Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence for November 2, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-3, A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law, met this day at 4:18 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator John D. Wallace (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to today's meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I believe you are aware from the agenda that we have two items that we will be considering, one involving Bill S-3, which I will refer to in just a moment, and the conclusion of our Parole Board User Fee Proposal that has been tabled by the Minister of Public Safety.
Before moving ahead with Bill S-3, there is a housekeeping matter I would like to deal with. I would require a motion along the following lines, that the following material be filed as exhibits with the clerk of the committee:
(1) A letter from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada dated October 14, 2011, to the chair to the committee related to Bill S-3;
(2) A response from Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada to a question taken on notice at the meeting held on Wednesday, October 5, 2011, relating to the committee's special study on the Parole Board of Canada's pardon application fees; and
(3) Supplementary information provided by the Parole Board of Canada in response to questions taken on notice from the meeting held on September 29, 2011, relating to the committee's special study on the Parole Board of Canada's pardon application fees.
That third piece of information was just circulated a while ago. It was received this afternoon.
Do I have a motion?
Senator Lang: So moved.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. We will now turn our attention to Bill S-3. As I had mentioned earlier, Bill S-3 is A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law. It is also known as the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 3.
This is the third harmonization bill to be tabled by the government following the coming into force of the Civil Code of Quebec in 1994. The two previous harmonization statutes came into force in 2001 and 2004, respectively.
Since 1867, the Parliament of Canada has enacted more than 300 statutes that are designed, in whole or in part, to regulate matters of private law. Examples of these matters are marriage and divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency, bills of exchange and promissory notes, interest on money, admiralty law, patents of invention and copyright.
Harmonization aims to ensure that the existing provisions of federal laws are brought into line with the existing civil law. It also addresses the question of pre-Confederation law and the need to rewrite the French versions of federal statutes in order to reflect the common law. Since 1993, the federal Department of Justice has examined some 700 federal statutes and has identified 300 that will need to be harmonized.
Bill S-3 seeks to harmonize changes to 12 statutes, including the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Expropriation Act.
This bill is identical in substance to Bill S-12, which was introduced in the last parliamentary session but died on the Order Paper following the call of the last election. Many of you will remember our work on Bill S-12 when it was before this committee last December. During our study on that bill, the committee held four meetings, hearing from eight witnesses, including the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and others.
After concluding its public hearings, this committee reported the bill back to the Senate on December 9, 2010, without amendment. Bill S-12 subsequently received third reading and passed the Senate and was sent to the House of Commons for further study, where it died on the Order Paper with the call of the election in the spring.
You will remember, honourable senators, that the committee was most impressed with the Department of Justice legislative bijuralism team and the consultation and research they undertook in order to draft such a complicated and technical bill. This was something that we chose as a committee to communicate to the minister by way of a letter from the chair and deputy chair, and we also included a few additional observations in our letter to the minister, suggesting that anything the department could do to facilitate the means for ensuring clarification of the legislative intent of these types of bills would also be supported by the committee.
With that in mind, and knowing that Bill S-3 would soon be before us, we asked the minister to provide the committee with some assurance as to the substantive similarity between Bill S-12 and Bill S-3. The Minister of Justice did provide a letter to me, which has now been circulated to all committee members, in which he confirms that these bills are identical in substance, noting one minor drafting change for the record.
Given the evidence obtained last session as part of the study on Bill S-12, which is part of the public records of this committee's work, and given this committee's previous report without amendment on a similar bill and the assurances from the minister that this bill is substantively identical to Bill S-3, the steering committee has determined that we would hear today from John Mark Keyes, Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice.
Mr. Keyes, we are very pleased to have you back before us again on a matter concerning harmonization of federal and civil code statutes. I understand you have an opening statement you wish to make. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
John Mark Keyes, Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here once again to discuss Bill S-3, A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.
[English]
As the title to Bill S-3 indicates, it is the third set of proposals introduced before Parliament in order to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec. You may recall that Bill S-4 was introduced in 2001 and it became the first harmonization act. Bill S-10 was introduced in 2004 and became the second harmonization act.
You will note that these were both Senate bills, as indeed the bill before you today is. This is no coincidence; these bills have always been warmly welcomed in the Senate, in particular by your committee.
[Translation]
Bill S-3 seeks to amend 12 statutes, including the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Expropriation Act.
[English]
As the Minister of Justice indicated in a letter that the chair just mentioned, Bill S-3 is identical in substance to Bill S-12, which was considered by this committee during the last session of the last Parliament.
I take this opportunity to bring to your attention two minor drafting changes that were made to the French version of the bill. These changes do not affect the scope of the bill. One of them is on page 40. It is a change to the marginal note of section 121. It simply reflects in the marginal note something that is in the text of the provision itself. It adds the article "un" in French.
The second change is on page 72, to section 160. This change amounts to adding the demonstrative —
[Translation]
— "ce" before the word "mandataire" instead of the ellipsis that was there before. You may recall that Bill S-12 was introduced in the Senate for the first time on October 20, 2010, and then read for a second time and referred to this committee on November 18, 2010.
I appeared before this committee along with our minister, Mr. Nicholson, on September 1, 2010. This committee heard from other witnesses on December 2, 8, and 9, 2010.
[English]
The statements made by the witnesses during these hearings clearly indicated that the legal community firmly supported Bill S-12. The committee, as the chair has noted, unanimously adopted the bill without amendment and in doing so acknowledged the unequivocal support of the witnesses for the harmonization initiatives and for this bill in particular.
[Translation]
In a letter dated December 15, 2010 addressed to the Minister of Justice, this committee congratulated the Department of Justice's Legislative Bijuralism Team on their professionalism and exemplary rigor in the drafting of Bill S-12.
The committee said that it was also satisfied with the in-depth consultation and research carried out by the Department of Justice in the context of this initiative.
[English]
Bill S-12 was read for a third time in the Senate on December 14, 2010, and read for the first time in the House of Commons the next day. The bill died on the Order Paper when the Fortieth Parliament was dissolved in March of this year.
[Translation]
Bill S-3, which is before you today, is part of the Department of Justice's ongoing harmonization initiative. Harmonization involves reviewing federal law to ensure that federal statutes and regulations that use provincial or territorial private law concepts are compatible with both common law and civil law, where necessary.
[English]
The harmonization amendments contained in Bill S-3 are terminological and non-controversial. They do not alter Parliament's intention but rather ensure its full application in the civil law as well as the common law context.
[Translation]
I would also point out that harmonization and legislative bijuralism not only facilitate the application of federal legislation in both civil law and common law, but also foster greater respect for our two legal systems and our two official languages.
[English]
Honourable senators, I thank you for your attention to my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the proposed harmonization contained in this bill. I also invite you to consult the clause-by-clause analysis binder, which explains the harmonization amendments contained in the bill. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Keyes. Before turning to senators for questions, as both of us have pointed out, it is somewhat of a unique situation where this committee had the benefit of examining Bill S-12 in great detail, and, as you point out, other than in respect of a couple of technical matters, it is identical. As we recall in dealing with Bill S-12, it was a very rigorous examination by this committee. It certainly gives us the benefit of that as we now consider Bill S-3.
For our first question, I will turn to our deputy chair, Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: This is not specifically about this bill but about its predecessors, which were equally impressive and technical. Have any difficulties arisen with the implementation of those bills? Have any flaws turned up in them, as people have actually dealt with them in practice?
Mr. Keyes: Not to my knowledge. There has been some judicial consideration of the sections that were added to the Interpretation Act, sections 8.1 and 8.2, which was intended to make clear the purpose of harmonization and to assist in the interpretation of provisions that would now contain terminology from both systems. Those Interpretation Act provisions have been well understood. They have not resulted in any difficulties, as far as we can tell.
As a general matter, I think the harmonization initiative has been understood. In particular, I am not aware of any particular changes or difficulties that have arisen from the changes.
Senator Fraser: There were no lessons you had to learn, which was really what I was trying to get at, when you were producing the predecessor of Bill S-3. You had a process that appeared to be sufficiently refined in that you could continue with that process and all would be well.
Mr. Keyes: That is right. That is not to say that new issues have not come up, things that we did not see before.
The bill you have before you, to a large extent, is built on the experience of the first two bills, but as we go forward, we also find new issues and new problems, and we continue to work to resolve those as well.
Senator Fraser: When can we expect to see number four in the series?
Mr. Keyes: I would be delighted to bring it forward as soon as we possibly can. It depends on the government, of course, and on its other legislative priorities. We are certainly well advanced in terms of the substantive preparation of the bill. It really is a question of legislative priorities with the government.
Senator Fraser: Can you tell us what areas of law bill number four will be covering?
Mr. Keyes: We are planning to continue looking at commercial law statutes, statutes relating to the companies' creditors relief arrangement, the Competition Act, possibly financial institutions legislation, such as the Bank Act, although with things like the Bank Act, we are dealing with them on a different track. As you know, there is a five-year review of that act, so regularly there are chances to harmonize in the context of other legislative initiatives. It may not be necessary to deal with the Bank Act in a harmonization bill because we are dealing with it in another piece of amending legislation.
Another important piece of legislation is the Financial Administration Act, which is the backbone of government operations, and a great deal of it also has private law terminology and concepts in it.
Senator Fraser: These are very complicated statutes that you are tackling now. They are all complicated and technical, but the ones on your next list seem to me to be, perhaps, in some ways the toughest yet.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, indeed. They are certainly complex areas of law, but we are confident that we have a sound basis for making adjustments. It really is a question of trying to connect them with the underlying private law and make sure that the terminology we use in federal legislation is consistent with what is used provincially.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Keyes, perhaps for the benefit of some members of the committee who were not members of this committee when we considered Bill S-12, I am wondering if you could perhaps briefly describe the process that your legislative bijuralism team uses in creating this harmonization between the federal statute and the civil code. Of course, the civil code relates to matters within the provincial authority of the Province of Quebec. What process do you go through to ensure, for example, that the intent of the provincial legislation then matches up with the changes you wish to make federally? Just tell us a bit about the process your team goes through.
Mr. Keyes: I would be delighted to. Perhaps I would first say that the reason we were interested in the civil law of Quebec and the common law of the provinces is that federal legislation is filled with concepts from those systems. Even laws like the Criminal Code have private law concepts. If you think of something like the offence for theft, the notion of property is an essential component in defining the offence of theft.
These private law concepts are embedded all over the place in federal legislation. We start by examining a particular act or a particular regulation to first see if there are any connections between the federal legislation and the provincial law. You take the whole body of federal statutes, and there are approximately 600 of them. We found that in something like a little less than half of them, there really are no private law concepts involved in that legislation; they are purely federal law. There is no connection with provincial law.
Of course, in the remaining ones, there are the concepts that are embedded in the legislation.
Our work has begun by conducting research on what are the equivalencies in terms of what you find as a concept that is referenced in federal law. What are the equivalencies in both systems? In some instances, it is relatively easy to find them. If you take, for example, the notion of a mortgage in the common law, the notion of an hypothèque is fairly close to that concept in the civil law. We have not really had to do a whole lot of research in terms of refining that; it is something that was fairly obvious from the start. When we find references to mortgages and to hypothèques in the legislation, we simply ensure that both of them are reflected in the relevant provisions.
In other cases, it is a bit more difficult to make those equivalencies, for example, around security interests. The concepts of security, as Senator Fraser noted, are very complex legal concepts, and they have developed in different ways in each system of law. It is often a question of trying to understand what is in each system and trying to pull out of it terminology that will resonate in each system. Sometimes that is a question of using the terminology of each system, but sometimes it is also a question of trying to use more general language that will encompass those concepts in a general way and will pick them up and ensure they can operate fully in federal legislation.
Our work really begins with a study phase of trying to understand what the concepts are, what the equivalencies are in each system. We then prepare an analysis that we take to the departments that are responsible for administering this legislation.
The first step is to ensure that they are involved, that they understand what we are proposing to do and to see if they have any concerns or any additional information that they should bring to this exercise that will help us to make sure that what we are doing is ensuring harmonization and, for example, not making any unintended alterations to the substance of the legislation.
The second phase is engaging with the departments in a discussion around what we are proposing to do so that they can understand what we are doing and also that we can perhaps better understand the legislation that we are trying to harmonize, and that is particularly important in very complex fields.
The next phase is to prepare the proposals for public consultation. In this last exercise, we consulted in a variety of ways. We posted the proposals on the Internet site of the Department of Justice so they were available to anybody who has Internet access, telling people that these are the things that we are proposing to do and inviting their comments on those proposals.
We also sent letters to about 350 people that we considered would be particularly interested in this, to other attorneys general across the provinces, to Chief Justices of the courts, to academics who were interested particularly in these legal questions, just to ensure that they were aware that these proposals were out there and again to invite them to provide us with the benefit of any comments that they might want to make on the proposals. The response that we got from that was overwhelmingly positive in terms of their comments and assuring us that we were going in the right direction.
We also held, for these proposals, a round table at the University of Montreal in 2008, particularly looking at the proposals around the Canada Business Corporations Act. That, of course, is a critical piece of legislation in the corporate world. We wanted to ensure that the corporate community was comfortable with what we were doing in relation to that act.
Also, that consultation helped us with the Canada Cooperatives Act because, for the most part, all the changes we were making in the Canada Cooperatives Act were identical to things we were doing in the Canada Business Corporations Act as well, so that consultation did double duty for both those pieces of legislation.
Once the consultations were wound up, we went to the drafting table to prepare the bill, and we have now arrived at the stage of presenting the bill for your consideration once again.
The Chair: Mr. Keyes, when you look at worldwide jurisdictions, is Canada in any way unique in having to proceed with this type of harmonization process? As we are well aware, the civil code dictates provincial matters within in the Province of Quebec, and common law applies to other provinces and territories in the country. Are there any experiences that you looked at worldwide in developing the process that your team has undertaken?
Mr. Keyes: I would say that our exercise and our approach are unique in the world. There are certainly other countries that have somewhat mixed systems of law. Perhaps one of the most familiar is Scotch law in the United Kingdom. Scotch law is an amalgam of Roman law and civil law, and so the private law of Scotland is somewhat different. Some of the criminal law is different as well. That body of Scotch law exists in the U.K. context. They do not have the harmonization approach that we have. Rather, instead, the U.K. Parliament has simply carved out certain areas for treatment by Scotch law. It is not really a system that combines the two. It is one that says certain matters are covered by this law; other matters are covered by the other law. Here in Canada, we have a federal law that speaks to both systems, really. That is, I think, unique around the world.
In other countries, you have an experience of maybe jurisdictions that had civil law at one time, particularly states like California and Louisiana, with civil law systems, but they have gradually simply been absorbed into the common law world. Bits and pieces of the civil law still exist to some extent in the private law in California and Louisiana, but for the most part, through a process of assimilation, they have become common law jurisdictions as well.
Senator Fraser: I recall being told years ago, probably when Bill No. 1 in the series came to us, that South Africa would have been a vaguely comparable state, with two ancestral systems of law plus two languages.
Mr. Keyes: That is right. If you look at the history of South Africa, you had the Dutch law, and then certain parts of South Africa were under British rule. I am not too familiar with how things are governed in South Africa. My impression is that it is largely a civil law jurisdiction, although the common law has a certain presence within that.
Senator Fraser: Thank you.
The Chair: When you mentioned the Scottish experience, it is interesting, maintaining separate laws for Scotland within Great Britain, and the influence, perhaps, I am sure that had with the earlier roots of our own country, with Prime Minister MacDonald, who was born in Scotland, and the acceptance of two legal systems from 1867 forward. I am sure in no small way that was influenced by the Scottish experience, and that is very much reflected in Canada today.
Senator Fraser: And your own origin, Mr. Chair, would be?
Mr. Keyes: That is a fascinating point, Senator Wallace. I have been meaning to read Richard Gwyn's recent biography of Sir John, and it would certainly be something to look for to see if he had come across that in his biography.
The Chair: It is certainly something to remember on Tartan Day every year.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Do you follow up on how courts are interpreting the amendments you have made to the statutes? Or do you simply let things develop, once the legislation is passed, without checking how courts in particular are interpreting the amendments?
Mr. Keyes: We are closely following caselaw — especially that of the Supreme Court of Canada — in bijural cases. Overall, we have found nothing wrong with that caselaw. The courts have fully grasped the intent of the harmonization proposals and amendments. I do not know of any cases where a provision had to be amended again owing to a problem.
Senator Joyal: Were there any cases where a provision was unclear based on how the courts were interpreting it?
Mr. Keyes: No. I think that the courts have fully understood the intent of the amendments.
Senator Joyal: Once the bill has been passed, how do you disseminate the result you or Parliament achieved? Do you feel that the fact that you held roundtables, as you said, to consult universities, the Conseil de la magistrature and bar associations, was sufficient to notify people? Are you using any other dissemination methods to inform the affected client base, specifically, law faculties and experts, about the legislation you are amending?
Mr. Keyes: We will have a solid communications strategy for this bill, as we do for all other legislation. That strategy will include advertising in newspapers and on our website, and probably notifying the people we are working with closely in our research.
Senator Joyal: What if someone has a question after reading the bill, once it has been passed? Is there some sort of a service at the Department of Justice — an expert or a specialist, for instance — that people can use for additional explanations? Let us take the Expropriation Act as an example. It is relatively well known to people. Is there a service for that at the Department of Justice?
Mr. Keyes: We are very open to any questions about the amendments and our program. In principle, that is the responsibility of sponsoring departments, which are in charge of implementing and administering those bills. However, if there are any questions, we are happy to provide answers or clarifications on the scope of the amendments.
Senator Joyal: Since 1995, Justice Canada has had a service that has clearly been drafting legislation according to the principles, the vocabulary and the elements of each of the two systems. Does this mean that no bills since 1995 have needed to be reviewed or readjusted, given the research you conducted and the results you obtained for the first three bills?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, at some point, we will complete the review of the legislation approved prior to 2001-2002, when we began systematically harmonizing all new bills and proposed regulations. We estimate that there are about 200 pieces of legislation left to harmonize, and we have made solid progress in the analysis of most of them. In terms of the other harmonization bills, we expect to complete that catch-up exercise of amending all the legislation enacted before we began our harmonization program.
Senator Joyal: Would you say that task is easier now that you have developed methods, concepts and approaches? We are talking about the third initiative, so you are now more familiar with the process. Do you think that things will move more quickly in whatever you have left to adjust, according to the program's objectives?
Mr. Keyes: Some issues are certainly being resolved more quickly. So, we have the solutions, as the problems are similar to those seen in other bills. However, we are still coming across new problems, so we must try to examine issues properly in order to find the best solution to these problems.
It is difficult to predict when we will complete this whole exercise, but the expertise and the experience we have gained from other bills have certainly sped up the process.
Senator Joyal: Have you received any feedback from Federal Court judges, for instance, who are the ones normally using most of that legislation? We are, after all, talking about litigation that could involve the Government of Canada.
I want to come back to the Expropriation Act, which is the simplest example. Have you gotten any feedback from judges about the fact that, from now on, interpreting the legislation will be a lot simpler, since the text is now clearer in both systems, regardless of who the parties before them are?
Mr. Keyes: We have not really received any feedback from judges about that regarding the Expropriation Act. I do not know of any specific comments judges might have made regarding the proposals. Therefore, we are assuming that what we have proposed is okay.
Senator Joyal: Have you informed law faculties that, from now on, the Government of Canada will operate within this system? In other words, have you informed them that the two systems will be harmonized in the same statutes?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, we use every opportunity to publicize the various programs in our communications. In fact, this very afternoon, I am going to give a speech at the University of Ottawa's law faculty. I will introduce myself as the chief legislative counsel and tell them that we have a bilingual drafting and harmonization program. We are trying to spread the word as comprehensively as possible.
Senator Joyal: Generally speaking, does the public react positively to your initiative to ultimately make legislation easier to understand?
Mr. Keyes: The feedback we have received has mostly come from the legal community. There have been very few comments from lay people. This is something that is quite difficult to understand for most people. That is the direction our consultations are taking. This is mostly of interest to the legal community. We encourage the public to provide their feedback, but we have not received much so far.
Senator Joyal: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Keyes, that concludes the comments and questions from our committee members. Your responses were complete and comprehensive, and people are satisfied.
I want to thank you for coming here today. It has been very helpful to us and I suspect this will not be the last harmonization bill we see as time goes forward.
Colleagues, we will continue with our consideration of Bill S-3. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by- clause consideration of Bill S-3, A third Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill S-3?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. The Table of Provisions is on page 2 of the bill, if you are following along. Shall Part 1, which contains clauses 2 to 160, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall Part 2, which contains clauses 161 to 164, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall Part 3, which contains clause 165, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Does the committee wish to discuss appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Is it agreed that this bill be reported to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Since we benefit from the Minister of Justice's letter to the effect that this bill is similar to the former one, would it not be appropriate to provide a printed copy of that in the minutes of today's proceedings?
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: We adopted it as an exhibit to be filed with the clerk. We do not normally print something like that with the minutes, but if you want it to be printed —
Senator Joyal: I would suggest we do provide a printed copy with the minutes because it is quite unusual for us to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of such an extensive bill on the same day.
For the sake of the reputation of the Senate, I think it would be more appropriate to have that in the record.
The Chair: To have a clear record. That certainly seems reasonable. Is it agreed we append the minister's letter to the minutes of today's hearing?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, colleagues. That concludes our consideration of Bill S-3.
We will continue with our consideration of the Parole Board User Fee Proposal from the Minister of Public Safety. That proposal was provided pursuant to section 5 of the User Fees Act, and it was tabled by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate on September 27, 2011.
As you recall, we last met to consider and discuss this matter last Thursday. We were considering the observations that we would consider appending to the final report.
Perhaps before moving to our discussion and consideration of those draft observations, there are a couple of housekeeping procedural motions that I would like to deal with.
Is it agreed that the committee move in camera pursuant to rule 92(2)(f) for the consideration of a draft report and that senators' staff be permitted to remain in the room during the in camera portion of today's meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Similarly, is it agreed that the committee allow the transcription of the in camera portion of today's meeting and that one copy be kept in the clerk's office for consultation by committee members, those present, and by the committee analysts, and that the transcript be destroyed by the clerk when authorized to do so by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure but no later than at the end of this parliamentary session?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)