Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 16 - Evidence - Meeting of June 15, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 15, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to begin by thanking everybody for coming out this morning. I know it's not our regularly scheduled meeting. I would also like to inform you that we are not on TV for the purposes of these proceedings, but I would like to begin by introducing myself to anyone who may be listening.
I'm Senator Daniel Lang from Yukon, chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I would like to go to the deputy chair, on my right, to introduce herself.
Senator Jaffer: My name is Mobina Jaffer and I'm from British Columbia.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, senator from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Colin Kenny, Ontario.
Senator Lankin: Frances Lankin from Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator White: Vern White from Ontario.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder from Ontario.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're here to deal with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Before we proceed, I would like to take a few minutes to go through the procedure that will be followed.
I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take an amendment on a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in the clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
One small point: If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill. I refer to Beauchesne citation 698(6), which notes:
An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
I also remind senators that some amendments moved may have consequential effects on other are parts of the bill. I refer senators again to Beauchesne citation 698(2), which notes the following:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as so far agreed to by the committee; nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
In the spirit of this statement, it would be useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendment to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the arguments and decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter in order to make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation and I ask all of you to consider other senators and keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions of the above?
Colleagues, the way I'm asking to proceed here is for those members who have amendments to provide them to the committee. I would proceed with the amendments as proposed. If at the end of the day, the amendments do not carry the day, then we have two documents we would circulate that are possible observations for the purposes of the bill. As we agreed to when we adjourned yesterday, that was another option we would consider. With that, I'd like to proceed.
Senator Lankin: I have a question on the two documents. I have one. Was there another one circulated by email?
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senator, yesterday Senator Jaffer had distributed some draft observations. There was another set that was prepared and translated overnight. It has not yet been distributed by email.
The Chair: Can we have the staff distribute it in hard copy?
Mr. Thompson: I can do that.
The Chair: We had them translated last night. I thought they had been distributed. This will be determined toward the end of the meeting, once decisions are made on amendments.
Senator White: Observations or amendments?
The Chair: Observations from my office that I put together as an alternative if amendments didn't carry the day.
So I would ask —
Senator Kenny: There's another document, I think. I thought it was yours. I thought you actually produced two documents yesterday with possible amendments. You didn't table them.
Senator Lankin: We circulated three possible amendments, and from my perspective, Senator Kenny, if there are amendments going forward that are passed by this committee, I will introduce two of those three amendments at least. If there are no amendments going forward, I will ensure my comments are included in the observations. I'm fine with doing it that way, but it depends on what happens. They were circulated.
Senator Kenny: There was at least one of the amendments that I wanted to move if you weren't moving it.
Senator Lankin: Okay.
Senator Kenny: Thank you.
The Chair: Everybody has amendments by Senator Kenny. They have been circulated. I'd like to begin by proceeding with the bill.
First of all, is it agreed that the committee —
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I hear the interpreters saying that they do not have the documents. I think that if we want good interpretation, they should have a copy of the documents.
[English]
Senator Lankin: It wasn't working. It is now.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: The interpreters mentioned that they don't have a copy of the documents.
[English]
The translators don't have a copy of the amendments. To have a good interpretation, it's better if we have the document. Is it possible to give a copy to the interpreters?
The Chair: Senator, they are being distributed as we speak.
We will proceed accordingly. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry? Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: Thank you, chair. I'd like to thank the committee for the patience they showed yesterday in assisting me to come forward with some amendments. I expect to appear a bit confused as I go ahead because my first chance to review them and the consequential amendments was this morning. I've done that, but I'd like to draw your attention to clause 4.
The clause calls for the establishment of a chair and 10 other members. My amendment calls for the creation of two chairs, co-chairs: one from the Senate and one from the House of Commons. This is a long-standing custom that we have chairs representing each house when there is a joint committee. This is not a joint parliamentary committee, but it is a committee of parliamentarians from both places, and I think we are doing the Senate a disservice if we don't include in the legislation a chair from the Senate.
One of the phenomena that I at least have been seeing over the last few days is an urge to diminish the Senate. This is perhaps a good way to comment about it. It is not by members of this committee but by others, saying, "Well, the Commons has done a pretty good job, and let's just take it and move on.'' The conclusion from that is: We don't think that the Senate has too much to offer.
I would hope that this committee continues not to have that point of view and gives some consideration to the fact that it is customary and appropriate for one-half of the leadership to come from among the Senate members. I deal with other questions like pay and the consequential issues later on. This is really a movement where I'm asking in clause 4, on page 2, in lines 33 and 34, right at the bottom of the page, that:
"of Parliamentarians is established, consisting of a Co-Chair who is a member of the Senate and a Co-Chair who is a member of the House of Commons and up to 9 other members, each of whom must be a''.
I think it's a straightforward amendment. I think it's fair, reasonable, and would reflect well this legislation.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Kenny that the bill be amended in clause 4, on page 2, at lines 33 and 34.
Are there any other comments in respect to Senator Kenny's amendment?
Senator Harder: Thank you, Senator Kenny, for your amendments.
As I look through them, they interact, as you suggested, with items later in the clause with respect to consequential actions. I'd make just a couple of observations with respect to the comments and the amendment that you've made.
I don't think, if I could suggest, that anybody is trying to diminish the role of the Senate in this. This is in fact, as senators will know, a bill largely based on the work of Senator Segal and Senator Dallaire.
With respect to the chair or co-chair, the British experience was otherwise. It's consistent with that, and that is why we are where we are with the bill as crafted.
I look ahead to one of the amendments which deals with compensation. I would simply suggest, as this bill has a Royal Recommendation because it deals with financial matters, amendments with respect to compensation that would cause an increase in compensation would be out of order for the consideration of this committee as we get to that. It's not the one that's before us right now, but I want everybody to be aware of that. At least that would be my view.
I would respectfully suggest that this amendment not be supported.
Senator Kenny: I thought I was very clear that I didn't think anybody in this committee was diminishing the Senate. If that wasn't clear before, I want it to be very clear now. I was talking about other people as they were referring to the process.
As for your concern about the Royal Recommendation, I too had concerns in that regard, and the solution that I will propose, if this motion is adopted, would not increase anybody's wages and therefore be consistent with the Royal Recommendation.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I also do not think that the intent is to diminish the role of the Senate. There is a perception that has created a strange impression since we began studying this bill. If there are an equal number of senators sitting on the committee, and joint chairs elected with the approval of the Prime Minister, this would be in line with the principle of the equality of the two chambers enshrined in the British North America Act, 1867. We have to respect the equality of the Senate and the House of Commons. With Senator Kenny's amendment we respect the equal representation of the two houses.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I have a question, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry that I don't know exactly the answer, in my own mind, to the question that Senator Harder raised.
I understand that Senator Kenny said that it wouldn't have an increased cost, but could you just tell us about what a ruling would be on that when there's a Royal Recommendation? I just want to understand before we go any further.
The Chair: I would put this to the floor. The question at this stage, obviously, is hypothetical until we actually got to the section. Then we would have to deal with that accordingly, and I'll have to make a ruling once it has been formally presented.
Senator Lankin: I'm not asking for a ruling. I'm just asking for an explanation of the issue.
The Chair: The explanation of the issue, as put by Senator Harder, which is accurate, is if it's an increase of a financial appropriation for the purposes of this legislation, there would be a very strong case to put that it was out of order.
I would say that Senator Kenny has covered that and we'd have to deal with it at that time. It would be the committee's decision whether to proceed, and if there was still a question or point of order whether or not it was in order, it would have to be brought to the Senate to be brought forward for the Speaker to rule, I would suspect.
At least that would be my position as the chair.
Senator Kenny: Chair, the effect is the Senate can reduce any spending matter. It just can't raise it.
Senator Lankin: If I may, I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but this is not a joint committee. If you look in fact at the title of the bill, or the intent of the bill, it is an advisory committee that's being struck. It's not subject to the same kinds of considerations.
While I think it could have been done, as Senator Kenny has suggested, I don't think it is a necessary representation or balance to strike on this. In the first iteration of this, as this gets up and running and builds a track record, I don't think it's necessary to largely increase the number of people who would be on this.
That's the effect, is it not? Would it not increase the number of people?
Senator Kenny: No.
Senator Lankin: The total number would remain.
Senator Kenny: The total number would remain as it is.
Senator Lankin: That's 11, so the only difference would be a co-chair.
Senator Kenny: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Kenny, just so you know, I was looking at this. I'm not an expert on this, but I was also looking at the wording I have for my amendment on the further part of the clause.
Perhaps we should get the drafters here. I was advised that with something like that you are doing a payment. For the vice chair there would be a further salary, and that's not within our domain. That's what I was told. I'm just sharing that with you.
For my own amendment further up, I wanted to do something like this and I was told that we, as senators, cannot do anything like increase a salary or a money bill.
Senator Kenny: You're quite correct, Senator Jaffer. Senators can't increase a money bill. This bill does not increase a money bill.
Senator Jaffer: But the vice chair would get more money?
Senator Kenny: Actually, the vice chair is not being proposed. It's a co-chair.
Senator Jaffer: Yes, co-chairs would be paid differently. I apologize.
Senator Kenny: My solution is to split the $42,000 that's in the bill between the two co-chairs. That's still a very good salary for a committee chair, and it doesn't run afoul of a Royal Recommendation.
The Chair: Colleagues, could we follow this procedure: It has been moved by Senator Kenny that clause 4, on page 2, be replaced by lines 33 and 34.
Could I call the question? All those in favour of the motion, please raise their hands so I understand the vote Senator Kenny.
Those not in favour. I want to do this again so that we get a procedure. It was moved by Senator Kenny:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by replacing lines 33 and 34.
Those in favour, please raise their hand. Four in favour.
Those not in favour.
Senator Jaffer: No, not four; five.
The Chair: Five?
Those not in favour, please. I didn't want to go to a voice vote. I want to get it clear as to who is voting.
Sorry, colleagues, please bear with me. I'm going to put the question again so that we get a clear understanding and can proceed with amendments accordingly.
Senator Kenny has moved:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by replacing lines 33 and 34.
I would like those who are in favour of the motion to please raise their hand.
Those who are opposed to the motion. Senator Moncion, are you involved?
It's 5 to 7. The motion does not carry.
Senator Kenny, you're up again.
Senator Kenny: Again, this is to clause 4.
The Chair: Please formally read out the amendment and then speak to it.
Senator Kenny: Yes. I'd like to move:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, on page 3,
(a) in line 3, by replacing the word "three'' with "five''; and
(b) in line 5, by replacing the word "eight'' with "six''.
The purpose of this is to rebalance the membership of the committee to more accurately reflect the fact that two houses have passed the legislation.
Senator White: That's not what's on mine. Mine says, "Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, (a) on page 2 and (b) on page 3.
Senator Kenny: Yes, but somebody hasn't passed out the right page.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, there are a number of amendments. I believe some of them are consequential. The one that Senator Kenny is referring to is a couple pages into that package.
Senator Kenny: I'm sorry for the confusion.
The Chair: I'll read the amendment that Senator Kenny has brought forward. It's Bill C-22, clause 4, page 3:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 4, on page 3,
(a) in line 3, by replacing the word "three'' with "five''; and.
(b) in line 5, by replacing the word "eight'' with "six.''
Is that not correct, Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: That's correct.
The Chair: Does everybody have a copy of that motion?
Senator Kenny, please proceed.
Senator Kenny: The purpose of this is to bring more balance to the committee to reflect the two houses of Parliament. I think it brings to mind all of the discussions that we have heard about the time demands that come on members of the House of Commons and the institutional memory that members of the Senate would bring to the committee.
Arguably, it's something that I believe would improve the committee significantly, particularly in the context of when you look at the number of breaks that come up and you look at the short amount of time that the committee will have to do its work.
The house, for what it's worth, would have one more person, one more vote on the committee than the Senate would, and that reflects that that house has many important claims to being special, like being elected and the ability to bring forward spending bills and those sorts of things. All it needs to do that is one additional person, and I think the makeup of the committee would be significantly enhanced.
Senator Harder: Again, I thank Senator Kenny for his explanation. I will be voting against this amendment, for the following reasons: First, I believe that the existing balance ratio between both chambers is appropriate. It is actually more generous to the Senate than the House of Lords is treated —
Senator Jaffer: We have a reason.
Senator Harder: I understand that, but I'm just making the numerical point.
One of the consequences, should we accept this amendment, would be that there would not be representation from all parties in the House of Commons on this committee, which is, in the view of the government, important for the work of the committee so that it is reflective of all of the voices in that chamber.
Therefore, I believe this amendment will distort the balance. As members will recall in the testimony from the minister responsible earlier in our considerations, he referenced the fact that when the House of Commons was dealing with this as a result of an indication that the Senate ought to have a greater role, the government amended the bill as it was in the other chamber to reflect an additional Senate membership.
I believe that it is appropriate and reflects the respect that is being shown to the Senate.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, I understand you want to reply to that.
Senator Kenny: Yes. Senator Harder, as usual, is right, in terms of how the math works. Having said that, it's absolutely within the capacity of the government, when it gets this bill back, amended, to readjust by enlarging the committee by perhaps two.
That might cover off additional groups that may well appear in the Senate. We have certain groups that we see there now, but I don't think any of us think they're permanent. We think it's going to be evolving. I shouldn't say what other people think, but it's possible that it will be an evolving thing.
This isn't something that can't be addressed if there is a view that the Senate should have a more robust participation in this.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I second the comments made by Senator Kenny regarding the preservation of the committee's institutional memory. From the beginning we have said that this is a very important committee. So imagine that in 2019, for some reason — we hope all these people will be re-elected, no matter which party they represent, because we like all of them — these persons are not re-elected. We would then have new members, who would surely have vast experience. Nevertheless, I think it's important to preserve the institutional memory of this committee. If we have equitable representation, I don't think we will be removing privileges from the House of Commons. We have to work in the interest of Canadians and not in the interest of the two Houses. It is crucial that we preserve the institutional memory of the committee by having equal participation from both Houses.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, to try to make sure that we're dealing with this in a sequential manner, I've been informed by the clerk that there's one other amendment that we should be dealing with before we deal with this actual amendment.
I'd ask that we —
Senator Kenny: I don't think so.
The Chair: I've been informed by the clerk, so perhaps the clerk could speak to it.
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I received an email from the law clerk's office that, on the previous page, there was another amendment that amends clause 4 on page 3, by replacing lines 3 to 5 with the following:
"(2) The Committee is to consist of three members who are members of the Senate and eight members who are members of the House of''.
In the footnote at the bottom, it was identified as a consequential amendment "if co-chairs defeated.''
Senator Kenny: You're right, but I assume that it's my choice as to which . . .
Mr. Thompson: If you don't wish to propose that, then that's fine. We can carry on with the next amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, if the sponsor is prepared to proceed with the amendment as proposed, then I would ask those in favour of the amendment to please raise their hand.
Those who are opposed, please raise their hand. The motion is defeated.
Senator Jaffer: As you all know, I circulated an amendment about the committee to consist of three or four.
I would appreciate if the committee would let me not proceed with this now. If there are no amendments at the end, then I will also not have an amendment. However, if we are going to forward some amendments, then I'd like to revisit this.
I'd like the permission of the committee to let me come back, if we do have other amendments.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Respectfully, because I do appreciate, you also have an opportunity if no amendments go through here to do it in the Senate, right?
Senator Jaffer: Yes, I do.
Senator White: My only concern is that we will start seeing senators leave here in about 40 minutes to go to another committee.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that, but I would like the choice to come back to it.
The Chair: We'll have that choice.
Let's proceed with Senator Kenny's amendments and see where we are at the end of that part of the procedure.
Senator Kenny, would you please move your next amendment? Do you have any more on clause 4?
Senator Kenny: No, sir.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Jaffer: No. I asked that it be not carried now.
We had discussed last time that we could set aside some clauses, and this is a clause I would like to set aside.
Mr. Thompson: Senators, there are two options. The clause could be stood, or we can carry the clause and if there are other amendments there could be a motion to reconsider that clause.
I'm in your hands as far as how you wish to proceed.
The Chair: Colleagues, I would prefer, as the chair, to proceed with the motion. At the end of this procedure, if there are amendments and there are agreements, then we will go back to this particular clause.
Senator Jaffer: I ask that this clause be stood, please.
The Chair: Are we agreed that it be stood?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Kenny, do you have other amendments? Clause 4 is stood aside now.
Senator Kenny: Right. You need to say, "clause 5.''
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Kenny: I have an amendment, sir.
The Chair: Could you please read it, Senator Kenny? Everybody has a copy of it.
Senator Kenny: I move:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 5, on page 3,
(a) by replacing lines 11 to 13 with the following:
"5 (1) Subject to subsection (1.01), the members of the Committee are to be appointed by Governor-in- Council.
(1.01) The Prime Minister is to submit to the Senate the names of members of the Senate to be appointed to the Committee, and to the House of Commons the names of the members of that House to be appointed to the Committee, and if each House approves of the members of their respective Houses to be appointed, the Governor in Council shall appoint those members.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, you have subclause (1.02). It wasn't read.
Senator Kenny: I'm sorry. I'm a victim of bad scotch tape. Excuse me.
(1.02) The members of the Committee are to hold office during pleasure until''; and
(b) by deleting lines 19 to 29.
The purpose of this is to give Canadians confidence that the intelligence agencies are acting in a lawful and effective way. I would suggest that if parliamentarians have a hand in the selection of these people, that is better than having everyone appear to be the Prime Minister's choice.
That is of some concern to me. This is no negative reflection on the Prime Minister, but if he's appointing the chair, then appointing all of the members and then appointing the head of staff, it does not enhance the confidence that these people would have if they were selected initially by their own chambers.
Senator Harder: Let me briefly speak in disagreement with the amendments being proposed. I do think that the process being proposed in the bill we have before us is one that is very respectful of the creation of a committee of parliamentarians, not a parliamentary committee, that is clearly in support of and accountable to the Prime Minister in the Prime Minister's responsibility for security and intelligence matters.
It is through the process of consultations that names will be generated, but there's no ambiguity as to the accountability lines of the Prime Minister for this. There may come a time when the kind of amendment being proposed would be appropriate, but it is not consistent with the model as we're beginning this process, and I would therefore urge members to vote against it.
Senator Smith: I have a question for Senator Harder. What is the definition of "consultations'' in this case, sir, in terms of the selection process, so we understand?
Senator Harder: As ministers said, when asked that in committee, the Prime Minister would be consulting with the individuals identified and seeking their recommendations for appointment to the committee.
Senator Smith: Those individuals are the ministers.
Senator Harder: I'm sorry?
Senator Smith: Those individuals who are making recommendations are the ministers.
Senator Harder: No, no, the Prime Minister. It says right here:
A member of the Senate may be appointed to the Committee only after the Prime Minister has consulted with the persons referred to in paragraphs 62(a) and (b) . . .
Paragraphs 62(a) and (b) reference the Parliament of Canada Act and leadership.
Senator Smith: Who are the consultations with? Is he consulting anyone?
Senator Harder: The leaders of the various parties.
Senator Smith: We just lived through a situation with the official languages person where the Prime Minister sent us a letter saying, "I've appointed an individual.'' Is that the type of consultation we'll continue to have?
Senator Harder: I believe it would be a more robust consultation to generate the names that the leaders would wish to have considered for appointment to the body that is representative of the perspectives found in the chamber of the House of Commons or the Senate. That's the expectation.
Senator Smith: Understood. I think it's important, though, to make sure the consultation process is defined.
Senator Harder: I want to assure you of that. That is the expectation, and that is precisely the model used in the United Kingdom.
Senator Smith: I just would hope that would actually happen.
Senator Harder: I will note that and give my assurance.
Senator Smith: I'm not trying to be combative, but I'm tired of hearing, "Trust me; we'll get it done the right way.''
Senator Kenny: The Prime Minister is arguably the most powerful man in the land. He appoints all of the cabinet, and it's the power of appointment that leads to all of the other influences he has through his government.
What would give Canadians confidence is not replacing the Prime Minister. It's making sure that he's talking to people who represent a broad cross-section of Canadians' points of view. If the Prime Minister is to choose everybody, it's like having a conversation with yourself; it tends to get boring after a while.
The idea of enhancing this committee by having different parts of Parliament put forward their view about who they would like to have looking into it, we'd still have a situation where people would have to have a security clearance. We would have a situation where, if the Prime Minister did not like somebody, he could veto that person. He could say, "No, I don't want that person,'' but to leave it all in his hands says it's a very closed shop.
Senator Moncion: I have two comments. One is about the comments you made about the Prime Minister's consultation. He did give you 48 hours to get back to him. It might not be long, but there was consultation on the appointment before she was appointed, and she did not get appointed because she withdrew her application. I have a bit of an issue with the consultation.
The other thing is to your comment, Senator Kenny. It's to your comment about the Prime Minister naming people of his own clan, if you may. If you look at subclause 4(2), it says:
Not more than five Committee members who are members of the House of Commons may be members of the government party.
This means you will always have at least three members that come from the opposition, or the other parties.
I have a bit of a problem with going through all these processes, because that hinders the process when the Prime Minister wants to create this committee. It's going to be created for any prime minister who comes into power. Every time a prime minister comes to power or when the house of Parliament rises, but it will be done often. If you make this process even more difficult than it already is, by the time the people are named to the committee, they will have to start the process over again.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Once again, since perception is everything, we have a Prime Minister who told us that in order to ensure the independence of the Senate, he no longer wanted to be involved in the appointment of senators, and that a committee would do so in order to bolster senatorial independence. However, when senators have been appointed to the Senate, he will of course have the last word in determining whether he approves the nomination of this or that senator to the oversight committee. Sometimes people say one thing and its opposite, and I wanted to mention it. It's a bit strange and it creates an odd perception.
[English]
Senator Smith: Senator Moncion, I have no problem with decision-making powers that the Prime Minister has. That's not the issue. The issue is when you mention, when we received notification, as an example, of consultation with the official languages commissioner, that we had 48 hours to respond. I don't have a problem with 48 hours to respond if I knew what the process was. All I'm asking is: Let us know what the process is.
It's simple. In a search process, a search method is done. Give your four leaders in the Senate, and then your leaders through the Commons, a one-pager that says this is the process and this is the time frame. Once you receive that process and time frame, then you have the opportunity to respond and a form of consultation takes place.
In this case my understanding, in talking to the Senate individuals and leaders, there was nothing other than a letter that says: Here it is, bang. You have 48 hours to respond.
When you're doing a search, that's not consultation. That's what they call the approval process. I've been in the search business. I sat on a consultative committee with one of the most successful boutique Quebec-based search operations now. I understand how the process works.
I'm not trying to be obstructionist, but just give us the simple respect of understanding what the process is. That's all. If that has been done, I apologize. It's my ignorance, but I didn't receive anything.
Senator Moncion: Was this process used before, when the Harper government was in office?
Senator Smith: You say the past government did something else. I don't see this as a partisan issue. I see this as an information issue. Whether you believe me or not, all I'm after is the information so we can be more effective.
Senator Beyak: I've supported Senator Jaffer's and Senator Kenny's amendments from the start, simply because of their experience of nearly 20 years here, working in various committees, including National Defence.
This isn't about government, the house or the Senate. It's about Canadians. The number one role of government is to protect Canadians. This committee should be 50-50 Senate. It shouldn't be like the U.K., Australia or anywhere else. It should be about Canada.
We haven't had one for 150 years. We need to take the time to do it right. We got it in the Senate the middle of May. It's now June 15. We need to do this right, and this is rushing. I'm going to go with Senator Kenny's amendments for as long as it takes because he has the right of the respect to be listened to.
The Chair: Colleagues, I would call the question on the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise their hand.
Those opposed?
The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 6 carry? Senator Kenny has an amendment.
Senator Kenny: I do, chair, thank you.
Be it moved:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 6, on page 4,
(a) by replacing lines 3 to 5 with the following:
"6(1) The chair shall be elected by a majority vote by means of a secret ballot of members of the committee;'' and
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 10 with the following:
"other members to act as Chair for a maximum of 90 days.''.
This is a reasonable proposal that the chair have the confidence of the members of the committee, and the proposal in (b) is to deal with the absence of a chair.
Senator Harder: Let me respond as to why I will not be supporting this. This is consistent with the other amendments in terms of using amendments to move this committee away from being a committee of parliamentarians to being more analogous to a committee of Parliament. That's not the architecture that this bill was designed around.
I think it is important that the Governor-in-Council have confidence in the chair, particularly the chair as we start this new organization, which is very much an innovation and an appropriate one in terms of bringing parliamentarians into the security and intelligence world.
I therefore will be opposing this amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to call the question on the motion. How many in favour of the amendment? Please raise your hand.
Those opposed?
The motion is defeated.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator Kenny: Be it moved:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 8, on page 4,
(a) by replacing lines 22 to 24 with the following:
"tivity. . .
I think people understand that's half a word.
. . . is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister informs the Committee that the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(b) by replacing lines 28 to 34 with the following:
"(2) If the appropriate Minister is informed that the activity is''.
The purpose of this amendment is really to address head-on the differences between oversight and review. What this and some subsequent amendments do is essentially say that this committee should be a review committee and not one of oversight.
Members here will recall that we had witnesses who explained that oversight committees had the opportunity or the occasion to involve themselves with people in real time. I would argue that this is not an appropriate role for parliamentarians to take.
Notwithstanding Senator Harder's comments that this construct is different as a committee of parliamentarians, these parliamentarians still are parliamentarians. To have them engaged in and taking responsibility for intelligence activities that are underway is simply not appropriate, particularly in a Westminster form of government.
One of the advantages of having review, which we use with both CSIS and CSE, is that you don't have to worry about ministers coming along and saying, "Look, this isn't appropriate.'' Aside from ministers coming to the committee and saying, "I'm sorry, but you can't look at that,'' it's far preferable to have Parliament say, "We don't want you to look at ongoing activities in real time.''
It's disruptive for the people who are trying to accomplish different tasks. It takes time away from them and the work that they're doing. The committee can achieve the same end if it restricts its views to what has happened after the fact. They can provide the same good advice, perhaps even more objectively, because they weren't part of the decision- making process if they are in an oversight committee.
I think we should be very concerned about a bill that suggests some of our colleagues will be involved in oversight and all of what that implies.
Senator Lankin: I think it's an interesting point you raise. I have described this bill as being a hybrid between review and oversight. Interestingly enough, the majority of the witnesses that we heard actually were critical of the powers of discretion and stopping this committee from looking in an oversight manner at ongoing operations, depending on involvement of national security concerns or, in the law enforcement area, concerns about the possibility or probability of charges being laid.
It isn't pure oversight. The committee can't delve into anything it wants. I understand what you're saying is: Let's make it peer review.
It's interesting because I think the government was attempting to provide opportunity in some certain circumstances, if an issue emerges, for the committee to get closer to real-time opportunity to engage.
I would look, though, to things like clause 20, where the committee can set its own procedures and its own rules around things. I think the committee has the opportunity to say to a minister, "No, we don't want to look at this,'' if the minister brings something. However, if something emerges and becomes a major issue that the committee feels it's important to look into, subject to the discretion or the prohibitions, it has the opportunity to.
At this point in time let me say that we don't know what the fall will hold in terms of the minister's next announcements about any restructuring of expert review bodies. We know there may be something that allows those expert review bodies, either by consolidation of review or by linkages between review bodies, to follow evidence or intelligence across multiple departments. For now, before us, this is the only group that will exist with some powers of review and potential powers of oversight that can look pan-government in terms of the national security community.
I'm actually heartened that there is some hybrid opportunity. I'm not offended by the kinds of provisions for blocking certain things to be looked at if there is a danger to national security or to field operatives or to prosecution. I think those are appropriate prohibitions.
I do not agree with your amendment, although I think the committee would still play a useful role if it were only restricted to review. I think that would still be useful, but I don't think it's harmful to have the opportunity to go a bit further.
Senator Kenny: We see close to eye to eye on this. I think the government was making a genuine effort to enhance the robustness, if there's such a word, of the committee. I don't think they considered sufficiently the consequences of that sort of thing except in the case of police, and it's clear to everyone why it doesn't make good sense there.
The same thing applies to a whole lot of intelligence gathering and the idea that people whose primary role is that of a parliamentarian should not, in my view, be involved in that sort of work. The sort of advice and counsel that the Prime Minister needs can more than adequately be served by a review committee, and you don't have ministers coming forward saying, "Not today, folks. This doesn't suit.''
Senator Harder: Very briefly, I want to associate myself with the comments made by Senator Lankin. I simply want to point out that the effect of the amendment being proposed is to deny involvement by this committee in intelligence areas where, if I read the next amendment correctly, it's to allow involvement in investigations.
The balance being sought by the bill as presented is one that I think appropriately broadens the scope of the committee from simply a rearview mirror. It also ensures that there are adequate protections on ongoing investigations. That's the balance I will support.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to call the question. How many are in favour of the proposed amendment? Please raise your hand.
How many are opposed? Please raise your hand.
How many abstain? Three.
The motion has been defeated.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. I'm sorry, Senator Lankin.
Senator Lankin: With respect to clause 9, similar to what we talked about in I think it was —
The Chair: Clause 4.
Senator Lankin: Yes, I would like to suggest this be stood. I have a potential amendment. If there are amendments passed, I would like to request to revert to this and put forward an amendment. If not, I would include that in observations.
Mr. Thompson: Senator Lankin, if I understand correctly, that amendment will be to propose a new clause 9.1.
Senator Lankin: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: That would not actually amend clause 9, so it could be dealt with independently of that. In order to deal with that amendment, it would not be necessary to stand clause 9.
Senator Lankin: Do I have to do anything after?
Mr. Thompson: When we get to the end of the bill, at that point we can consider a new section.
The Chair: Thanks for the clarification. Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Senator Kenny: I think that must be consequential.
Senator Lankin: I would like to make sure I'm right. With the double-checking of the clerk, I would like to suggest that this clause be stood, for the same reasons that were given earlier.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 be stood aside? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, don't you have something on clause 19?
I'm wrong.
The Chair: Clause 19 has been carried.
Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 22 carry?
Senator Kenny: I'm moving:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 25, on page 11,
(a) by replacing line 26 with the following:
"tariat, who is to be appointed by Governor in Council.
(1.1) The Prime Minister is to submit in the Committee, in confidence, the name of a person to be appointed to the office of executive director and if a majority of the members of the Committee who are members of the Senate, and a majority of the members of the Committee who are members — "
Senator Lankin: We can't hear you.
Senator Kenny: Somebody else has the problem now.
The Chair: Does everybody have a copy of the amendment? Can we take a minute for everybody to find the amendment?
Senator Boniface: Can you say what clause it is?
The Chair: Clause 22.
Senator Kenny: Chair, it is a silly mistake. I mistook Bill C-22 for clause 22. I want to talk to clause 25.
The Chair: Correction, colleagues. Clause 25 is the amendment that we're dealing with.
Colleagues, could I please have your consent to deal with clause 22?
Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Kenny, we'll try clause 25.
Senator Kenny: I never thought we'd get to it.
The Chair: Before you proceed, does everybody have a copy of the clause 25 amendment?
Senator Kenny, please proceed.
Senator Kenny: Be it moved:
THAT Bill C-22 be amended in clause 25, on page 11,
(a) by replacing line 26 with the following:
"tariat, who is to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
(1.1) The Prime Minister is to submit to the Committee, in confidence, the name of a person to be appointed to the office of executive director and if a majority of the members of the committee who are members of the Senate, and a majority of the members of the Committee who are members of the House of Commons, approve, the Governor in Council will appoint that person.
(1.2) The executive director is''; and
(b) by replacing line 28 with the following:
"years but may be removed by Governor in Council on an address of the Senate and House of Commons. The executive director is eligible to be reappointed''.
It's simply clarifying the relationship between the chair of the committee and the staff. It addresses concerns about whether the staff will be working for the committee and the committee's chair.
Senator Lankin: I had worked on an amendment which addressed the issue of how to strengthen the relationship between the secretariat and the committee, which your amendment does in a different way than I had looked at. However, in working with the law clerks, I received an opinion about what the structure of this committee secretariat is in this act, how it's structured under the Financial Administration Act, and what the definition of the powers of the minister responsible, which are minimal in this particular legislation, and what that means.
If I may, I would just like to read that into the record because I think it opines on the intent, not the form of what you have suggested but the intent.
Again, this is from the Senate law office.
I do not think it is necessary to get into what the Secretariat is for the purposes of the FAA. The simple matter is that the Committee and Secretariat are both created by statute and will therefore derive their mandates, powers, duties and functions from the Act (on the coming into force of Bill C-22). A Minister is assigned for the purposes of reporting to Parliament with respect to government organizations created by statute and, if the Minister is to have any mandate, powers, duties or functions with respect to the organization to whom he or she is assigned, they too must be authorized by statute.
If I may just say in my own words at this point, there is no authorization of powers for the minister with respect to the mandate of this committee or the secretariat. It carries on to say:
In the case of a typical statute creating a department, for example, the first sections of the constituting Act will create the department, appoint a Minister to "preside'' over the department and grant that Minister the "direction and control'' (or "management and control'') of the department. The statute will also typically list the powers, duties and functions of the Minister with respect to the department.
In the case of Bill C-22, a Minister is assigned for the purposes of the Act, (clause 3), but with very little authority is given to the Minister. The Secretariat's role is expressly provided for in the Bill, (clause 24(2)) and the control and management of the Secretariat is expressly provided to the executive director (who holds the rank of deputy minister of a department) under clause 28. So in essence, the governance and role of the Secretariat is established by statute and cannot be legally overcome or altered by anyone acting independently.
With that in mind, it appears that Senator Lankin's amendment is indeed redundant. I caution against including provisions in legislation that are redundant specifically because they may have unintended consequences. It will be for a court to interpret these types of provisions, should a matter come before it and there is a presumption that every word in a statute is included for a reason. Additional wording that is unnecessary but is included out of an abundance of caution or in hopes of clarity, as appears to be the case with the proposed amendment, may end up with an unexpected interpretation in the context of the bill. Although very unlikely, it is not impossible that the proposed provision could also have implications on the interpretation of other organizations created under their own statutes that do not include these types of clarifying provisions.
It just goes on to wrap up that paragraph saying that if I insist they will prepare the amendment. That was the advice that I got back. From my reading, senator, it would equally apply to what you're attempting to do. I think both my amendment and yours had a similar intent.
I put that forward to the committee because I believe it answers some of the concerns that we were all raising with respect to the control, management and direction of the secretariat and whether or not it would be under the control and management of the executive branch.
Senator Kenny: I want to thank Senator Lankin for her interesting interpretation. I would appreciate a copy of it.
Senator Lankin: I don't have it in French.
Senator Kenny: Perhaps I could have that.
I have to say I went to the same source that she went to, the same branch, and described the problem that we wanted solved. These words are not my words. These words are the words that the law clerk provided me. It was in the context of how we deal with the relationship between the executive director and the chair of the committee.
As you were describing, this is seen as a problem by a number of people. They came back to me with this and without the caveats, and my conclusion was they had solved the problem but your conclusion is probably different from that.
Senator Lankin: It may well be because the structure of your amendment really deals with the appointment and/or replacement of the executive director. It may well be that it doesn't cause the problem of unintended consequences. I take that.
What I take from the memo I got, however, with respect to the operation of the secretariat and its relationship to the committee versus its relationship to PCO, which was what was being raised, gives me comfort that in fact our concerns about the committee perhaps were unfounded.
That's just one opinion, but I appreciate that it may not apply to your particular recommendation. Although the intent of both of us was to get more control here, the legal opinion suggests that it's not necessary, given that this is created by statute. The purpose of the secretariat is to assist the committee, and the minister responsible is given no powers with respect to the control and operations of the secretariat.
Senator Harder: I just want to briefly add to the conversation and follow up on Senator Lankin.
The government's intention was to create the arm's-length and independent nature for this committee as appropriate, and therefore it's a schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act. I want to underscore that under the schedule I.1 it's basically designed for very defined mandates other than ministerial departments. They are formed by statute, as is this, and they function with an independent nature.
They are designed to be so, so that they are seen free from ministerial influence. It's that balance between being within the family of government but at arm's length from ministerial direction, and that is entirely consistent with the machinery of government and the architecture that we have.
I would therefore oppose this because the arm's-length nature is in fact guaranteed in the statute we have before us.
Senator Kenny: Thank you, Senator Harder. Can you provide me with a copy of this? It's something I'm not familiar with.
Holly Porteous, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I would be happy to do so.
Senator Kenny: That would be helpful to my general fund of knowledge.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have a question for Senator Harder. You used an expression that curled my hair. You spoke of the "independence of the committee''.
Senator Harder: That is to say independent from the government, from the department, from ministers.
Senator Boisvenu: What is your definition of independence in that case?
[English]
Senator Harder: In the Financial Administration Act there are a number of ways in which Crown corporations or agencies are created. They are either closer to or further from ministerial direction.
Schedule I.1 agencies, boards or commissions are designed to be, obviously, within the family of government but statutorily are protected from direction from ministerial interference, as is this agency being proposed. It is similar, for example, that the Parole Board ministers cannot direct the Parole Board.
There are other agencies within the federal family, and this is designed to ensure the balance between appropriate overall accountability of the Government of Canada and the statutory basis for protection from ministerial direction.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: That may be a very broad question. I am trying to understand, in the context of this bill, what responsibility the Prime Minister does not have.
[English]
Senator Harder: The Prime Minister, as the minister indicated when they were here, is responsible at the very high point of accountability for the security and intelligence of Canada.
What the Prime Minister is doing with this act is bringing into that accountability parliamentarians in a way in which they have not before been involved and creating, through the creation of this committee of parliamentarians, a statutorily based group of parliamentarians that carry out the functions as described in the statute and are free, on the basis of the statute, to exercise their mandate as the statute provides.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: In that case, why is there so much resistance to transferring powers from the Prime Minister to members of the committee?
[English]
Senator Harder: Because it's that careful balance of —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The problem is that there is a lack of balance. Everything is. . .
[English]
The Chair: Please let Senator Harder reply.
Senator Harder: It is the proper balance between the Prime Minister's accountability for the security and well-being of Canada that the committee is very much in the creation of the Prime Minister, but it is also wanting to ensure that the committee is statutorily based and therefore on the basis of statute has accountability and responsibilities that it is free to exercise. However, it doesn't derogate the Prime Minister's accountability for the security and intelligence of this country. It's that balance that we are seeking to create.
It's a new body. Just as in the United Kingdom, the new body had some challenges as it got going but with experience all sides recognized that it is now an important contribution to the overall security and management of the United Kingdom's interests.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Would we find it normal if, in another department — because basically, we are creating a department — the Prime Minister had all of the power to appoint the minister, and his staff?
[English]
Senator Harder: Obviously, I've not been clear. This is specifically different from a department. The Prime Minister's and the ministers' authorities, for that matter, are in departmental acts. They are very specific. The Prime Minister and the Governor-in-Council have roles and responsibilities that they do not have with schedule I.1 agencies, boards or commissions.
This was a deliberate decision by the Government of Canada to assure parliamentarians and Canadians that this organization being created is given autonomy as best we can within the organization of the Government of Canada, and it's on the basis of statute.
That's why I have confidence in the approach being taken and why I will vote against this amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, the motion has been moved by Senator Kenny. How many in favour? How many opposed? How many abstain?
The motion is defeated.
Shall clause 25 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, you had an amendment.
Senator Kenny: It was a consequential one.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Kenny: I thought you skipped a clause here.
The Chair: No.
Senator Kenny: Are you okay?
The Chair: I think so. Shall clause 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 31 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 31.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 33 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 34 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 35 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 36 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 37 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 38 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 39 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 40 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 41 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 42 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 43 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 44 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 45 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 47 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 48 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 49 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I would like to go back to clause 4 because it was stood aside. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 14 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.
Senator Kenny: On division.
The Chair: On division. The bill is carried on division.
Colleagues, the next step in this process, as I outlined at the beginning, was consideration for observations if there weren't amendments.
I would like to proceed in camera.
Senator White: In camera?
The Chair: Yes, and at that stage we can decide if we will go with observations and, if we are going to proceed with observations, what those observations would be.
I would like to move into camera, Mr. Clerk.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we have one order of business to attend to, and that is the agreement that we will table observations with the bill.
Is it agreed that I, the chairman, report this bill, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, and so moved.
(The committee adjourned.)