THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:50 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 29, 30, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of Part 4, and in Subdivisions B and C of Division 34 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators. We have started late. I apologize for keeping the witnesses waiting.
I am Mobina Jaffer, from British Columbia. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kwe. Good morning. Michèle Audette [words pronounced in Inuu-Aimun] from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Kwe. Good morning. Pierre J. Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta. I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Welcome, everyone. Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
The Chair: Senators, we are all aware of the caution with the microphones, so please be careful. Mr. Ferron, please do not speak too closely to the microphone.
Senators, we are meeting to finish our pre-study of certain elements contained in Bill C-69.
On today’s panel, we are pleased to welcome our final witnesses to speak on the different divisions of the bill: from the Canada Revenue Agency — Subdivision B, Division 34, CRA search warrant authorization — Eric Ferron, Director General, Criminal Investigations Directorate; from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers — Divisions 35 and 36, auto theft — Theresa Donkor, Member, Criminal Justice and Police Reform Committee, y by video conference; from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — Division 35 and 36, auto theft, also possibly Division 34, CRA search warrants — Shakir Rahim, Director, Criminal Justice Program, by video conference; as an individual, Vince Calderhead, Lawyer, Pink Larkin, by video conference — Division 43, appeals for future Canada Disability Benefits Act divisions. I will welcome all of you.
You can see that there are five panellists. Normally we have three. We will try and give you the maximum time, but senators, I ask you all to please be very brief. We will start with a presentation from Eric Ferron from the Canada Revenue Agency, five minutes.
Eric Ferron, Director General, Criminal Investigations Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency: Thank you, chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, for having me here today.
Within the scope of my responsibilities, the Criminal Investigations Program investigates significant cases of tax evasion, tax fraud and other serious violations of tax laws, and when appropriate, refers cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for possible criminal prosecution.
I’m going to speak to the amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act in Subdivision B of Division 34. These amendments propose to include an additional warrant power to allow CRA investigators to seek, obtain and execute general warrants.
General warrants are used to supplement the existing warrants provisions in the Criminal Code. They provide for a flexible range of investigative techniques or procedures if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be committed and it is in the best interest of justice.
The CRA investigators already have the authority to use search warrants and production orders but must currently request a law enforcement partner, such as the RCMP, to obtain and execute general warrants on CRA’s behalf. The authority to obtain and execute general warrants would allow CRA investigators to strengthen their investigative techniques and capacities by gathering evidence without having to seek the assistance of law enforcement, which can compromise the timeliness of an investigation.
Ms. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Theresa Donkor, Member, Criminal Justice and Police Reform Committee, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, also known as CABL. We will be focusing our comments on Division 35 of Bill C-69, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code for auto theft.
CABL appreciates the concerns about the rising levels of auto theft in our communities. However, we do not believe the proposed amendments will make our communities safer. There’s an immense amount of research that shows that harsher penalties are ineffective in deterring crime. Policies rooted in the belief that a “tough on crime” approach will reduce crime rates are without empirical support. What there is evidence of is that these policies have a disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous, and racialized communities that are already overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
This committee has heard from the Honourable Minister Virani that young people — particularly low-income and racialized youth — are being exploited and used by organized crime groups to commit vehicle theft. This is one of the issues that the proposed amendments aim to combat. Yet, these proposed amendments target the very same individuals that they seek to protect. A young person over the age of 18 who commits auto theft for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization would be subject to the new offences proposed in this bill. These young people, who are the most vulnerable and often the easiest to arrest, will be the most severely impacted by the proposed amendments, not the masterminds behind these auto theft schemes.
We also echo the Criminal Lawyers’ Association’s concerns that the proposed provisions are redundant and will lead to unnecessary complexities in our already overburdened legal system. As the Minister of Justice himself noted, the Criminal Code already contains robust measures to combat auto theft. It is clear that more legislation will not solve this problem.
There has been some suggestion that mandatory minimum penalties should be introduced for auto theft crimes, but we want to emphasize that, similar to harsher penalties, mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime and do not increase public safety. In fact, a 2017 report by Statistics Canada noted that mandatory minimum penalties can lead to unjust outcomes and lengthier sentencing that may actually increase recidivism. Mandatory minimum penalties are yet another ineffective deterrence tool that simply lead to greater disparities and harms in the criminal legal system.
Over-legislating and over-reliance on the criminal legal system will not decrease crime rates. Instead, we urge you to consider more effective measures to address auto theft and crimes more generally. For example, we know that, historically, regulated advancements in automobile and anti-theft technology led to decreases in auto theft crimes, not more legislation. We also know that addressing the root causes of crime is a more effective measure to prevent future crime. Ultimately, to make our communities safer, we need to prioritize policies that make social services and community supports more accessible rather than policies that further criminalize.
At the very least, if these provisions proceed, we ask this committee to consider amendments to this bill to minimize its potential harms and disproportionate impact. We support the Criminal Lawyers’ Association’s recommendation for more narrow language for the proposed provisions, particularly the new aggravating factor for an adult offender who involves a young person in the commission of an offence. We also support the recommendation that the CCLA will be making to make the new auto theft offences hybrid offences, with a maximum sentence of 14 years less a day, which would allow for more flexibility in sentencing.
We welcome any questions that this committee may have for CABL, and we thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Donkor. You were just before us in February, so thank you very much for your commitment to the work of this committee. The committee appreciates it.
Shakir Rahim, Director, Criminal Justice Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Good afternoon. By way of introduction, I am a lawyer and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I am here today to raise CCLA’s concerns about new motor vehicle theft provisions contained in Part 3, Division 35 of Bill C-69.
The CCLA adopts the submissions of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers regarding the overall ineffectiveness of these provisions, their disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous and racialized communities, and the imperative not to introduce mandatory minimum sentences. However, if these provisions proceed, the CCLA suggests two targeted amendments to reduce their disproportionate impact and ensure proportionality in sentencing.
Two of the new offences proposed — motor vehicle theft when violence is used, threatened or attempted, and motor vehicle theft for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization — are straight indictable offences, carrying a 14-year maximum sentence.
First, we suggest the maximum sentence for both offences be amended to 14 years less a day. Second, we suggest both offences be amended to permit the Crown to elect summarily, therefore becoming hybrid offences.
Because the Crown cannot prosecute these offences summarily and they carry a 14-year maximum sentence, they remove certain sentencing options from judges. This undermines a cardinal principle in sentencing that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and moral blameworthiness of the offender.
To begin, an individual could not receive a discharge for either offence because under section 730(1) of the Criminal Code, a discharge is prohibited for an offence that carries a 14-year maximum sentence. No individual convicted of the criminal organization motor vehicle theft offence could receive a conditional sentence because, under section 742.1(d) of the Criminal Code, a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment, with a 10-year maximum sentence, is ineligible for a conditional sentence.
As the Supreme Court explained in the 2000 decision of R. v. Proulx:
The conditional sentence is a meaningful alternative to incarceration for less serious and non-dangerous offenders . ... offenders … will serve a sentence under strict surveillance in the community instead of going to prison.
This includes conditions up to effective house arrest.
Reasonable hypotheticals illustrate why these sentencing options should remain available. Take, for example, an 18‑year‑old Indigenous first-time offender who is pressured by older members of a gang to assist them in the theft of a motor vehicle by buying a crowbar. He pleads guilty, is genuinely remorseful and receives intensive support from Indigenous elders in his community. He would be liable as a party to the motor vehicle theft, criminal organization offence. A conditional sentence would mean he can continue living with his family, receiving necessary psychosocial support and increase prospects of rehabilitation. Today, he could receive that sentence, but not under these new provisions.
Or take a 19 year-old first-time female offender who is in a manipulative relationship with a partner. He convinces her to participate in a motor vehicle theft with him and, in the course of the theft, she threatens to slap the occupant of a motor vehicle but does not do so. She pleads guilty, enters counselling, leaves her manipulative partner and is genuinely remorseful. A conditional discharge would mean that she would not possess a criminal record, increasing her likelihood of future employment and prospects of rehabilitation. Today, she could receive that sentence, but not under these new provisions.
The amendments we suggest would ensure these sentencing options are still available in appropriate cases.
That concludes my opening statement. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rahim.
Vince Calderhead, Lawyer, Pink Larkin, as an individual: I want to begin by thanking the chair and members of the committee for inviting me to address you today.
By way of background, I should indicate that I am a lawyer with almost 40 years of experience, working exclusively in the poverty law area — that is to say, all my clients have been exclusively people living in poverty. The focus of my work has been on human rights, Charter litigation, including international human rights. I have also taught a course called Poverty Law and Human Rights at Dalhousie law school for 27 years in.
What I want to talk to you about today stems from the inadequacy of the amount of the Canada Disability Benefit that is now referred to and is before you in Division 43. More particularly, in the budget, it was announced that the amount would be $200 per month. I would make the following submissions.
In my brief to you dated May 30, I set out a set of quotations from the minister at the time who introduced and shepherded the legislation through Parliament about what the intent of the legislation would be, specifically that it would lift hundreds of thousands of persons out of poverty. At the end of my brief dated May 30, you will see quotation after quotation where the minister spoke not just to the public but all parliamentary bodies, including the House and the Senate, indicating that that was the intent of the legislation.
Furthermore, in the actual bill itself, Bill C-22, we see that section 11.1 of the act set out several criteria, saying the amount of benefit would need to take into account international human rights, the cost of disability and compliance with Canada’s international human rights obligation and Canada’s official poverty line.
With that background, the government, in its federal budget, has announced that the amount would be $200 per month. I would submit that that’s completely inconsistent with the purposes of the act, particularly section 11, completely inconsistent with the international human rights standard of an adequate standard of living, inconsistent with Canada’s constitutional obligation in section 36(1)(c) of the Constitution Act to provide essential public services of reasonable quality, and indeed, it is inconsistent with what the minister promised.
I want to also say a word about the restricted eligibility. At the time of the legislation, it was announced that eligibility would be available to all persons with disabilities. The recent announcement in the budget restricts that to persons who would be eligible for the disability tax credit.
It is notorious among people in poverty and advocates that this is an inadequate amount and that it is restricting eligibility.
As a result, I would propose that this committee request observations, going back to the government, first, regarding the issue of restricted eligibility and, more to the point, to clarify the jurisdiction of the tribunal. In Division 43, you will notice that clause 459 of the bill talks about the tribunal having jurisdiction of law, fact and so on. You will see in the speaking notes I sent to the committee yesterday that I am also proposing some wording to clarify what I would submit the jurisdiction is. It would add wording to the end of what would be the new section 66, which would include the vires or consistency with the act of any amount set by regulation under subsection 11.1(c) of the act, clarifying what I would propose already is the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
That concludes my submission.
The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony.
We will now go to questions, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Thank you to all of you for being here and for your work on these important topics. I will focus most of my questions today on the Canada Revenue Agency’s new powers they are getting under this, but I do not want any of you to take from that that I do not absolutely value the work you have done or the submissions you provided to us. Thank you.
Mr. Ferron, for the Canada Revenue Agency, can you please explain to us why the CRA needs general warrants under subsection 487.01(1) of the Criminal Code when it already has the ability to obtain search warrants to investigate tax offences? You said in your brief opening remarks that, as the situation exists right now, it can compromise the timeliness of the investigation. Could you please provide us with more of an explanation?
Mr. Ferron: Thank you for the question.
Right now, we use the RCMP if we need a general warrant. That means having an RCMP officer come in and understand the case. Ultimately, that is the person who will need to file the ITO, information to obtain, which is a very lengthy affidavit explaining to the judge why he believes there are reasons we should get this warrant. It takes a lot of time for that RCMP officer or whatever law enforcement officer comes to support us to catch up. Our cases are complex. There is a lot of evidence to review for that person to feel comfortable in writing the ITO and signing off. That is time-consuming, both for the investigators on our side who need to prep the RCMP officer and also for the RCMP to provide us with somebody to do this. That is the reason.
A general warrant is something that allows us to get powers that are not covered by other warrants in the Criminal Code, such as search warrants. It is for situations we cannot think of right now because it might put us in a situation where we suddenly realize the warrant is not what we need and the production order is not what we need. For example, if we need to look in a crate, to be able to look inside, take pictures of what is inside and evaluate the value of it — it is not a search warrant in itself. That would fall outside of the other types of warrants that are available to us under the Criminal Code. It is sort of a catch-all for situations that are not expected in the other types of warrants.
Senator Batters: Okay.
As you just pointed out and as you indicated in your opening remarks, it would allow CRA to get those types of general warrants without any collaboration from law enforcement. What I am wondering, then, is this: What sort of training will CRA employees receive to ensure they are exercising these serious new powers judiciously?
Mr. Ferron: Thank you for the question.
We are working on the training. We are obviously often helped by the RCMP in developing this. We have counsel helping us in developing this. A lot of it is similar to the types of warrants we already are familiar with, such as search warrants. Our investigators do have the training for that. This is additional training for that specific type of warrant. It would also require us to work with counsel when we are seeking these and make sure we are doing it the appropriate way.
Senator Batters: When you said you are working on the training, these provisions have been put into a budget implementation act. Will they come into effect right after this bill potentially receives Royal Assent and could, therefore, be available to you right away? If you are just working on it now, when is that training expected to be completed? These are serious new powers and can impact people who might be completely innocent.
Mr. Ferron: Thank you for the question.
My understanding is that we would get access to these powers 90 days after the bill is passed, which brings us to the early fall. We have already put into place a strategy to have everybody trained beforehand. Nobody would be using these powers before they have been trained and our policies and criminal investigations manual, which is the tool our investigators use, is updated with how to use this new tool.
Senator Batters: How does the CRA plan to minimize the major disruptions that might occur for innocent taxpayers during the execution of these types of general warrants?
Mr. Ferron: Usually, we focus our investigations on people we believe are suspects of certain offences.
Senator Batters: Sure.
Mr. Ferron: We might need to execute certain warrants against people to allow us to gather the evidence against those suspects. When we do a search warrant or any other types of warrant, we will be careful in the way we execute them. We try to make sure we respect the individual’s rights and make sure we have the right legal framework and documents to be able to execute it. It is always something we have in mind as to making sure that we do not affect innocent people more than they should be.
Senator Batters: As you say, they would only be suspects, potentially, at that point and not necessarily anything further than that.
Mr. Ferron: Yes.
Senator Batters: Could you give us a specific example of how you would minimize the likelihood of it impacting people who never go beyond that stage?
Mr. Ferron: Yes. When we do obtain the warrant and we speak to the judge, the judge will often put in some requirements as to how to execute it. For example, sometimes in a search warrant situation, you can’t execute your warrant past a certain time, for example. There are things of that sort. Obviously, if the judge is thinking that we should do things a certain way, we would abide by that.
We are also very careful in not publicizing this type of work. If we go in with a search warrant, we are as discreet as possible when we enter a premise. Some people might notice us, but we try not to attract too much attention. We try to do it as professionally as we can.
We do have people who react differently when we arrive to a certain situation. We are always supported by law enforcement for our safety when we go there. We have these people to help us too.
Senator Batters: I suggest that you probably work something in there about not overreaching, because that could absolutely come into play. Thank you.
The Chair: I am not understanding this. You are saying that rather than using experienced RCMP officers or other officers who have done this work a lot, you will have new people who have very little experience and who are not getting instructions from you and not understanding your file go and do this work? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Ferron: No. Our investigators have a lot of experience in conducting searches, but they just do not have the power to access general warrants. Our investigators have a lot of experience in doing the investigative work they are doing, such as production orders, search warrants and other types of work, including interviews and things of that sort. They just do not have access to general warrants. That is why we have the RCMP or other law enforcement help us in those situations.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My two questions are for you, Mr. Ferron, and pertain to the very same subject. First, what problematic situation are you attempting to resolve here? I understand from your previous answer that it’s about ensuring direct access to a judge for your investigators, without going through an RCMP officer.
Mr. Ferron: Exactly. It would allow us to speed up our investigations. They’re already highly complex and time‑consuming. It’s a way of expediting the process without a third party who would have to understand our files to obtain the warrant in question.
Senator Dalphond: This is a bid to save resources, then?
Mr. Ferron: Exactly; it’s about the RCMP’s time and resources, as well as the time required for our own investigations.
Senator Dalphond: I note that section 487.013 of the Criminal Code states the following:
(1) On ex parte application made by a peace officer or public officer, a justice or judge may …
This section therefore requires certain warrants that a public official may request from a judge. That’s what you want to do here, to some extent; it’s the same thing, so why did you exclude surveillance from the powers you’re seeking, unlike section 487.01 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the use of surveillance?
Mr. Ferron: While working with Justice Canada lawyers on electronic surveillance — commonly referred to as wire taps — we found that it was one step too many for our investigators. I have to say that obtaining these powers was not a goal. It takes specialized equipment and a lot more training to be able to fulfill that kind of mandate, these wire taps. We’re not equipped to handle that kind of power.
Senator Dalphond: So, if I understand correctly, you removed that power not to protect people’s privacy, but rather because you don’t have the capacity to conduct that kind of investigation?
Mr. Ferron: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: In such cases, will you go through the RCMP again?
Mr. Ferron: If we need to. It’s not something we do often.
Senator Dalphond: What kind of equipment do you want to be authorized to use or what kind of operation do you want to be authorized to conduct? I understand document seizure. It’s easier than going through an RCMP officer and saying you want to seize bank accounts, accounting documents or documents in an office, but is there anything else? Does this authorize you to conduct operations, for example? Are we going to set up a Mr. B case, as we did in criminal law to try to catch someone in a fraud ring?
Mr. Ferron: Our investigations, as you said, tend to focus on taxes. These are often financial crimes, white-collar crimes. My investigators were telling me about a situation involving a box that we didn’t want to seize; it wasn’t a search, but we wanted to know the value of its contents. This warrant, which we obtained through the RCMP, allowed us to open the box, view its contents, photograph and assess them in order to understand the value of the belongings of the target of our investigation.
Senator Dalphond: I understand. I remember a famous case in Montreal in which someone had a ring worth $24 million.
Mr. Ferron: My goodness.
Senator Dalphond: It’s the sort of thing you want to see, someone with a $30,000 income who pays no tax, but might have a $24 million ring in a cardboard box.
Mr. Ferron: That includes everything that isn’t covered in the Criminal Code. Unforeseeable situations sometimes arise during an investigation. By granting us this power, some investigation at some point in time, or some situation, will require a warrant that isn’t covered by other sections of the Criminal Code.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that your investigators will be trained on preservation, including how to prepare a seizure report to ensure the seized assets don’t disappear and are stored in a safe place, how to report to the judge within the statutory time frame, and so on?
Mr. Ferron: Absolutely. We already do that with search warrants. Our investigators are fully trained to do so. The reports, as you mentioned, are actions they are already performing.
[English]
Senator Simons: It strikes me that we have this remarkable study in contrasts. We are talking about tax evasion from well‑to-do people who are evading their taxes, and then we have the other problem of specifically targeting the young people from marginalized communities who are most likely to be involved in these car theft rings.
I come from Edmonton. Car thefts are up about 20% over the last five years, but this is not a crisis in Prairie cities the way it is in Toronto and Montreal. This is a particularly regional problem. It is a truism that having higher penalties only works if you catch people and only works if you have enforcement, and it doesn’t ever get to the heart of why this is happening. I understand your concern about tougher sentences, but I’m not convinced that anybody is going to get sentenced. Is this a just kind of security theatre, or do you think this is actually going to do anything to solve the social and economic situation, including the international car market, that is driving this particular problem in Ontario and Quebec? I would ask the question to Ms. Donkor from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers.
Ms. Donkor: Thank you, senator.
You make a very fair point that this legislation that is being proposed appears to be quite reactionary and perhaps not as effective in combating auto theft as it purports. As you have stated, many of these proposed provisions are for new offences and impact sentences, but they don’t go to the root of the problem. As we know, we can really only combat crime by addressing the root of the problem.
I share your concerns about these proposed provisions and the effectiveness of the proposed provisions. There is no evidence that backs up the need for these specific provisions. That is part of our concern with putting them forward, because just putting forward legislation that will further criminalize communities and marginalize folks is not going to be effective in decreasing the crime rates here. We have heard the minister say that they are taking a holistic approach, but what we have really seen is just these additional Criminal Code amendments, which, I agree with you, do not really go to the heart of addressing this problem.
Perhaps Mr. Rahim will have further comments on this, so I will defer to him.
Mr. Rahim: I would agree with what Ms. Donkor has said. Describing it as a form of security theatre, as you said, senator, I think is accurate.
I would note as well that, with respect to the impact on particularly vulnerable communities, the consultation process followed by the government did not meaningfully include those communities. You heard from industry. You heard from police. There was a highly publicized summit. Notwithstanding efforts by civil society to implore the government to hear the views of the communities most directly affected, they were not meaningfully invited or consulted.
I would further note that an issue that has come up is enforcement. One can do a quick Google search to hear various stories about individuals who have contacted police forces because they had their vehicles stolen, they had a tracker in it, and they asked police to do something and were basically told that it is not a priority issue or that the resources are not available. Unlike harsher sentencing, we know that enforcement can, in certain cases, play a role in reducing criminal offences.
Finally, with respect to the sentences, even if you are of the view — not you specifically but any senator — that these changes should go ahead, the amendments that we have proposed are critically important because, without them, important safety valves to prevent severely disproportionate sentences that exist right now for motor vehicle theft offences and violence offences be removed, and that will certainly have a consequential, negative impact.
Senator Simons: When something is baked into a budget omnibus bill, our hands, if not exactly tied, are pretty closely laced.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses, and special thanks to Ms. Donkor and Mr. Rahim for laying out the potential impacts of some of these criminal law provisions in the budget bill.
Ms. Donkor, if you are comfortable, can you give your opinion on how these provisions will actually impact the Black Justice Strategy that the government has also put in place, ostensibly to address some of the issues that you have raised? Do you see this as contradicting or impeding? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but could you elaborate on how you see that?
Then I have a question for Mr. Calderhead, if there is time, or on second round.
Ms. Donkor: Thank you for that question, Senator Pate. It’s a very important question to be raised given that the government has the stated goal through the Black Justice Strategy of combating the anti-Black racism that is prevalent in our legal system. However, it seems to me that the government keeps proposing bills that directly target Black and racialized communities that we know are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
As you said, it does seem to me that some of these provisions are contrary to the government’s stated goal through the Black Justice Strategy. It seems to me that the government hasn’t reflected and done some serious consideration of how to minimize the disproportionate impact of these provisions.
We know that auto theft is a key and pressing issue in our society, particularly in Ontario. We also know that the over‑representation of Black and Indigenous folks is a pressing issue that has been ongoing for many years, more than this auto theft problem. It seems to me that the government is prioritizing one over the other, perhaps to pander to the public, rather than really looking critically at what the pressing issues in our legal system are. What these amendments propose might actually exacerbate the issues in our legal system. That is disappointing to see that. We would like to see more thoughtful consideration of the issues of the disproportionate impact. If the Black Justice Strategy is a priority for the government, we would like to see that being more thoughtfully considered in the future.
Mr. Rahim: Ms. Donkor has expressed the same views we would.
I have just a brief comment, if I may, on the nature of how these provisions are coming about. The fact that you have Criminal Code provisions being brought in an omnibus budget bill prevents meaningful consideration on these types of issues, Senator Pate, and we can’t effectively explore and provide input that accounts for the issues of systemic racism in the criminal justice system when we preclude important legislative review. I know other senators on this committee have spoken about this issue, and I do think it is one that is worth emphasizing in the future. The Criminal Code is an enormously complex beast, and this is just not the way to make evidence-based policy.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much.
Mr. Calderhead, thank you for your submissions about the inadequacy and the eligibility restrictions for the disability benefit. My question relates to the appeal provision that was identified within Bill C-22. Do you believe that that tribunal could actually look at the inadequacy of the benefit and the ineligibility, or do you think that would be out of scope given the way this benefit has been crafted?
Mr. Calderhead: Thank you.
My reading of the legislation as it currently exists is one that gives the tribunal a very broad jurisdiction. It says a person has a right to appeal to a body in respect of any decision “relating to the amount of a Canada Disability Benefit that the person has received or will receive.” That’s very wide open. The amount they receive, assuming it is the amount under the regulation, is, according to the provisions of the act in section 10(1)(b), including the amount. So that would include an amount as set by regulation.
I think there is ample appeal jurisdiction in the tribunal currently. However, to clarify that, I have urged that the committee consider in an amendment to section 66(1) of the act, which is in section 459 of the bill, so that it would clarify — or confirm, I suppose, is a better term — that the jurisdiction of the tribunal would include any amount set by regulation under section 11 of the act.
The short answer to your question, Senator Pate, is that when Parliament has said that it would allow someone to appeal any amount or to appeal the amount of benefit they receive, this would include an amount set by regulation.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all of the witnesses.
I want to come back to the reactive feel of some of this legislation. Governments need to react to crisis and issues in the community. Sometimes we have to speak to communities so that they can speak to politicians, right? Politicians tell us, “Let’s just amend the Criminal Code; let’s just do law and order,” and that’s what people then feel that they should want. But how do we speak to communities so that they understand that there is a fuller process here that we have to be looking at? I would appreciate your comments about how to speak to the community.
Ms. Donkor, I think I heard you talk about requiring manufacturers to invest in protective technology. We heard car manufacturers saying they are doing it and looking at it, but I think I heard you say we should require it somehow through regulation. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
I would like to hear from any of you who can tell us how to speak to the community.
Ms. Donkor: I can certainly speak to that briefly.
As Mr. Rahim noted, in the consultation period, there was very public consultation with the police and with car manufacturers, but key stakeholders from the community such as civil liberties organizations, even the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, which is the largest organization of Black lawyers in Canada, were left out of that consultation. When we talk about speaking to communities and we’re excluding organizations that are connected to communities, it is very difficult to get the perspective of the communities that are most directly impacted.
I understand the government’s desire to react as quickly as possible and to try to make our communities safer as quickly as possible, but the reality is that there are no quick Band-Aid solutions to complex problems in the criminal legal system. Taking reactionary measures without actual careful consideration and evidence-based policy is not going to be effective. It is never going to be effective. That’s why it is important to take a step back and actually have these meaningful consultations.
The question that I have for the government is, why the rush? Why do we need to rush this bill through instead of taking the time to gather the evidence, to consult the communities that are going to be affected and to come up with practical solutions that go beyond criminalization? In a previous panel a few days ago, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police acknowledged that the decrease in auto theft post-2007 was due to the advancement in anti-theft technology and automobile technology, so why are we not taking that same approach that was taken post-2007? Why are we now proposing amendments to further criminalize which we know are not effective? Why not take an effective approach? I think those are some questions that need to be carefully considered when we are looking at this auto theft problem.
Mr. Rahim: I would just briefly add that I think there is an important accountability function that is played in terms of when ministers and staff come before these committees around consultation. We had a similar issue occur with Bill C-48 on bail reform where there were statements made, whether in the House or before committee, that groups were asking for “X” or groups were consulted, when the reality was far different. I think that continuing strong scrutiny of those kinds of assertions to really understand who was asked what and when is important.
With respect to what is the actual solution to this problem, in addition to the anti-theft technology, it certainly doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that port inspection and enforcement are driving issues here. There has to be a way to get these vehicles out of the country in order for this entire trade to be lucrative and profitable. It’s really a matter of, what will actually solve this in public policy or from a public policy perspective? That’s the problem here too. We’re not actually solving a real issue. Instead, we’re sort of waving something over there in the corner and saying, “Just pay attention to this.”
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you to all the witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Calderhead. This is a very technical question, Mr. Calderhead. Since you are a lawyer, I will go straight to a technical question. Are you proposing that we enlarge the jurisdiction of the specialized tribunal dealing with social benefits to include the power to hear a challenge of the government decision to fix at $200 per month the amount payable to those who qualify under the Canada Disability Benefit Act?
Mr. Calderhead: I have two points in reply.
First of all, my submissions are careful to say that I think the jurisdiction is there already in the plain wording of the current provision. It doesn’t need to be enlarged or expanded. I am thinking this would be a clarification of that existing jurisdiction to simply permit the challenge to the amount set by regulation.
My second point is that an added benefit of that kind of clarified jurisdiction for the people who the Canada Disability Benefit is primarily designed for is that this would be giving genuine and authentic access to justice for people who are the least able, with the least resources, to take on a Charter challenge or a judicial review. This access to a user-friendly tribunal would be a way of enhancing their access to justice.
Senator Dalphond: Okay. That’s what I thought you had in mind, judicial review or a Charter challenge. You say it’s probably included there but, for greater certainty, you would like to change the wording to ensure it is included?
Mr. Calderhead: Yes. I think that’s right. It would not necessarily be a Charter challenge. It would simply be a way of saying that by setting an amount — for example, at $200 per month — this is inconsistent with the legislation. The tribunal is a body that has the authority to decide questions of law and fact, and the setting of the amount is a question of law.
Senator Dalphond: I understand from the legislation that the tribunal decisions may be appealed to the appeal division of the tribunal, and from there, it can be appealed to the Federal Court?
Mr. Calderhead: Well, on judicial review.
Senator Dalphond: Yes. And then from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal. I’m guessing it will be a long road, because I suspect that if you win before the tribunal and they say that people should not be receiving $200 per month but $2,000, which I think you propose in your brief — that’s what the minister referred to when she was introducing the bill. That means that the Attorney General of Canada will appeal the decision, and I think the whole thing will go up at least to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Mr. Calderhead: If you’re asking for my comment, my experience of 40 years tells me that, yes, it’s a terribly long slog that people in poverty face.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ferron, for being here. Ms. Donkor, Mr. Rahim and Mr. Calderhead, you have all been here before, and we really appreciate you appearing in front of this committee again. We also know that the four of you had to prepare to come here and give up a lot of your time, so we thank you.
Senators, as you know, this concludes our study of the subject matter of certain elements contained in Bill C-69, and it is now time to discuss the report.
We have been mandated by the Senate to report back by Monday, June 10. As authorized, we will have to table the report with the Clerk of the Senate by next Monday. In order to meet this deadline and allow sufficient time for translation and final review by steering, we will need to keep the report very short — basically, two pages. The report can include a short list of the witness testimony that we have heard over the last four meetings dedicated to pre-study, the divisions referred to in the committee, as well as the observations and conclusions, if there are any.
If members have any comments, now is the time.
Senator Tannas: I submitted — and I think everybody has a copy of it — a couple of observations that, when the time is right, I’ll move.
The Chair: Thank you. Yes, we have them.
Senator Pate: We also sent in some, but we unfortunately didn’t have time to get them translated. I know the clerk has kindly sent them off for translation. We were trying to figure out some better wording based on the testimony, so we have been doing that a bit on the fly, unfortunately.
The Chair: I don’t blame you. We have had very short timelines. That’s fine.
Any comments about the report itself?
Senator Dalphond: Maybe on the same page as Senator Pate, I haven’t seen the things, but I suggest we express serious concerns about the potential negative impact on youth and racialized groups of these amendments to the Criminal Code in connection with those participating in the theft of cars. I think experience may show that we are making another mistake.
Senator Pate: Do you want me to run through what some of the —
The Chair: We will come to the observations a little later.
Senator Pate: Sorry. The one I’m trying to figure out is the one that Mr. Calderhead had suggested around the eligibility and inadequacy of the disability benefit.
Senator Clement: I want to add to what Senator Dalphond just said. I wonder if we could refer explicitly to the Black Justice Strategy and the Indigenous Justice Strategy, because they tell us to worry about systemic racism and over‑representation. We heard it in testimony, but if we name those things specifically in the observations, it would support what Senator Dalphond is saying.
Senator Dalphond: I’m not saying that this is going to happen, but I’m certainly concerned that the likelihood of it happening is there.
Senator Batters: One thing I am wondering about with respect to that is that generally we have a Gender-based Analysis Plus for government bills. Is there one for this bill? I know it is a huge omnibus bill, but I wonder if they put one out for that. If so, does it make reference to these types of issues? If not, maybe that should be another thing that we specify in this report as another downfall to having these types of massive budget implementation bills where you have such complex issues and don’t even have the most basic elements of what this government has been doing for eight years.
I think it is going to be pretty obvious and probably everyone around the table could agree that what we have heard — and some elements are referred to in Senator Tannas’ observation that I saw when I sat down today, but it applies, for the most part, to all of these parts that we have been able to study. It really shows that this is not an appropriate way to deal with these types of issues that are so complex and are major changes to the Criminal Code, having them plugged into a budget implementation act that is several hundred pages.
We have very limited time for study and almost no real ability to amend. As we have heard occasionally in this study, we have had very specific things pointed out to us that might be a smart way to amend something. We even heard yesterday about one issue where the French and English translation wasn’t consistent. We have those kinds of things, and yet, because it is in a budget implementation act, we don’t have the ability to study it properly and we don’t have the ability to amend it. I think we need to make that part of our report with, perhaps, a short paragraph about that.
The Chair: To continue with what you are saying, it’s a very unsatisfactory way to examine a bill of such importance and that will affect so many communities. I won’t refer to all the communities Senator Clement, Senator Pate and others have referred to. It is a very unsatisfactory way to study such an important bill, not just for those communities but generally, on the run and with no ability to amend or anything.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Things are moving quickly. Long before I was appointed to the Senate, there were omnibus bills. I hope that one day, this approach or culture will change. All of that has an impact.
When you’re a senator, you can’t sit on every committee. We know that this huge bill affects other studies and deals with other issues that are close to my heart, such as those concerning Indigenous peoples. I would like us to answer the following question somewhere in our report: In what the federal government is proposing or imposing on us here, has it ensured that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act passes through the filter of harmonizing legislation, as with gender-based plus analysis? I’m very concerned about this. I look forward to starting the debate or exchanges on my fellow senators’ suggestions.
[English]
Senator Batters: Could we have the clerk or an analyst check if there actually was a Gender-based Analysis Plus document filed with respect to this bill? If not, I think we should make that comment in our report.
The Chair: Senators, besides the two pages — we are all very unhappy about that and, in fact, I’m embarrassed to even tell you that it will be two pages — Senator Batters and I will go in front of the committee. We will have five minutes and, in that five minutes, we are certainly going to let the committee know, and they will hear the same thing from everybody else, but if there is anything specific you want us to tell the committee, please let us know.
Senator Cotter: In a way unrelated to what we have been studying here, another piece of legislation embedded in the omnibus bill relates to the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act. Those provisions — as some of us know and who attended other committees appreciate — nearly all of the focus of that set of amendments was to consider their constitutionality in light of them being a response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision last October that most of the impact assessment legislation was unconstitutional. It is another example of something that ought to have been a free-standing matter of study, and it ought to have been studied here. I don’t want to disparage the Energy and Environment Committee, but I don’t think there were any lawyers on the committee to consider that. The proof of the focus of that being a question of unconstitutionality or constitutionality was the two witnesses from the Government of Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan, respectively, and in both cases, they were not ministers of energy but ministers of justice. I think an observation, not necessarily in writing but in your presentation, is that that bill should have been free-standing and should have been referred to this committee.
Senator Tannas: We have a lot to unpack. I’d love to see it as part of your colour commentary, but I’m hoping we will also be able to document it in the report that goes to Finance. That is why I suggested that —
The Chair: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Tannas: When you testify, you will amplify a lot of this, but I also think we should try to incorporate it and append to your report observations so that they are there for the record as well.
The Chair: We are planning to do it in the report that we send in.
Senator Tannas: And in your testimony?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Tannas: That is great.
The Chair: We will bring it up. We will shorten it, but we are definitely doing it.
Senator Pate: Along those lines, there is also the issue of immigration detention which likely should have come here. It’s being considered. I know there are recommendations coming from that committee. I happen to be subbing for someone who was a part of that discussion. You are already likely planning to do it, but the reinforcement of criminal law not being in the budget bill but other measures not in the budget bill.
I have lost track. Senator Batters, there was a GBA+ analysis that I read, but I cannot recall if it was this bill or the other budget bill. An issue we raised at Finance was that not all measures were considered in that analysis. That is a concern. I think it was this bill, because the immigration issue was not in it. It is the inadequacy of those kinds of assessments and the inadequacy of the Charter analysis. I take the point in terms of GBA+. As Senator Clement said, the provisions are not only in the budget bill, but they run afoul of other measures that the government has taken to ostensibly address the issues.
Senator Batters: Yes, it is actually unbelievable that they would do a GBA+ and leave out immigration components. That seems to be a part that would be absolutely required to have a GBA+ analysis on it, as would some of these measures we studied here.
Also, thank you to Senator Cotter for making the point about the Impact Assessment Act. Yes, I was keeping my eye on potentially trying to attend an Energy Committee meeting where there was a minister I could question about the bill. SOCI, which it was sent to for some reason, meets at the same time as we do, so I cannot be here and there at the same time. When I looked, there was no minister before the Energy Committee, no federal or government minister bringing forward these massive changes to try to fix an unconstitutional bill. Many say that the changes do not accomplish that. That is also not acceptable. Even if we are trying to jump over to another committee to ask questions of a minister about a very important bill that we could bring some expertise to, we are not even able to do that.
Senator Dalphond: These are valid points.
To follow up on what Senator Cotter has remarked upon, I think we should have one section in the report that says that we should also be more careful in the splitting of divisions and allocations to committees. The example given is a very good one. It is a constitutional issue, and it is sent to the Energy Committee. It should have been sent to both Legal and Energy, or at least to Legal.
The same is true for interest rates. There were some amendments made to the interest rate provisions. I read them and they are not serious, but we are the committee that conducted the first review of the interest rate provisions. Now there is another twist to it, and it is sent to National Finance and not to Legal. We heard the witnesses the first time a year ago.
Senator Pate is right: The Charter statements do not address Divisions 38 and 39 of Part 4, which is about refugees’ rights, immigrants’ rights and holding people without due process. It is amazing that it has been left out. We should have a comment about not just the lack of GBA+ analysis but a Charter statement that excludes things that should have been included. We can give an example of these two divisions. It shows that even the government is going very fast. We did not get any statements about the proper consultation or any kinds of consultation done according to UNDRIP Act. I suspect there were very few, if any. Maybe it is not possible for budget bills, and that is another issue. All of these things have to jig — or maybe they don’t, but it should have been said that they won’t.
Senator Pate: I know we had limited time, but a number of us asked Vince Calderhead about this issue. We could make a comment about the inappropriateness of leaving it to the people who have the least, whether it is in the criminal law context or in the disability benefit context, to now have to fight for however many years to use a provision so maybe they can — I thought that Mr. Calderhead’s interpretation was helpful that it might be a way to challenge the inadequacy of the benefit. He testified in another context on the disability benefit last year about how long it took to actually get challenges through that process. One took almost 20 years. Perhaps some commentary about the cynicism — maybe using some nicer words. I think of it as the cynicism of this kind of approach. We are saying that there will be a disability benefit, it will be adequate, everyone will be eligible and it will lift people out of poverty, but then we say, “They will have to fight for it.”
The Chair: What do you think? Can we say that this committee has not done its job properly, as it is supposed to do, because this is not the way that we should be studying —
Senator Dalphond: We were unable to do it properly.
The Chair: Yes, unable to do it. It is a pretense of having studied the bill, but we have not really studied it. Is it acceptable to everyone to say that?
Senator Dalphond: The second paragraph of Senator Tannas’s observation is about that, so we can expand on that and say that we were deprived of the ability to do the proper review we normally do.
The Chair: On the question of the impact and all of that, can we look at our mandate and say that our mandate is not being carried out or something? The analysts will do magic with my words. What is in our mandate is not being given to us; it has been taken away. I am nervous when you talk like that because it looks like we think that the others don’t do a good job. Senator Batters and I have to be careful how we say it. It is a little arrogant of us, but that is why we have this committee — for constitutional purposes.
Anything else, senators?
Senator Cotter: Knowing the demands on Senator Batters’s time, I went to the Energy Committee on her behalf to follow up.
The Chair: Are you making a statement?
Senator Cotter: I am making a statement of bonding between two Saskatchewan senators on this point.
Senator Simons: It might be petty to make this comment, but I will say it here in the room: I was disappointed that when the minister left, his senior staff went with him, and we were not able to ask more questions on issues raised by the minister. We went right into the more specific things.
The Chair: That is our fault. We did not ask the officials to stay because we had such limited time. I have to own up to that. That is my fault.
Senator Simons: I do not know if it is a fault, but it is a lesson learned. I just assumed that since there were so many other departmental staff, they would be able to answer those questions, but they were narrow in what they were able to talk about.
The Chair: It is a good point. Yes, we should have had the officials stay.
Senator Cotter: When we say “officials,” I would be more specific. The Minister of Justice is a politician as well as a cabinet minister. The Deputy Attorney General is a professional permanent head. Speaking for myself, having been in that capacity before, the Deputy Attorney General getting up and leaving with the minister suggests that the deputy is tied to the minister, not to the department, so it is a cultural thing more than anything. I do not know how we ask the question that the permanent head of the department stay to field questions after the minister leaves. However, I think that is an appropriate philosophical approach, if I can say it. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: He was scared of the questions so he ran away.
Senator Batters: We had that problem last year or some time quite recently when I wanted to ask a question in the second hour. The deputy minister or a senior departmental official — not from the minister’s office — was here about whatever we were studying. I think it was a BIA or financial statement that we had the parts on or something like that. That had happened there too. I actually made a comment about it. Frankly, I thought that after making the comment publicly, it wouldn’t happen again. I hadn’t noticed, this time, that it had happened again. That is not really acceptable. They do not have to go with the minister to prep him for media in case there is a scrum outside. You do not need the deputy minister to do that.
The Chair: Does anyone else have any other comments?
Senator Clement: I am not sure where we are going. I want to say on the record that I agree with Senator Tannas and the observations he has made. I also agree with the observations made by Senator Pate.
I wonder if we could add something around Division 44, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We also heard there — as in the second paragraph, Senator Pate, in your Division 35 — that there are other solutions we need to be looking at here. This is something that is being proposed. In response to Senator Simons’s question yesterday, we are hearing that it is not just about injection sites. It is also about inhalation. There are so many other issues. If we are making a general statement around auto theft and saying that all of the solutions are not here, we could make a similar statement for controlled substances.
The Chair: Yes. That is a good point.
Senator Clement: Thank you to Senator Simons and staff for their efforts on that.
The Chair: Senators, is there anything else?
I am assuming we are going to attach both observations to the report, and we will take them and speak a little bit about them in our oral statement as well. Is that acceptable to everyone? Yes? We better say yes. Senator Pate’s staff did not go home last night.
Senator Batters: Not having seen, obviously, Senator Pate’s observations, I cannot comment on those yet. I look forward to seeing them.
There is one small part that I thought could be added. Maybe some of this more general discussion will be encapsulated into Senator Tannas’s observation. At the end of the first paragraph that he had, I would add something that talks about how this would allow for more detailed study and amendments if needed, or something like that. Then we would go into the second part. That is among what we’re going to be talking about in the more general report.
The Chair: This is it.
Senator Batters: I am not a speed reader, so I will not read Senator Pate’s observations and comment on them now. I will have a close look at them later. Thank you.
The Chair: I’m sorry. The clerk was not able to circulate them because they were not translated. That is a very strict rule we have, and rightly so. That is why you can have mine.
Is there anything else, senators?
If not, we have another item. Senators, to respect the reporting for the pre-study, I propose that the task of reviewing and adopting the final report be delegated to the steering committee, who will be charged with incorporating the feedback discussed and agreed to today. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the report recommend that the Senate approve the provisions of those elements contained in Divisions 29, 30, 35, 36, 43 and 44 of Part 4 and in Subdivisions B and C of Division 34 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you, senators.
Is it agreed that the approval of the final version of the report in both official languages be delegated to the Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure, taking into consideration today’s discussion, and that the chair deposit the report with the Clerk of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dalphond: I’m sorry to put all the stress on our clerk and our very able Library of Parliament representative, and I understand we have to work on the draft, but may I suggest that we circulate the draft to the members of the committee, even if it is during the weekend, just to get input and comments before we finalize it on Monday?
The Chair: We have to table it on Monday.
Senator Dalphond: We are not sitting on Monday, and so it would be Tuesday.
The Chair: We have to table it with the clerk on Monday.
Senator Dalphond: But it could be late in the day. Could we circulate the draft when we have one finalized within steering to make sure the committee members can offer up feedback, such as if something is missing or there is something they don’t agree with? Because it is a big thing for the three of us to write the whole report — four of us if Senator Prosper is there. Is Monday the 17th? No? So we are not sitting Monday.
Senator Batters: We did just agree to delegate that task to steering committee. It is sometimes difficult enough to write a condensed report in a short time frame. Having the input of potentially ten more people plus their staff could make it even more difficult. Monday is a travel day, I know that for me, on a good day, it’s six hours of travelling. I would like to have everything resolved before I get on my first flight that day.
The Chair: Yes. It is very hard. X says this, and Y does not agree, and then it is difficult.
Senator Dalphond: To just give the feedback —
The Chair: The clerk informs me that it would be very difficult, senator. It is not possible to do that in such a short time. I am not trying to be difficult. Does anyone have an objection if steering looks at it? Everyone is fine with that.
Senator Pate’s observations are now in front of you.
Senators, we have one more item to go.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to put an “on division” on the report recommending that the Senate approve this. Given all these concerns, yes, an “on division” from me is reasonable. Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, next Wednesday, we will be studying Senator Cotter’s bill, Bill S-17. I understand it is one meeting. Senators, the only witness we will have is Justice. Is that right, Senator Cotter? Nobody else?
Senator Cotter: That is all we need.
The Chair: Then we will go to my favourite bill, Bill S-50. Is that acceptable, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, everyone has been patient. If there is nothing else, thank you very much.
The analyst wants you to give feedback on Senator Pate’s observation. I think we have agreed to it.
Senator Pate: The last one has changed a bit based upon what Mr. Calderhead had said.
Senator Dalphond: Is that a legal issue or a social issue?
Part 43, was that one of the parts we have to look at? Okay, good. We can report on it.
Senator Pate: The wording change that was suggested would be as follows. The first part is the same.
That the committee heard evidence regarding the inadequacy and inconsistency of the announced Canada Disability Benefit and its eligibility requirements with the stated intentions for the benefit by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the provisions of the Canada Disability Act and Canada’s constitutional international human rights obligation.
This is the changed part from what you got:
The committee urges action to remedy both the unduly restrictive eligibility criteria recently announced and the inadequacy of the announced benefit amount and its apparent inconsistency with the stated purpose of the Canada Disability Benefit.
The rest is the same, and then it goes on to Part 4, Division 43, section 459 of Bill C-69.
Senator Dalphond: Express concerns about what appears to be inadequate. We heard one witness. We did not do a thorough review. We were not able to do a review, as a matter of fact.
Senator Simons: That is the challenge, $200.
Senator Dalphond: The $200.
Senator Batters: With respect to that last lengthy part that Senator Pate read out, yes, I may well agree with that if we had a longer time to study it, but I had to use my questioning today to question the CRA witness, I did not even have time to ask questions to that very capable witness. Since we only had one witness in an already shortened study, I think we should maybe compress that.
On the lengthy third paragraph of the first observation of Senator Pate, the one about we have heard about the piecemeal amendments, we have had this in several different observations previously in the last year or two. Given the limited space requirements we have here where we have to make the whole report fit into two pages, I suggest we remove that. We have had it in other reports previously. We have to make our entire report, including observations, fit into two pages so that we can get translation done in time.
Senator Dalphond: To the last point, Senator Batters, we take the first part of the paragraph and stop after the parenthesis, because repetitive and consistent is something we can affirm. We did not hear from witnesses on the rest about the Law Reform Commission and those types of things.
Senator Cotter: That would make sense. Also, in terms of saving time, I agree with the changes that Senator Pate made to the last one. On the second paragraph, the last two lines actually repeat something that is in the first paragraph. I would stop it after the phrase “Canada Disability Benefit Act” because I think it makes the point.
As an overall suggestion, whether it is possible in constructing this, knowing we are limited in the amount of time, after maybe a general observation, we can then say the committee urges with respect to this, and then with respect to this, so it is structured in a way that is nice and tight and we can say more in two pages than we otherwise could. It is really what is the most structurally efficient way that Michaela can craft it. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I just remembered a point about this auto theft part, brought to mind as I read Senator Pate’s couple of paragraph observations about that. We also heard yesterday from both the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and Canadian Automobile Dealers Association that their impression — I don’t think we have stats. Maybe we do. I saw an email come in from the dealers’ association, so perhaps they have something about this. Their impression is that the auto theft dealing with organized crime situation is much worse in Canada rather than in the U.S. Their impression was that organized crime looks for the weak link. They commented that Canada has lighter sentences. I would also add looser bail laws and also house arrest available for auto theft. When they see those kinds of things, that, perhaps, is why they are choosing Canada. Reading between the lines on their testimony, it seemed like, why would they make costly, major changes to vehicle security systems, which would only be, maybe, helpful in Canada, a much smaller market, when in the U.S., they do not have that same concern, and that would be the larger market in North America even for vehicles that might be manufactured in Canada but really exported to the U.S. That was reading between the lines yesterday. I was getting the impression that that is why some of these changes are still being just talked about and not implemented, because they do not see the need dealing with the U.S. as their major market. They do not have the same concerns about the U.S. criminal law.
Senator Audette: I have another position on that. I think we do not have enough scientific analysis or academic research on that. I am concerned that even if we want to target the organized crime through that, it is going to affect the young people, not the organized crime. I do not have research to support what I’m saying either. I think we should stay neutral and have research or a study.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Senator Audette articulated what I wanted to say very well. I would only add that the witness who alluded to this, when questioned, seemed unable to back up his assertion. If we wanted to go in that direction, we could ask the following question: Is it because Americans have the right to bear arms that there are fewer home break-ins, because people know they might get shot? We’re heading in certain directions, and the response may not be the one we expect. From what I heard from all the witnesses, the proposal to impose more serious or severe penalties was not an appropriate response.
[English]
The Chair: There was no proof of it, just a general statement.
Senators, anything else? No? I see no hands. Thank you.
Next week we will be studying Senator Cotter’s bill on Wednesday, and then on Thursday, Senator Klyne’s bill. That is Bill S-17 and Bill S-50. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)