Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 12 - Evidence for May 12, 2005
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 12, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-10, to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 10:47 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are continuing our study of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Our witness today is from the Department of Justice Canada, Ms. Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel and Director of the Policy Centre for Victim Issues. We also have on our agenda today clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Please proceed with your presentation, Ms. Kane, and then we will have some questions for you.
Ms. Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel/Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you. I know that you have heard submissions from many stakeholders. You may have additional questions on those submissions, and I will be pleased to answer to them to the best of my ability.
Based on my review of the transcripts and my observations here, I know that certain issues have been of greater concern than others. These include the role of victims, the new powers for the review boards, the qualifications of those who conduct assessments, the process to permit the court to order a judicial stay for accused not likely to ever become fit, treatment issues and the role of the province in mental health. It is important to bear in mind that Bill C-10 builds on an existing part of the Criminal Code.
Some of the witnesses who have appeared before you have spoken about provisions of the bill and have criticized existing provisions of the law. They may not have made the link between the fact that this bill is grafted onto that which is already in the Criminal Code and that will continue.
Before I go to specific questions, I want to follow up on two commitments that I made at my last appearance. Senator Pearson and Senator Milne posed questions to which I want to respond.
Senator Pearson inquired about the number of persons found unfit to stand trial and found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. I provided a letter to the clerk with three reports that shed some light on the numbers and also on the difficulty that exists in gathering data. For the purposes of your record, I will reiterate what was noted in the provincial survey of all provincial and territorial review boards in Canada. The survey was conducted by Richard Schneider, who is now a judge.
In 2000, there were 585 new accused who were not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, which brought the total number to 2,665 under review board supervision across Canada. In any given year, some accused will be discharged and others will be found not criminally responsible, so numbers are fluid. However, it does give some sense.
In that same year, review board data indicates that there were 172 accused found unfit to stand trial across Canada. Again, within a short period of time many of those would be found fit and tried.
These numbers must be considered in the context of the total number of persons charged with criminal offences. In 1987, the number of mentally disordered accused was 0.2 per cent. That was before the 1991 amendments. In 2001, the number was 0.54 per cent. Although there has been a slight increase, the numbers remain at less than 1 per cent of all those charged with criminal offences.
While only 585 new accused entered the review board system in 2002, having been found not criminally responsible, the review boards in Canada held 3,583 hearings, which gives you a sense of their workload. This includes initial disposition hearings, annual review hearings and other hearings; for example, those that are granted on request and where there is a change in the liberty conditions of the accused.
This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the more highly populated provinces, as one would expect, they deal with more accused persons in general and, as a result, with more persons found unfit or not criminally responsible. For example, in 2000 in Ontario, they noted a total of 952 accused under review board supervision, and they held 1,287 hearings. Nova Scotia noted 83 accused under review board supervision and held 159 hearings.
Senator Milne inquired about parts of the bill that amend the National Defence Act with specific reference to the qualifying language "subject to regulations." In the drafting of Bill C-10, our colleagues from the Department of National Defence ensured that the National Defence Act amendments were consistent with both the code amendments and other aspects of the military justice system.
Our colleague LCol. Dufour provided a response to the senator's question, which I will read into the record.
An issue has been raised concerning the term "subject to regulations" contained in clause 49 dealing with subsections 202.121 (4) and (5) of the National Defence Act. Subsections 202.121 (4) and (5) relate to the ability of courts martial to conduct inquiries and to order assessments to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered where an accused remains unfit to stand trial, is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial and does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to mental disorder include substantive and detailed procedural requirements as well as prescribed forms. In contrast, the legislative scheme that has been followed in the National Defence Act is to include substantive and major procedural provisions within the National Defence Act, while other procedural provisions and prescribed forms are provided in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). QR&O provide detailed instructions regarding courts martial and mental disorder proceedings, among many other things.
Following this model, Part III, Division 7 (Mental Disorder) of the National Defence Act does not set out a complete and comprehensive set of substantive and procedural rules as the Criminal Code does. Rather, the approach of including more detailed procedural provisions in the QR&O continues to be followed. Further, referring to the regulations is not new. For example, subsections 198(4) and 200(3) of the National Defence Act dealing with assessment orders were enacted with the phrase "subject to regulations." The regulations specifically pertaining to subsections 198(4) and 200(3) of the National Defence Act are prescribed in Chapter 119 of the QR&O (Mental Disorder). Those regulations provide detailed direction with respect to assessment orders and assessment reports and reflect the provisions of the Criminal Code while adapting them, as required, for the military justice system.
In essence, this is the approach that was taken for subsections 202.121 (4) and (5) contained in Bill C-10. The phrase "subject to regulations" requires that the regulations regarding courts martial and mental disorder proceedings be followed, thus providing for the unique aspects of the military justice system while maintaining Canadian legal norms including, to the maximum extent possible, parallelism with the provisions of the Criminal Code. With respect to the question as to what restrictions that might be imposed on a court martial to make an assessment order, the regulations pertaining to assessment orders and assessment reports mirror the provisions of the Criminal Code and provide appropriate forms. With respect to the ability to grant a stay of proceedings, current Canadian legal norms are reflected in Bill C-10, and would be applied at courts martial as they would applied be in appropriate cases in criminal courts.
I hope that is helpful to address the concern of Senator Milne.
I am at your disposal to answer any questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Kane. Weeks ago we heard testimony from the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. The Canadian Psychological Association argued in favour of the designation of psychologists as a group, instead of individually, to conduct an assessment. The Canadian Psychiatric Association had no objection to such a proposal in the event that only qualified persons conduct the assessment. The representative from the review boards of Canada said it would be more useful and administratively convenient if the section permitted the designation of a group or class of professionals rather than individuals.
Would you comment on the designation of a group of qualified persons rather than individuals?
Ms. Kane: This issue has been given very careful consideration. As you may know, in the originally tabled Bill C-10 there was no expansion of the class of those who could conduct assessments, for many of the reasons that the witnesses have noted. There is no consensus about whether a particular class, as a class, could be designated. We cannot simply say "psychologists," because they are not all forensic psychologists, just as we cannot say "all nurses," because they are not all forensic or professional mental health professional. We refer to the term "medical doctor" in the code now. That obviously includes a medical doctor who would not necessarily be a psychiatrist, but it does include psychiatrists.
Those words were originally chosen because of what was noted yesterday and previously. Only the medical profession can look at other illnesses that may be presenting at the same time as the mental illness. Only medical doctors and psychiatrists can diagnosis and only they can prescribe medication and treatment. If others were to do an assessment, they would only be able to take it to the first step and say that the person is fit. If they are fit, they would proceed to trial. If they decide the person is not fit, they would have to make a referral to another professional for a determination on whether they could be made fit. The assessments to determine whether a person is not criminally responsible would likely require a team approach, as it does now. I believe that Dr. Bradford indicated that psychiatrists and psychologists often work in teams. It is a challenge to craft the right wording to capture those who should be designated and exclude those who should not.
An amendment was made in the House committee. The approach taken to address all those concerns was to delegate the responsibility to the Attorney General of the province to designate those in addition to medical professionals qualified to conduct assessments. That would permit some flexibility in the provinces for the Attorneys General to make a list of those who meet the standards that will be developed for those eligible to conduct assessments. As Mr. Walter noted, this may be a list of individuals or it could be a list designating a particular group at a particular hospital, all of whom would be qualified because they would be expert in conducting assessments.
We are confident that the Attorneys General will treat this with great seriousness and ensure that the highest standards are met, that their own provincial needs are met and that they look at the resources available.
In testimony you heard yesterday there was a suggestion that there could possibly be assessments that did not meet the needs of the court or the review board. It should be remembered that where assessments are made that do not satisfy the people who have to make the decisions, they will likely not accept those as the final word; they would ask for others. Similarly, where defence counsels have concern that the assessment is not meeting the needs of the accused, they would be challenging the qualifications of those who made the assessment.
I think we can be confident that the new provision will be feasible, and case law will develop that will clarify what types of assessments should be done in particular circumstances and who should do them. However, the provision as currently worded will give the flexibility to meet the needs of jurisdictions in remote communities that may want to take it the first step and have someone found fit so they can be tried. If they are not fit, obviously other referrals will need to be made.
The Chairman: The representative of Review Boards Canada told the committee that they have a preference regarding the presentation of a victim impact statement. They prefer that statements be presented only at the initial hearing as opposed to year after year.
How do you respond to that suggestion?
Ms. Kane: The current law is crafted in a way that restricts the victim impact statement to the initial hearing, at least insofar as the victim is made aware of the hearing and has the opportunity to submit a statement.
However, this situation is quite analogous to the parole hearing situation. There may be many parole hearings for an individual, and victims are entitled to submit a victim impact statement at every parole hearing. The impact on the victim is not a one-time thing. It lasts for many years. The reasons they would want to present an impact statement at the initial hearing remain. As you heard from some witnesses, the more the victim knows about the process, the greater understanding and the greater sense of safety they may have.
If they are allowed to present their statement at each subsequent hearing, they will be made aware of information about the progress of the accused while under supervision. They may state in their victim impact statement that things have changed for them, that they have come to grips with what has occurred, that they are making progress and that they have a greater sense of safety. They may want to have input into the conditions that the accused would be under if he or she was returned to the community. Those change over time as well.
Restricting it to the initial disposition hearing would not be in the spirit of all the progress that has been made to give victims a role in the criminal justice system. They are key stakeholders in this process, as they are in all others.
The Chairman: I have concerns also with the constitutionality of the 24-month review period in the case of a serious personal injury offence. A number of witnesses raised concerns about this as well. What about the Supreme Court decision in Winko on the rights of the mentally disordered under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does your department have a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the extension of time in Bill C-10?
Ms. Kane: Yes, our colleagues in the Human Rights Law Section looked at this carefully, and that is why the provision is as carefully tailored as it is. The 24-month extension is available in two situations. The first is on consent. We are told that that happens now anyway where an accused is represented by counsel and all parties agree that the hearing can be waived. This will confirm that that is appropriate, but only up to the next year, not beyond.
The other situation is for a very small category of accused persons, those who have been found to have committed a serious personal violence offence, and we have defined that. The next criteria is that they are already in custody in a psychiatric hospital — so they are not on a community disposition — and that the information that is before the review board when they are having the hearing indicates that the person's condition is not likely to change over the course of the year. This is a fairly small category of people.
We must remember that, while some accused persons commit minor offences yet are seriously mentally ill and pose a risk, others, although a smaller category, commit very serious offences and present very serious risks. The review board hearings are intensive; they require a lot of preparation and security in the facilities and many people attend, sometimes only to reconfirm the status quo. That was the original rationale for permitting an extension. It is certainly not meant to violate the rights of accused persons.
I would also draw your attention to the fact that, while a review board can decide to postpone the next annual hearing until 24 months have passed, that can be appealed. In addition, there can be other hearings held. If there is any change in the restrictions on that person while they are in the hospital, that will trigger another mandatory review hearing. There is also the opportunity for the accused to request a hearing, and the review board may determine that a hearing is warranted.
It is not a guarantee that there will not be a hearing for another 24 months. That would be what was expected in that very small category of situations; but if anything changes, there is no impediment to holding another hearing. Based on that, our constitutional experts are of the view that it is perfectly sound constitutionally.
Senator Callbeck: Will you address the transmittal of exhibits from the court to the review board?
Ms. Kane: I reviewed the testimony of Mr. Walter and was surprised that he was concerned about that provision, for two reasons.
First, that amendment originated from our consultations with review boards over the years. They noted that, as the code is currently worded, there is only an obligation to transmit that material where the court does hold an initial disposition hearing. Their point was that they need that material in all cases, and more so where the court has not held a disposition hearing, because it is entirely up the review board to make that disposition and they have to be satisfied they have everything at hand that the court had. That is the origin of that amendment.
Second, there is already a provision in the code that requires the information, the exhibits, the transcripts and whatnot to be transferred to the review board where the court has held a disposition hearing. Our amendment only makes a few small changes. It requires that that information be handed over both where the court makes a disposition and where it does not. We have added the clarifications that they need only send information that is in their possession — they have no obligation to get other information for the review board — and that they can provide copies where it is not feasible to send the original.
I was not aware, until that testimony, of any concerns about the review board's capacity to store that material. They have already been dealing with that situation and they have not indicated that there are any concerns. This is something we will discuss with our provincial colleagues if they need to be provided with storage facilities. I am sure protocols can be arranged. The Attorney General of the province would not want any possibility that information in the hands of the review board would go astray, so I am sure that issue can be resolved.
Senator Milne: Are you saying that after the review board has dealt with the matter the exhibits and the transcript of the court proceedings can be transferred back to the court for safe storage? Their point was that they do not have such facilities. Senator Banks pointed out that the same wording is in clause 14 on page 5 and clause 19 on page 10.
Ms. Kane: That is because we have to deal with both situations, and that is the change. Section 672.52 already exists in the Criminal Code. They have been dealing with the situation of having material sent to them from the court.
Senator Milne: They have been regularly sending it back for safe keeping?
Ms. Kane: They have not indicated that it has been a problem to keep it or to send it back. I suggest that the same procedures that they use now will continue to apply. However, they are guaranteed that they will receive that information so that they have it in their possession in order to make the disposition as required. If they work out agreements to send it back for safe keeping, those will continue.
Senator Callbeck: Why is there nothing in this legislation about statutory review so that these changes can be reviewed in five or 10 years?
Ms. Kane: In my experience with other bills, that is often an amendment made at committee stage in the House of Commons. It was not in this case. Our minister has no objection to supporting an ongoing review of this legislation, be it a statutory review, a parliamentary review or otherwise. Certainly, it is the intention of the Department of Justice to monitor these reforms and to identify the need for future reforms in a timely way. The last parliamentary review, which should have happened five years after passage of the very significant reforms in 1992, was not able to proceed at the five-year mark, for various reasons. More than 10 years have passed and our minister has made it clear that we need to review these on an ongoing basis. It is a departmental and ministerial commitment of whether there is a parliamentary review.
Senator Joyal: There are many circumstances that can delay a review, especially when it is to be done by the Department of Justice, which seems to be a little more delicate than other departments. You referred to the 1992 reforms and said it was many years before the review took place. This bill deals with the rights of individuals with regard to detention, treatment and so on. Would it not be appropriate for us to get a commitment in writing from the Minister of Justice that the department will undertake that review if we do not amend the legislation to add that clause?
I remember that when Senator Milne was the chair of this committee we dealt with some bills that had that kind of clause, and departments do not seem to pay much attention to that obligation. If no one raises it in Parliament, it is seen as an administrative obligation. If no one asks questions, it is business as usual in the department; it comes when it comes.
When there are so many important changes as there are in this bill, I am not sure that I should be satisfied with the attitude, "We will do it, don't worry." I think we are entitled to an additional level of commitment from the minister to monitor those changes and come back to Parliament. Who will be the Minister of Justice five years from now? Who will be responsible in the Department of Justice for the monitoring of that? We do not know. We cannot be sure that it will happen.
In all fairness, and with the greatest respect for the Department of Justice, I think we should have a level of comfort that meets our expectation on those important changes. You have outlined many in your presentation and many senators have raised important concerns. In approving the legislation we should be satisfied that it will be monitored and that we will have a report when required and not "at some time in the future." Again, I do not want to do a "procés d`intention", but that is the reality of administration generally.
Ms. Kane: If you are suggesting that the minister send a letter to the committee indicating his intention to ensure that these amendments are closely monitored and to bring forward timely amendments, I am sure that he would consider that very seriously. It is the responsibility of a Minister of Justice in all cases to propose changes if changes are needed.
I will make a few other points about the past review in case my comments were misleading. It was supposed to be a parliamentary review. The Department of Justice was ready for that review in 1997, but for a variety of reasons other matters took precedence. It was not due to the department's oversight that the review did not occur in 1997. On the other hand, Ministers of Justice wanted to have the benefit of that parliamentary review before bringing forward reforms, and that process has been very helpful to the reform process.
You have noted concerns because we are dealing with individual rights. Everyone who has spoken about the current law in Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code has indicated that the system is working very well, and the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the scheme is fair and balanced and takes into account the twin goals of protecting public safety and protecting the rights of accused persons. I assume that if anything in Bill C-10 changes that balance in any way, the courts will soon rule accordingly, and if there are any changes needed, that would certainly prompt the expeditious amendments.
Senator Joyal: A letter from the minister would certainly be welcome by the committee, especially if there is a report after a limited period of time. The calendar for debates in the House of Commons is not the same as in this place. In this place, there is more continuity and stability of membership. Any of us who will be a member of this committee five years from now will be very interested to know that there is a report available that we could review here. That would be helpful to maintain the attention and priority that this section of the Criminal Code deserves to get from parliamentarians.
I am always uneasy when we have to wait to intervene until the court tells us that it is not right, and then we accuse the court of judicial activism. I much prefer that it be the other way around, that we get a report identifying key areas of concern and we intervene. If we change the system the other way around, we are always under the impression that we have to wait for the court to tell us what to do. We come first; the courts come after. That is a very important element of the stability of our system and the role of legislators in the implementation of the Charter, especially when there is such a delicate issue at stake.
Ms. Kane: I agree that it is preferable that Parliament be proactive. I only meant to indicate that if there is any question about the violation of the rights of an individual, which could be a case-by-case issue or an issue with the law, we have to rely on the courts to address those individual violations. I am not suggesting that they take on the role of making the law to the exclusion of Parliament.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions, senators?
Senator Andreychuk: We often ask for ministers' letters and for a three-year review. Mental illness is a health issue that is being foisted more and more into the criminal process. Therefore, I do not think we should deal with this legislation in the usual routine manner. I think this bill was a good attempt, albeit a delayed attempt. We are learning more every day about mental illness and the criminal system.
I suggest that we pass the bill, stating our concerns. I suggest that we get a mandate to keep this issue before us so that we can recall officials. Senator Pearson and I are members of the Human Rights Committee, and I borrowed the idea from that committee. The Human Rights Committee has asked for a mandate from the Senate to keep the issue of discrimination in the Public Service before us so that from time-to-time we can bring before us officials from the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board, et cetera. It keeps the matter current and under supervision.
For example, I would like to know what the Attorneys General of the provinces are doing six months from now. If we have a new minister, I would like to bring that minister here to highlight our concerns for him or her.
I suggest that we pass this bill and then seek a mandate for oversight of the entire subject matter. It is not the kind of issue on which we can just review the legislation. It is a question of the criminal justice system being used in this way.
The Chairman: We can prepare a motion and table it in the chamber.
Senator Andreychuk: That is the approach I would suggest. It also puts the onus on us to live up to our words.
Senator Joyal: Ms. Kane, you will remember that yesterday the representative of the Quebec bar raised the issue of legal aid with regard to a pilot project that is being undertaken there. That triggered the question of what is going on in the other provinces because the legal aid system in Canada varies from one province to another. Some provinces are under-funded and there is a lack of services, especially in remote regions. This is a very important aspect in the protection of the rights of people suffering from mental disorders.
How did you approach this issue at the Department of Justice when you were drafting this legislation?
Ms. Kane: The existing Criminal Code provisions make it clear where counsel can be appointed for a person who is not criminally responsible or unfit. In fact, if a person is unfit, they must have counsel. If they are not represented by counsel of choice that they are paying for or have on a legal aid certificate, the court must appoint counsel for them. In other cases, the court must appoint counsel for the not criminally responsible where it is seen to be in the interest of justice to do so. Whether or not legal aid is granted, the court will order counsel and the court will determine who should pay for that counsel. That is already in the Criminal Code.
We have had those discussions with our provincial colleagues. There is a working group of officials on mental disorder. There is also the Permanent Working Group on Legal Aid. We have brought that issue to their attention. They have indicated that although the code does not say specifically that legal aid must be granted or who should pay, it is working well because each jurisdiction has developed a system. As Mr. Flanagan noted, in Ontario there is a roster of people with expertise in these matters who are called upon. They are paid either at the legal aid rate or at the rate the province agrees to pay them.
We are not aware of any situations where a person who has been unfit or NCR has been denied counsel due to lack of payment. For example, in British Columbia, the Community Legal Assistance Society has emerged as the expert to defend the rights of the accused. We had a submission from them earlier. Lucie Joncas referred yesterday to the pilot project in Quebec. Other pilot projects are in place in other parts of Canada. I am aware of one in New Brunswick. They are slightly different. They are testing the model of expertly trained duty counsel to assist mentally disordered persons. Like many pilot projects funded by the federal government, the goal is to see if they work. If they do work, hopefully they will become models for the province to adopt.
I am only aware of the New Brunswick one having been evaluated. The others will be evaluated, but not enough time has passed to do that. The Permanent Working Group on Legal Aid is looking carefully at whether this is a more effective way to deliver legal services to this group of people.
Senator Ringuette: Would that apply also to the review board process?
Ms. Kane: Yes, it applies for both the court hearings and the review board process. The review board can also appoint counsel for an unrepresented, unfit and NCR accused. In most cases, they prefer that they are represented. Things go better when they are represented. On the other hand, it presents challenges for the counsel appointed in that they may have difficulty taking instructions. The amendment made in Bill C-10 permits that order to be made ahead of the hearing. As Mr. Flanagan noted yesterday, you do not arrive at the hearing only to discover the person is unrepresented and have to postpone it so that they can arrange counsel. The review board can have the counsel appointed before the hearing date so that everyone arrives instructed and ready to proceed, in an ideal world.
Senator Baker: Madam Chair, while the witness is here I want to clarify a bit of misinformation from yesterday's meeting.
There is no difference in the number of people required to be on the board. It is a minimum of five. There is no such thing as three in Quebec and five in Ontario. Section 672.38(1) of the Criminal Code says that a review board shall consist of not fewer than five members, so you could have 10 or 12 members.
Second, the witness from Quebec was referring to section 672.41(1) which says that a quorum is constituted by the chairperson, a practising psychiatrist and any other member. Anyone following the proceedings should be aware of that.
Third, section 672.39 says that a review board shall have at least one member who is a psychiatrist and one other member who they suggested would be a psychologist. I said that is must be someone practising in the medical field and is an expert in mental health, and that is correct according to the Criminal Code.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Also the chair of the review board has power under the Inquiries Act, which allows the board to do extraordinary things. Any objection to this bill is nonsense. The bill is a good bill.
Ms. Kane: Thank you, senator. You are correct in your reference to the provisions of the code. However, review boards, in some jurisdictions, do sit as three. Three can constitute a quorum. Section 672.38 refers to the review board in total of a province. For example, in the Ontario, I think they have more than 150 members because they sit in different panels at various places. In a smaller jurisdiction, there may just be five people who sit in different groups of three from time to time. The quorum has to have those key people in it. The quorum would not include the lay members above and beyond the three, if they were not available. It will never be less than three.
Senator Baker: The review board in each province must have five members.
Ms. Kane: Yes, for the composition of the entire review board. You cannot have one person appointed and say that is the review board.
Senator Baker: And you cannot have just three, as was suggested.
Ms. Kane: You are right. That was a misunderstanding. The minimum sitting at any particular hearing is three.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 1 to 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 11 to 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 21 to 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 31 to 40 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 41 to 50 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 51 to 60 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 61 to 65 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. It is agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee which to consider appending observations to the report?
I have asked that some observations be prepared and distributed to you for discussion. They are ready to be distributed. We could sit in camera to discuss the text of observations, but I will not ask people to leave the room.
I think you will find some observations that would suit the preoccupation that you have with regard to monitoring.
Senator Joyal: I move that we continue in camera.
The Chairman: Is that agreed.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Resuming public proceedings, would someone care to move a motion for the tabling of the report?
Senator Joyal: I move that the Chair be authorized to report to the house on the bill and on the relevant observations made and agreed upon by committee members.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. On Monday, I will table the motion. We will work together on that.
Senator Joyal: I want to add a word of appreciation for the questions that were prepared by the Library of Parliament. I find them accurate and comprehensive. They cover many aspects of the issues that we have raised, and I am very satisfied with the content.
The Chairman: I was going to say that, Senator Joyal. Thank you for the input. I, too, am very pleased with the good work that has been done during our study of Bill C-10. We are very pleased with it.
The committee adjourned.