THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 12, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:27 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-17, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, out-dated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I am Denise Batters, senator from Saskatchewan, and normally deputy chair of this committee. Today, I’ll be in the place of our esteemed colleague, Senator Jaffer, as she just finished with her well-deserved tributes, and now I am acting as chair for today’s meeting.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Prosper: P.J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good afternoon. Claude Carignan from the Mille Isles division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette [words pronounced in Inuu-Aimun] from beautiful Quebec City.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Before we begin, I want to ask all senators and other in-person participants today to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters who do such valuable work for us.
If possible, ensure you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Honourable senators, we are meeting today to begin our study of Bill S-17, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, out-dated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
We are pleased to welcome officials from the Department of Justice Canada. Nathalie Cyr, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector; Victoria Netten, Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector; Philippe Denault, Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector; and Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector.
Welcome and thank you all for joining us. Ms. Cyr we’ll begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from senators. The floor is yours for five minutes, when you are ready.
Nathalie Cyr, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Legislative Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: I am pleased to participate in your study of Bill S-17, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023.
The bill was prepared based on the proposals document studied by committees of both houses in October 2023 and February 2024, and contains the proposed amendments approved by the committees of both houses. The bill is the result of significant collaboration between the Department of Justice Canada and implicated federal departments, and with members of Parliament.
As you know, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program, or MSLA, was established in 1975 by former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada the Honourable Otto Lang. It is designed to accelerate the adoption of minor amendments of a non-controversial nature to be made to Canadian laws via one omnibus bill.
Just as it is now, the legislative agenda was very busy back then, making it difficult to make minor changes to each federal statute individually.
Since the program was established, 12 bills of this kind have been passed. The Specialized Legislative Services Section, or SLSS, of the Department of Justice, which is under my mandate, is responsible for the program.
This program is a means of correcting anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors that can sometimes find their way into federal statutes.
[Translation]
The legislative process provided for at the end of the miscellaneous statute law amendment program requires that both houses of Parliament consider amendments in committee first and separately in order to prepare and introduce a bill. Once the committees of both chambers completed their review and reported to their respective chambers in October 2023 and February 2024, the bill was developed by the Department of Justice, based on the amendments adopted by the committees.
I will now briefly mention the criteria that must be met for a proposed amendment to be made at the end of the program. These proposed amendments must first not be controversial, not involve the spending of public funds, not prejudicially affect the rights of persons, and not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
The non-controversial aspect of an amendment is the main criterion to be met at the end of the program. Compliance with this criterion is not considered difficult to establish, and a proposed amendment would be controversial as soon as one of the committee members objected to it. As a result, following the committee’s review of the proposal document, the amendments unanimously adopted by the committees were added to the bill you are currently studying.
Your committee requested that one proposed amendment be withdrawn, as it did not meet the non-controversial criterion, and that three others be withdrawn, as they were included in other legislative initiatives. Four proposed amendments were also withdrawn during the study conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Bill S-17 amends 58 statutes and three related regulations. The first 49 clauses contain proposed amendments to 24 statutes, listed in alphabetical order, because these acts are part of the Revised Statutes of Canada (1985), following normal drafting practice. In the sections that follow, the statutes are listed in chronological order. Sections 127, 128, 161 and 162 ensure consistency between the act and the regulations in changing the name of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal. The explanatory notes following the amendments briefly provide the reasons for the change, as well as the current version of the provision in question.
[English]
The proposed legislative amendments correct errors in grammar, terminology and update the name of certain organizations. They also correct typographical errors, errors in the references, the use of outdated terms and discrepancies between the French and English versions.
The bill also repeals certain legislative provisions which are no longer needed.
Finally, some of the amendments were also the subject of comments from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Those amendments will resolve issues raised by that committee, such as aligning the wording between the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act and the Canadian Passport Order.
Since the introduction of Bill S-17, the Impact Assessment Act, or IAA, is also the subject of a separate amendment process via the current Bill C-69, Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. Those Bill C-69 amendments will substantially amend section 69 of the IAA. Bill C-69 also amends the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. As a result, sections 137 and 158 of this MSLA bill should be removed.
[Translation]
That concludes my opening comments. My colleagues from the Department of Justice, Victoria Netten, Counsel, Philippe Denault, Senior Counsel, Josée Filion, Assistant Director and Senior Counsel, and I are here to answer your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your work on this. We will begin our questions with Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a couple of questions. The first relates to the proposed change to clause 141 of Bill S-17, which proposes to amend subsection 48(3) of the Pest Control Products Act. It is proposed that the expression “dwelling house” be replaced by “dwelling-place.” In French, it would read “local d’habitation.” The term “dwelling-place” does not appear to be used in other statutes in English. Rather, the term used is “living quarters.” That’s the case in section 109 of the Canada Marine Act, and the term “dwelling-house” is used in 23 sections of the Criminal Code.
I would like to know what distinction you make between a dwelling house and a dwelling-place. Why wouldn’t we use the term “dwelling house” instead, since that seems to be the term most often used? Sorry, we’re getting into semantics here, but that’s the point of the exercise.
Mr. Philippe Denault, Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: The term “dwelling place,” or local d’habitation in French, has a slightly broader meaning than “dwelling house” because the word maison in French, and particularly “house” in English, has a more restricted meaning; it’s a single-family home. Therefore, here, the correction is made in relation to other provisions in the statute. Subsections 49(1) and 49(2) refer to the right to enter…. I would have to go back to the text, but there’s a reference to the right to enter residential premises. It does refer to a power, to certain places where a warrant is required to carry out inspections or to enter the premises. To harmonize the section in question, in subclause 48(3), with these other provisions in clause 49, we need to have the same terminology.
Senator Carignan: Does the statute have all this terminology?
Mr. Denault: That’s the immediate context. For there to be consistency between this provision that we are amending, or proposing to amend, and the others that are related to it, we need to have the same terminology.
Senator Carignan: Okay, I understand. For you, it’s more obvious in English, and “dwelling house” is more restrictive than “dwelling place”?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Okay.
[English]
Do I have another question?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, go ahead. I should say that Senator Carignan is the critic of the bill, so he has a lot of questions.
Senator Carignan: In fact, I am the critic of two bills that are being studied at the same time in two committees.
[Translation]
My second question concerns clause 18 of Bill S-17, which proposes to amend paragraph 27(1)(c.1) of the Citizenship Act. References have been added to it. It’s been suggested that the section was missing some references, and they’ve been added. I find this hard to understand. It’s still a substantive amendment to make reference in the section to certain references that didn’t exist, because that has an impact on the exercise of the Governor in Council’s regulatory power, in particular. Can you explain how this respects the principle of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act that we are passing?
Mr. Denault: First of all, in the reference to the regulations, it says “subject to the regulations.” This concerns conditions relating to permanent residence that, according to the regulations, don’t necessarily need to be met. So it’s subject to the regulations that this condition applies. Normally, when there is a reference to regulations in an act, there must be an authority to make the regulations in question.
At the moment, for a provision of the same nature, reference is made to two provisions that are already there, but for the other two that are related to it and that also have the same effect, there is no explicit authority in this paragraph in section 27. To regularize the situation or ensure consistency, it is essential that we add a reference to this provision. Often, in enabling provisions, there are more general provisions allowing for the making of any regulations mentioned in the act, but here we don’t have it in section 27. There’s no general reference to the power to make regulations on anything to do with regulations in the act. It must therefore be explicitly stated. Otherwise, we won’t have the required authorization.
Senator Carignan: I agree, and that’s why I think it can affect the substance of the clause. You’re explaining it to us and giving us the context, so we have to understand that this is how it should have been applied if it had been applied, but if we decide to specify it, we avoid any other kind of interpretation. Does what you’re telling us here clearly indicate the legislator’s intention when the bill was passed, when it was studied in committee and so on? The substance isn’t being changed; was the context obvious to you?
Mr. Denault: The context is obvious; I studied it carefully. My colleagues can confirm that it met the criteria of the miscellaneous statute law amendment program, so it would be considered a minor error that can be corrected by a miscellaneous statute law amendment act, because there is no explicit reference to these two provisions in the enabling authority. In any case, there is no risk of adding anything. That is already implicit.
Senator Carignan: Those were my two points.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I was prepared to give you a second round if you need it.
Senator Cotter: Briefly, in terms of fully understanding the two provisions that need to be defeated in this bill, they are essentially provisions that, in a certain way, been overtaken by the Budget Implementation Act legislation of Bill C-69. By virtue of that, they would create some inconsistencies if we proceeded with this bill. Have I got that right?
Victoria Netten, Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: That is correct. If Bill C-69 receives Royal Assent before Bill S-17, then the text in Bill S-17 would override the text in Bill C-69. That would cause problems.
Senator Cotter: It would make aspects of Bill C-69 not as functional.
Ms. Netten: That is correct. Exactly. They need to be removed.
Senator Cotter: This is not so much a question but an observation. We might recall that Senator Carignan made an important point that we should study this bill at committee. He was prescient in observation, and this is one of the benefits of us coming back here. As the sponsor, I want to extend my thanks to Senator Carignan in his wisdom in that regard. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: That is an excellent point. If we had not studied it here, this bill may have already received Royal Assent and we would potentially have some of these unintended consequences with the Budget Implementation Act.
Senator Cotter: There is a key question then in terms of what came first, but we are in the process of solving that. Thanks to Senator Carignan and the officials.
The Deputy Chair: I have a couple of questions. On the parts that had been removed earlier — not due to the Budget Implementation Act but the ones removed because they were, perhaps, controversial or didn’t meet the strict criteria for including these types of items in a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act — do you have any indication from the particular government departments that those parts and initiatives that we are dealing with now might be included in future legislation from the government?
Ms. Netten: No.
The Deputy Chair: All right. I know it’s quite a process that can indeed take years sometimes. Requesting, for example, the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee, which I have a soft spot in my heart for as I used to be the co-chair of that many years ago — you asked them for input. You go through all of these different processes of going through input, asking for input and then putting it all together in one of these types of bills.
When this one gets passed, how soon thereafter does the next process of asking start? Because I know that it can take some years. I always like to encourage the federal government to get into a process of having a more regular, more frequent miscellaneous statute amendment law so that we’re not waiting six and seven years for the next one to come out. How soon does that process start for the next process?
Ms. Netten: The intent is to send out another call for submissions once the process of this bill is completed. In the meantime, we’re already collecting proposed amendments as they are brought to our attention. We already have a list that we are working our way through.
It’s always a balance, because we have to have enough to bring forward to make good use of parliamentarians’ time, but not have too many that it’s too large of an undertaking.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I had a question about a provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and perhaps you can enlighten us.
The paragraph being amended in section 42 of the Canadian Human Rights Act — in fact, while you’re looking for the section, I’ll explain the context so you can find it. You’re changing one paragraph in section 42 for another. This paragraph states that the Human Rights Commission, before considering a complaint, will examine whether the complainant is at fault. I think the clause as drafted today is very understandable.
I don’t know why the provision is being amended. What exactly does that do? Why did we see fit to amend this section, which you will agree is very delicate when you’re asking complainants, who are themselves victims of discrimination, to have exhausted their own recourse? I’m sure that this is a section that’s often challenged. In any case, it’s challenged in legislation with similar wording. I was surprised that we were dealing with this clause. Why exactly did you think it was necessary to change this wording?
Mr. Denault: My understanding is that we are simply correcting an incorrect reference. At the moment, the reference is to paragraph 41(a), whereas there is a subsection 41(1). To correct the reference, 41(1)(a) must be added. It’s just a technical reference.
Senator Oudar: Why didn’t you just change the number, rather than rework the sentence? Are there any other changes to be made? Is it just the number and the parenthesis?
Ms. Netten: Yes.
Senator Oudar: To make a bad joke, I’d ask you if you’re paid by the word, when all you had to do was change the parenthesis.
Ms. Netten: Yes.
Mr. Denault: This is considered a minor error. Unfortunately, there’s no administrative authority for this type of correction.
Senator Oudar: There is no substantive change in terms of the complainant’s right to appeal to the Law Commission of Canada?
Mr. Denault: No.
Ms. Netten: Section 41 was divided into two parts. In the legislative process, they forgot to put the number (1) in brackets. That’s all.
Senator Carignan: What I understand from your question is that we are also changing the content of the text and the words used. That was the gist of the question.
Senator Oudar: That was my question, actually. I’ll read the text in French. It states the following:
(2)Avant de décider qu’une plainte est irrecevable pour le motif que les recours ou procédures mentionnés à l’alinéa 41(1)a) n’ont pas été épuisés, la Commission s’assure que le défaut est exclusivement imputable au plaignant.
We’re talking about a complainant who alleges discrimination against him. In fact, more concretely, complainants are normally asked to exhaust their recourse. If, for example, the complainants are represented by a union, they have to file a grievance first. If the grievance is admissible, the Law Commission of Canada will probably refuse the complaint, so this section is extremely important. My question was about that very point. Why didn’t you just change the number rather than the whole sentence?
Ms. Netten: This is the drafting convention for federal legislation. For each change, a “repeal and replace” is made.
Mr. Denault: It’s simply a way to make the correction. They have to replace everything in the paragraph just to replace a number. That’s how it’s done. It’s a legislative technique. There’s no other way to do this than by copying and pasting the same layout, but by changing a number in the layout.
Senator Oudar: Are there any court cases currently challenging the validity of this clause? This clause is important. It’s the very foundation of the complainant’s right.
Ms. Josée Filion, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: We aren’t in a position to answer that question because we’re not experts in the legislative policy behind this amendment. Our input is editorial and corrections, as in the case of the addition of subsection (1).
Senator Oudar: If this issue is before the courts in various cases, to the extent that the legislator makes this correction, do you think that this could cause citizens who are currently before the courts to lose their rights?
Mr. Denault: The Interpretation Act ensures that an amendment such as this is not deemed to create new law. The law just continues. It is in the Interpretation Act.
Senator Oudar: Or take away a complainant’s rights?
Mr. Denault: No. There’s a presumption that the law continues. It isn’t presumed, in this case, that the old law is being repealed.
Ms. Cyr: Even if the substance had been changed, the rules of the Interpretation Act provide that when a situation arises, the law applicable at that time continues, even if a legislative amendment occurs.
Senator Oudar: So an individual could lose their rights.
Ms. Cyr: No, not at all. That’s what I’m telling you. The law applies at the time the situation arose. In this case, there is no change to the substance of the provision.
Senator Oudar: That’s what I understood from the first answer. That’s why I was concerned about your second answer, because I understood that it didn’t create legal effect.
Ms. Cyr: To reassure you, in other situations, when there are legislative amendments, provisions in the federal Interpretation Act provide for this type of situation so that no one loses rights when there are remedies.
Mr. Denault: Pursuant to section 45 of the Interpretation Act, there is no presumption of new rights or no declaration of the prior state of the law. These are presumptions that ensure —
Senator Oudar: Your more succinct answer is that you could have just changed the number, not the sentence. It doesn’t change the rest. No other words have been changed.
Ms. Cyr: We can’t just say we’re adding the number (1) with subsections.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: The interpreters are having a hard time because it’s too quick and there’s too much back and forth, sometimes speaking over each other. We’ve let that exchange go on for quite some time. I’ve been generous with the clock. I believe Senator Cotter wanted to jump in on this element.
Senator Cotter: With respect to this provision, it’s actually problematic. As this provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act currently reads, it doesn’t make any sense. It currently reads as a reference to paragraph 41(a). There is no 41(a); there is only a 41(1)(a). This is basically a provision that points to the right provision of the act. Right now, in a technical reading of it, it points to no such existing provision. Somebody, years ago, left out the (1) in the drafting of the act. This just fixes the reference to the right provision, as I read the bill and as I read this correction.
There is certainly an interesting debate, which you have been having, about how one goes about interpreting these provisions. But this is just to make the provision operational when, technically speaking, it isn’t right now because it doesn’t refer to an existing provision of the act in the way in which it is presently written. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Much appreciated. I was wondering if we might have to pull out yet another clause, but that helps to make sense of it.
Senator Simons: My apologies. I’m now back from being in two places at once.
If nobody has asked about this, I wanted to bring up the issue of clause 23 of the Criminal Code relating to sport shooting. As I understand it, the title of the relevant sport shooting organization has been incorrect for about 25 years. Since the federation changed its name, these exceptions for sports use of prohibitive firearms set out in the code have been obsolete, which has meant that athletes have been possessing and using firearms in violation of criminal law since 1998.
I’m glad we’re fixing this. It may only affect a small number of people, but it worries me when it’s a Criminal Code provision. That’s not a statute that doesn’t matter.
Can you tell me why it took 25 years for this change to happen? Has anyone actually been charged with violating the law or has our response to this problem been not to charge anyone?
Ms. Filion: The question for us, in terms of the amendments we made in this bill, is correcting and adjusting the name. The policy reasons behind the lack of time does not form part of the work that we do. We assess whether that change meets the criteria of the program itself.
Senator Simons: Yes, you can’t answer the whys and wherefores.
Do you know whether anyone has ever been charged, or is that not something you would know?
Ms. Cyr: It is not our area of expertise.
The Deputy Chair: Would you please find out and let our committee know, through our clerk?
Mr. Denault: What I can say is that this is a correction that was recommended by the standing joint committee. They recommended that correction. As to why it took so long and whether people have been charged under the wrong wording, we don’t have that information.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much for your good work in fixing this. The best time to fix something would have been when the problem started, but the second-best time is now.
The Deputy Chair: I’m curious about that, and I think the Department of Justice could certainly get us that answer. If you wouldn’t mind, could you make that inquiry and ask them to get that information about the charging aspect and provide it to our committee clerk, please? Thank you.
Does anyone else have any further questions?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’d like the department to explain the replacement of clause 137 of the bill. Can you explain, as you did earlier, why you had to make this change? What does the clause cover? This is an important piece of legislation, so what led to the desired change? I’m talking about subclause 137(3) of the bill, concerning the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which amends section 9 of the French version of the act and talks about the need for the Attorney General’s consent.
Mr. Denault: This is one of the provisions removed from the bill because of Bill C-69.
[English]
Ms. Netten: The correction that is being put in place through this bill — and we are now asking to keep the text that’s in Bill C-69 — is to change the cross-reference because in the French version, the cross-reference is incorrect. It should be 462.31 (1), and instead it refers to 462.23 (1), which does not exist. We have to fix the cross-reference so it references the correct provision because the provision in the French text does not exist. The text in Bill C-69 does make that correction in addition to some other changes.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: It’s a technical correction. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, if there are no further questions, then we will move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-17. We’ve asked the officials from the Department of Justice to remain in the room during clause-by-clause consideration and remain at the table to answer any technical questions you may have as members of this committee.
I want to thank officials once again for joining us here today for this meeting.
I also want to draw this to your attention: When we do this clause by clause, because of Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act, provisions that the officials drew to our attention in the opening remarks and also in questioning today, there are, I believe, two provisions that they’re asking to be removed from this particular Bill S-17 because they are dealt with in their preferred form in Bill C-69, the Budget Implementation Act.
When we go through the clause by clause, because it’s quite a lengthy bill, we’re going to, generally, do it in groups of 15 clauses. However, for those couple of provisions that are being sought to be removed from the bill, if you agree that they should be removed, and you prefer to have them dealt with in the Budget Implementation Act, then the appropriate thing to do would be to vote those single clauses down — to defeat them. I will be drawing those out as single clauses. The other clauses that we haven’t heard such requests for will be done in groups of 15 so we can get through it a little bit more expeditiously.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-17, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, out-dated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the remaining clauses be considered in groups of 15 other than — as I indicated — those couple that will be dealt with singly?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 2 to 16 carry, pages 1 to 6?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 17 to 31 carry, pages 6 to 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 32 to 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 47 to 61 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 62 to 76 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 77 to 91 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 92 to 106 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 107 to 121 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clauses 122 to 136 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 137 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Clause 137 will be defeated.
Shall clauses 138 to 157 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 158 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Clause 158 will be defeated.
Shall clauses 159 to 165 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed that the chair report this bill, as amended, to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, senators. I appreciate all your efforts here today. Thank you again to the officials for joining us and for all your hard work in making sure that our laws in Canada are the best they can be.
Senators, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)