THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:45 a.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.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, senators. I’m Mobina Jaffer, senator from British Columbia. I will now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
Senator Plett: Good morning. Senator Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good morning. Welcome to the officials. Senator 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 Anishinaabe.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Senators, as you can see, we have the officials from both Justice and Environment.
Our witnesses today from the Department of Justice Canada are Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Aleksander Godlewski, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance; and Basile van Havre, Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service.
Before we continue, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of these important measures. To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injury, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.
As indicated in the communique from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the follow measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents. All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.
When you are not using your earpiece, please place it facedown in the middle of the round sticker you see in front of you on the table. Please consult the card at your table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between you and the microphones. Participants must only plug their earpieces into the microphone console located directly in front of them. These measures are in place so that we can conduct or business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you, senators and participants, for your cooperation.
Senators, we are meeting to continue 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. We adjourned yesterday’s meeting, as you remember, on debate on Senator Plett’s second motion. I am hoping we can deal with this motion in a timely manner and move on to the main business of today’s meeting. I will repeat the motion as I understand it.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Plett:
That the committee ask for advice from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel regarding the letter from African Lion Safari, dated May 8, 2024, before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15.
I will point out that the clerk shared the translated version of this letter with you all this morning. Senator Plett, please go ahead.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair.
I stated my case yesterday. I believed then, and I believe today, that we are rushing through a bill that needn’t be rushed through. I pointed it out: I am deeply concerned that we have given little attention to the negatives of the bill and what they do to certain institutions.
That is why I did what I did. It was suggested yesterday that I was doing it to stall. Yes, I knew that I could stall yesterday for half an hour if I wanted, but it was never intended to stall the bill from going forward.
It is a foregone conclusion as to what the results of the vote will be on the motion, Madam Chair, so for the record, I want to simply say that we have shown in this committee, as we have shown in the past in the Senate, that we don’t necessarily give proper attention to facts; we decide ahead of time whether we want something. That decision is made, and nobody listens to arguments thoroughly and considers them.
But in light of that, and in order to show some degree of cooperation in moving legislation forward, which I believe, democratically, we can do — and a majority will always rule — I am going to withdraw my motion. However, I want it clearly on the record how opposed I am that this Senate committee does not want to give proper consideration to the impacts of what’s going on.
In light of all of that, I am going to cooperate at this meeting and withdraw the motion. I have a few amendments that I am going to be bringing forward in due course, but none of them are intended, in any way, to delay the process here. I trust, with that, we can just move on to the bill.
Senator Pate: I move that the committee now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15.
The Chair: Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the Preamble stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Senator Plett: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Let me ask a question.
Clearly, the clerk knows where certain amendments are. Wouldn’t it be proper for you to acknowledge that without us having to jump in? You know, the clerk knows and the rest of the committee knows we have amendments, so me having to jump in each time when I have an amendment is, again, trying to get something through without talking about it. I have an amendment to the preamble, Madam Chair, and I would like to present that. I would ask, for those amendments that have been tabled, that we be given the courtesy of the chair, with the help of the clerk, to suggest at that point there is an amendment without us having to jump in.
The Chair: Senator Plett, the normal way to do it — and I’m in the hands of the committee — is that we do preamble at the end so that we can make the changes after we have heard everything throughout. Yours are not the only amendments to the preamble; there are others as well.
So, senators, I’m suggesting that we do this at the end of clause by clause. Is it agreed, senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Batters: I know it’s the normal way that we would do it at the end, but perhaps doing the preamble as the regular part of the process now might actually lead to other amendments to other parts of the bill to potentially drop off. So it might make sense in this case to do any amendments to the preamble now?
Senator Carignan: Good point.
Senator Pate: [Technical difficulties] so let’s proceed and —
Senator Plett: [Technical difficulties] clause by clause?
Senator Pate: We agreed on the preamble standing postponed.
The Chair: We can call roll call.
Senator Dalphond: The preamble stands, so we are moving to the next section. I think Senator Plett was adamant about that when we had similar discussions at AGFO some time ago.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 —
Senator Plett, do you have an amendment to clause 1?
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, yes, I have an amendment. I have no issue with it being at the end if that’s the way it was explained, but again, do we want to collaboratively bring this amendment forward, or do we want to jump on this every time somebody says something that we don’t want? No, we did not vote on whether the preamble carried. You asked for a vote on it, and it was not — well, just because Senator Pate and Senator Simons said “yes” does not mean that we voted on it. No, we don’t need to do a roll call. I’m happy with us doing the preamble at the end. You explained it nicely, and I appreciate that explanation, but I want it very clear that just because two or three senators say “yes” to something, that does not mean we voted on it.
The Chair: Senator Klyne, you have an amendment on clause 1?
Senator Klyne: I’m just following the order of the table of contents of the amendments.
So before I propose my first amendment, I just want to extend my thanks to you, chair, committee members, the government representative, the critic of the bill and all witnesses for contributing to our thorough and sometimes challenging hearings.
Today, as the Senate sponsor of Bill S-15, as an independent senator and as the steward of the Honourable Murray Sinclair’s Jane Goodall Act, I seek to honour and reconcile the trust placed in me.
I now turn to my first amendment.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties] we have not distributed the amendments, so let’s distribute the amendments.
Senator Plett: Have we voted on whether the preamble carries? Is Senator Klyne proposing an amendment to the preamble —
The Chair: No. Clause 1.
Senator Plett: Should we not first carry the preamble, then?
The Chair: We agreed to postpone it until the end.
Senator Klyne, move your amendment.
Senator Klyne: Colleagues, this is the first of four amendments that I will move in order to enact what Senator Sinclair termed the Noah Clause, named for Noah’s Ark. This amendment answers a joint request of the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada and in nine of Canada’s leading animal welfare NGOs and zoos. As part of the Noah Clause, it would establish in the Criminal Code an executive authority for the federal cabinet to protect, by order — Yes?
The Chair: Senator Klyne, can you read the label of your amendment?
Senator Klyne: It is the Noah Clause, 1-1-20.
The Chair: We were not given permission to distribute them; we weren’t allowed to share them.
An Hon. Senator: Why don’t we have the amendments before?
Senator Klyne: Because I was not allowed to share it.
The Chair: I had permission to share some amendments with members; some I or the clerk did not get permission to share.
Senator Dalphond: So the sponsor can make an amendment and refuse to share the amendment before —
Senator Klyne: This is 1-1-20.
The Chair: It’s been distributed.
Senator Klyne: [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Klyne: I would like to explain it for members.
As I mentioned, this is the first of four amendments that I’ll make on what Senator Sinclair termed the Noah Clause, which is named for Noah’s Ark. This amendment answers a joint request of the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada and nine of Canada’s leading animal welfare NGOs and zoos. This part of the Noah Clause would establish in the Criminal Code an executive authority for the federal cabinet to protect, by order, additional wild species of concern in the context of captivity to prevent animal cruelty and/or to protect public safety. If a wild species is protected in this manner, such as lions or tigers, the same legal framework would apply as for elephants and great apes. As with those measures, all individuals of the affected species would be grandfathered in according to current ownership. New captivity, including breeding, would require a licence for best interests, conservation or scientific research. No one’s animals can be taken away, absent illegal breeding or performance for entertainment, which would also be banned.
This executive authority to extend avowed application of the federal law parallels other criminal statutes, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This version of the Noah Clause is the product of years of consultation by my team and I, reflecting a development of the Noah Clause contained in both iterations of the Jane Goodall Act. Alongside elephants and great apes in the code, this amendment adds designated animals. These species are defined as non-domesticated species, wild subspecies or the hybrids.
On page 4, we have the criteria for selecting a species. To prevent animal cruelty and/or protect public safety, the minister must consider whether the species can survive in captivity — factors such as natural behaviour, relevant characteristics and need evidence of harms in captivity and risk to public safety.
In addition, the Noah Clause contains an explicit exclusion from the Governor-in-Council from designating species used in farming for food purposes in Canada. This is for greater certainty that this measure will never be used as a legal framework in relation to game farmed species in Canada.
In addition, in contemplating the potential future designation of some Canadian wild species, such as bears or cougars, this part of the Noah Clause explicitly does not interfere with any Canadian law that provides for lawful captivity to protect property or public safety. For example, Ontario has such a law.
As well, in making any designations, the Noah Clause will require the federal cabinet to rely upon the best available scientific, veterinary, animal care or animal welfare information. That would involve engagement with experts and organizations, such as the proponents of this measure. By placing this authority with the Governor-in-Council, this power will be accompanied by the highest possible level of democratic accountability.
Finally, I will not propose the immediate protection of any additional wild species directly in Bill S-15, such as non-native big cats. I note, however, that such designations could be proposed in the other place or brought under the Noah Clause if Bill S-15 receives Royal Assent. I ask for your support of this amendment motion. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Okay. This is quite shocking. We have a government bill. We have the government sponsor of that government bill just propose an amendment that is six pages, which basically treats Bill S-15, this government bill, as a shell that deals with only elephants and great apes. This six-page amendment, which is pretty much almost as long as the entire bill, allows the minister and the cabinet to put a whole bunch of other species in it — not to pass through Parliament but to be passed by cabinet.
As I see that the Government Leader of the Senate here today with us at committee, does the government support this? Because this is just outrageous. We weren’t even provided with it beforehand. These are six pages of an amendment that we’re expected now — frankly, I think we should have the ability to suspend this meeting so we can actually, even individually, look at this over the next week.
It is six pages. It is not two clauses. It is not a couple of paragraphs where we have to check that this is correct.
So I want to know this: Does the government leader support this amendment? If so, why didn’t you bring a bill that you actually intended to bring so Parliament could look at that rather than just have the cabinet basically treat this like a shell?
Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I am going to be abstaining on this amendment. This is an area of shared jurisdiction. The ministers and officials have expressed, I believe before the committee and certainly to the government, that further dialogue is required with provinces, territories and with partners on the topic of this particular amendment. This applies to — by the way, Senator Batters, to answer your question — clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 that were introduced.
The government will always duly consider any amendments that come out of the Senate. However, out of respect for the work of the committee and because the Government of Canada has not taken a position on this — and I am here representing the government — I will be abstaining on the votes for these amendments, as I may abstain in other cases where the government does not have a position.
Senator Tannas: I had a similar reaction. Thank you for that clarification.
Were you aware that your sponsor was going to be withholding permission to share this with us?
Senator Gold: I was not.
Senator Tannas: Okay, great. Thank you.
I have all the same comments as Senator Batters. This is truly unfortunate. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Let me also, at least in part, echo exactly what Senator Batters and Senator Tannas have said. I don’t think the government leader can get away with not having an opinion on this. I find that strange. We have had conversations. I have done more work on this bill as a critic than I have on a great deal of legislation, and I did it thoroughly and in consultation with the minister’s office, not just wanting to oppose but for getting opinions.
The government has brought us a bill that is very clear in what it wants and why. They have been very clear in that bill. That wasn’t a bill that Senator Gold drafted himself. He certainly presented it, but it was done in conjunction with, at least, the Minister of Environment’s office — very clearly. They brought us a bill that they wanted and that they believed we should have.
We have been open. I was accused yesterday of filibustering and stalling because of a half hour. We now have six pages, which weren’t shared with us, on something that we at least suspected would happen. So we have prepared at least wording of a subamendment that we cannot present until we have information from the Law Clerk who is working diligently and furiously on subamendments to this. Because he can’t give us directions without studying this omnibus amendment that was brought in under the cloak of darkness to us here.
And for what purpose? To ram something through, which is what I have been accusing this committee of. The sponsor of the bill has just proven my case. “Let’s ram something through under the cloak of darkness here because I have the support of senators to just put this through.”
I agree with Senator Batters and Senator Tannas: We need a suspension, and I don’t know for how long — whether it needs to be five days, one day or one hour. But we clearly need information from the Law Clerk at this point, Madam Chair. My subamendment, in large part, is written because we anticipated this trickery, but there are things we need the Law Clerk to give us information regarding before we can do the subamendment.
I would ask very sincerely that this committee be suspended now until such a point that the Law Clerk can give us advice.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I don’t get it. I don’t understand this attitude. I don’t understand why they would hide six pages of amendments to a nine-page bill and expect us to vote on it. I really tried to incorporate the amendment quickly and understand the point of what we’re doing. I don’t see why the sponsor is doing this. We’re trying to do our work. We should be at the second stage of examining this, but we’re still at the first. We do need to do this properly. How much time will it take? One extra meeting? More witnesses?
I see here that the Criminal Code will be amended by the minister and that animals will be added. What will the impact of that be? Do other parameters have to be added? I have questions about the other animals. We don’t want to add animals that are used as food. Many animals are used as food. Which ones are on the list here?
I have questions about scientific research, too. Some animals are used for scientific research, especially those bred in captivity. One of the standards that applies is that animals to be used for scientific research have to be bred in captivity. There’s no exception for that. Should there be?
We’re not setting ourselves up to do a good job with this. We’d be sending something back to the Senate that…. I don’t understand. Plus, we keep hearing, “We’re not partisan.” If this isn’t partisan, I don’t know what is.
[English]
Senator Dalphond: I understand the first reaction. If you look at the weight of the number of pages, the reaction is what we have. Myself, I had it. Thanks to these exchanges, I yellow marked on each page what has been changed. Yes, I can share it with you. I’m not opposed if people need time to consider it, or whatever. What I am saying is what is being added, it is on page 4 of 6 of these amendments, and it says: “By adding the following after line 1, designated animal means an animal of the species designated under section 445.4 . . . .”
Then on the following page, page 5, you have this new section which Senator Klyne has explained gives the authority to the Governor-in-Council to designate a new species that would be covered by the act and with strong limitations on the power of the minister or cabinet to enact anything.
If I go back now to the first four pages, there is nothing changed except after the word “elephant, great apes,” the words are added “or designated animal,” and you find that in all the sections we would find on pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this draft.
That being said, I want to say it looks like six pages of amendment but it is adding three words in many places, except the significant change is on page 5, which is a significant change, I confess and admit. If colleagues are taken by surprise, and they have not read it before coming to the meeting today — because I think it was shared? I think, was it?
Senator Plett: No, it was not shared. That is the point.
Senator Dalphond: It was not shared. Okay. Then I’m quite open to the idea that — my explanation may be unique to read it by yourself — you need to read it by yourself to come to the same conclusion.
Senator Prosper: I do appreciate the recent comments from Senator Dalphond in terms of providing further clarity with respect to this six-page amendment.
It is unfortunate that we didn’t have notice of this and, second, it was recommended that this wouldn’t be shared. I’m sure Senator Klyne will get into those reasons as to why the decision wasn’t made to share.
My question or the direction I would like to go is to the Department of Justice and ask them certain questions about this particular amendment, if there are legal issues, conflicts or considerations that result from a legal perspective. I am not sure if this is the appropriate time to do it.
The Chair: Senator Prosper, sorry to stop you. Officials will comment after they have heard from everyone so that they have the comments of everyone.
Senator Klyne: There is nothing clandestine about this. I have not shared everything in advance because, frankly, of procedural filibustering of wildlife captivity bills, including the Jane Goodall Act and whale captivity bill, a measure very similar to this has been before Parliament for several years in Bill S-241.
In the interests of advancing this and moving forward this particular amendment, I would suggest that we stand it. Saying that, I can tell you that on a number of committees I have been on, Transport and Communications, Legal, other bills, I can tell you that the opposition has moved amendments at committee at third reading without notice.
Senator Batters: We are a little beyond just having this go to later in the meeting, or something like that.
First of all, my major comment was going to be that we have brought these officials here before us today from the Environment Department, also from the Justice Department. None of them have been provided with this amendment before today’s meeting or, if they have, the government leader wasn’t so I am assuming that they have not, either. They are not in a position also to be able to give instant advice, looking at this trying to dissect and find out.
Obviously, Senator Dalphond had a copy of it and was provided with it because he shares the assistant with Senator Klyne. That is how that came about.
He read it two minutes ago? Oh, okay. Well, that’s fine.
I just want to say, we clearly need to suspend until the next meeting —
The Chair: I have got that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I just want to reiterate what I said and remind Senator Klyne that, should we decide to filibuster his bill, he’ll know it. It won’t be subtle. There’s no need to predict what we’ll do.
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Dalphond, I appreciate when at least he said that he could understand some of our concerns when he realized we hadn’t seen it before. I appreciate that.
I don’t know whether he saw it before. He says he saw it 20 minutes ago and I will accept that.
The fact of the matter is, this makes significant changes to a bill that the government themselves were clearly not aware was coming forward. This is a government bill.
The government is telling us — Senator Gold, you will get your chance. Don’t get too carried away there. If you knew about it, you did say that you, at least, were abstaining. Abstaining tells me you that don’t have an opinion on it.
This is a government bill, and the government doesn’t express an opinion. That alone, Madam Chair, should give us pause to at least go back to the drawing board here to find out what we are dealing with. This is something that we cannot make a decision on. It does not matter.
Senator Klyne uses, “Well, the opposition has done things.” Please, Madam Chair. I said I wasn’t going to filibuster and I’m not. Senator Klyne raised this issue, not me. You are going to give me my chance, and if that takes me an hour, Madam Chair, I’m not filibustering; I’m raising legitimate concerns.
Madam Chair, I have a possible subamendment that has one, two, three, four parts that I cannot present to this amendment until I have had a meeting with the law clerk. I cannot do that. Each one of these subamendments is highlighted where I need information from the law clerk.
In fairness, we have to pause this meeting at least —
The Chair: Just so members know, I am leaning toward suspending the meeting. I do not need, with the greatest respect, that argument. I think it is fair to give everyone the chance to read it.
I would like to let everyone finish speaking and then I will go to the officials. Thank you, senator.
Senator Tannas: In the interests of getting to the bottom of things, I came here to vote for the bill in its current format. This is a whole new wrinkle that I need to consider.
Senator Klyne, did you share the amendment with anybody else? Did any other member of the committee get this in advance besides Senator Gold? He was aware of it. Was there any selective sharing with other committee members here, or was it just you who decided not to share it with the rest of us?
Senator Klyne: No one decided not to share it with the rest of anybody, but there was some advance notice, I would say, in trying to get certain members to help carry the load of making amendments instead of me making all the amendments. I would have asked them to look at some amendments to see if they would care to participate in that.
In terms of the distribution, it has happened here this morning.
Senator Gold: I just want to be clear, to correct the record carefully.
First of all, my understanding is that Senator Klyne has agreed, in light of this, to let this amendment stand so that we could, if the committee chooses — or, chair, if you choose — to continue with other matters. I’m just reminding us of that option on the table for your consideration.
But, more importantly, let me be clear. I was asked a question was I aware that this was not shared with others, and I was not. But, no, I was aware of all the amendments — well, we’ll see if any others come forward. I was certainly aware of this one.
Colleagues understand, but for those who are watching, once aware that senators — whoever they may be, including the sponsor — were interested in amendments, my job is to seek advice from the government as to whether they support them.
As we will see, when we do get to clause by clause, the government is able to support some amendments. They happen to come — I think some of them — from the Conservative caucus. The government has also taken a position on other amendments which it will oppose, and I will speak to those. Some are from caucuses other than the Conservative caucus.
May I finish, chair, only because this is a government bill and I think that it is important that I clear the record, for the record?
But in many cases, when I became aware of amendments, from whatever source, and I put it to the government, they had not landed on a position. So the only responsible and respectful thing that I can do, as the Government Representative, is to acknowledge that the government does not have a position. It may end up with a position one way or the other. If amendments pass, it will have to take a position at least in the other place, so I will abstain out of respect for the work of the committee. I wanted to make that clear so there is no misunderstanding of what I knew and did not know.
The Chair: May we go to the officials, please.
Senator Tannas: Chair, may I make another comment on this? I may be dead wrong because I’m not used to this — it’s reminiscent of the House of Commons, I’d say — but I wonder if my privileges as a senator have somehow been breached here.
I take Senator Klyne at what he said, but it sounds to me like we have walked into some kind of an ambush. Maybe I am a Pollyanna in thinking that that never happens, but I am going to ask my staff to make an inquiry, if we need to continue, as to if my privileges have been breached.
The Chair: May we now go to the officials to get your input as to these amendments. If I am correct, you have just seen these amendments. Is that correct?
Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: We have seen them. They were handed to us, yes.
The Chair: Before or now?
Ms. Wells: We have been advising our minister on the general concept of a Noah’s clause over the last while.
The Chair: Have you seen these?
Ms. Wells: We have been seeing some text. We’ve just done a quick comparison, and it looks similar. If the committee would like for us to provide our views as to what, in our view, the amendment would do, we would be happy to do that.
The Chair: Anyone else?
Senators, out of respect for all of you, I do not think that we can proceed with so many amendments. I have not had a chance to read them, so I cannot say anything. I do not want to proceed with something I have not seen. It is hard to be able to lead a group when you have not even seen it.
Before I finish, if anyone has any other amendments that the group has not seen, may I respectfully ask you that you always share it with the committee. Then it is easier to be able to do an effective job.
I am not going to let anyone speak for a second. We should just go on to should this matter be stood up.
Senator Plett: [Technical Difficulties] that issue, chair. I need to clarify something [Technical Difficulties].
The Chair: I am not letting anyone speak now. I stopped a number of people.
Senator Plett: We have —
The Chair: Senator Plett —
Senator Plett: The reason I’m saying this I don’t want somebody —
The Chair: Senator Plett —
Senator Plett: — after I haven’t shared my amendment.
The Chair: No, you have. You have shared it. You have absolutely shared it. Senator Simons, you have something to say?
Senator Simons: I have two things. I was going to suggest that it might be helpful before we adjourn or suspend to have the officials walk us through this amendment, and then we could go away and think about it with the benefit of —
An Hon. Senator: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Simons: Fine. I thought it might be helpful.
I wanted to say as well, Madam Chair, I have certainly been on committees before where people have presented amendments without advance notice. I do not think that that violates anyone’s privilege. In this case, I’m disturbed to hear that some received it and some did not in this fashion. Certainly, within our own groups, we often share amendments with our other group members that we do not share with the committee in advance. It has always been my personal practice to share my amendments. I don’t think there is anything in the rules that says that you have to share them in advance.
The Chair: Yes, there is nothing in the rules, and you did share your amendments. We will now go to Senator Dalphond and then Senator Plett.
Senator Dalphond: I will say that I am learning a lot of things this morning. I have my copy of these amendments. I thought everyone got a copy of the amendments, and my mistake was not to read them because it was six pages long. At one point I read it this morning. I understand the reaction. I explained to everyone I had the same reaction that it was long.
I think it is a wise thing to adjourn and consider these things. I understand it is not significant but it looks significant and is adding this Noah. I was told that there would be a Noah provision, and I see that it is there, but I was not expecting —
The Chair: My concern is that Senator Plett has some other amendments on clause 1. I think that he needs to read this carefully. I’m not saying you will, senator, but perhaps he may want to withdraw his. I have seen his, but I haven’t seen this.
I am leaning toward adjourning. I have to share with you all my anxiety that we are running out of time. We have another bill coming up that is a government bill, and I hope the leaders who are both here and the other leaders who are not will get permission to sit while the Senate is sitting because now we have a lot of government business. However, we will face that when we come back.
I have Senator Plett and Senator Batters on the list. Is there talk about adjourning or anything further?
Senator Plett: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be brief. When I wanted to talk about the amendments I have shared, we have shared our amendments. There are a couple of possible amendments that the clerk acknowledged, which we have shared with him, that he may or may not have shared with the committee. We have shared them all, and I don’t want to put the clerk in an awkward position. I think it was intentional, so we have no problem with that going. They are in-case-of types of amendments. So I have no issue. I just want to be on the record there.
Secondly, on our side, when there is government legislation, we have always been open — and Senator Gold and I have had these discussions many times — to making exceptions to when committees can sit. Are we open to discussing that? Yes. However, so that it is on the record, I want to at least hear it said that it is the sponsor of a government bill — and I am not blaming Senator Gold for this, but Senator Klyne is representing the government because he is sponsoring their bill. It is as a result of his trying to sneak something in under the cloak of darkness. Madam Chair, he has acknowledged that he has done it with some senators because he might need some help and not shared it with others because he wasn’t getting that help there. Therefore, Madam Chair, I want it clearly understood that if there are difficulties coming along — and we are on a break week next week, so clearly this suspension is until we come back — we are going to try to cooperate. But that at least has to be on the record. This is not as a result of the Conservatives. I withdrew my motion at the start of this meeting because I wanted to do —
The Chair: Nobody is blaming you for that.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I wanted to briefly say something about sharing amendments. We are in quite a different situation here when a transformational, six-page amendment to a nine-page bill that is being brought by the government sponsor of a government bill is coming into this. That is the reason for the massive difference between the two. It has occasionally happened that — in this case, I had an amendment, and I put it forward. Senator Plett had some amendments, and he put them forward. That is the appropriate way to do it. But when there is a transformational amendment like that, it is the reason for the difference.
Obviously, we’re going to take direction from the leaders as to when we sit, but I really find it unfortunate that an entire meeting was unable to happen. We may now have to sit when the Senate is sitting when, frankly, there are major items in the Senate that I would like to be in there debating and challenging. If I have to be in this committee instead because we have these kinds of amendments that are happening from a government sponsor of a government bill when the government officials have told us they got text of these but the government leader didn’t — it is just shocking. To me it shows a major failing of the Trudeau independent Senate.
Senator Klyne: First of all, I take offence with the idea that I have snuck something in. I have sat on a number of committees, and people have shared things with me in the beginning and also others have brought things in at the last minute, which I find very frustrating myself.
This particular amendment may be on six pages, but the impact is from a few words throughout, so it is hardly overwhelming. It was not the case that I was trying to overwhelm anyone. I’m trying to move it along.
Senator Plett acknowledged that the advance discussion I might have had with some on the amendments was trying to see if instead of me making all the amendments, I could demonstrate some independence and let others try to do the same. I have seen a couple of the Conservatives’ amendments, and I am grateful for that. I was going to support three or four of them. That is my view of things — that I would be accepting some of them.
I just leave that with you. Thank you.
Senator Pate: I am a bit confused. Are we getting all the amendments that were given to the clerk so we can go away and consider them?
The Chair: That is my preference.
Senator Pate: Okay.
The Chair: Maybe we should make that a rule, because in some committees, like Social Affairs, you cannot proceed until the committee has all the amendments. But that is for another day and another chair to talk about.
Senators, I am going to ask that we suspend until we come back after one week. Also, may I respectfully ask that we all share amendments so we are never in this position again? If you want to challenge me, then we will go for a roll call.
Are we agreed to adjourn?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, before I ask for an adjournment, the clerk has amendments that have not been shared with everybody. May I get an agreement from the people who have sent the amendments —
Senator Plett: You have our agreement, chair, to share whatever [Technical difficulties].
The Chair: Senators Carignan, Batters and Plett, is it your agreement that the clerk share all the amendments that he has?
Can he circulate yours?
Senator Klyne: Yes. I thought that’s what was done here.
The Chair: Okay so that —
Senator Klyne: The balance of them too.
The Chair: Is everybody okay with that?
An Hon. Senator: Yes.
The Chair: Therefore, the clerk will do that, and we will adjourn.
Senator Plett: Just to be clear, Senator Klyne has agreed that if he has other amendments, he will —
The Chair: Yes, he has agreed.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Everybody has agreed.
Senators, I am sorry this morning didn’t go as we planned and yesterday did not either. Well, nobody has a break. People think we go home for a break, but we don’t. We will meet in a week.
Thank you so much, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)