Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 31 - Evidence - June 14, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-18, to amend certain acts in relation to DNA identification, met this day at 10:53 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome honourable senators, members of the public and those listening on Webcast. This is the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We are here today for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18.
Yesterday, we heard witnesses in relation to this matter, and following their evidence, honourable senators discussed certain observations that they would like to have appended to the report of this committee and to Bill C-18.
Regretfully, the observations have not been completed but they will be later today. I have discussed the matter with Senator Milne, the Deputy Chair, and we would like to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Later this morning, when the observations are complete, they will be discussed with Senators Fraser, Milne and Joyal. If approval is given and should the bill pass, then I would be in a position to table the report of this committee with the observations as approved by the steering committee. Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Bill C-18 was introduced in the House of Commons on June 8, 2006. The bill amends the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of Bill C-13, which was given Royal Assent on May 19, 2005 but has, save for a few sections, not been declared in force. One of the notable features of Bill C-13 is that it expanded the list of offences for which a DNA data bank order can be made.
Before I proceed, I want to remind honourable senators that rules, such as 96(7.1) of the Rules of the Senate, deal with how we do clause-by-clause consideration. Everyone on this committee is familiar with those rules. Honourable senators, rule 96(7.1) states, ``Except with leave of its members present, a committee cannot dispense with clause-by- clause consideration of a bill.''
Would there, therefore, be leave to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts in relation to DNA identification? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to discuss further appending observations to this report, or shall the remarks I made earlier about having them drafted by the researchers and reviewed by the steering committee plus Senator Fraser be acceptable?
Senator Baker: In other words, you are saying we should give our suggestions to the senators for consideration.
The Chairman: Yes. We can discuss it now, but yesterday Senator Fraser and Senator Joyal made suggestions for two different observations they would like to have included. Senator Baker, if you have others, we would like to hear them now and they will be included.
Senator Baker: I am concerned about the matter we went over yesterday where a warrant or an order could be issued for the collection of samples and after the fact, the RCMP, through their excellent counsel, may determine the facial invalidity of the warrant or order. In other words, they may determine that the warrant is defective on its face as we reviewed yesterday in this committee.
The bill points out that in specific instances where it is facially invalid because of a clerical error, it is referred to the Attorney General. It is referred to the Attorney General if the solicitors for the data bank of the RCMP— as specifically spelled out in the bill— declare that there may be other errors in the order or warrant that should be corrected. Of course, the reasons given by counsel were excellent and that is that they do not want to have evidence in their possession that was obtained through a facially invalid warrant or order.
I am still a little bit concerned. I have never seen this in any of the other acts of Parliament that I have been involved in for the last 33 years; that you can correct a warrant after the fact. It brings into question the 90-day limit on the setting of the date for a hearing with the court, during which time the person has the right to appear or to be represented by counsel, according to the bill. After all of this takes place and the order is issued and it is determined to be facially in error because of either a clerical error or some other reason, it is then somehow corrected by the Attorney General, if I understand it correctly. Reference is given to the Attorney General to make those corrections or to make a determination to make valid what is invalid in the first place.
I am concerned that it raises the question of, for example, should the warrant not have been issued in the first place? If it should not have issued in the first place, then there would be no sample to submit to the data bank. In other words, the caution to the government would be that in the future, perhaps they should consider a provision by regulation or somehow under the bill to give the person affected or the person's counsel notification of this correction after the fact, to enable them to pursue whatever remedy they wish. That is my only point.
The Chairman: Let us say the person's name was Donald and on the order, it is spelled D-n-o instead of D-o-n; that would be a clerical error that the Attorney General could correct.
Senator Baker: There are other errors listed apart from clerical errors. Do you remember the clause?
The Chairman: Honourable senators, may I ask the witnesses to come back to the table to help clarify this matter?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Baker: The problem is that the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, under whose authority the Crown prosecutor or whomever appears to ask that the order be given, can correct the order after the fact. There is something wrong with that.
The Chairman: You go on to say, in particular, ``if there is no notice given to the person affected.''
Senator Baker: Exactly, and not only that, but it may go to the actual substantive nature or the rationale for the order, if you can correct an order. I understand where you are coming from, but if the date is wrong on a warrant facially, if the time is wrong, if other substantive issues pertaining to it are incorrect, then the entire warrant continues into question.
David Bird, Counsel, Legal Services — RCMP, Department of Justice Canada: Section 21 of Bill C-18 deals with the amendment to the Criminal Code.
Senator Joyal: It is on page 13 of Bill C-18.
The Chairman: Mr. Bird, do you have a response to Senator Baker's representations.
Mr. Bird: I direct you to subsection 5.2 of the DNA Identification Act, which is where this process begins. That is where the Commissioner of the RCMP makes an opinion that if the offence referred to in an order or authorization is not a designated offence the commissioner shall retain it and then give notice to the Attorney General once he has arrived at this determination. These are not warrants; these are the DNA data bank orders. The process begins with a simple determination.
If there are typographical errors or other problems in the order that do not relate to it as an offence but there is an error on the face of it in some sense, often that will be brought to the attention of the submitting police agency who can go back to the clerk of the court and ask if it is correct. The court has the authority to make those clerical changes in that sort of process.
The Chairman: Before it goes to the Attorney General?
Mr. Bird: Yes, if he saw the error and identified it as a problem not related to a non-designated offence. As an example, it could be the transposition of the figures of the offence. On the face of it, the document looks wrong but we see the charge coming in, there is a conviction notice and there is a problem that was simply a clerical error made by the clerk of the court transposing the figures. The question then is within the jurisdiction of that particular court to amend those typographical clerical errors. That is a different process. If it is resolved at that level, then it would be accepted. The court would have the authority to issue the correct document that the police would have relied upon. It is a matter of that sort of level.
The second problem is more significant. It becomes very complicated, and I say that from the point of view that I get to look at many of these problems. In particular, the problems of historical offences are very complicated; offences amended by a revised statute, a law of Canada, where it remains in force and an historical offence is charged back in time. Let us say that there is a sexual assault on a young person who later on gets a conviction as an adult for the person who they alleged to have perpetrated a crime against them, those offences are charged under an old section of the Criminal Code. We then have to review those to determine whether they are now referred to in the current reference to a section number, even though on the face of it the offence appears to be not a designated offence on the current acts of Parliament in the Criminal Code. We have to go back in time.
These decisions are not necessarily a simple matter of going down a list and indicating yes or no. We have to look at the time and date of that offence and whether or not it was charged correctly under an existing statute. Those are legal determinations which are not purely simple. The court obviously decided that historically yes that was still a valid offence in reference to the current section of the designated offences in the Criminal Code.
We are looking at those kinds of issues. When we have those, we are neither sure nor clear, so we are going back to the Attorney General for his confirmation that it is agreed that this would not be a problem in the future should a warrant have to be issued on this particular order. The order would then be on the basis of what is in the data bank compared to what is in the crime scene. Based on that, they would then get a DNA data bank warrant and that would be used in evidence, but we are worried about the concept of the fruit of the poison tree. That is, eventually someone could go back and attack this root. We are saying that we want to ensure the Attorneys General of the province address this before we make a determination that we will not accept it. That is what we are doing here.
These amendments follow from Bill C-25. You must read the previous bill or Bill C-13 to understand what was changed to allow this process to be resolved. Presently, there are about 1,000 of these in a box, or in limbo, and the RCMP would like to resolve them one way or the other. We are not in a position where we want to unilaterally, without authority, dispose of these without having some legal authority to do so. We are seeking that in these amendments.
The Chairman: I would like to go back to Senator Baker's principal concern, which is the possibility of the Attorney General or someone else altering, changing or amending an order after it was made without the knowledge of the person to whom it was directed.
Greg Yost, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: The major problem has been receiving orders where the offence is clearly not one that is there. For example, he was convicted of drug trafficking. At this moment, we do not cover the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — we will when this bill is passed. They have received an order, it has been carried out and they have the blood. The Commissioner of the RCMP does not have the information as to what led to this. It goes back to the Attorney General who would be able to find it in the files of the court. In many of these cases, it turns out the person has multiple convictions. For example, he was convicted of drug trafficking and of assaulting the police officer who tried to arrest him. The DNA order was granted by the court in connection with the second offence, but the wrong one was recorded. In those cases, the Attorney General goes back to the court, gets a corrected order and sends it in and they will clean that one out.
What we had in Bill C-13 and what we are proposing to change is the case where everyone is agreed that there was no jurisdiction to do it. That person was only convicted of drug trafficking; the judge had no jurisdiction under law to make the order. Bill C-13 provided for the Attorney General to go to the Court of Appeal to get the order quashed. This matter was considered at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and they passed a resolution saying that this does not make sense. It will cost thousands of applications to the Court of Appeal and all that time and energy to address the issue that Senator Baker mentioned.
The order will not go in because the person will have it quashed. We are not affecting this person's rights or putting him in; we are keeping him out. The cost of trying to find a thousand people across Canada and serve them with notice that we want to quash an order would be high.
The Chairman: With respect to quashing, he is talking about amending, varying, changing or altering.
Mr. Yost: The Attorney General can certify and explain why this is a designated offence. He can go to court the first time and get the amended order. The court will amend the order. The court will go through its records, along with the Attorney General, and certify that he was actually convicted of this offence, which is a designated offence, and then we can process it.
Senator Milne: At this point, not being a lawyer, I am like Winnie the Pooh, a bear of very little brain. It seems to me that Senator Baker's suggestion that the government consider a future provision to give notification to the person or to their counsel who is the subject of this order to be a reasonable suggestion, so that this does not happen in a vacuum unknown to the person who is the subject of the order.
Mr. Yost: We can consider it. I can tell you that this was raised with the provinces. I presented the arguments, which were accepted by the federal government. Counsel does not always represent these people and the cost of trying to find these people is high. Legal Aid will ask if it is their responsibility to find the client, which would have a heavy cost. We will certainly consider it if that is in your report.
Senator Milne: Senator Baker is not suggesting this is an amendment to the bill. He is suggesting it as an observation.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised this observation is because in the wording of the section we are talking about, ``granted'' is a new word. It says, ``. . . an authorization granted under 487.091 appears to be defective. The Attorney General shall review the order or authorization and the court record.''
The problem with that is that an order was issued, which in itself was defective, being discovered after the fact by the Attorney General, but the prejudice has already been done. The order has been carried out. The ramifications of carrying out an order that was defective on its face and could have but should not have in some cases been issued, would have huge ramifications on the use of that blood after it is in the possession of the RCMP.
I can see why the RCMP is concerned. Down the road, they do not want some defence lawyer to say that the blood was obtained illegally, contrary to a Charter provision. It is under section 8 of the Charter with regard to an illegal search — and, therefore, under section 24(2) the evidence so obtained shall be excluded and cannot be used, according to Stillman, as a reason for another warrant to be issued. In other words, you cannot use a Charter violation as part of the grounds for granting another warrant.
There are huge ramifications down the road when you correct something after the fact without then notifying the person or the person's counsel, and perhaps there is another offence down the road and the counsel is not aware of the fact that the blood was obtained in the beginning through a violation of the Charter on a facially defective warrant. As you know, there is a huge amount of case law on facially defective warrants. They have been thrown out, and the results of that search have been excluded as evidence.
I want to make that clarification. That is why I was raising it in that context, in that there should perhaps be some remedial work done after this is passed to try to correct some injustice that could occur down the road that would be unbeknownst to the lawyer or the person so charged.
Mr. Yost: I want to make the comment that these have not been processed. That is the whole point. Many have not been processed and are not in the data bank.
Senator Baker: However, the order was issued and the order executed.
Mr. Yost: Yes, when it arrives, the RCMP checks it and make sure it fits within the statute. Let me assure you that when this came up, we spent a lot of time on it.
The Commissioner of the RCMP cannot be asked to go into a thousand courtrooms and oppose an order that was granted. The police have received the authorization and have carried it out. The issue becomes whether the commissioner can process that order. Our advice to the commissioner has been no, you cannot because it has been invalidly granted.
The process that we have been trying to establish is one to find out whether in fact it was validly granted. If it is validly granted, the Attorney General obtains a corrected order or explains the law that leads to the conclusion that it is a designated offence. It will now have gone in properly because it was a legitimate order.
There will be hundreds of them. Courts have issued these orders; most of them, as I understand it, have been for things like criminal harassment, uttering threats and some that fall under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, all of which will be covered when Bill C-13 is proclaimed. There will be fewer because we will be covering more.
Even though the court has ordered it, the commissioner will not process them. He wants a way to clear them out and follow the good ones to get them. That may lead to solving some crimes and getting the other ones out. He will destroy the bodily samples, and that is what he will do upon receiving these.
Senator Baker: The data bank?
Mr. Yost: Yes. When the data bank receives them, they will destroy all bodily samples, and they will finally be able to close their files.
Mr. Bird: To help you understand it from my perspective, the orders will be issued in contested situations where counsel is present in the prospective cases. The only cases where you would not have that happen, which was the basis of the Rodgers case, are ex parte hearings for these retroactive cases in history where they may not have had ex parte. The basic discussion in Rodgers was there was a constitutional right to be there, and that is why it was split, in my opinion.
Most of these cases will be dealing with orders that were issued post-conviction for one of the designated offences. The question we deal with is not really retroactive orders. It is these contested orders where someone has been convicted of something and they have gone down the list. It is not a limited number of ex parte orders. We control what we apply for with respect to ex parte retroactive orders. We go on the list and ensure they are qualified, and then they are sent out. There is a whole screening process ahead of time for those.
We do not have the same problem with these authorizations, although there could be a re-sampling authorization based on an original one, but we would have seen that. It would be extremely rare that we would have an authorization granted with respect to a non-designated offence. I cannot imagine that happening in our system. The counsel would have been there and would have heard the court order when this was granted. He did or did not contest it and had the chance to appeal. He or she missed that.
When this is executed, the police have a duty. They are commanded to execute this order. They have no reason to contest it, so they follow their duty, which they have to do under the Criminal Code. They have a police duty to do so. They have to tell the person they are executing that he or she has the right to counsel, and the opportunity to consult with respect to it. The police have a duty to read the contents of the order to the person before they execute it.
The person is given the reason and has the right to counsel and the right to take on a quashing motion. We have it because it has come in. We are now at the point of asking: What do we do?
My understanding of the system here will be that the commissioner goes through it and says there is a problem with it. He then goes back to the Attorney General and if it is a clerical error then the Attorney General has a right to apply ex parte to the judge who made the order to have it corrected where, in his opinion, it is due to clerical error. This is found in subsection 5.2 under Bill C-25, which states what he can do. He can then transmit a copy of that to the Commissioner of the RCMP and we can then deal with it.
The Chairman: Why would they not give notice?
Mr. Bird: It is a clerical error. The judge intended one thing and agreed that it is a mistake. He is making it right what he intended the accused would have been ordered to do. It is just that at some place in the process numbers were transposed or the wrong offence was chosen.
Senator Baker: It was done after the fact?
Mr. Bird: Yes; after the fact. The Rodgers case involved whether the whole issue should be ex parte.
Senator Baker: Yes and the court said it was legal.
Mr. Bird: This would just make it correct on the record.
If the opinion of the Attorney General was that it was not a designated offence, he does not have to go back and ask the court to quash it. He just tells the commissioner to destroy it. That would be the authority we need to stop it at that process. That is why it goes back to the Attorney General. Most of these amendments are simply to avoid the Attorney General having to go back to court to make an application to have an order quashed which he could consider invalid and say, ``We accept the Attorney General's opinion.'' That is the substantial difference between the Bill C-18 process and what you saw in Bill C-13.
Senator Joyal: I am reading that whole section, the consolidated section, which is 487.0911, (1) (2) (3) and (4). Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Yost, when you answered, in your first reply to Senator Baker's question, that you were not supportive of the notification on the basis that it would be difficult to find a person?
Mr. Yost: That is definitely a practical concern. Given that the person's rights will not be violated because we are in the process of destroying his bodily substances and not putting him into the DNA data bank, yes. That was our discussion with the provinces about the process and the related costs. There may be someone walking around out there who is concerned that my DNA is in the data bank. Maybe I should not go out and commit a crime because I might get caught. We tell him that he is not in the DNA data bank. If the observation is made, we will consider it in the future. I do not put an ad in the paper to notify the person that the notice has been quashed and the person is not in the DNA data bank. It is a possibility, I suppose, but it was definitely not the situation when we discussed it with the provinces as to the costs and difficulties. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada looked at this and was unanimous in saying this was a better, more effective and faster process that does not clog up the courts with useless applications. There would be a whole bunch of issues as to substitutional notice if you cannot find the person, et cetera. Yes, that was a fact, namely, the difficulties of finding a person and the costs were viewed by our provincial colleagues as being an unnecessarily complicated and expensive step.
Senator Joyal: It seems to me you are affecting the right of the person. Subsection 487.0911(4) states:
If the Attorney General is of the opinion that the offence referred to in the order or authorization is a designated offence, the Attorney General shall transmit that opinion, with written reasons, to the Commissioner.
Mr. Yost: That will probably be the case.
Senator Joyal: If I am the targeted person, the decision with written reasons will be transmitted to the commissioner and I will not even have an opportunity to contradict those reasons. I will not even know about it.
Mr. Yost: In all likelihood, it was an issue that was debated before the trial judge. We are applying for DNA order on the basis that it was a designated offence, even though it was under the Statutes of Canada, 1984 when this was committed and, by changing a number, et cetera, is arrived here. When it arrives at the DNA data bank and they see a number that does not jibe with the number in the list, they go back to the Attorney General and they ask what happened. If he provides the explanation as to how we got there, it will pass by Mr. Bird's desk. Mr. Bird will not receive, for example, a statement that in the opinion of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences are covered; obviously, they are not. There must be an explanation that leads to that conclusion. It will probably be the same argument heard in front of a judge to get to the order in the first place.
Senator Joyal: I find there is a contradiction in your reasons. First, you tell us it is difficult to find a person; however, if the data bank matches someone's identity, the RCMP gets their man. The argument that you will not find the person is weak, in my humble opinion.
Second, you say there is a cost, but in the same answer to us, you told us that those will be rare cases. If they are rare cases, they cannot be that expensive. They cannot involve that much money. To me, as a Canadian, when you are intruding into my rights and you make it easier to intrude, you must have some parameters. That is why the Criminal Code is so thick; it tries to prevent an abuse of additional power that we are giving to the police forces or to the system generally. When you are deciding upon someone's private life, according to the court — and it is an intrusion into the private life of the person — it must be framed into following the best protection for the person so that a person can argue his or her rights.
If you give me reasons that seem to be questionable or doubtful, I have a reserve naturally about your request.
Mr. Yost: One of these days, I hope we will be getting to the major review of the legislation. The structure that we have now is unquestionably constitutional. The protections for privacy have been well commented on by the Supreme Court of Canada and are vital to maintaining the statute. Here, we have a situation where a person is convicted. An order was made in open court and was not challenged. It was carried out by the police and it arrives at the RCMP's national DNA data bank. If the commissioner had merely accepted any order that came through and put them in, saying that the judge ordered it and it is not for me to challenge this, these would go in. Perhaps we would have some hits by now and there would be a case in front of court saying that a warrant was issued based on this evidence but, look, the order should not have been granted. We are avoiding that entire argument because we are not processing these. We cannot ask the Commissioner of the RCMP to go to a thousand courtrooms across Canada and make motions himself. He will have to go to the Attorney General of the province and ask why he seems to have an order that does not fit into the legislation: I will only put into my data bank what Parliament says I can put there, so explain why I have an order here under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that is not covered by the legislation.
I remember distinctly seeing an order when we were first looking at this where it was written across it, ``I know this is not a designated offence, but this person should be in the data bank,'' or words to that effect. There was a judge who was not happy with this person was, made the order, and was quite clear that he was aware that it was not a designated offence. However, Parliament decides who goes in. We did not say that the judges could make that decision.
Senator Baker: The witnesses have only dealt with the third section of the amendment and omitted referring to the first two sections. The third section deals with something that is a designated offence and an error has been made in the order, but the first two instances were matters that are referred to the Attorney General, and deal with a clerical error that has been made. The first one is whether the authorization granted appears to be defective. With respect to the clerical error, the Attorney General shall review it and so on. If it is a clerical error for example, on the face the warrant, what can the Attorney General do? He can go back ex parte to the judge and get it corrected after the fact; is that correct? It is after the blood has been obtained.
Senator Nolin: No, he just told us it is before.
Senator Baker: Senator Nolin is correcting me and he is saying that in clause 21 this takes place before the sample of blood is taken. That is not correct. It is after; it is a process after it is taken.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Yost told us it is before.
Mr. Yost: There are two things here. Perhaps I can clear it up because this clause of the bill deals with blood taken under an order or an authorization. You keep referring to a warrant. This has nothing to do with a warrant.
Senator Baker: I call an order a warrant, but anyway, I know there is a difference between an order and a warrant. It is a search warrant to me. It is a search when you take blood. It is a search under clause 8. You take blood from someone — bodily fluids — it is a search.
Mr. Yost: I agree it is a search; there is no question about that, but I do not want to get confused with the DNA warrants that we get and use in court for that kind of thing.
This is the order, the authorization that has been granted by a judge after finding someone guilty of offence. This is an authorization to the police. The police then go find the person, take some blood or pluck some hair and send it into the RCMP. It is required under the rules and regulations that the order or authorization accompanies it. The RCMP receives that. They review it and they say wait a second this is not a designated offence.
Senator Baker: Or they find a clerical error.
Mr. Yost: They have no idea if it is a clerical error.
Senator Baker: That is what you have here in this amendment: clerical error.
Mr. Yost: That is the opinion of the Attorney General that it is a clerical error. It goes back to the Attorney General.
Senator Baker: Therefore, it is defective.
Senator Joyal: Proposed subsection 487.0911(2) concerns clerical errors.
Senator Baker: Then the corrective action is taken. In other words, then you go ex parte to a judge and correct the order which was used to take the sample in the first place. The point is that it is remedial, it is after the fact, and it raises a question of the rights of an individual.
The Chairman: Because it is ex parte, no notice has been given.
Senator Baker: That has been judged to be legal. However, the process we are approving now is to amend the order, which could have been illegal in the beginning if it was facially defective to the point where it affected the execution of the order, then it would be an illegal order, and, therefore, it would not have been taken. The RCMP is protecting itself because they are protecting what they have, and they are correcting an order after the fact and saying, ``What we have is legal. We do not want to be challenged.'' They are right. The problem is what does that do to the person who has had his blood taken illegally?
Senator Milne: I think we have heard enough from these gentlemen, and I am not persuaded. I think that the observations should include the fact that this committee has great concerns about correcting a facially defective warrant or order, whatever it is, after the fact, ex parte. It goes back to my original suggestion that the government consider a future provision to give notification to the person or their counsel when this happens.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, are you agreed with that suggestion for an observation from Senator Milne?
Senator Baker: I would use the word ``disclose.'' Disclose to the person affected and/or his solicitor that this was done because that allows them in the future proceedings to question the authenticity of the taking of the blood in the first place.
Senator Joyal: I agree with Senator Milne's suggestion. It answers the preoccupation I have with what we discussed yesterday about the expansion of the system without the proper controls at each time we are pushing the limit forward. It is in line with the expression of concern that this committee has repeatedly expressed over the years when we were seized with amendments to the original project whereby we were supposed to go through a review after five years. This committee, and Senator Nolin and I insisted that we amend the original legislation on that. We have reached a point now where this committee should go through the review that we put into the original legislation to have a better idea of the system we have put into place and where it needs frameworks to prevent an abuse of its purpose. This committee should apply sober second thought about what it could be.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, are there other suggestions for observations to come before the committee at this time? We have three. The researchers have made notes and, as agreed before, they will do the drafting.
Senator Nolin: Senator Joyal —
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Senator Joyal, do you want the observations to mention the review of the act?
Senator Joyal: I think that they should.
Senator Nolin: That should be specifically stated.
[English]
The observation will make a specific reference. It is not up to the department to decide; it is up to us.
The Chairman: That is a good point.
Senator Nolin: It is up to us to decide that.
Senator Joyal: I remember when Senator Milne was in the chair at that time. When the system was put into place, there were all kinds of questions that remained unanswered and it is because we were facing something new and breaking new ground without exactly knowing exactly the limits of it, that we put that review in the original statute. Now we understand. As we said around the table, we have expanded and expanded, and we have created something where we are building on the past and we have arrived at the point where we have to review it. What we are discussing this morning is a clear example of that.
Senator Nolin: The minister was clear and supportive of this idea of moving into the review.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that this bill be reported without amendment and with observations to the Senate as soon as possible?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: There is no further business to come before the committee at this time, and next week for the committee, the clerk is working with Senator Watt to get witnesses for the non-derogation clauses and calls have gone out and further notice will come to honourable senators later on.
Senator Baker: I wish to thank the witnesses who have appeared during this bill — everyone in this room. I think they have done a great job.
The committee adjourned.