Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 24, Evidence - December 12, 2014
OTTAWA, Friday, December 12, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent), met this day at 10:03 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
[English]
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning. We're continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-525. We have a number of individuals attending today to assist us as we attempt to complete our review of the legislation. I'm going to ask them to come forward. I'm sure there will be questions posed.
We have Catherine Ebbs, Chairperson of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board; from the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Sylvie Guilbert, Executive Director and General Counsel, and Virginia Adamson, Senior Legal Counsel; from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Elizabeth MacPherson, Chairperson, along with Ginette Brazeau, Executive Director and General Counsel; from Employment and Social Development Canada, Labour Program, Charles Philippe Rochon, Deputy Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform; and Michel Bédard, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate of Canada.
We know the conversation from yesterday. Senator Tannas is sponsor of the bill.
Do you wish to lead off on this? Are you prepared to carry the discussion forward at this point?
Senator Tannas: Mr. Chair, we'd like to go straight to the witnesses. I think we're aware of the issue.
Senator Cowan: To expedite matters, there is another similar issue with respect to subsection 100(1). There is a reference to that as well, and perhaps they could address it. I would propose to, at the appropriate time, introduce a similar amendment.
The Chair: Under what clause is that? Is that clause 12?
Senator Cowan: It's an amendment to subsection 100(1) of the act. It's the reference.
The Chair: You're suggesting —
Senator Cowan: It's a similar point. There's a reference to —
Senator Baker: To paragraph 64(1)(c). In other words, you're saying that with the omission or the error concerning the regulatory power, section 39(d) applying to 64(1)(c), there is another section further on in the act in which the same error would take place if we passed the bill with the wording it presently has; is that correct?
Senator Cowan: Subsection 100(1) of the act before this amendment refers to, in the last two lines, paragraph 64(1) (c) and of course that is now 64(1.1)(c).
Senator Baker: We are talking about the Public Service Labour Relations Act and not about the other two acts covered by the bill.
Senator Cowan: I thought since it's the same point, they might like to address it in their —
The Chair: Yes, hopefully in terms of implications they're comparable so they can respond.
Senator Batters: I would like Senator Cowan to point that out again. I wasn't clear what he was referring to.
Senator Cowan: If you look at section 100 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act —
Senator Batters: The underlying act, not this particular bill. Okay.
Senator Cowan: I will read the section:
The Board must revoke the certification of a council of employee organizations that has been certified as a bargaining agent if the Board is satisfied, on application by the employer or an employee organization that forms or has formed part of the council, that the council no longer meets the condition for certification set out in paragraph 64(1)(c) for a council of employee organizations.
Obviously there is an error in the bill before us, and that should amend this section to refer to 64(1.1)(c). So it's the same point. That's the reason I raised the point, chair, and I have an amendment at the appropriate time.
The Chair: Ms. Guilbert, are you prepared to start?
Sylvie Guilbert, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board: I believe that Ms. Ebbs could address the committee.
Catherine Ebbs, Chairperson, Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board: In our review of that section, and to comment on the last issue, it does appear to be a similar issue to the one raised yesterday in terms of the board's regulation-making power.
I would like to make a few comments on the context for the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board in relation to the issues discussed yesterday.
The board, PSLREB, is responsible for all labour relations, grievance adjudications and staffing complaints adjudication for the core public service and separate agencies. In other words, we are the public sector equivalent to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Bill C-525 includes amendments to section 4 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as you know. Subsection 64(1) of the PSLRA relates to the duty to certify employee organizations. Bill C-525 changes the wording of this subsection so that the three conditions that are currently related to certification have been moved to a new provision, subsection 64(1.1).
If an application for certification is made by a council of employee organizations, paragraph 64(1.1)(c) requires the board to satisfy itself that each of the employee organizations forming the council has vested appropriate authority in the council to enable it to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a bargaining agent. In other words, this gives the power to examine the legitimacy of the council of employees.
I do not see any change in the wording of that specific condition in Bill C-525; however, the change is that it moves the power from 64(1)(c) to 64(1.1)(c), and that is the question that was raised yesterday.
Subsection 64(1) is referred to elsewhere in the statute, namely in subsection 39(d), which is talking about the board's regulation-making powers.
The regulations mainly deal with what information or evidence must be filed with the board at the time of an application for certification by a council of employee organizations. Should Bill C-525 become law, paragraph 64(1)(c) will no longer exist.
The effect of this change is that the board will no longer have specific relation-making power concerning the authority vested in a council of employee organizations that is to be considered the proper, appropriate authority. This relates to the board's power to certify a bargaining agent.
The impact of this change is not trivial because our current specific regulations will be effectively removed from our toolkit to deal with applications for certification. However, I do not believe that it is fatal to the board's powers to seek information from a council of employee organizations in the context of certification. There are other methods that the board could use.
Firstly, PSLRA subsection 39(m) includes a general regulation-making power, as does the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act. The wording of these provisions could be interpreted to give the board the power to pass section 31 of the regulations for labour relations. Just to emphasize, the regulation-making power we're talking about, which is 39(1)(d), has been used by the PSLRB, and there is a regulation right now that has been made under the authority of section 39(1)(d).
Secondly, subsection 20(f) of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act also provides the board with the power to compel the production of documents and things that may be relevant, and this means that the board could order production. However, this will require the board to perform additional duties and will mean delays in processing applications for certifications by councils of employee organizations.
Thirdly, the board has power under section 16(a) and (b) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act to examine evidence and documents regarding employee organization councils.
Finally, the board, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, is master of its procedure. This has been recognized by the Federal Court of Appeal. In addition, it has general powers to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions that are conferred or imposed on it by this act or any other act of Parliament. Therefore, the board could issue rules of practice or general orders requiring disclosure of the information.
In conclusion, while the omission of a consequential provision in the board's regulation-making power is more than a mere inconvenience, it is not critical to the board's current capacity to require a council of employee organizations to provide the information it requires to come to a determination on that particular condition on a certification application. In my view, should Bill C-525 be passed in its current state, all efforts should be made to restore the board's regulation-making power currently found at section 39(1)(d) of our act, preferably before the coming-into-force of Bill C-525.
The Chair: Ms. MacPherson, would you have something to add to that, perhaps a different perspective or your own?
Elizabeth MacPherson, Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair.
Since that statute is administered exclusively by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, the Canada Industrial Relations Board didn't feel it was appropriate for us to take a position.
Senator Baker: Thank you for the presentation that you have made clarifying the matter, but since we're dealing with exact subsections and paragraphs, I listened carefully to your presentation. You spoke about the regulatory authority you have under 39(1)(d). I didn't know there was a 39(1). I always thought there was a 39(d) but not a (1)(d). Am I wrong?
Ms. Ebbs: No, you are right — 39(d). Thank you very much.
Senator Baker: We have to be careful about these 1s.
Ms. Ebbs: Absolutely.
Senator Baker: Since we're passing a law, Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear. I went back over the record to find out how this error was made. It was not made by the sponsor of the bill or by the Department of Justice, which passed opinion on it in a one-pager. It was made by an amendment in the House of Commons committee that dealt with the bill. It was concerning two amendments by the NDP and an amendment by a government member. The resolution of the matter is such that we now have this problem. It's similar to other bills that we have dealt with in which a committee of the House of Commons made their own decisions after the matter had been vetted by the one-pager from the Department of Justice. They went ahead and made these amendments, and so we're left with the consequences.
May I ask you one question? A great many members in the Senate, to my left and right, are famous lawyers, from the province of Nova Scotia and others. We read case law. As to the solution to this issue, would you classify this as an absurdity? In other words, we're passing a bill that references a section that doesn't exist. In other words, 64(1)(c) no longer exists; 64 (1.1)(c) exists, as you say, in exactly the same words as 64(1)(c). But 64(1)(c) is no longer there. I don't know if you want that pass judgment on this in this manner, but would you regard this as being an absurdity as far as the law is concerned?
There is a reason I'm asking you. Absurdities are dealt with by the courts in a particular manner when they are confronted with it, regarding drafting and so on. You put forward other methods by which this could be overridden, if I could use that terminology.
Ms. Ebbs: I don't think that I can really answer whether or not this would be an absurdity if it stayed the way it was in the act. All that I wanted to convey to the committee is what the consequences of this provision, as written, would be for the board.
Senator McInnis: With respect to an absurdity, the courts have said that the intent of the legislation will carry, and they will make the correction of the section if it's a technical error or a mistake. There is case law on that.
Senator Baker: He's reading the same cases I am.
Senator McInnis: Yes, several cases.
Ms. Ebbs: I think the board has to prepare for the eventuality that if it's written in this way and stays in this way, one consequence could be that we lose our regulation-making power in that area. The regulation that's already in effect would not be valid, and we would be risk-managing. What would we do in that eventuality?
I don't think that we are in a position to say how the courts might deal with it in the future.
Senator McInnis: There are several cases, but this piece of legislation would come into force, if it receives Royal Assent, by July 15. What you're suggesting is that there be an amendment.
Ms. Ebbs: With respect, I'm not suggesting anything like that.
Senator McInnis: No, but no one wants the regulations to go into jeopardy. That's pretty much what we're saying. Anyway, that's fine.
The Chair: Senator, the Senate's parliamentary counsel has indicated that he may be able to respond to that question.
Michel Bédard, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk & Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Senator, there is indeed case law on the matter, and the courts have found that they have judicial jurisdiction to correct drafting errors in obvious cases. I will quote from a paragraph from the Supreme Court of Canada:
Judicial correction of perceived errors in legislative enactments, in the rare instances where they can be justified, is performed on the basis that the corrected enactment expresses the intent of the enacting body The clerical error is generally apparent on the face of the enactment itself.
There are many cases from various courts of appeal around the country. I refer to a similar case, Morishita. In the B.C. Court of Appeal, there was an error in the reference to section 4 when it should have been section 5. The court substituted section 5 for section 4 to give the correct interpretation of the statute.
Senator Cowan: I wonder whether they would like to comment on the point that I made with respect to section 100 or whether you would like to have them come back when we get to that section.
The Chair: I think we will deal with it when we get to that section.
Senator Batters: I thank Mr. Bédard; that was helpful. Further to that, I see the clerk has provided us with a copy of the opinion on this matter dealing with drafting errors in legislation from Larry Seiferling of Saskatchewan, who testified before the committee yesterday. He was very helpful and has a significant background in labour law. He has provided some cases for our consideration that seem to directly address this type of point and should handle this without any additional concern.
Senator Tannas: As I understand, we have heard from Ms. Ebbs that the issue, while regrettable and inconvenient, is not fatal to the anticipated operations of the affected board, and that it would be very desirable to see that section reinstated in some future amendment if that needed to happen if we pass this bill. We've heard that there have been cases like this before. On that basis, as the sponsor of the bill with a lot of skin in the game, I would like to see it move forward.
Senator Cowan: I haven't seen this opinion as I just was handed a copy now. It would seem that those cases would deal with situations where nobody was aware of the problem and then suddenly it comes up afterwards. We are aware of a problem now. The question is: If we're aware of a problem that can be fixed easily, why don't we fix it? I would think that those cases, and I haven't read them, Senator Tannas, are likely cases — and maybe the law clerk can help us — where nobody noticed it in the course of the debate and consideration by Parliament or by the legislature, as the case may be. After it became law, people saw an inconsistency, and the court said it was clear what was meant.
However, we are aware of this problem. Our colleagues in the house were not aware but we are, and there is an obvious solution. We're being told by Ms. Ebbs that it's possible that the other powers there would be sufficient to enable them to do what this section specifically gives them the power to do. I think I heard her say that her preference would be to get it fixed before the law comes into force. If that's the case and that's her recommendation, then why wouldn't we fix it so we don't have a problem?
Senator Tannas: The simplest way to fix it, given that it's a private member's bill, which has an amendment process on the other side that is cumbersome and will likely guarantee that this bill will never see the light of day — we've raised the issue. It doesn't shut down the board, but it means that they're going to have to risk-manage and rely more heavily on other aspects of their powers in order to get to the same place. I would say that potentially through some kind of observation we recommend that this be fixed. It's clear to us, to me, that the amending procedure for private members' bills is fraught with danger.
Senator Batters: Very good point: This is not necessarily a simplistic procedure. Also there is the fact that we have the ability to clearly articulate the intent of the parliamentary bill we're dealing with here. This is a benefit, actually, dealing with it in this fashion, albeit sort of a strange way. We are able to clearly articulate, so the courts don't have to guess or infer, what the intention is here. Perhaps the observation could say something like: We recommend that such a change be made at the earliest possible opportunity.
Senator Cowan: We've just had the Supreme Court of Canada tell us that our job is legislative review — that's job one. I think we all agree with that. I have said time and time again that that's our job. Here we have done what we are supposed to do. We've identified a problem and we know what the solution is, so why don't we do it?
Senator Tannas, if we amend a bill in the Senate, it goes to the House of Commons. There was a recent instance, which you are well aware of, where the problem was that the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons had been made a parliamentary secretary and under their rules was no longer able to carry the bill forward. That's not the case here. The sponsor of this bill is a member of the house, and we have no election until next October. There's lots of time to get this fixed up and that's what we should do. Otherwise we'd simply be saying that we found a problem but we're not going to do our job. Instead, we're just going to suggest that somebody else fix it at some other time in the future.
There is no time sensitivity to this matter. We've heard our panelists tell us that this will create delays, difficulties and uncertainties. We identified a problem and we have a solution at hand. We have a job to do and I think we should do it.
Senator Tannas: I couldn't agree more, sir; I really couldn't. We have an important piece of legislation from the demographically elected house in front of us. It's a private member's bill, which means that we have to give it extra scrutiny and make sure that it's there. The intention is clear. We have a minor drafting error that in our view, and being realistic, all of us together, I think, if we looked at the procedure that exists on the other side, will kill the bill by sending it back.
My suggestion is that we proceed. We ratify the intent, if that's the will of the committee and ultimately the will of the Senate, point out the minor problem and look to the government to provide the solution that you suggest. I think that is doing our job.
Senator Baker: Senator Tannas said, ''We have a minor drafting error.'' I don't think it can be classified as a drafting error. I would agree with Senator Cowan on the main point. Precedence was referenced by Mr. Seiferling. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City), 2000 SCC 64, paragraph 390, states:
Material errors may slip into a legislative text during the process of drafting or publication. The result may be absurd either in itself, in relation to other provisions of the enactment, or with respect to the aim of the legislation.
Another case was just the other day in the Federal Court of Appeal, Canada v. Vorobyov, involving the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. By the way, the Senate is mentioned with approval in that decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which said at paragraph 29:
Generally courts will correct a drafting error if it can be shown that the error leads to a manifest absurdity.
That's why I asked the question from the beginning. But it's not in the drafting. This was an error made by the House of Commons standing committee.
Mr. Chair, I agree with Senator Tannas on this point: If we're going to pass this as it is, we must have a strong observation that this has happened before and we've observed it before, and simply document how that error was made in the House of Commons and our displeasure with those errors appearing in legislation.
Senator McInnis: That is a strong and accurate point.
With respect to Senator Cowan, I respect what he's saying, because we have it here before us, but it is also our job to pass legislation that carries the intent of the bill. That is precisely what we're doing. It's the intent. We've heard this morning that this is not going to be injurious to the operations of the board. They've told us that. It may be a little cumbersome, but it can operate.
I absolutely agree with Senator Baker that it's incumbent on us to reference this in a strong way, pointing out that we caught this error and that we recommend the amendment forthwith, to the point that if they have trouble drafting it, then we can tell them really quickly. It's a technical matter. If there is any challenge, then all kinds of common law precedence will carry the day.
I think that we should go forward with this legislation.
Senator Cowan: I think I understood Ms. Ebbs to suggest that this could be fixed before the bill came into force. Is that what you said?
Ms. Ebbs: That would be ideal, but the board is not really in a position to recommend what direction or what solution is available for the question.
Senator Cowan: I understand. In that case, perhaps what we could suggest in our observations is that bill not come into force until the amendments are made.
The Chair: Is there any further conversation?
Senator Batters: Further to the two cases that Senator Baker was quoting, I note that they were referenced in Larry Seiferling's opinion. He used both to point out to us how courts and tribunals deal with drafting errors in legislation.
When Senator Baker was talking about the error that resulted from a House of Commons standing committee's amendment, that actually could fall within the definition of drafting, because though it isn't being done by a legislative drafter in particular, they are helping to draft the legislation by making those types of amendments.
The Chair: I think that exhausts the discussion on that one particular amendment.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I'd better see a show of hands.
All those in favour of adopting the amendment? Three. Opposed?
The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator Cowan: Mr. Chair, I appear to have lost my spot here. I have too many paper, I'm afraid.
The Chair: Mr. Bédard, what clause was Senator Cowan referring to earlier?
Mr. Bédard: Senator Cowan, your amendment will presumably be after clause 12.
Senator Cowan: Exactly. It will be at line 36, on page 6.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Senator Cowan.
Senator Cowan: Mine is new clause 12.1. My amendment is on page 6 after line 36, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: The copies are being circulated now.
Senator Cowan: Would you like me to read it into the record?
The Chair: Please.
Senator Cowan: I move:
That Bill C-525 be amended on page 6, by adding after line 36 the following:
''12.1. Subsection 100(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
100. (1) The Board must revoke the certification of a council of employee organizations that has been certified as a bargaining agent if the Board is satisfied, on application by the employer or an employee organization that forms or has formed part of the council, that the council no longer meets the condition for certification set out in paragraph 64(1.1)(c) for a council of employee organizations.
The Chair: Do you want to elaborate on that?
Senator Cowan: It's simply the point I made earlier, which is that it is a similar error. The act refers to 64(1)(c) and the appropriate reference should be to 64(1.1)(c).
The Chair: Ms. Ebbs, do you wish to comment on this amendment and the impact?
Senator Cowan: If I could add one point, here is a situation where Parliament has directed the board to act in a certain way, in certain circumstances. As a result of the drafting error, that directive has been removed or no longer exists. So I think that the fact that it's ineffective is a significant matter.
Ms. Ebbs: We have reviewed this section and the effect is similar to the issue of the regulation-making powers and meeting the conditions for certification set out in a paragraph that no longer exists. So that section would pretty much lose its meaning. However, in such a circumstance we are thinking that the board could still take action under its general power.
I apologize because we didn't have a chance to review this before, so we're looking at it as we're answering the question.
In section 12 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the board is given some general powers that we might be able to use to fill the gap that would be left by subsection 100(1) no longer having any real meaning. Section 19 of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act also speaks of some general powers that the board may be able to use, but the bottom line is that subsection 100(1) would pretty much no longer have any meaning.
The Chair: What you're saying, as I interpret it, not using the same words in terms of impact as the previous amendment, but your preference still would be obviously a timely amendment?
Ms. Ebbs: That is true.
I should also add that at the present time the board has no current cases related to subsection 100(1).
Senator Tannas: For practical purposes, how many cases have there been in the last five years?
Ms. Guilbert: I only have statistics on applications for certification. There are four, one a year. One was launched yesterday.
Senator Tannas: Within the public service?
Ms. Guilbert: Correct.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Senator Baker: I would like to reiterate that this is another manifest absurdity that we are enacting into law and should be looked upon by the courts as such. They go over the records of this committee and will discover that the error was made in a standing committee of the House of Commons, which did not do due diligence in their operations. The due diligence performed here in the Senate is not performed in the House of Commons.
Senator Cowan: You referred to section 19.
Ms. Ebbs: Of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.
Senator Cowan: Was that not repealed in 2013?
Ms. Ebbs: The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act is new.
Senator Cowan: Yesterday, the evidence talked about section 36 and, in fact, that was repealed and replaced by section 12, which had the same wording.
Ms. Guilbert: Correct, but —
Senator Cowan: What about 19?
Ms. Guilbert: — there is an additional provision. I'm looking for it here, so bear with me.
Senator Cowan: This was in the omnibus bill last year.
Ms. Guilbert: Correct, but two general granting powers were given to the board. One is under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, section 12, and under the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act there is an additional or similar power found at section 19. It says:
The Board is to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions that are conferred or imposed on it by this Act or any other Act of Parliament.
So section 12 of the PSLRA and section 19 of the PSLREBA both grant general powers to the board.
Senator Baker: Just to pick up on that point Senator Cowan was referencing, because we're talking about the Public Service Labour Relations Act, he's correct that that section 19 no longer exists and really has been transferred to section 16 under powers of the board, but I'm not disputing what the witness has just pointed out.
Senator Tannas: I would propose that this be picked up in the observation, as well, for correcting. It may be that if you correct one, you correct the other.
Senator Cowan: They should be corrected at the same time, absolutely.
The Chair: All right, have we exhausted the discussion with respect to this amendment?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? I'll ask for a show of hands again.
All in favour of adopting the amendment? Opposed?
The motion is lost, defeated.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 13 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?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is there any need to go in camera? This has been a pretty open discussion, so I don't think there is any need.
Senator Tannas: I had an opportunity to try and put pen to paper with respect to an observation that I think would essentially detail what has happened, and I have passed it along here.
Subsequent to the completion of our hearings of Bill C-525 and during the clause-by-clause examination, the committee became aware of a minor drafting error concerning chase 9. This clause amends section 64 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which addresses the criteria that the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board must consider before ordering that a representation vote be taken further to an application to certify an employee organization as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit.
Clause 9 deletes paragraph 64(1)(c) and moves its contents to new paragraph 64(1.1)(c). The existing paragraph 64(1)(c) remains referenced in sections 39(d) and 100(1), which were not amended by the bill.
The committee has heard evidence that while this omission is not trivial, it will not prevent the board from obtaining information necessary for it to discharge its duties with regard to 64(1)(c).
While regrettable, the committee recommends that the bill be passed and that the drafting error be corrected in future legislation prior to Bill C-525 coming into force.
Senator Cowan: Would you make the appropriate —
Senator Tannas: If we can get that description of the problem in there, that's what I would suggest be our observation.
Senator McInnis: I'm concerned a bit about the coming into force. I didn't quite hear. Are you recommending —
Senator Tannas: In the observation, yes.
Senator McInnis: — that the amendment go through between now and July 15?
Senator Baker: In the observation.
Senator McInnis: I understand that.
Senator Tannas: So we're recommending that.
Senator McInnis: You don't want to delay —
The Chair: Observations traditionally are adopted on a consensus basis, so I want to make you aware of that as well. I think I do see a consensus.
Senator McInnis: I think I understand.
The Chair: Perhaps in terms of the finalized wording, the steering committee can make sure that it's meeting all of the requirements the committee has suggested.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate, with observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
All right, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)