THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 10:30 a.m., in camera, to study the present state of the domestic and international financial system (topic: the collection of financial information by Statistics Canada — consideration of a draft report); and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-1002, An Act respecting Girl Guides of Canada; and Bill S-1003, An Act to amend The United Church of Canada Act.
Senator Douglas Black (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning colleagues and members of the general public who are following the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce either here in the room or listening via the web.
My name is Doug Black. I am a senator from Alberta and I have the privilege of chairing this committee.
I ask my colleagues to introduce themselves to the witnesses.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Wallin: Pamela Wallin, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
Senator Day: Joseph Day, New Brunswick.
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Today we are examining Bill S-1002, An Act respecting Girl Guides of Canada.
During the first part of our meeting on this matter, our committee will hear from the sponsor of the bill, our esteemed and distinguished colleague the Honourable Senator Jaffer; and from Girl Guides of Canada, Jill Zelmanovits, Chief Executive Officer, and Brenda Abrams, Director, Governance.
Thank you all for being with us today. If we may please have opening comments and then we’ll move to questions.
Senator Jaffer, please.
Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much, chair, and to all of you for agreeing to study this bill.
Girl Guides of Canada is an organization that is very close to my heart. I would like to begin today by taking you all the way back to the year of 1909 when girls in England demanded to take part in a Boy Scouts rally organized by Lord Baden-Powell at the Crystal Palace in London. The girls saw what the Boy Scouts were doing and wanted to have the same opportunities.
Lord Baden-Powell was impressed by their tenacity and initiative so he asked his sister Agnes to create a program just for girls. The movement became a place where girls took the lead in discovering what was important to them. From the beginning, these girls wanted new experiences. Today the Girl Guides of Canada consists of 75,000 girls supported by 20,000 women from coast to coast to coast.
Guiding empowers girls to be curious, confident, resilient, independent, open-minded, fulfilled, to be prepared and also always to do their best. Guiding has long played a leading role in helping girls develop the skills and experience to try new things with programming focused on self-esteem, mental health, financial literacy, healthy relationships and outdoor experiences.
Gender-specific programming focuses on girls themselves and their unique needs and social barriers, and it enables them to observe women in positions of leadership. In this ever-changing world and increasing challenging global landscape where sexism exists, there is no question that girls need the Girl Guides of Canada now more than ever.
Today, girls in guiding discover who they are. The girls set their own goals. Along this path, the girls know they will become confident, resilient and independent. The Girl Guides of Canada are also revered ambassadors for Canada abroad. By enabling girls and young women to participate in global initiatives, including the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and leadership development opportunities, Girl Guides of Canada provides the tools they need to build a better world.
Honourable senators, guiding is in my DNA. My mother grew up as a Girl Guide and worked with Lady Baden-Powell in Kenya. She often told us stories from her adventures as a Girl Guide, going camping and in leadership roles in Kenya. When she moved to Uganda as a married woman, she became a leader to give Ugandan girls an opportunity to excel. My sisters and I were also Brownies and Guides. I was the second Queen’s Guide in Africa, and I was also a Girl Scout in Tacoma, Washington. I learned many leadership skills.
In 1975, when I came to Canada as a refugee, Girl Guides of Canada helped me integrate into Canadian society. As a shy Muslim woman, I felt comfortable learning leadership skills from other women. I had very few resources. Girl Guides of Canada provided me with free leadership skills. Girl Guides met me at the place where I was at the time and provided what I needed to thrive and to become the person I am today.
As a Girl Guides commissioner in Canada for many years, I was able to encourage other women to become leaders.
Girl Guides of Canada has had a tremendous impact on the woman that I am today. I sit here today in full support of the Girl Guides of Canada in their ongoing commitment to enable girls to be confident, resourceful and courageous but most of all to make a difference in this world.
Girl Guides of Canada is asking that a private bill be introduced before the Parliament of Canada to ensure its current roles and procedures as a modern organization and to accurately reflect them in their governing Charter.
Girl Guides of Canada’s governance is formalized through a special act of Parliament entitled, “An Act Respecting the Canadian Council of the Girl Guides Association (1917).”
This act has been amended twice, both in 1947 and 1961. For the most part the governing act remains largely unamended. In this private bill, Girl Guides of Canada seeks to modernize language to reflect Girl Guides of Canada’s goals and missions.
Honourable senators, I ask you to support this bill because it gives girls in our country a place to thrive and to create self-esteem and confidence. Thank you very much.
Jill Zelmanovits, Chief Executive Officer, Girl Guides of Canada: Although I am CEO of Girl Guides of Canada now, I also started off as a Brownie, a Girl Guide and a leader in this movement. Like Senator Jaffer, I am also very much a product of Girl Guides.
I thank you for inviting us to speak on behalf of this private bill, and especially Senator Jaffer for sponsoring the bill on our behalf. I will start by providing a bit of background to our organization.
Girl Guides of Canada provides a safe, all-girl environment that invites girls aged 5 to 17 to challenge themselves, find their voices, meet new friends and make a difference in the world.
In guiding, we strive to ensure that girls and women from all walks of life, identities and lived experiences feel they truly belong and can participate. Our mission is to be a catalyst for girls empowering girls and our vision is a better world by girls.
Girl Guides of Canada has over 100 years of history and a strong and growing future. Since our founding in 1910, over seven million girls and women have been involved in the organization. Today we serve more than 75,000 girls with the support of more 20,000 women volunteers.
Our programming has evolved over the years yet remains firmly rooted in our history and core values: Advancing the well-being of girls and young women has always been fundamental to our organization.
In guiding, girls have a safe, inclusive space to explore what matters to them, a space where girlhood is celebrated, where girls are inspired and supported by women mentors who are committed to positively impacting girls’ lives. These women leaders also have the opportunity to develop valuable leadership skills that they use in guiding and beyond in their lives.
As a girl-driven organization, Girl Guides of Canada programs give girls choice, voice and the scope to take action. We recently launched our exciting new Girls First programming which puts girls in the driver’s seat. Girls choose activities that interest them the most, becoming more empowered as they move through the program. Through activities that range from STEM experiments to outdoor adventures, to discussions on healthy relationships, girls are empowered with the tools to navigate their world.
I would like to hand it over to my colleague Brenda Abrams, who will speak about this private bill.
Brenda Abrams, Director, Governance, Girl Guides of Canada: I am pleased to be here to speak about the bill and to answer any questions you may have.
As Ms. Zelmanovitz mentioned, Girl Guides of Canada was established in 1910. The organization’s governance was formalized through a special Act of Parliament in 1917. Unlike most other charities in Canada, Girl Guides of Canada is governed by this special act.
As Senator Jaffer mentioned, the governing act has been amended twice in 1947 and 1961, with very minor changes. However, at this point the act remains largely untouched.
Now, 57 years since the act was last amended, we are seeking administrative amendments to reflect our approach as a modern charity. I am pleased to say this private bill will allow us to ensure our current roles and procedures as a modern charity are accurately reflected in our governing charter. This enactment would replace the 1917 act with a new act that continues the corporation of Girl Guides of Canada and makes changes relating to the corporation’s affairs.
Our objectives in working with the Honourable Mobina Jaffer to put forward this bill are to update the language to reflect our goals and mission, to update our procedural provisions, and to incorporate certain provisions of Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act into our new governing act.
One of the proposed language changes is to update the corporate purpose. The proposed purpose statement reads:
. . . to promote the development, health and well-being of girls and young women by operating educational and related programs on leadership, self-development, self-esteem, citizenship, community service and social engagement, as well as issues impacting girls, young women and their well-being.
This purpose statement, approved by the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency, is better aligned with the Girl Guides of Canada contemporary mission, vision and program.
In addition, the bill permits Girl Guides of Canada to use the following English and French titles: Girl Guides, Girl Guides of Canada, Guides Canada and Guides du Canada.
Lastly, the bill will enable Girl Guides of Canada to mirror key provisions of Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. Its section 158 outlines the objective standard of care for directors and officers. Section 151 outlines the corporation’s ability to indemnify directors and officers, to purchase directors and officers insurance, and to ensure that Girl Guides of Canada has the capacity of a natural person as outlined in Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.
I highlight that these proposed changes were reviewed by Corporations Canada. They provided valuable input used by Girl Guides of Canada and the Senate Office of the Law Clerk during the drafting of this bill.
Girl Guides of Canada is constantly evolving to ensure our programming remains relevant to girls and young women. The bill will allow us to reflect our current operations as a modern charity and our approach to serving girls and young women.
On behalf of Girl Guides of Canada, our volunteers and families involved with the organization, I thank you for your study of this bill. I also extend our thanks to the Suzie Seo of the Senate Office of the Law Clerk Office for her assistance. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Where is your heaviest enrolment? Is it urban or rural these days?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We have both. I would say we have a heavier enrolment from the urban areas just because that is where more girls live. Percentage-wise it would look higher, but we find in rural areas, unlike in urban areas, there are actually fewer programming options for girls.
Often almost every girl in a rural area would be involved in the Girl Guide association in some way because it becomes one of the main things that girls do there.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Does Girl Guides of Canada today reach out to the Scouts? Do you have programs that incorporate men and women or girls and boys rather than separating out an organization?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We are very good friends with the Scouts. We certainly do a lot of activities together. That happens at the national provincial and local levels. There are a lot of strong relationships with groups.
It is important to note, though, that Girl Guides of Canada really believe that a very special part of what we offer is the girl-only space. A special type of empowerment occurs when girls are together in a safe space and can address issues that uniquely affect girls.
In many cases there is a lot of interaction with Boy Scouts in terms of activities, but our core programming is specifically related to that girl-only space.
Senator Dalphond: I certainly have no axe to grind with the association, although I was never a member, as you can see. In my previous life I was a corporate lawyer, so I still have fun reading corporate law.
I carefully read your bill, and I have a few questions. First, does the organization have permanent or part-time employees?
Ms. Zelmanovits: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: How many do you have?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We have about 175 across the country. Some of them are part time for our camp staff and some are permanent employees.
Senator Dalphond: That brings me to this question that I wrote to Senator Jaffer about in September of this year.
Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act provides that any non-profit corporation can decide to be continued under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. All special acts are intended to be continued over time under the new piece of legislation. Most societies and non-profit corporations in Canada are continued under that piece of legislation.
You made a compelling case for having a special piece of legislation. I can relate to the historical reasons and things you want to preserve, but you have carefully included provisions from Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act in your bill. They are word for word, with no change, but some are missing. A missing one that is of concern to me is the one related to unpaid wages and salaries.
All corporations have provisions to say that the directors are personally responsible or liable for up to six months of unpaid wages and salary. That is in section 146 of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. It applies to all societies like the Canadian Cancer Society and all other corporations that are doing good work for Canadian.
I don’t understand why you have not reproduced in your bill the provision dealing with the liability of the director for wages and removing protections for the 175 employees of the corporation.
Ms. Abrams: I will say that we have those protections and take them seriously. When we conduct our audits and our reviews, all those obligations, whether on a provincial or federal basis, are reported, monitored, and are part of our compliance. We absolutely do it.
Section 19 of the Canada Not-for-profit Act provides for some things that help govern with respect to private acts. We followed that and sought advice with respect to what should go in around director and officer liability to make sure that it was clear.
I can’t specifically answer you on why the particular provision was not included. From an organizational perspective, a bylaw perspective and a policy perspective, I can say to you that we follow that.
Senator Dalphond: It is more than to follow that. It is a right granted to the employees by law.
Ms. Abrams: Absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: I understand directors of corporations are entitled to have insurance coverage, so that will be covered for that liability.
Ms. Abrams: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: My question is: Why have you removed that liability in favour of the employees from your bill?
Ms. Abrams: In consultation with Corporations Canada and Revenue Canada, we included in the bill provisions we felt were essential and transferable that would govern those kinds of liabilities.
We have no objection to that provision being there, but we feel through our corporate bylaws, policies and compliance model that we monitor that. We ensure from a board perspective that those liabilities are paid and covered. We owe a duty to our employees to ensure that those are there.
We understand our obligation to protect that public interest and that coverage, so we do it by bylaw, by policy and by the compliance process.
Senator Dalphond: I understand from your testimony that you will have no objections to the provisions being incorporated in your bill to protect the employees.
Ms. Abrams: No, I have no objection.
The Chair: That was going to be my question.
Senator Wetston: We recognize the importance of the work you do. My question is really twofold.
First, we have many minority underprivileged children in the country. Are you able to access them? Are you able to include them in your organization? Are you able to reach out to them?
Second, I understand the changes you are asking for. I certainly understand and appreciate Senator Dalphond’s comments. What has changed for girls today? What is happening in our society today that may or may not make your organization even more relevant. How does the bill you are asking the Senate to review support that or promote that?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We have a real wish to include a greater diverse population, both in our girls and our leaders at Girl Guides of Canada, to the point where we actually have right now as one of our four strategic priorities a diversity and inclusion strategy.
We are really trying to reach the girls who we actually think might most need the experiences at Girl Guides of Canada. We are working very hard on that and on creating spaces where those girls feel particularly safe in a world where we know they are facing multiple barriers to success.
In terms of the relevance, for a period of time I think Canadians and other people around the world thought that they had the whole boy-girl thing figured out and that girls and women actually had equal access.
Certainly, with the recent #MeToo movement, we have become increasing aware of the fact that girls face unique barriers. We have also become increasingly aware that we need to start having conversations with girls when they are young and in a safe space.
When we talk to parents, we hear that Girl Guides of Canada providing the purpose of the new bill before you today is exactly what girls need. Perhaps this is a time when they actually need it more than ever.
The relevancy is very important and is one of the reasons we have come before you today. We want to make sure that the purpose actually reflects what we are doing.
Senator Jaffer: To add to what Senator Wetston was asking, Girl Guides help girls that are not allowed to go to a mixed group. In many mosques they have Girl Guides. I used to run a group in a mosque, which meant that girls were able to do activities they would otherwise be denied. This is an opportunity for girls to get leadership where they otherwise would be denied.
Senator McIntyre: The bill consists of 21 clauses. I note that clause 21 would repeal the act and the two statutes that amended the act in 1947 and 1961.
Ms. Abrams, in your presentation you explained the rationale for replacing Girl Guides of Canada legislation. As I further understand, the proposed act would be consistent with the provisions of the current corporate statutes in Canada.
Ms. Abrams: Yes, they are consistent with current statutes. They are also consistent with current civil and common law with respect to the obligations of directors and officers, all things that I would call good governance with respect to charitable organizations and not-for-profit and profit organizations.
Senator McIntyre: Would the powers of Girl Guides of Canada be expanded in any way under the new legislation?
Ms. Abrams: They are not expanded. At the time the 1917 legislation was passed, there wasn’t the concept of corporations having the powers of a person. That has been put in this legislation. By bylaw over the years we have included those powers.
The legislation is consistent and reflects the current structure and governance structure of the organization rather than granting us new powers. It reflects what we do now. It reflects how we act. It reflects how we report as a charitable organization.
Senator Day: I echo the comments of my colleagues and thank you for your very important contribution to our society.
Senator Jaffer talked about Girl Guides outside of Canada. What relationship does the Canadian branch have? Is it part of a federation? Is there a larger home base somewhere?
Ms. Zelmanovits: There is. Girl Guides of Canada is a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, the umbrella organization situated in London. It currently includes about 148 member organizations. Each of those organizations runs Girl Guides or Girl Scouts organizations in their countries.
Senator Day: Does the London head office dictate how you can use their intellectual property? Are the logos and name owned by the international body? Are you licensed to use them in Canada? Is that how that works?
Ms. Zelmanovits: There is no formal licensing agreement. In order to be a member there are certain criteria. Most of the members have been member organizations for quite some time. We pay a fee, not so much for intellectual property but for some of the training opportunities available to girls who are members of Girl Guides of Canada as a result of being a member of world organization.
They currently operate five world centres. These are training centres that our girls can actually attend and meet Girl Guides from around the world. It is an incredibly enriching experience to be able to participate in that.
Senator Day: Is this proposed legislation vetted by London, along with your bylaws, to make sure you comply with the international norms?
Ms. Zelmanovits: It is not. The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts in London looks at the constitutional documents, as well as the promise and the name of the organization. Those are really the concerns to make sure we are still operating within the boundaries.
They are certainly aware of the work we are doing. They are very much in support of our updating the purpose so that it better reflects what they know Girl Guides of Canada is offering rather than the purpose as listed right now in the bill.
Senator Day: This question flows from Senator Jaffer’s comments in relation to different religions being involved. What type of training do you have for your leaders in relation to religious tolerance and other society norms that we would want to make sure your leaders are well versed in?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We have a very strong statement of inclusivity. We have partnered that with on-the-ground training for our leaders, so that it is not just something the organization says but is something we can really stand behind in terms of our leaders putting it into action.
It talks about diversity and how to make every girl really feel like she belongs to the organization, no matter her background. We have a training program for our guiders specifically around diversity and inclusivity.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Day, I have been involved with this group in Canada for 40 years. I assure you that Girl Guides of Canada are very inclusive and is always upgrading their knowledge as we become more diverse.
There has never been a question about not belonging to the group. As soon as I became a member I felt I was part of the group. It was never about one faith keeping the other out. It was always very inclusive.
Senator Day: I am glad to hear that.
Senator Klyne: This is embedded in some legislation already so I just have a quick question in this regard. Instead of introducing a new private statute, have you given thought to incorporating under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act?
Ms. Abrams: We considered it. A couple of things are going on there. It is part of our DNA. It is how we were created. It is something we have anchored to from the very start of the organization where a group of women got together, had an unincorporated association and then came to Parliament. It was the only way they could come to Parliament and have this private member’s bill.
For us it is part of who we are. It has us standing alone as an organization that has an interesting and unique relationship with the Government of Canada in terms of how we operate and where we started.
It’s a pretty unique partnership that we would like to keep in place. Based on how Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act was set up, we believe there is room for both: a special act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. We can continue the private work we do under a private bill but still meet the public interest by maintaining our connection with the act, updating the act, and maintaining the relationship we have with the government in terms of how we’ve conducted ourselves and how we have grown.
It was a pretty unique situation back in 1917. Women who got together at that point didn’t even have the vote, but they were able to come to this Senate and create this association. It is something we don’t want to lose. It is a very positive message for our organization.
Senator Jaffer: A number of years ago Senator Di Nino did the same with the Scouts Canada Act. We have special acts for the Boy Scouts and for the Girl Guides. This special relationship has carried on.
Ms. Zelmanovits: The amount of identification with this act is actually a surprise. I really didn’t think that our members necessarily knew or cared about how we were created. It’s testimony to their attachment and to this process. It is incredibly important process to them.
They are very excited that we have the opportunity to speak to you. They are literally tuning in from across the country. I see how it would be easy to think this is not important, but it is really important to our board of directors and to our members.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for that understanding.
Ms. Abrams: It may be unusual, but there is a viewing party going on right now watching this process.
Senator Klyne: Go Girl Guides of Canada.
You mentioned that this makes it more of a modern charity and will change the way of some operations. What are the significant changes, if anything, this will allow?
Ms. Abrams: The principal change is the updating of the purpose between the 1917 act and this legislation. That provision has not been changed in any of the minor amendments that were done.
While it doesn’t fundamentally change the internal legal governance, the bylaws, how we operate ourselves or how we deal with provincial councils, real estate and our programming, it does bring the purpose into alignment with our current mission and vision.
Senator Klyne: You weren’t constrained the way it was, but this modernizes it
Ms. Abrams: We weren’t constrained. The language is clearly out of date. We took great care in structuring it. We went to the charity section at Canada Revenue Agency to make sure they would be happy with the language and that it fit within CRA’s view of what a proper charitable purpose would be.
It really is updating it, and I believe this is a purpose that can last forever.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for your presentations, and to my honourable colleague Senator Jaffer, thank you for your leadership.
I was glad to hear the response to Senator Dalphond’s pointed question. It’s important. As someone who has been a board member, if you have the responsibility clearly articulated it changes how you make decisions. I was glad to hear that response on your part.
My question builds on what Senator Wetston asked. I was thrilled when Melanie Nicholson, one of our staffers in the Senate and a great volunteer in your organization, made me aware of your Girls First program and the connection with STEM activities.
Women in leadership roles make organizations more effective and more profitable. The data show that, so we need you to be successful. Looking forward with this legislation, how are the requests you’re making of us in this bill empowering you? I am looking forward 10 or 20 years.
We need you to succeed. We need you to evolve in an ever-changing economy. We need more girls in more locations empowered in this digital age to be successful and contributing.
As an organization have you looked very carefully at what you need from a legislative standpoint to make sure you can continue to evolve successfully and thrive in this changing environment?
Ms. Zelmanovits: We believe that the wording in the purpose provides us not only what we need today in 2018 but looking forward.
What will girls need from an organization like Girl Guides of Canada in 2030? Will the words in this legislation allow us to provide what we need to give them as a basis for leadership and empowerment? Those are the things we know we will continue to be providing.
How we do it may change, but those are at the core of what we are providing. We believe the words in the purpose address that.
Senator C. Deacon: Are you looking to work with the Canada Learning Code, the Girls Learning Code and others to make sure we’re taking advantage of the programming out there already?
I’ve been in a couple of those Saturday groups. It’s incredible to see these young girls coming in with their moms and dads feeling sheepish and leaving like they own the world. The transformation in a few hours is phenomenal in terms of what they then feel they are capable of doing.
It is not: “I don’t know how to do that.” It is: “I didn’t know how to do that and now I know how to do that.” It is a change in attitude. Are you looking at building those partnerships as well? What you’re aiming at is important.
Ms. Zelmanovits: Very much so. Girls First is based on Girl Guides of Canada being the expert in girls, the pedagogy around how best to give girls what they need, but not being expert in all different subject areas that are changing rapidly.
We have really strong subject matter partnerships. We’re working with Kids Help Phone in our mental health program. We’re working with different coding groups to deliver STEM activities. That is very much the approach we’re taking with the new Girls First program.
Senator C. Deacon: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I’ve had indirect experience with the Jeannette and Guide movement. I was never a member, but my sister was a long-time member of these organizations. I can tell you that these groups instill very good values.
Senator Jaffer, you caught my attention when you said that former Senator Di Nino had already introduced a bill concerning the Scouts. Are the administrative provisions for the Scout movement different from the provisions for the Guide movement? If so, why would there be a difference? The two movements are essentially the same. They should therefore have the same administrative provisions.
Do you know whether the provisions for the Scouts are different from the provisions for the Guides?
[English]
Ms. Abrams: I can’t speak to the provisions of the Scouts act as they went through. I don’t have any history with them. My history has been with this organization and this bill.
We can take that question away if you would like us to do so, but I personally can’t speak to the difference between the two bills.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Since the Scout movement is the male equivalent of the Guide movement, I assume that the administrative provisions should be the same. If there’s already a bill for the Scouts, the bill for the Guides should be essentially the same.
[English]
Ms. Abrams: My assumption would be the same as yours. As a lawyer, I would think they followed the same processes and included the same provisions. Their purpose clauses might be a bit different, but I am also cautious, as a lawyer, to say that I haven’t read it.
I don’t know the differences, but I would assume that the processes they went through would have the same background information. There might be a slightly different purpose clause.
Senator Jaffer: There is a different purpose clause. As most people know, Scouts Canada is no longer a boys-only organization. That was the change. Girls are now a part of Scouts Canada. It’s not now solely a boys’ organization. It’s a mixed organization.
Ms. Abrams: That makes sense from a purpose perspective why they would change it.
Senator Jaffer: Girl Guides of Canada specifically want to stay a girls’ organization. That’s the difference.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you for all you do for the Girl Guides and Brownies movement. I was a Brownie, a Girl Guide, a Ranger, and later I was a Snowy Owl. I have a background in the movement.
The legislation refers to financial statements. Could you give us some idea as to amount of money that flows through your organization? You mentioned over 100 staff, and I was wondering if they were volunteers or paid staff. I would like an idea as to the money side of the organization.
Ms. Abrams: My friend Ms. Zelmanovitz knows the money outside of the organization well.
Ms. Zelmanovits: We have a staff component. The actual delivery to girls is all done through volunteers. Those are the 20,000 volunteers we mentioned at the beginning. They are the women who play the role in actually directly delivering the Girl Guides, like being a Snowy Owl, for example. Those people are certainly not paid.
Across the country we have staff who support them. There are training programs and program development. Corporate services need to be provided like finance and IT in any organization. Those are usually staff positions.
We have different budgets across Canada. We have a central budget that is held by the national organization. The provincial organizations also hold provincial monies. It is different in some provinces where areas and districts also hold some money as well.
Senator Marshall: What would be the magnitude? Would it be thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions?
Ms. Zelmanovits: The operating budget at the national office is around the $14 million mark. We all have the same auditor. The national office certainly sees the audited financial statements of each of the provinces. Those vary across the country in terms of how much they hold.
Senator Marshall: When I was reading the legislation, the wording was very odd:
. . . a report of a person whose profession lends credibility to a statement made by that person.
It does not specifically say audited, but you have audited financial statements.
Ms. Zelmanovits: Yes. We also have one auditor who provides a consistent auditing process for the national office as well as all the provincial entities across the country.
Ms. Abrams: They are audited annually, presented every year at the annual general meeting and approved by the board annually. Our audit and finance committee reviews all the provincial audits.
Senator Marshall: Would they be on your website?
Ms. Abrams: The financial statements are on the website, yes.
The Chair: Let me thank you, Senator Jaffer, for your leadership on this obviously very important file. Let me say to our two witnesses today I want to echo the comments of my colleagues around the table. We are very cognizant that you are doing important work in a very complicated time. We encourage you in that work. We thank you very much for what you are doing on behalf of girls and young women in Canada.
As a reminder for all those young women and girls watching at home, we look forward to when you are members of Parliament or senators.
I understand an amendment will be forthcoming and we’re waiting for comments from the law clerk. As a result we will move to hearing testimony from our colleague Senator Harder in respect of Bill S-1003, An Act to amend The United Church of Canada Act. Then we will come back and do clause-by-clause consideration of both the United Church and the Girl Guides bills at one time.
We will now examine Bill S-1003, An Act to amend The United Church of Canada Act. During the first part of this meeting our committee will hear from our colleague, the Honourable Senator Peter Harder, PC., sponsor of the bill, as well as Reverend Brian Cornelius of the First United Church.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. May we begin with opening remarks from Senator Harder, to be followed by Reverend Cornelius. Then we will go to questions and answers.
Hon. Peter Harder, P.C., sponsor of the bill: Senators, I don’t have a statement to make. I gave a speech on second reading, to which I am sure all of you paid attention.
The Chair: Of course we did, senator.
Senator Harder: This is an important amendment to the United Church of Canada Act. The act was first established 94 years ago, in 1924. At the time it was quite a hot subject of parliamentary review because of the prominence of the religious organizations of the time. Also there were the interests of the continuing Presbyterian Church that Parliament wanted to make sure were appropriately adjudicated in the act.
As you know, about a third of the Presbyterian Church, or 30 to 35 per cent, remained a separate entity. The scrutiny in the Senate and the House was over ensuring that all of the contributing organizations to become the United Church, that is to say the Congregationalists, the Methodists and the Presbyterians, adhered to their own legal processes to join. Appropriate consideration was given to the Presbyterian Church.
Essentially what this act is doing, and Reverend Cornelius is here to speak to it in detail, is moving the church from a four-court to a three-court structure administration. This reflects the modern nature and challenges, frankly, of church organization; the reality of 3,000 or so congregations across the country; and the needs of roughly two million United Church members.
With that, I would ask Reverend Cornelius to speak.
Reverend Brian Cornelius, First United Church, United Church of Canada: Honourable senators, I am honoured to be here to represent the United Church of Canada as you consider Bill S-1003.
On two previous occasions I represented the United Church before Senate committees: once to speak to the United Church’s strong support of equal marriage and on another occasion to advocate for family reunification in the refugee work that we do. These two occasions connected our United Church values for social justice with your own determination to ensure that Canada is a just society.
While today I am speaking on something much more technical, I am intent on not losing sight of the undergirding vision and values embodied in this bill which are parts of the history of the United Church and the larger Canadian landscape.
Today, I speak to you as a local minister who has been on the United Church General Council Executive for the last 12 years as the chair of its finance committee. I am familiar with the processes around this bill before you. You heard the inspiring words of Senator Peter Harder, and previously from Senator Dennis Patterson. Their presentations outlined the historical, spiritual and social energies behind the United Church of Canada Act, as well as the extensive process we have undergone over the last few years to make contemporary structural changes to the United Church, with the hope that it remains a vital energy for social good and religious tolerance.
It is important to note that the United Church is a democratic church. The church embodies democratic principles in its governance, including a mechanism to change the church. The mechanism is known as the remit process.
The remit process was incorporated into the design and inception of the church to provide safeguards for varying constituencies that were being united as one body and to provide ongoing safeguards to the membership itself, in other words, to protect that democratic principle.
The remit process requires that votes to change the church happen in regional bodies known as presbyteries and at times also includes votes by local congregations known as pastoral charges. Certain remits require a two-thirds majority. The structural changes included in this bill were confirmed by a remit process and received 91 per cent support of presbyteries and 88 per cent of pastoral charges. That is significant.
There are three clauses in the bill, but before looking at them I think it’s important you understand that we’re leaving the United Church of Canada Act essentially unchanged in order to maintain the act’s historical integrity. Rather than trying to rewrite the act, this bill outlines necessary amendments to make provision for the structural changes that were adopted through the remit process.
The change in clause 1 is primarily a clarification. Subsection 28(b) of the act itself provides considerable authority for the United Church to legislate and make changes in “matters of doctrine, worship, discipline and government ”without there needing to be changes to the act.
In clause 1 an amendment is proposed to subparagraph 3(b) of the act to clarify and make explicit the authority of section 28, especially with the ability to amend the Basis of Union outlined in Schedule A of the act.
The amendment in clause 2 is in fact the substantive amendment. The bill proposes three new sections to the act following section 30. These three new sections describe and define the new structure.
As Senator Harder indicated, the United Church is changing from four levels of governance to three, so we’re changing from four courts known as the general council, conference, presbytery and congregation or pastoral charge. We are changing to three: denominational council, regional council and community of faith.
The inclusion of these three new sections defines and broadens the definitions but removes the necessity to rewrite the whole act by broadening the definitions of general council, conference, presbytery and pastoral charge. Thus we embrace the new structure.
While section 28 of the act gave the United Church considerable authority to legislate for itself, it is important to recognize that this authority always had to operate within the safeguards outlined in the Basis of Union. Subsection 28(b) did not give the United Church the authority to amend or abolish the safeguards themselves. It specifies that the authority of the United Church remains:
. . . subject to the conditions and safeguards in that behalf . . . .
Therefore structural change such as being proposed can only be accomplished through an amendment of the act, and that is why Bill S-1003 is before you.
Through these three newly added sections, there is an assurance that the safeguards remain by explicitly retaining the continuation of the remit formula, and that formula is outlined in subparagraph (a) of subsection 24(2) in the Basis of Union.
In the new structure, presbyteries will not exist. However, presbyteries are essential for this remit formula. The amendments in clause 2 of the bill clearly identify the regional council as the intermediate governing body substituting for the presbytery in the remit formula. Thereby the safeguard is maintained.
Bill S-1003 represents the required change to the legislation in order to give effect to this new governance structure and allow the church to continue to comply with the act itself with the conditions and safeguards in the act.
Finally, the third change in clause 3 of the bill replaces the section of the Trusts of Model Deeds outlined in Schedule B. This is necessary to address an inconsistency that would otherwise result from the new definitions in clause 2.
As outlined in Schedule B, presbyteries make decisions on the sale of property. In certain cases these can be appealed to the conferences. In the new structure, as defined in clause 2, both the presbytery and the conference can be read to refer to as regional council.
As a result the regional council would be in a position of hearing its own appeal, and that would not work. The changes outlined in the third clause of this bill amend the appeal process in paragraph 6 of Schedule B so that an appeal is directed to the denominational council.
In conclusion, I am very happy to be here to answer any questions you have about this bill. Thank you very much for your time.
Senator Stewart Olsen: What is the exact definition of the denominational council? Who makes up that denominational council now?
Rev. Cornelius: The denominational council is elected by representatives of regional councils who are elected by representatives of communities of faith.
Senator Stewart Olsen: The changes, as I see them, further consolidate the power regarding the closure and sale of property of the church within the upper echelons of the church. Is that correct?
Rev. Cornelius: No.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Please explain that.
Rev. Cornelius: This is one of the reasons why the act was as complicated as it was. The United Church holds all property, but it’s held in trust by communities of faith or by local communities.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, I am aware of that.
Rev. Cornelius: In order to enact any action on a property, it requires conversation between all of the different parts of the church because no one is allowed to take unilateral action.
There is no consolidation of power to the denominational council because within the Basis of Union and within the structures of the church it requires more than one court to make a decision.
Senator Stewart Olsen: But the appeal goes to the denominational council.
Rev. Cornelius: In an appeal case where there is a difference of opinion, yes, it would go to the denominational council. Those are very rare where you have an appeal.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, I certainly understand that. As I see it, because the United Church is closing down many of their regional and smaller presbyteries they are dealing with a lot of closures. There have been a lot of differences of opinion as to with whom the money stays and what happens.
As I see it, the appeal will now go to the denominational council which will be problematic for many of the smaller presbyteries.
Rev. Cornelius: Often when there is an appeal it is because there is a difference of opinion within the community of faith itself. The presbyteries became the arbitrator of that. If a decision was appealed, then it went to conference.
When there were concerns about the sale of property in the present system, it would be going up the court level. Because we had four levels, and now we will only have three, we’re continuing the same model. The model itself is not changing. When there is conflict at the grassroots level, the arbitrator of the conflict then is the next level.
Essentially that is exactly the same as it exists now. We would be just making it possible so that the people making the decisions were not then hearing their own appeal.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I hear what you’re saying, and you understand what I am saying. The people who are actually losing their church and losing the property sale value don’t really have the money or the say anymore in what is happening with the money. That is problematic. If they’ve amalgamated three or four churches in a single area, then there is usually a problem because the churches think the money will go to the churches in the area. However, in actual fact it heads up the way to the denominational council.
Rev. Cornelius: That is not necessarily the case. Different decisions are made in different parts of the country. Right now the decision rests between the congregation and the presbytery. In the new structure the decision will be maintained to be a conversation between the congregation and the regional council.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That’s right. The presbyteries are gone.
Rev. Cornelius: Yes, it’s essentially the same. Congregations and communities of faith overwhelmingly voted in favour of this change or adjustment.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I hear what you’re saying, but you know as well as I do that the small churches do not go to where they do the voting.
Senator McIntyre: The internal church process is now finalized. The major changes have been approved. From what I understand, all that remains for the church to implement these approved changes are the amendments found in this bill.
Have the changes in governance structure already been implemented by the United Church of Canada? If not, how long will it take the church to implement the changes? Are you simply waiting for the bill to pass?
Rev. Cornelius: We’ve been working concurrently. We hope the changes will be in place January 1, 2019, assuming the bill goes through. Hence, that is why it’s important this bill moves forward.
We recognized there were many components involved in the change. We began conversation on this change in 2012, so it has been well considered for a long time. Once we had the remit approval in August 2018, then we had the authority to amend the act or to come to you to amend the act. Prior to that, we had not received the permission of the church to amend the act. We have been trying to work down several pathways at the same time.
Senator McIntyre: How would the proposed changes affect the accountability of the church to its members? For example, would the church need approval from its members to exercise its power under subsection 20(b) of the act which provides the church the power to legislate or modify its laws on all matters concerning doctrine and governance?
Rev. Cornelius: Again, the United Church is democratic. There are no powers in the church that can change anything. The only way we can make any change has to be done through the remit process which engages the whole membership of the church. They participate in the changes and vote on the changes.
The amendments to the legislation are critical because they are protecting the democratic nature of the church, which has been approved democratically. That is why this amendment is so critical. Am I getting at your question?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, thank you.
Senator Wetston: I must say that a lot of institutions are undergoing change including the Senate of Canada, so perhaps you could provide some advice to us on the process of legislative reform as well.
Getting to the importance of this issue today. Obviously you’ve paid a lot of attention to this and within the United Church have brought forward these amendments to the Senate. Just to understand section 28 for a moment, if the Senate approves the bill in the way that you’re seeking, would this mean that in future the changes, which likely will be required, will be easier to obtain as a result of these amendments, or is it more a matter of reflecting the decisions made within the United Church from a governance perspective?
Is section 28 a provision to allow greater self-governance within the United Church so that you don’t have to come to Parliament once again for amendments as the organization evolves in years to come?
Rev. Cornelius: This is the second time the United Church has come here in 93 years. The last time was in 1939 because of section 28. If you were to read the Basis of Union, as it now exists in our manual it looks very different from Schedule A because section 28 gave considerable authority to the church through the remit process to make changes to the Basis of Union. All those changes have been made through a remit process and voted on by the membership.
For example, if you look at the 20 articles of faith in Schedule A, in the United Church of Canada we now have three more companion doctrinal statements that stand alongside the 20 articles that were adopted through a remit process by the church. That looks considerably different. It was not necessary to change the act because we were given the authority to make those changes.
What is particular in this bill is that it’s very important in changing the structures and taking out the name of the presbytery that we do not, in any way, detract from the safeguards. That’s why the safeguards are the focus of this bill, so that we retain the integrity of the act by safeguarding the democratic principles of the church.
We will still have considerable authority. I don’t expect you will see the United Church of Canada for another 93 years because we still have authority to make changes as long as we follow the remit process. We will not if we do not follow our own processes.
Senator Day: Rev. Cornelius, thank you for being here and for explaining the United Church governance structure. We often read about the Moderator of the United Church, but you haven’t made any changes in that regard. Does that position continue?
Rev. Cornelius: Yes, the position of moderator continues.
Senator Day: Where does the moderator fit in?
Rev. Cornelius: The moderator does not fit into the actual changes of the structure. The moderator is elected by the denominational council to be a three-year representative of the church to provide pastoral care, oversight and leadership to the church. We’re changing the structures of the court, and then the courts themselves determine their own policies and how they function within the guidelines of the Basis of Union. Schedule A would outline exactly in the Basis of Union who and how we choose our representatives.
Senator Day: I find it interesting, compared to the Girl Guides group we had before you arrived. Their act of incorporation is older than yours, 1917, but they have decided to put that aside and go forward with a new piece of legislation and a new structure in its entirety.
You decided to maintain the old and make some amendments. It’s a different approach. You are maintaining words like remit process and courts that we have to read to understand what they are.
Rev. Cornelius: Correct. As Senator Harder referred to, the complexity of actually getting the United Church act in the first place was considerable. It does have a sort of historical value. I know you have read the act and you will have seen many clauses with specific and small details specific to that time that have evolved. To lose all of that by trying to fit our new language into that act did not seem advisable when an amendment would achieve the same purposes and maintain the historical integrity while providing the provisions for the structural change.
Senator Day: Thank you for that explanation. You’ve presented this to make the United Church structure more manageable, more efficient and better for the times, but Senator Stewart Olsen pointed out earlier that congregations and pastoral charges were shrinking. There are ongoing discussions between different denominations. I know because we read about them.
Have you made any changes that would assist with respect to discussions of mergers or amalgamations?
Rev. Cornelius: Yes. By streamlining our governance processes we make decision-making processes less complex. We also provide for greater transparency. This effort of changing has been to increase our levels of transparency so that people understand more readily how we make decisions. If we were entering into a conversation with another denomination, we would have a simpler or more transparent way to engage in that conversation and make decisions around it.
The principle of being a democratic church, where the membership makes the critical decisions of the church, was non-negotiable. The remit process was very clear that people were not surrendering their power to be involved in the decision making of the church. That is maintained through the way in which we are amending the proposed amendments to the act.
Senator Marshall: This is a follow-up question to Senator Stewart Olsen’s question.
For some of the churches it is not just where you worship. There is a whole infrastructure around the church like meeting halls, and some are quite large. What happens if the church wants to convert that into some kind of a community housing project or something of that nature? Who approves that, and is it sold to the organization or donated?
Rev. Cornelius: There are myriad models across the country where congregations have done some creative redevelopment of their properties. Sometimes they have sold their properties. The church I was at sold their property to the Chinese community and it became a Chinese community centre here in Ottawa. That was, again, a decision of the congregation in conversation with the presbytery, so the two made the decision together.
Right now, as a member of the finance committee, we are exploring ways in which we can be involved in redeveloping properties so that we have healthy congregations and participate for the social good of where that property is located.
Especially in British Columbia, there have been a number of redevelopment projects. We are very interested in engaging more with real emphasis on social housing because we have a lot of ideally suited properties. Two goals can be met: the vibrancy of faith life and the best utilization of property for social good.
Senator Marshall: In Newfoundland and Labrador, I can see the shift toward more community involvement and participation. We have instances where churches are quite large and have developed. Who decides whether it is donated or sold? Is that the congregation?
Rev. Cornelius: The congregation initiates that conversation and has a huge part in developing the vision and values for how a property would be used. Ultimately, it’s a conversation between the congregation and the presbytery. Every congregation has trustees and trustees hold the property in trust for the United Church of Canada. It’s the trustees and only the trustees’ signatures that can ever sell anything. They are elected by the local congregation, so considerable safeguards are woven into the very fabric of how the United Church is structured.
Senator Tkachuk: I was reading your brief to us in which you mentioned your church connections to social justice and a just society. I know you get your charitable status from being a religious organization, so I will ask you: Are you a religious organization that promotes Christian values, i.e. the values espoused by Jesus Christ?
Rev. Cornelius: Absolutely.
Senator Tkachuk: Could you also tell me the estimated value of the land owned by the United Church that will be affected by the new restructuring you anticipate?
Rev. Cornelius: I have a number for that. I know annually we raise around $300 million in all of our congregations and courts. We are talking in the billions of land value because we have 3,000 properties across the country. Recently we did a full inventory of every property we have in view of better understanding how we are good stewards of our resources and the leveraging of property for religious purpose.
For most of us, spirituality and social justice are two sides of one coin. One lives one’s spirituality by how one engages in the well-being of all human persons within our communities, within our country and within our world. We are probably talking $10 billion, but I could get the specific figure for you.
Senator Tkachuk: What number did you use? Was it $10 billion?
Rev. Cornelius: I have subsequently confirmed that it is approximately $1.5 billion in property value.
The Chair: Rev. Cornelius, thank you so much for your presentation. Senator Harder, thank you so much for shepherding this through.
We will move to clause-by-clause consideration. Reverend, you are welcome to sit in the gallery and Senator Harder, you are welcome to sit at the table.
Honourable senators, perhaps we could move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-1003, An Act to amend The United Church of Canada Act, before we go to the Girl Guides as it is a little more complicated.
Senators have the bill in front of them. Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee may now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-1003, An Act to amend The United Church of Canada Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the preamble 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 Stewart Olsen: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Does the committee wish to append observations to its report?
Very well. Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Very well, we are done on that. Senator Harder, congratulations. Rev. Cornelius, thank you very much for your work.
Let us now return to Bill S-1002, An Act respecting of the Girl Guides of Canada. By way of overview, senators, what has transpired during this period of time is that I am anticipating, based on Senator Dalphond’s intervention and the agreement of Ms. Abrams on behalf of Girl Guides of Canada, an amendment will be forthcoming to ensure that the salaries of employees in the event of termination are covered. We may be hearing about that.
We are told by the law clerk that this is not a simple cut and paste because some terminology issues will come up in translation, and she feels that a preliminary legal analysis is not possible on short notice.
Option one, the recommendation of the law clerk is that we proceed with clause by clause today but that an amendment be introduced at third reading. Option two is to move forward and discuss any amendment today, and if there are unintended consequences, we would need to clean them up at a later date.
Senator Tkachuk: That would be February.
The Chair: Yes, that would be February.
Option three is to postpone clause-by-clause consideration until the new year and until we have had the opportunity to hear definitively from the law clerk.
Senator Tkachuk: Is there any urgency to the matter by the Girl Guides?
The Chair: I have not been advised of any urgency.
Senator Tkachuk: Why don’t we pass it and then, if there is an amendment and we are clear about it, we could introduce it?
Senator Wallin: I was hoping we would be able to put the amendment in. If there is something beyond language and translation issues, we would have to go back and amend other sections of it. I thought this was pretty straightforward.
The Chair: Nothing is simple here.
Senator Tkachuk: Nothing is simple in law. That is why we have lawyers.
The Chair: Another option would be that we could deal with clause by clause on this first thing when we come back in the new year. Maybe that is cleaner.
Senator Tkachuk: If that’s okay with them, I am fine with that.
Senator C. Deacon: It makes sense to introduce it at third reading. It seems simple.
Senator Wallin: There may be more than one thing. That was our point. If we insert this language at point A inside, take it out of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act and put it in, we are told it might have other repercussions in other parts.
The Chair: My recommendation to the committee is to defer clause by clause until we return in the new year. Then we have the advice of counsel and we move forward.
Senator Tkachuk: We are not going to pass it now. I am a kind of a fan of letting them govern themselves. I don’t want to govern them. I don’t mind if we pass it now and get it on the way, and they can look after it themselves.
Senator Wallin: Then we would introduce amendments at third reading.
Senator Tkachuk: That could be done now or done later.
Senator Day: The introduction at third reading is not a committee process. It’s an individual senator’s process. I had the sense from hearing our witnesses that there would be some considerable disappointment if we don’t move forward with this today.
Senator Jaffer: It would be our preference if you would kindly consider passing this today and then at third reading with pleasure Senator Dalphond could introduce the amendment.
Senator Tkachuk: I am good with that.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Very well.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-1002, An Act respecting the Girl Guides of Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
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?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the short title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dalphond: We will consider that the amendment should be added to provide for —
The Chair: We don’t need to do that.
Senator Tkachuk: It would be done at third reading, and then it would be passed, hopefully, or defeated. It would be one or the other.
The Chair: Is it agreed I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: A tremendous amount of work got accomplished today. Have a very happy holiday.
(The committee adjourned.)