THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 8, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 5:38 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer(Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators.
Today we are holding a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[English]
I am Mobina Jaffer, senator for British Columbia.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan, deputy chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator McNair: Senator John McNair, subbing in for Senator Boyer, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec, senatorial division of De Lorimier.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good evening and welcome to our officials. Thank you for joining us. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Prosper: Senator P. J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Welcome to the witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Good evening. My name is Brent Cotter. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Senator Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: May I please ask the officials to introduce themselves?
Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: My name is Joanna Wells.
Aleksander Godlewski, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: I am Aleksander Godlewski.
Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment and Climate Change Canada: My name is Stephanie Lane.
Carolina Caseres, Director, International Biodiversity Policy, Environment and Climate Change Canada: My name is Carolina Caseres.
The Chair: Thank you and welcome.
Before we begin, senators, I would like to remind you and all other meeting participants of the following preventative measures. To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.
Senators, this was indicated in a communiqué from the Speaker to all of you on Monday, April 29, and the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback. Since it was communicated to all of you, I will not repeat it all.
Senators, we are meeting to begin clause by clause —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m sorry, Madam Chair, but I think you need to read all of the instructions. Some witnesses haven’t read the communiqué, and the health and safety policy is to read the instructions to all witnesses.
[English]
The Chair: So, for your sakes, officials, I have to read the whole thing. All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.
When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table where indicated. Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must also plug their earpieces into the microphone console located directly in front of them. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants including the interpreters. Thank you for your cooperation, senators and guests.
Senators, we are meeting to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, I would like to raise a point before we go any further. It has been a long-standing tradition in this Senate — and I know we are trying to change rules as we go along here at a fast speed in the Senate, but a long-standing tradition is that, before we go to clause by clause on any government legislation, the ministers of the impacted departments would come to clause by clause.
Now I understand that the Minister of Energy has been here, but this is legislation — a bill — that impacts the Criminal Code. It is clearly under the purview of the Minister of Justice. We have asked from the very get-go that if we were to cooperate here — and we have been cooperating — that we clearly expect, before going to clause by clause, that the Minister of Justice appear here so that we can ask the minister questions.
I appreciate his officials are here. We have had them here before. I have the utmost respect for the officials who are here, but they are not the minister.
Madam Chair, I am going to make a motion that we do not go to clause-by-clause consideration until such a point that the minister has been here to fully answer our questions that we might have for him and at such a point that you reschedule a meeting to go to clause by clause. I make that motion, and I would be happy to hear other people’s thoughts on it. We are not prepared to move to clause by clause at this point.
The Chair: Senators, the time to make the motion is later. I’ll let you proceed, and Senator Batters wants to speak.
Senator Batters: On this, yes, hearing from the Justice Minister, in addition to the Environment Minister from whom we heard at the start, was something that I had wanted to happen for quite some time. When we were proceeding closer to the clause-by-clause situation, I asked that the Minister of Justice receive a kind of “Save the Date” time frame. That was three weeks ago for this day, today.
Last week, we were advised by the clerk that he certainly had sent out that “Save the Date” two weeks earlier from that time frame, but we had been advised that the minister was out of the country. I don’t know where he is. I’ve been looking at his social media today to see because it looks like he was in Ottawa yesterday. I’m not sure where he is or what he is doing, but he is not here for clause by clause. I personally would like to ask him certain questions that are only really applicable for him and not officials.
I support this motion by Senator Plett.
Senator Dalphond: I acknowledge that Senator Batters suggested, among the witnesses we call, to include the Minister of Justice. We invited him through the clerk, and I think maybe the clerk confirmed the answer that the minister has declined the invitation?
The Chair: That’s correct.
Senator Dalphond: It was not because he was outside the country. He declined the invitation. Is that what I understand?
The Chair: He declined because he was abroad.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Batters didn’t say that, in such an instance, we should postpone or delay things. She is raising it tonight — to my surprise — because we discussed that at least 10 days ago, I think.
The second point is that we heard the Minister of Environment, who is the minister responsible for that bill. He came and he appeared before us. His officials stayed with us. I’m glad that we have the officials back from both departments, those who are drafting and those who are responsible for the application of the bill before us.
I don’t recollect that we have proceeded with the ministers being present for clause by clause previously. Even for private bills, we don’t ask for the MPs or the senators who are the sponsors to be there to participate at clause by clause. Some will attend, if they are senators, but the MPs, no.
I don’t know to which traditions or customs my colleague is referring. Maybe it’s something that happened before I came here six years ago.
Senator Gold: The government opposes this motion. The Minister of Justice is not the minister responsible for this bill. The minister who was responsible for this bill did appear. We have and have had the advantage of having present the officials who have collaborated and cooperated, and so, respectfully, I’ll be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We need to make a distinction here. It’s not a question of whether the minister appears during clause-by-clause consideration. What matters is that we hear from him before proceeding to clause by clause, whether in the beginning or during consideration of the bill.
We are proposing amendments to the Criminal Code, and arguments have been raised regarding the separation of powers. Given that the act falls squarely within the authority of the justice minister, the legislative intent and the minister’s position are very important when we interpret specific clauses of the bill.
When lawyers go before the courts, they need to know the justice minister’s position regarding the Criminal Code. I don’t remember ever amending the Criminal Code without having heard from the justice minister. I’ve been here for 15 years, or half my term as I like to say. I have never seen amendments made to the Criminal Code without the minister appearing.
Since it is fairly obvious that this bill will end up before the courts, I do not see why we would neglect to hear the justice minister’s perspective. Notwithstanding the position of the officials, for whom I have the greatest respect, the judge takes into account the minister’s position, not that of the officials.
[English]
The Chair: So, senators, you heard the arguments. I will put the motion to you.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act?
Senator Plett: Chair, there is a motion on the table.
The Chair: Yes, I’m proceeding.
Senator Plett: No, you’re asking whether we agree to proceed. I put a motion on the table. That motion needs to be read and voted on.
The Chair: Senator Plett has said we need the minister here. Senators, is it agreed that we vote on that motion?
Senator Plett: Yes, please.
The Chair: It is proposed by Senator Plett that we invite the Minister of Justice before we proceed to clause by clause. We have heard arguments on both sides. It’s best that we hear from the committee. We will proceed now, and the clerk will take roll call.
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
The Chair: We proceed today, so it would be no.
The motion is that we do not proceed today and we get the Minister of Justice to come here to give his opinion about this bill.
Senator Plett, have I conveyed that motion correctly?
Senator Plett: Well, you have explained it correctly. I’m not sure that it’s entirely clear the way you’re reading it, but I know that I’m going to vote in favour of my motion so I think we’re probably clear enough that you can call the question on it.
The Chair: I call the question, and I vote no.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator McNair?
Senator McNair: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, three. Nays, 11. Abstentions, zero.
The Chair: Senators, as such, the motion is defeated.
Senator Plett: I have another intervention, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes, proceed.
Senator Plett: It’s clearly evident that this committee — as we are doing in the chamber — has taken an approach where we just make decisions that are not made on fact, on proper sound judgment. They are made by what is supposed to be a non-partisan chamber in the most partisan of ways. Every senator here knows that, as Senator Carignan just said, there has never been a bill that has been passed here which deals with the Criminal Code without the Justice Minister. For people to suggest otherwise is incorrect.
I know we are trying to ram through a bill with all urgency, a bill that really, quite frankly, doesn’t make any difference to one person on this earth if it took another week, a week and a half or two or three weeks.
But, Madam Chair, I’m sure the clerk has received a letter from African Lion Safari. Some information has been sent to the committee by a Mr. Blais who has done a documentary. He sent drones flying over African Lion Safari. He has sent a video and provided a self-described documentary by filmmaker Ms. Fern Levitt. This documentary, Mr. Blais and Ms. Levitt are accusing African Lion Safari of all kinds of mistreatment of animals and other things.
This is a world-class organization which has gone through multiple inspections by the highest standards. We have heard right here at the witness table about the high standards that African Lion Safari works with. African Lion Safari sent us an invitation to attend their facilities so that they could show us their facilities. This is a piece of legislation that affects African Lion Safari more than any other organization in our country, and yet we have refused to go and visit.
The chair threw a number at us of $50,000 as the cost for the Senate to visit African Lion Safari. We did a little bit of work. It took us all of about 45 minutes, and we had some fairly concrete estimates that it, in fact, would cost the Senate about $5,500 — not $50,000 but $5,500 — for to us charter a bus, drive together to African Lion Safari and do a thorough visit on a Friday. The bus would then drive us all to the airport, and we would all fly home the way we normally fly home from Ottawa. It would cost the Senate $5,500 to do a proper investigation of a facility that has been accused by the sponsor of this bill and by all kinds of other people of mistreating animals.
Madam Chair, I will read a letter that has been sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs from African Lion Safari:
African Lion Safari has become aware of the accusations in the letter from Mr. Scott Blais dated May 6, 2024 . . . .
Again, this is giving us very little time to deal with it. Just, “Here are the accusations. This is what’s happened.”
The letter goes on:
. . . as well as a video provided by a self-described documentary filmmaker, Ms. Fern Levitt.
African Lion Safari denies all of these unfounded allegations.
African Lion Safari’s professional animal care team members are dedicated to the welfare of all of our animals and work tirelessly every day to meet their needs. . . .
This is what’s strange. The letter here says:
. . . Mr. Blais has not visited African Lion Safari in over 30 years, has no current knowledge about our animal care practices and we question the timing and motives behind his accusations.
In addition, we are not familiar with Ms. Levitt and are unaware that she has any experience, much less expertise, caring for animals, as demonstrated by her operating a drone over our property without concern for its potential negative impacts on our animals.
We are currently seeking legal counsel to address these allegations and are reviewing all of our future legal obligations.
Madam Chair, I will make another motion —
The Chair: Before you do that, senators, I wanted to inform you that the letter was received by the Clerk of the Legal Committee today at 4:15 p.m., only in English. As you know, all letters or anything that comes to the clerk to be distributed to the committee has to be translated. The clerk will send it out for translation.
So that has just been received by us today. On April 18, the steering committee voted against going to African Lion Safari — the full committee, sorry. Thank you.
Senator Plett: I’m reading this for information. There’s no argument about what the committee decided. I know that.
The Chair: The full committee decided not to go to African Lion Safari, so that’s where we are.
Senator Plett: They decided that. I would suggest one of the reasons they used for their decision was the quotation that you gave that it was supposed to cost this committee $50,000 to go there, Madam Chair. My concrete estimate is $5,500, a difference of $45,000. The committee, whether or not they would have voted the same way, I can’t say at this point, but the committee got false information before they voted on this.
Madam Chair, I am quite fine if you say this has to be translated, and I am quite fine if we suspend this meeting until we have a translated document.
The Chair: Senator, you have read the letter in the record and it was translated. So I don’t think now we have to adjourn the meeting for that.
Senator Plett: You just finished saying it had to be translated before it could be entered into evidence. Well, then, we’ll suspend —
The Chair: I said before it can be distributed. Also, as for your quote, I do not know, and we know how careful our clerk is. Senators, at committee, we couldn’t just go to one zoo; we would have to go to another as well to give a complete picture.
Senator Plett: Why?
The Chair: Because that’s what the committee has decided.
Senator Plett: You’re now arguing that point. Why would we have to go to more than one zoo? It impacted this zoo. We should have been willing to go to any zoo that was impacted, I agree, but this was the zoo that was most negatively impacted, so this is the zoo that needed to have the visit to see how they were impacted and whether what was being said of them by the sponsor of this bill was, in fact, correct.
They came here and denied these allegations, and we refused to go and visit to see who was correct. I didn’t ask this committee to accept my word over Senator Klyne’s. I asked this committee, “Let’s go and see for ourselves to see whether the accusations are accurate.” And you gave the committee information that was not accurate, and they made a decision. I’m now giving the committee accurate information. But I have not suggested, Madam Chair, that we are going to African Lion Safari. It wasn’t until my motion, when you cut me off. But I’ll let Senator Batters speak. I have a motion when people are done speaking.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It’s just that we don’t have the letter. I understand that Senator Plett read parts of it, but not the letter in its entirety. I would like to hear the entire letter in French.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: If there’s a motion, I guess we’re all open-minded to hear it. I haven’t heard any motions yet. I see the time is running and I think maybe it’s clear that some people are not intending to let us proceed to clause by clause.
We have agreed previously we will not visit the zoo. Price was maybe a factor, but we agreed that scientific evidence was to lead us and not our personal visit and our personal impressions. We have spent many panels to hear from people that were opposing this bill and some people supporting this bill, including some people who work at the safari parks. The point of going and doing some tourism to try to second-guess the experts was excluded by this committee because they didn’t think it was a wise decision.
I don’t see why we’re rehashing all these arguments except to prevent the committee from doing the work it was called to do, which is clause by clause. I’m anxious to hear the motion.
The Chair: Senator Plett, your motion.
Senator Plett: I think Senator Batters —
Senator Batters: No, I was simply going to make the point about if we were looking for translation, by you reading the letter into the record, that should expedite so we would be able to get a translated version for some of our colleagues who want to see it in French. That might assist.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I will continue. I think Senator Carignan has every right to ask for the letter to be translated.
Senator Carignan, we all know, does not ask for this because he’s trying to delay something. Senator Carignan has probably been the most consistent senator that I know who has insisted on documents being translated before he deals with them.
I don’t think anybody should necessarily take my word for it. I think they should have this letter in their hands and they should be able to have it in the language that they prefer. But I’m going to continue because Senator Dalphond has clearly accused me of trying to delay things. I know that we are going to be back here tomorrow for two hours, and we all understand that I’m not going to come here and delay things for two hours. This is going to be, in the grand scheme of things, a 10-minute delay if we don’t get to clause by clause today. We shouldn’t be here in the first place today because we only had a half-hour when we came in. This is a very important bill and should not be rammed through the way people are wanting to ram it through.
Excuse me.
The Chair: Can you get to your motion?
Senator Cotter: The request was for a motion, senator, and I think you have a motion to consider.
Senator Plett: I will prepare a motion. But, Senator Cotter, in all fairness, Senator Dalphond was disputing the comments that I was making. I think, in fairness, I should have the right to address that because he accused me of having some nefarious plot here in somehow managing to kill this bill by delaying it.
We’re all grown up here. For sure, I don’t really particularly want to start dealing with clause by clause with 10 minutes left. I’ll be the first to admit that openly and transparently that I want to do that. I asked for that. I asked the chair in the chamber, “We’re only going to have a half-hour, why don’t we leave this alone until tomorrow?” And she turned that down.
Yes, I don’t particularly want to start clause by clause with five or ten minutes left; you’re absolutely right. But I’m not going to spend my time tomorrow when we come back here bringing one motion after another. I have a list of amendments that we have very clearly submitted, and I think you probably have a copy of it. There’s nothing hidden there. We will be presenting our amendments, and there are a few others that I hope and trust that everybody has submitted their amendments.
But I will quickly, before I’m cut off on time here in seven minutes, make a motion. The motion isn’t because we didn’t visit African Lion Safari. I was using that as some of the reasons that I have for being very upset about this. I’m not sure why you get so much humour out of some of my misery, Senator Simons. I really don’t. I don’t find any humour if you have a problem. Why do you consistently find that when I do? I’m getting a little tired of her laughing every time I say something that I don’t find very humorous.
The Chair: What is the motion?
Senator Plett: The reason I’m going to make this motion is because there are possible legal ramifications to this. We have Senator Gold, Senator Cotter, Senator Carignan, at least — maybe others, Senator Dalphond — who are all legal experts. Very typically — sorry, I said I didn’t know about others. I apologize. Senator Clement. Wonderful. The more there are, the more fuel that gives me. If we have that many legal minds around the table, I would suggest that you should all want to take pause over starting something where there is a threat of legal action.
The Chair: Senator, what is your motion?
Senator Plett: So my motion, Senator Jaffer, if I could, is that this clause by clause gets suspended until we have the Law Clerk at least look at this letter and give us some direction as to whether we should go ahead with something like this when there is a clear indication here of an organization suggesting there may be legal action. That legal action may be against us. That legal action may be against Fern Levitt or Mr. Blais — we don’t know that. They don’t say that here. If we want to do the responsible thing, we have a Law Clerk. We get an opinion from the Law Clerk.
You don’t want the Justice Minister here. You just want to get this through. “Don’t give us too much information.” I think we are responsible enough that we ask the Law Clerk for direction before we move ahead.
My motion is that we ask the Law Clerk for his advice before we move to clause by clause.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The letter we received should be shared with the members of the committee in both official languages.
The Chair: Yes, so you said, and I understand.
[English]
Senator Pate: No, I’m happy to go to a vote. Presumably, the government is sponsoring this, so they’re aware of any legal repercussions. I’d say we just go to the vote.
Senator Cotter: I don’t want to invite Senator Plett to offer us too many more paragraphs, but if I understood the sequence of events, somebody has provided something to us that arrived at 4:15 today. Senator Plett has provided a document that represents, if I may call it this, a rebuttal of that material. Can you just give us a sense of what you read out?
Senator Plett: What I read out, Senator Cotter, is what the chair has said the committee received at 4:15. Mr. Blais sent — I think he sent two days ago — information to the committee. African Lion Safari responded. The chair has said the committee received it at 4:15. I can’t dispute or correct that. I received it earlier than 4:15. I would assume it was sent to me the same way it was sent to them. Maybe I opened my mail a little quicker than they did; I’m not sure.
Senator Dalphond: I think he’s referring to two events. The first event would be some report or letter. Did we receive that?
The Chair: At 4:15 today.
Senator Dalphond: No, that’s the letter of reply, as I understand it, from the safari park to something else. Is there something else before us? From Mr. Blais?
The Chair: I don’t know what else there was.
Senator Plett: This may be what Senator Dalphond is asking. The original documentation, the link to the video was distributed by the clerk to all committee members, not today. Maybe it was yesterday or the day before. I’m not sure, but in any event, it was distributed to all. I got it a day or two ago, Senator Cotter or Senator Dalphond, whoever asked the question. That was sent to all senators.
Senator Dalphond: May I continue with the question I was asking, just for information? I see we’ll have to adjourn soon. I want to just make sure we’re all on the same page.
Something came to the committee on May 6, which was — not yesterday but the day before. Sorry, it’s been a long week already. Today, we’re getting something else. But we had agreed to proceed to clause by clause today and not to reopen the evidence — unless there’s a motion to reopen the evidence?
For me, the witnesses came; the briefs were filed. If other people want to write letters, emails or send videos, I’m not sure that I will look at them. The committee was ready to proceed to clause by clause. I suggest we proceed tomorrow morning. I understand Senator Plett would be happy to start tomorrow morning to do the clause by clause. Maybe that will be the right thing to do.
Senator Batters: Just to clear up — because I think Senator Pate said that this is a government bill and clearly the government would be aware of the legal implications — we’re talking about this video. It sounds like it was distributed by our committee clerk from Mr. Blais showing this drone footage, that sort of thing, of African Lion Safari. Then we have African Lion Safari’s letter, which was only received today by our committee at 4:15 p.m.
Just from hearing it, it sounded like, in the last paragraph of that letter from African Lion Safari, they were saying, “We could have legal complications dealing with this, and we’re looking at our legal obligations and abilities, potentially, to take this forward given this drone footage being circulated.”
Clearly, the government is not aware of any legal implications yet because this letter was just received, talking about a potential threat of legal proceedings resulting from this. So the government is not aware of that at this point or just became aware of it a few minutes ago when Senator Plett read that letter into the record. That’s a bit more of the background.
Senator Simons: Like my esteemed colleague Senator Plett, I am not a legal expert. I have the privilege of serving on this committee in a lay capacity. But it is my understanding that the rules of parliamentary privilege provide us great protection from the potential of liability in something like this.
It may well be, from what Senator Plett and Senator Batters have described, that African Lion Safari may indeed have a cause of action against the people who made this video. Perhaps someone who is a legal expert could explain to me, but I would assume that the parliamentary privilege that protects us in the sense that for what we say in the chamber we cannot be held liable for defamation, the same would be the case for exhibits that we have received in our capacity as the committee.
I stand to be corrected, but that would certainly be my gut understanding of parliamentary privilege.
Senator Plett: First of all, Madam Chair, for somebody to, in a public meeting, say, “We are protected by parliamentary privilege, so let’s just go ahead and not worry about what we do, whether it is legal or illegal,” I find quite strange. I don’t want to do something that gets us into trouble. Nevertheless, Madam Chair, it is now 6:17. We cannot meet past 6:15 for this committee without special permission.
The Chair: Senators, we will proceed with this bill tomorrow. As Senator Plett also agreed, we will proceed with this bill tomorrow at our usual committee meeting.
Senator Plett: We will proceed with my motion tomorrow first.
The Chair: Yes. We will proceed with the motion. Senators, I’m in your hands. Do you want to proceed with the motion? You want to proceed with meetings tomorrow?
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, it is 6:17. The meeting is over. Those are the Senate rules. They weren’t changed with Senator Gold’s changes. The Senate rules say that this committee meeting is over at 6:15.
The Chair: I am asking should we proceed with this bill tomorrow?
Senator Dalphond: I think we should proceed tomorrow. We have a motion. We’ll deal with it. I don’t think the rules say that, at 6:15, if we’re in the middle of a vote, that we don’t complete the vote.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: I believe if, at 6:15, we’re finishing a sentence, we still finish the sentence, and that won’t overrule anybody. I don’t think anybody will die because we’re finishing at 17 minutes past six o’clock.
The Chair: Senators, you’ve all been extremely patient. I appreciate that.
To the officials, I’m sorry that you came here, but we will continue with this bill tomorrow. Thank you for your patience.
(The committee adjourned.)