Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 86 - Evidence - December 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Friday, December 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-86, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.
Senator Percy Mockler (chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I welcome all who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who are watching on television or online.
[Translation]
I would now like the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Lankin: Frances Lankin, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would also like to recognize the interim clerk, Maxime Fortin, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who support the work of the committee.
[English]
Honourable senators, colleagues and members of the viewing public, we will begin going through Bill C-86 clause by clause. Before we do, 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. We should at all times have the same understanding of where we are in this process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is to be moved in a clause, the amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause, meaning that amendments should be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senator had intended to move an amendment earlier in that particular clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the chance to do so.
Honourable senators, if a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would 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 standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is very important that the committee remain consistent and clear in its decisions and that they be consistently applied throughout the bill.
[Translation]
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
[English]
However, if members ever have questions about the process or the proprietary of anything that is going on, they can raise a point of order. The chair will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion on the matter, and make a ruling.
The committee is, of course, the ultimate master of its business within the bounds set by the Senate of Canada, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
Honourable senators, 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 on your full cooperation, and I ask all of you to think of other senators and to keep your remarks to the point and as brief as possible, with clarity.
I wish to remind all senators that no seconder is required in committee and that if there is any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question.
Finally, I wish to inform you that a full brigade of professionals are available, mostly from the Department of Finance, to answer any questions we may have on Bill C-86. They are monitoring our proceedings from a room next door and can be called in quickly to join us to answer any of our questions.
Honourable senators, are there any questions on any of the above? If not, I believe we can now proceed.
First, so that everybody is clear on who is a member of the committee in good standing and therefore allowed to move a motion and to vote on any motion, I would ask the clerk, Ms. Fortin, to read out loud the membership list as it pertains to this meeting of the Finance Committee of the Senate.
Maxime Fortin, Acting Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee are the chair, the Honourable Senator Mockler; the Honourable Senator Andreychuk; the Honourable Senator Dagenais; the Honourable Senator Dean; the Honourable Senator Eaton; the Honourable Senator Forest; the Honourable Senator Klyne; the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.; the Honourable Senator Oh; the Honourable Senator Moncion; and the Honourable Senator Pratte.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the committee now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill and their divisions as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill C-86?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall Part 1, entitled “Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Other Legislation,” containing clauses 2 to 40, on pages 1 to 43, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 2, entitled “Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (GST/HST Measures) and to Related Legislation,” which contains clauses 41 to 60, on pages 44 to 62, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 3, entitled “Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (Excise Measures), the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Excise Act, 2001,” which contains clauses 61 to 68, on pages 64 to 67, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
We will now look at Part 4, as it contains the divisions.
Shall Division 1, entitled “Customs Tariff Simplification,” which contains clauses 69 to 126, pages 68 to page 95, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Division 2: Canada Pension Plan, clauses 127 to 129, page 95.
Shall Division 2 of Part 4, entitled “Canada Pension Plan,” which contains clauses 127 to 129, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Division 3: Financial Sector, clauses 130 to 173, pages 96 to 129.
Shall Division 3 of Part 4, entitled “Financial Sector,” which contains clauses 130 to 173, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[English]
Shall Division 4 of Part 4, entitled “Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,” which contains clauses 174 and 175, on pages 129 to 130, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 5 of Part 4, entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pricing and Other Topics Relating to Offshore Area,” which contains clauses 176 to 181, on pages 130 to 134, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 6 of Part 4, entitled “Canada Business Corporations Act,” which contains clauses 182 to 186, on pages 134 to 139, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 7 of Part 4, entitled “Intellectual Property Strategy,” which contains clauses 187 to 302, on pages 139 to 236, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 8 of Part 4, entitled “Parental Benefits and Related Leave,” which contains clauses 303 to 313, on pages 237 to 243, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 9 of Part 4, entitled “Canadian Gender Budgeting Act,” which contains clause 314, on page 243, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Division 10: Financial Consumer Protection Framework, clauses 315 to 351, pages 245 to 310.
Shall Division 10 of Part 4, entitled “Financial Consumer Protection Framework,” which contains clauses 315 to 351, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Division 11: First Nations Land Management Act, clauses 352 to 384, pages 310 to 326.
Shall Division 11 of Part 4, entitled “First Nations Land Management Act,” which contains clauses 352 to 384, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Division 12: First Nations Fiscal Management Act, clauses 385 to 414, pages 326 to 339.
Shall Division 12 of Part 4, entitled “First Nations Fiscal Management Act,” which contains clauses 385 to 414, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall Division 13 of Part 4, entitled “Export and Import Permits Act,” which contains clause 415, on page 341, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Division of Part 4, entitled “Pay Equity,” which contains clauses 416 to 440, on pages 341 to 447, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Andreychuk: I want it on the record that I am in favour of pay equity. I do not believe that the clauses here really address the full issues that need to be addressed under pay equity, so I will be voting “on division” on this for those reasons.
The Chair: Do any other senators wish to comment?
Senator Lankin: I have concerns, as well, that the bill has some flaws in it. As I have notified the chair in the clerk’s office, I will be asking the committee to consider a recommendation on this when we come to the end of clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chair: Thank you. For the record, I will accept the comments that have been made by Senator Andreychuk and Senator Lankin.
Therefore, honourable senators, shall Division 14 of Part 4, entitled “Pay Equity,” which contains clauses 416 to 440, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Division 15 of Part 4, entitled “Modernization of the Canada Labour Code,” which contains clauses 441 to 625, on pages 448 to 553, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Division 16 of Part 4, entitled “Wage Earner Protection Program Act,” which contains clauses 626 to 653, on pages 554 to 569, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Division 17 of Part 4, entitled “International Financial Assistance,” which contains clauses 654 to 660, on pages 569 to 574, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eaton: I’m going to vote against Division 17 on the principle that we don’t give as much to look after our northern Inuit fellow Canadians as we do to international assistance. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. That will be a comment.
Therefore, clauses 654 to 660 are carried, on division.
Shall Division 18 of Part 4, entitled “Department for Women and Gender Equality Act,” which contains clauses 661 to 674, on pages 574 to 580, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Division 19: Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation, clauses 675 to 685, pages 581 to 588.
Shall Division 19 of Part 4, entitled “Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation,” which contains clauses 675 to 685, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Division 20: Criminal Code, clause 686, page 588.
Shall Division 20 of Part 4, entitled “Criminal Code,” which contains clause 686, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Division 21, Poverty Reduction Measures, Phase 1, clause 687, page 589.
Shall Division 21 of Part 4, entitled “Poverty Reduction Measures, Phase 1,” which contains clause 687, on page 589, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Eaton: I would like to put on the record that I can’t support this because when they appeared before us, they could not give us any number of what the programs would cost or what the programs would be. It was simply an aspirational “these are our targets,” but they had nothing to back up the targets.
The Chair: Thank you for your comment, Senator Eaton.
So it’s carried, on division.
Shall Division 22 of Part 4, entitled “Canada Shipping Act, 2001,” which contains clauses 688 to 712, on pages 589 to 601, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Division 23 of Part 4, entitled “Marine Liability Act,” which contains clauses 713 to 747, on pages 602 to 649, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 1, on pages 650 to 844, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 2, on pages 845 to 854, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Thank you.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report. If “yes,” I will open up the discussion for observations.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much, chair.
Senator Andreychuk has a question.
The Chair: Do committee members want to move in camera for a discussion on observations, or do you want to stay in public? Do I have a consensus to stay in public or to move in camera?
Hon. Senators: In public.
The Chair: We will continue in public.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much.
As I indicated when we dealt with the proposed pay equity act, I wanted to ask for the committee’s consideration to append observations. I submitted those to the clerk last night. I believe they have been translated and can be circulated. Mr. Chair, I’d ask that that be done so members can take a look at them. With your agreement, I’d like to speak to them.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin. It will be distributed in both official languages.
If you want, honourable senators, we can take two minutes so that you can read it.
Senator Lankin: With your guidance, although they are circulated in both official languages, may I do this in English?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Lankin: My colleague said I can only do it in one language and it would have to be French. You would suffer if I did that.
I would like to move the appending of the following observations regarding the proposed pay equity act:
1. Considering the concerns expressed by a certain number of witnesses, your committee calls for the Senate to initiate a parliamentary review in six years’ time and suggests the following areas be examined:
(i) the impact of including the phrase “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers” in the Purpose section of the Act, and setting the bar at making “all reasonable efforts” to establish pay equity committees;
(ii) the impact of allowing pay equity committees access to all salary data within a workplace;
(iii) the impact of requiring unanimity amongst voting employees on pay equity committees, and the interpretation of the term “direction” in practice, with regard to the relationship between employers/bargaining agents, and the members representing them on pay equity committees;
(iv) the possible discriminatory effects of excluding benefits from the determination of compensation due to temporary, casual or seasonal nature of work;
(v) the impact of grandfathering existing job class valuations of work without requiring the posting of the plan in the workplace and allowing for new comments from employees;
(vi) the impact of restriction on retroactivity of adjustments;
(vii) the impact of not requiring the filing of pay equity plans with the pay equity commissioner; and
(viii) the use of broad discretionary powers allowing for the Governor-in-Council to exempt any employer, employee, position or class from the application of this Act.
May I speak to these observations?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Lankin: I intend to do so briefly, colleagues. You will have heard the testimony before this committee. If I may say, most of these come from the testimony of the former Pay Equity Commissioner of Quebec and not testimony from this committee but from meetings that a number of us held with the former Pay Equity Commissioner of Ontario.
There are also observations included here from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, supported by some other union representatives that came forward, the Canadian Labour Congress in particular; and from FETCO, the association of federal employers.
All parties that we meet with through committee or outside of committee have expressed a great deal of support for this legislation but have a number of concerns about drafting, areas of lack of clarity, areas of concern about how interpretation will take place, for example, the insertion of limiting criteria and a purpose clause. A number of things have been raised.
I am pleased to answer any questions. I won’t go through the points one by one, but if my colleagues are unsure about the intent of any of the points here, I would be pleased to answer that.
You will note that the overriding clause here is to call for the Senate to initiate a parliamentary review in six years’ time. I want to speak to two points.
This omnibus legislation has a 10-year review. However, the issues within pay equity, given that this bill is contained within a large omnibus legislation and that we were unable to have the examination we would all have liked, we feel it’s important that we bring these issues forward and see what the impact has been through the period of implementation.
Why not three or five years, which many bills contain? We do recognize it will take some time for the commission to get up and going and the first pay equity plans to be negotiated. The government estimates eight years for negotiating a plan. In my experience, it takes about a year to negotiate a plan. The employer and unions agreed, before us, that it might take up to three years given that this is a new process for them.
Any disputes that come from that will have been identified. They may well still be in litigation, but they will be things that those charged in the Senate with looking at this will give consideration to, hear from witnesses and perhaps make recommendations that would guide the government in the future to respond to issues of concern.
Why the Senate? I initially had written this in a way to call on the government to initiate such a review, but as a 10-year review clause is in the bill already, we felt this was something — and this is with the guidance of the chair, and I appreciate that — that the Senate itself should take the time to delve into deeply.
I leave it at that, colleagues. If there are any questions, I would be pleased to answer.
Senator Pratte: I agree with this observation. It mandates the Senate to initiate this review and suggests specific points that should be looked at by the committee that will be in charge of this review. All these points have been mentioned as cause for concern by different groups and experts.
The government is convinced that on these points it has made the correct policy decisions, but sufficient concern has been raised so that a review earlier than the 10-year review would certainly be useful, notably for these specific points. I agree with appending this observation to our report.
Senator Andreychuk: I already noted that I am in favour of pay equity. I have great concerns with what the government said, as I think this is what you’re trying to get at in the observations.
The issue is we should have had an amendment. These are really significant issues. I’ve expressed that I don’t believe that the pay equity sections of Bill C-86 are correct, and that’s why I voted on division. Hopefully, we will get a chance to make some statements on the floor. Had there been an amendment, I would have very willingly gone with it, and I think we should still think about that.
Second, observations usually go to the bill and are directed to the government. That’s what they’re for. This is expressing concerns from the witnesses but calling on the Senate as if we were in charge of the bill, and we weren’t.
I don’t know how we can call on the Senate procedurally here, and I have a great concern about the six years’ time frame.
My suggestion would be that we raise these concerns by way of amendment or raise these concerns and have a fulsome debate, or that we, by a separate motion, call on a committee.
I don’t think we can say the Senate should initiate. Because we have committees set up, we should find out which committee it should go to.
I just can’t wait six years. That’s my problem. If we wait six years, nothing will happen, and we are going to be in the same conundrum.
I think it’s urgent. Is it the Social Affairs Committee? Is it this committee? There should be a motion directing the committee to start addressing these issues immediately.
Senator Lankin: I am in agreement with you on most of what you said. However, after consultation with a number of senators, I determined to go this route. As I said, I first drafted this calling on the government to initiate the review. With the wise counsel of our chair, I changed that to the Senate.
I want to take a moment on the reason for six years. I have spent a lot of the last short period of time in the pre-study and since this bill was introduced in the other place to look at these provisions. I fully understand the period of time it takes to get this up and running and to understand if the concerns we have about the interpretation — and a lot of this is lack of clarity and concerns about wording. For example, in sub (iii), there is the term “direction.” We all think it means education training, but “direction” doesn’t necessarily mean that. That’s an example. The interpretation of the bill with the purpose clause — these things will take some time to understand how they will unfold.
I think we flagged the appropriate issues. I would say, Senator Andreychuk, there wouldn’t be one amendment; there would be multiple amendments, as each of these points address a couple of points.
Quite frankly, I will express my concern for a bill of this import, which I believe has significant problems in the way it has been constructed. As much as I am very supportive of the government moving forward with establishing proactive pay equity, I express concern about this being contained in an omnibus piece of legislation that denies us the opportunity to delve into and have a fuller exploration of this.
Therefore, I put this forward and hope for support. Of course, nothing will prohibit a group of us from around the chamber getting together to determine if there is, within our committee schedules, time to do something on this in a more fundamental way earlier on the points that don’t require time for interpretation.
Senator Andreychuk: At the risk of turning this into a dialogue, again, it seems to get the government off the hook; the Senate is going to take over and monitor, et cetera.
The government introduced a bill, and I fully agree with you that anything this large for pay equity should have been a standalone. It would have been a good education, too, for everyone to understand what we’re attempting to do with pay equity.
Again, it’s directed at the Senate. It’s government legislation and our observations should be to that.
I still say that we should put a motion together on the floor of the Senate and create the capacity within one of our committees to do this. I say that because if we wait six years, it will not get done. If we want to play our role as senators, our role is oversight and it should be to start addressing the issues here now, not six years from now to see if they have done it.
I think of the four target groups we had for the public service to bring proper balance within our civil service, representing Canadians: women, racial minorities, Aboriginal peoples, et cetera. The Human Rights Committee had an ongoing dialogue with the Public Service Commission. I wish we would pick it up again. That meant there was an exploration that allowed Canadians to get involved in the debate and to determine where we’re going with these phrases and definitions.
If we really want to exercise a parliamentary role and feeding advice into this, the relationship between the federal civil service and the Human Rights Committee was very good. They were supportive of each other.
Rather than an observation here, I would like to see a motion that we get on with doing what you have here, but I can’t support it in this format.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Eaton: Could we not call on the government to put these points in the regulations? Every bill has regulations that are drawn up by the civil service, pertaining to how things are going to work. Would that work, Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: I was going to raise a similar point. I’m unaware of the regulation-making power. These couldn’t be modified by a regulation, but I was going to suggest in the same way, senator, that we communicate these concerns to the appropriate minister or ministers. They should be directed as well to the government.
As an office is set up, a commissioner is appointed and work gets under way, there will be advisory notes, practice notes, and education for employers, unions and employees.
To the extent that there can be some nudges or assistance in interpretation, I think there are some opportunities to do that. It’s not as good as a regulation or an amendment, but I think surfacing these issues for the government and others, including the commissioner, would be important. It’s okay for us to look at them, but we need people in the pay equity world to be focused on them as well. I just think it’s a great idea.
The Chair: Senator Dean, I had you down for additional comments.
Senator Dean: I would like in some way for us to discuss and consider either copying this to the minister as a separate letter, surfacing these issues and asking that they be considered as the pay equity process and the new act is implemented.
Senator Pratte: I haven’t consulted the proposer, but I personally have no objection that the observation be directed to the government rather than the Senate.
As far as the timeline is concerned, maybe we can find an expression. Senator Lankin makes a good point that to review the impact of the act, you can’t do it immediately; you won’t know. The pay equity committees would not even have started or even be composed. But maybe we could find a way of saying this, such as “as early as feasible” or something like that. That would give some leeway to the government but not be six years’ time.
Senator Andreychuk: If I can respond, my concern is that we’ve already raised these problems. So to say “give the others time to do it,” then we’re into a review.
If you say you want this directed to the government, we have concerns about this and we’re on the record. Then I would suggest that Senator Lankin can talk to me, and we can discuss a motion separate and apart from the budget.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I think that these observations are very relevant. We must take into account all the witnesses who appeared before us. Although the pay equity amendments aren’t perfect, all the witnesses who appeared before us wanted them. In terms of measuring the impact, the six-year time frame may seem long. However, the system must be implemented before we can see the results. We can’t measure the impact until the commission is set up, the commissioner is in place, the negotiation process is launched and pay equity plans are established in our companies. We need to know to whom these observations should be directed.
When the finance committee decided to hold a consultation last year, we asked Canadians for their opinions on the proposed tax amendments. We took this initiative, and I think that if we want something done properly, we need to do it ourselves. If we present this to the Senate, we’ll be able to conduct the necessary consultations and ensure that we’ve properly assessed the impact of the various points raised in Senator Lankin’s draft observation. I agree with the draft observations.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I have two points. First, as I’ve indicated a number of times, my initial draft of this and intent was to call on the government.
So I would like to ask you, Mr. Chair, for a ruling, given our conversation, of whether or not it is appropriate for this committee, the precedents that you referred to, to call on the government. If so, I would certainly wish, with agreement, to amend and change the reference of “your committee calls for the Senate” to say “your committee calls for the government.” That’s my first point.
Could you rule on that? Would that be an acceptable change in language?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin. Before I make that ruling, I will recognize Senator Pratte.
Senator Lankin: I have another point.
The Chair: Please state your point.
Senator Lankin: My second point is that if we’re able to change that and we call on the government to do a parliamentary review, I would most eagerly work with other members to craft a motion for the Senate to do an earlier review to consider these and other issues — because these are not all the issues that were raised — to feed into the government’s review.
Senator Pratte: I don’t know what’s feasible or not, but I would certainly agree that we call on the government to initiate a parliamentary review. I suggest that we add “at the latest” after “in six years’ time,” which would open the door for action by all senators to initiate a review as early as possible by the committee selected.
The Chair: Senator Lankin, are you open to the comments made by Senator Pratte? We would remove the word “Senate” and include “government to initiate parliamentary review in six years’ at the latest.”
Senator Lankin: At the latest.
The Chair: At the latest.
Senator Lankin: I accept that as a very friendly amendment.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the amendment put forward by Senator Lankin?
The changes put forward are to replace the word “government” with the word “Senate” so that the sentence reads, “. . . the government to initiate a parliamentary review in six years’ time at the latest.” For clarity, I would like to it to state which government, which is the “Government of Canada.”
Senator Forest: Good idea.
The Chair: Again, if there are no further comments from honourable senators —
[Translation]
Senator Moncion, do you have a question?
Senator Moncion: I want to clarify something. Weren’t the reports that we received from the committees added to the document last time?
[English]
The Chair: That is a very good question, Senator Moncion.
Alex, will you please give us directions on how we proceed, please.
Alex Smith, Analyst, Library of Parliament: We have received a number of briefs from various witnesses. Those are available on the committee’s website, but it’s not the habitual practice to append them to the committee’s observations.
Senator Moncion: So the last time we did not add them?
Mr. Smith: No.
Senator Moncion: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I believe that Senator Moncion is referring to the reports received from the various committees that conducted the pre-study. We could add these reports to the final report. However, I think that the reports have already been tabled directly in the Senate. The reports are sent to us, but they’ve already been tabled in the Senate.
Senator Moncion: I understand. However, I thought that we added them last time.
Senator Pratte: Maybe. I don’t know.
[English]
The Chair: I’ll ask Mr. Smith to verify this.
Senator Eaton: Is it my imagination? Didn’t the various committees doing pre-studies come and report to us as a Committee of the Whole, and the chair and the deputy chair would come and tell us what they had found in their reports? Have we’ve stopped that?
The Chair: Yes, we’ve stopped that.
When I was chair about five years ago on another committee, that was the practice, but that practice has not continued. The reason for that, coming from our Rules and regulations, was the fact that those reports are tabled in the Senate of Canada, and they are available to the Canadian public and to governments.
Senator Eaton: So it was decided by our Rules and regulations?
The Chair: I cannot say if it was decided by our Rules and regulations. I just said the practice was that we opted not to have the chairs of other committees, since they were representing their report to —
Senator Eaton: I’ll simply say that when we used to do it, it was very helpful, because all of us have not read the 800 pages, and we could ask them. For the shipping item, for instance, I had no idea what I was voting on. Other committees do not vote on the bill. We do. So it was a very nice practice when they came and reported what they had found.
The Chair: I will take this matter under advisement. I’ll bring it up with steering going forward, honourable senators. For the time being, all those reports have been reported to the Senate of Canada.
Senator Lankin: Coming back to the observations, for clarity, paragraph 1 would read: “Considering the concerns expressed by a number of witnesses, your committee calls for the Government of Canada to initiate a parliamentary review in six years’ time at the latest and suggests the following areas be examined,”followed by sub (i) through to sub (viii).
Mr. Chairman, you were going to give a ruling on the substitution of “Government of Canada” for the “Senate.” I appreciate that, given that’s where I started, and I amended it on advice. I just want to be sure that you rule that we are fine to proceed on the basis of the friendly amendments that have been made.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin.
Are there any other comments? If not, the chair will immediately rule that I do accept what you have just put forward, Senator Lankin.
Honourable senators, do we agree that this observation be appended to our report when I table it in the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, with one observation, to the Senate of Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
I will bring the comments made by senators to the attention of the steering committee as we move forward. Before we do, we will report to all members of the Senate Finance Committee.
(The committee adjourned.)