here on Monday.

Senator Tkachuk: We do not know if she is available at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning, do we?

The Chairman: No. We will do our darndest for 9:00 a.m., but if not, we will do our best to have her here on the first day. That is critical.

Senator Andreychuk: Senator Bryden is here. He and I were on the same committee. Much of the work done by that committee might be helpful to this committee. It is set out in the report. You must go a bit on faith because, of course, that is the summary as opposed to all the background material. It is a good starting point in some ways. I hope that senators will pay attention to that report.

For our side, I do not see much of a dilemma about the need for legislation that will be more intrusive than we had contemplated. The question is: Have the right mechanisms been brought forward with the least intrusion on rights and privileges? It seems to me we need highly technical people who can talk about some of those things, rather than an ideological public policy debate. There seems to be consensus that action on terrorism must be taken. We are examining the process that will be used, the procedures that will be employed and the intrusion on human rights as opposed to an ideological debate on whether there should or should not be legislation.

The Chairman: You are looking for folks who have been working intensively on this bill. Do I understand you correctly that it is not just a question of trotting ministers through the committee and that it is more an issue of finding people who actually can engage on the detail?

Senator Andreychuk: The minister must justify the need for the legislation. Thereafter, she and the officials will have to say they have paid attention to the Charter and that they have chosen the methodology that is least intrusive. I will not go through the other things. They will have to justify that the intrusions are warranted. On the other side, they will have to show that, in fact, they have plugged the loopholes, to the extent that they can, on acts of terrorism. It is the justification of the model of procedure that we are using. We may be in a position to suggest other things. One, clearly, that came through the floor, and one I contemplate is: Is it necessary to continue the legislation and review it? Would it not be appropriate, as a signal in a democratic society, to say that the emergency exists now, the need exists now and that a sunset clause is necessary for certain parts? It is that kind of dialogue that we want to have.

Senator Kenny: Like everyone else, I have a certain amount of trepidation about the process we are getting into. While I think it is a good idea to canvass the committee about the witnesses members wish to draw to the attention of the steering committee, it would be equally productive to have a discussion about how we want to organize our time. I am sceptical about our ability to come forward with something in a timely way. If we are to do something productive, it means focusing fairly early in the process and determining that we will examine a few items and we will not go beyond that. I say that simply because I do not think we can do justice to many items, given the time facing us. If we come up with a laundry list of witnesses, and if we endeavour to cover everything in the bill, we may end up not covering much in a worthwhile way.

My observation is that if it is possible to find a way to bring a focus to what we are doing and to see if there is any consensus on concentrating on a few areas rather than trying to cover the bill from start to finish. Then we can make that our contribution at this stage, with the understanding that we will have the bill before us again in a few weeks.

The Chairman: I agree. I welcome that input.

Senator Kenny: I do not know if other people agree, but I would like to get a report from the steering committee that says, "We think we should focus on these four items." Maybe we can do one a day, I do not know. We could determine to focus on items and if there were a consensus, we could move on and do just that.

Senator Tkachuk: Are you talking about focusing on the subject matter as regards the witnesses or with regard to the whole four days?

Senator Kenny: I think you focus on the subject matter first and then you call the witnesses to match your subject matter, rather than say, "Let us have these witnesses and the subject matter will fall out from that." We should decide what parts of the bill, or what subject matter, we wish to concentrate on and then see which witnesses are appropriate.

Senator Tkachuk: It must be clear that the minister and the department will be available to answer questions on the bill.

Senator Kenny: I am not suggesting which parts or which witnesses, but if we try to work our way systematically through a bill that comes to us in the normal course of events we would spend a lot more than four days on it.

Senator Kelleher: I have a concern, Madam Chair. Several times Senator Kenny alluded to the fact that when the bill comes back to us the second time, we will review it then. From a practical point of view, that will not happen. We are getting one kick at the can here. That is how I read it. If we provide our concerns to the House committee, they will be considered fairly and adequately. After the bill has gone through the House, however, and comes back to us, I think the chances of us getting anything meaningful back to the House are minimal.

Senator Kenny: I only said it once, and I do not entirely disagree with you, senator, but my only point was that I am worried about the House taking what we have to say seriously in any event, if there are only two days to consider it. If we got a report from the other place and were told to make up our minds in two days, how would we react?

Senator Kelleher: Do we know when the House committee will start sitting?

The Chairman: We do not know as of this moment. I do not think we have heard from the Commons today.

Senator Bryden: The chair told me this morning that committee hopes to get the bill as early as tonight.

The Chairman: That committee will start at approximately the same time.

I want to reiterate that we should have as much commitment, as we possibly can, that if we get our stuff there a couple of days in advance, the House committee will not write a report and sign off on it without serious consideration of everything that we submit.

Senator Kelleher: I think it will give us that, but I am concerned about the second time around.

The other concern I have is this: Do we have any idea what kind of a time frame we have to get this information to the House committee?

The Chairman: As I said earlier, I would have our committee finish its work next Thursday so that we will be able, at the beginning of the following week to put our recommendations before the House of Commons.

Senator Kelleher: Will that time frame be accepted?

The Chairman: Yes.

Senator Kelleher: Very well.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I believe you should check those dates. The last I heard from your side, which was not precise, is that we would have, at the latest, until October 31 to report. The House committee was to report to the House on November 1. This would get the bill back here on November 6. Those are the last dates I heard. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking. If those dates are still valid, your Monday reporting on our Thursday return of the bill to the Chamber will not give us much time to even read. You can check that tonight.

The Chairman: I will. Before I came here today the indication I was given was that we should be aiming to have our work completed and to the other place on Monday, which is October 29, and that would give sufficient time to have our efforts included in its work.

Senator Kenny: Would you go there to report on behalf of the committee or will we send a piece of paper?

The Chairman: Through the motion today we have been given the ability to send our conclusions, which will be written in the form of a report, via our clerk on Monday. It would certainly be transmitted to the government and to the committee. On Tuesday, there would be a formal motion to send it to the House.

Senator Kenny: When its committee receives our report, will it get a piece of paper, read it and then say, "That's it. We are out of here"?

The Chairman: No.

Senator Kenny: How does that work?

The Chairman: The House committee will get our report and it would be in a position to discuss it.

Senator Stollery: Presumably, the parliamentary secretary would get a copy of the report and make recommendations to the chairman of the committee, et cetera.

Senator Kenny: I am trying to visualize this. It will be said, "This report has come from us. Please take it home and read it and then come back tomorrow when we will talk about it for a while."

The Chairman: Yes. That is what we envisage doing next Monday, if we are able.

Senator Kenny: Will no one defend it? Will the report speak for itself?

The Chairman: Yes. That will be part of the discussion as to the changes that the House committee will put forth.

Senator Furey: My understanding is when the bill comes back, the degree to which our recommendations or considerations have been taken into consideration will affect the smoothness from there on in. Whether this committee is prepared to give fast passage to the bill will depend on the how seriously the recommendations we make are taken by the other side. That is just the process.

Senator Andreychuk: The leader and Senator Kinsella said that we will examine the subject matter of the bill and we will offer many opinions. Obviously, in four days, we cannot cover everything, as Senator Kenny said. I am inclined to agree. We are trying to hit key areas where we think there are fundamental flaws or to make recommendations for a better process. I understood that when the bill comes back, the normal Senate process kicks in. At that time we will consider interpretations and wordings and every senator is free to go about his or her business in the normal course of events.

Senator Kenny: It is the organization that we can figure out between now and then as to what we want to focus on that will make next week productive or not.

Senator Andreychuk: I agree with you on that. It is the steering committee's role to get the time frame and to try to figure out how to handle this. If we sit around here, it is counterproductive. I would prefer to have the steering committee come up with something that we can react to rather quickly. We can then say, "I think that is fine as a start and let us proceed," or "We are off on a different track than we anticipated."

Senator Bryden: In a very tight time frame, can you get the minister early on your first day? Can the minister and her officials, in two hours or whatever, give a good overview of the issues? By that time you will have read the bill anyway. After having done that, the steering committee can establish priorities.

Senator Tkachuk: It is a problem to get the witnesses.

Senator Bryden: You probably could spot some that you want to hear.

Senator Kenny: If you follow the logic of what Senator Bryden just said, if we had the minister and her officials in the morning, we could then spend the afternoon focusing on what we want to focus on. We could then proceed the next day to witnesses. It is either that or tell the steering committee, "Go ahead and line up the week for us and start doing it now."

Senator Bryden: I assume that there are only X number of experts who will be floating around here. I wonder if someone might try to coordinate with witnesses who are in town to appear at the Commons committee.

The Chairman: We will be doing that as well.

Senator Bryden: If witnesses have been flown in from Toronto, B.C., or wherever, they will be appearing before the Commons committee. I do not think that would be duplication because the interpretation this group will give to what someone has to say may be different from that of the Commons committee. Coordination may be possible.

The Chairman: That is anticipated, too.

Senator Fraser: You asked us for areas on which we want to focus. I have three at the moment. I would quite like to have a separate session with the Commissioner of the RCMP and not just have him come in flanking the minister. Much of this involves police work and I suspect we will have many questions for him.

Like every other member of the Senate, I am very concerned about the impact on civil liberties and Charter rights. I would like to hear independent expert witnesses, but given the short time we have - I do not know how I can say this delicately - I would not want to devote our time to hearing from people whose professional life is devoted to saying, "All infringements are bad and must be resisted at all costs." I would like people who can make a nuanced and more thoughtful and realistic examination of what is actually being done in this bill.

Finally, I am particularly interested in oversight mechanisms and/or the lack of same. I would like to have someone speak to us about the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of oversight. There is the parliamentary review. There is the sunset clause. There is the kind of oversight that provides, perhaps, for a retired judge to review the legislation, or that has a review, as Senator Kinsella mentioned, by the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee. Perhaps it would be interesting to hear from that committee. It might also be interesting to hear from CSIS.

The whole area of who will be watching after the bill is passed and how we can ensure that things stay on track and focused the way parliamentarians want them is extremely interesting.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I think Senator Fraser is on the right track. A pre-study is not a clause-by-clause examination of a bill. It is to consider the overall approach of a bill to a particular subject and to try to find out if the bill is being treated adequately and to advise the House of Commons that, in certain areas, it should, perhaps, focus on certain changes, et cetera.

I agree that we should examine certain areas of the bill. In our study of the issue, which is not complete, I think there are five areas on which we will focus in the debate. Senator Fraser has mentioned three, and I cannot remember the other two.

Senator Fraser: Talk about in the chamber. I did not mention that.

Senator Kenny: I would like an official to speak to that.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Certainly, there is the sunset clause or the expiration clause. I am sure the library has already done a précis on the bill or will have one soon and must have done one for the House. If not, the Department of Justice has certainly done a lot of work on it, as well as a comparison between American legislation, U.K. legislation and our legislation. Each has similar aspects and each has different aspects. I think the Americans have just included an expiration clause. I think those two houses are agreed on that. The U.K. has a definition for terrorism which I do not find very good, but at least it has tried.

If we had summaries of comparison with ours of two similar bills, that would help us to borrow, if need be, from others. That would help us in our work.

Senator Kenny: If there is a list, I am curious about the CSE, but I would not like to hear a politician talking about it. I would like to hear from an official who runs it.

The Chairman: There is also the area of charitable donations.

Thank you very much. You have done what I was requesting and this is a start.

The committee adjourned.