THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[English]
My name is Brent Cotter. I am a senator from Saskatchewan. I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Hello. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken] Michèle Audette from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Hello. Pierre Dalphond from Quebec. I represent the De Lorimier division.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, and I live here in the unsurrendered, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting in public today to discuss the reporting options for Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
As members will recall, the committee adopted Bill S-230 without amendment on February 15, 2024. However, it was agreed by the committee to defer the final question on whether the chair — that is now me — should report the bill to the Senate, and we deferred that until we had received further information from the table officers regarding Royal Recommendations as well as a cost estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, on the new elements introduced in the bill. I think members have received all of those documents. They were received and shared with committee members over the spring.
Having satisfied the requirements of the motion, the committee can now proceed with further discussion on how we wish to move forward.
Let me describe to you what I think is the context of this. We have received information around cost estimates — wide-ranging ones — from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We have also received information and guidance from the table officers to the effect that notwithstanding concerns that any particular senator may have, such questions regarding the Royal Recommendation are not raised very often at committees, and the committee does not actually have the authority to make such a determination.
As a consequence, for those who would have those concerns, if you are comfortable with this, we ought to hear about those on the floor of the chamber. If there is a general consensus regarding that, I would be prepared to move to consideration of the final question, but I want to acknowledge Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: I don’t want to restrict the comments that may come out of this. These are documents that we’ve had here and have had for some time, so I think there could certainly be comments about that, and then we can see what arises as a part of this discussion.
The Chair: I don’t quite understand where you would like to go. You want to entertain a conversation about this question here?
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: For the purposes of getting viewpoints on the record?
Senator Batters: It could be, yes, or perhaps — like you said — it didn’t sound like it is an absolute prohibition, but there could be arguments that I would like to hear about that issue.
The Chair: Do you want to make one?
Senator Batters: Not right now. I will hang back a little bit on that.
The Chair: All right.
Do others want to make any arguments or submissions in relation to either the documents that we received or the process moving forward?
Senator Tannas: I am wondering, in light of the guidance we got from table officers, if we should report the bill with our cost estimates and leave it — if we could report the bill with even an observation that just said that it is not for us to decide and that the chamber needs to read this report in the context of the bill. Somebody may then refer it to the Speaker.
We have a reference to the Speaker right now on an $8-million bill, as to whether or not she thinks it needs a Royal Recommendation and whether or not the bill is in order.
This bill is somewhere between $6.8 million and $2.068 billion, so it is a pretty wide range. I would support sending it, with the information that we now have as part of the appendix or attachment or observation — I don’t know what you want to call it — and leave it in the hands of the chamber and, ultimately, likely the Speaker. Right?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The other way is to raise the need for royal proclamation here before you, and you decide whether the bill complies with Senate rules.
The cost is fairly steep. As Senator Tannas said, it’s between $8 million and $2 billion.
For comparison purposes, I asked the Library of Parliament analyst who supports the National Finance Committee, which I chair, to find the total budget for Correctional Service Canada.
The current budget is $3 billion, so the financial consequences could be quite significant. It seems pretty obvious to me that the bill requires Royal Recommendation, considering the criteria established in previous rulings by speakers of the Senate. The one by Senator Kinsella, in particular, raised the issue.
I would even be prepared to raise the point immediately and ask you, Mr. Chair, as chair of the committee, to rule on the receivability of the bill. Of course, there is always the possibility of raising the matter in the chamber as well. One thing is for sure: We need to highlight the financial consequences we learned about from the information in the report we received, if you decide to let it go through.
[English]
The Chair: I will call on other speakers, but, Senator Carignan, I’m not clear with respect to the vote on the receivability of the bill. We would be in a position to vote on the question of whether the chair will report the bill to the chamber in its present form; we could vote on that.
Senator Carignan: I got it.
[Translation]
I understand that position, but there is also a seventh possibility, which is not in the table officers’ report. It involves someone raising a point of order in committee to say that the bill is not receivable in committee because it needs a royal proclamation.
[English]
The Chair: Let me just say before we hear from others that I would be happy to receive such a motion. Based on the advice I’ve been given and what has been shared with you, I would rule against that. Then we could invite a vote if that were the course you wanted to take.
Just before we decide on that, let’s hear from other senators and then chart our course.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: To sum up the decision before us today, you will tell us whether we are making a mistake or not, since we are not procedural experts. As I understand it, we have three choices.
The first choice is to report the bill with no amendments or observations. If we take that route, it goes back to the Senate, and there will be no debate or vote. That’s the first scenario: no amendments, no observations, the bill goes to the Senate and there is no vote or debate.
The second scenario is to report the bill with amendments or observations. If we do that, I believe it is then placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at an upcoming sitting of the Senate. There will be a discussion, and time limits will apply. The Senate could adopt, amend or defeat our committee’s report.
The third scenario is to recommend that the Senate not proceed further with the bill. At that point, it stops here, and the committee decides to adopt a report recommending that the bill not be passed.
These are the three scenarios I’ve understood from all the documents I read about procedure. I may be wrong, and there may be another option before us. We have a decision to make as a committee, but it must be based on only one of the options. They are on pages 2 and 3 of the document you gave us.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Oudar, you have described the options fairly well, with this one qualification: If the bill goes back with an amendment, then it does get reported and debated. If it goes back with just an observation, then the bill is only reported back without debate. Otherwise, the description you provided is accurate in terms of our options.
We are now at the point where, in the normal course, we move to report the bill unamended unless we receive a proposal to entertain a different option. I am suggesting that is the default option, which is where we would go unless there were an intervention that proposes a motion. Senator Carignan has articulated one approach.
Before we move to that, if there are other comments, I invite them.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will be very brief. I am replacing someone today.
I just wanted to say that, for all the recent Senate bills that I supported, I read up on royal proclamation. In all those cases — though I’m not sure that this is what is under discussion today — that decision falls to the Speaker of the Senate or of the House of Commons. That is what I understood from everything I’ve read.
With this in mind, it seems to me that halting the study of the bill here and sending it out into the void — which is what we are doing — would presume a future ruling on the matter by the Speaker of the Senate.
That is what little I know about the issue, so I’m sharing it with the committee.
[English]
Senator Pate: There is one clarification I would like when I have finished my submission. My understanding is that we passed the bill clause by clause without amendment. Then the request was made for a procedural review, as you’ve mentioned, and then I actually offered that the PBO should do this. If we recall, that’s exactly how this happened.
The procedure — it seems clear — is that the Speaker should be making the decision. But for those who weren’t here at the time this bill was introduced, I do feel it is important to give a little context.
This bill actually represents the amendments that the Senate made to Bill C-83 back in 2018-19. They were amendments that passed the Senate and then went to the House of Commons and were rejected by the House of Commons. Those of you who were there will remember that the initial vote was to Ping-Pong it back. But because we were at the end of the session, we didn’t do that, and the bill went through without the Senate amendments in the final instance.
Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Senator Marty Klyne and several other senators said a number of us were really concerned about what this would mean for prisoners in terms of the implementation of this new legislation, which was supposed to get rid of segregation, and about the rejection of our amendments to increase the off-ramps for Indigenous people and Black people, in particular, and for those with mental health issues.
With that in mind, we did a monitoring exercise. Senator Marty Klyne, some of you will remember, was the actual sponsor of Bill C-83, but he recognized there were some concerns. We documented that. Then Senator Forest-Niesing decided to bring forward this bill. Sadly, she died. I took on the bill.
We named the bill, in part, “Tona’s Law” because when the Senate Committee on Human Rights was reviewing the human rights of federally sentenced prisoners, a whole series of recommendations were included in this bill as well. They included increasing transfers out for mental health; increasing options to get out people who are racialized, particularly Indigenous and Black prisoners; enabling people to get faster reviews; and having judicial oversight. These are recommendations the Senate has already made in two forums, at least: one through the Human Rights Committee report and one through the amendments we made.
So we brought this forward. Since I introduced this bill, several other things have happened that are also germane. One, on Friday of this past week, the final report of the ministerial advisory committee for Bill C-83 was issued. This was the review committee set up by the minister to review these issues. The report says the government has not followed its own law, which it implemented, and that the committee’s job is over. They are functus officio now; there is no longer a committee, and the government is left to operate lawlessly.
Those of you who were in the chamber two weeks ago heard the Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Committee ask Minister LeBlanc to come before the Human Rights Committee to talk about the inadequacy of the government’s response to the report of the Human Rights Committee. He agreed to come. On Monday, we received a letter from him saying he was not coming and that he stood by the decision. I don’t think it’s accidental that it’s in the wake of the report on Friday from the ministerial advisory committee.
We are now in a situation where there is virtually no oversight of corrections. The oversight mechanisms that were put in place, as reported by the minister’s own advisory committee, are ineffective.
I have asked before the Finance Committee, this committee, the Social Affairs Committee and the Human Rights Committee where the government spent the money allocated to implement C-83. The government told us at the Legal Committee when we were examining Bill C-83 that it was going to spend funds on external mental health beds and on resources for Indigenous people through sections 29, 81 and 84. The only information they brought back was to say, “Oh, no, we never intended to spend it.”
We have conflicting testimony from all these committees regarding Bill C-83. The government said they would spend the funds outside, $9.2 million per year. Corrections cannot account for that money that was supposed to be used to fund external mental health beds — way less than any Royal Recommendation would require for this bill. They could not account for it, and when they finally did, in Finance Committee, they indicated they had spent it on a number of contracts.
I’ve been doing this work, as you know, for a long time. I recognized that every single one of those contracts was a renewal. There were no new beds at all. We went back and challenged them, and they agreed that’s what it was. So we have a huge issue of accountability arising.
To add to that, in June of this year, Madam Justice Pomerance, now of the Ontario Court of Appeal, then of the Ontario Superior Court, ruled in the case of Patrick Warren, an Indigenous man who had been declared a dangerous offender, that his treatment in corrections had been mostly in segregation, first by administrative segregation and then by Structured Intervention Units, or SIUs. It had been so wholly ineffective that she sentenced him to a hospital in Ontario. That is exactly what section 29 allows, but, normally, a judge would not be allowed. It is not the jurisdiction of a judge to issue that sentence. She ordered it. Corrections has appealed it. In the meantime, Mr. Warren is sitting in the Millhaven SIU, languishing, as are so many other people.
It was a very narrow decision; it applies only to him, but it sends a very clear message. In fact, I received messages from several judges last night because there is a training session in B.C. examining issues of prisoners with mental health issues. A whole bunch of judges are discussing why we need Bill S-230. Justice Pomerance mentions it in her decision.
I would very much appreciate this bill going back to the chamber. I am happy to have the discussion about the finances there.
As a final comment, sadly, Tona developed isolation-induced schizophrenia as a result of being kept in segregation. You may remember, she is a Sixties Scoop Indigenous woman. She has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. So, yes, I would like to have a determination in the chamber hopefully before she dies. She is watching, and so are many others who have had horrific experiences like this.
I am quite happy to take it back to the chamber. I do not feel there is any reason to go further here, given what the table officers have said. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have that discussion in the Senate, particularly in light of all that has transpired since the need for this bill was first identified.
Senator Batters: I have a couple of procedural notes on this. First of all, Bill C-83, which Senator Pate was just speaking about as the impetus for this bill being brought forward, was a government bill, of course. It was also initiated in the House of Commons, of course, because it was a “C” bill, so the same Royal Recommendation considerations as we are dealing with here did not exist with that bill.
The other thing I wanted to point to was the procedural note that we received from the Senate table officers. It did state in there that these types of Royal Recommendation issues are not often raised in committee, since the committee does not have the authority to make such a determination. Yet, the last page of this procedural note that they gave us, which is quite detailed and helpful, does say specifically that in the case of the Legal Committee:
. . . it has already adopted Bill S-230 without amendments, but agreed to postpone reporting the bill to the Senate until it receives additional information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer . . . . Although the committee has an obligation to report the bill to the Senate eventually, pursuant to rule 12-22(1), there is no reporting deadline.
And then it says:
At this stage, the committee has the option to wait for additional information before proceeding with a specific course of action, or alternatively, it could consider one of the following options . . . .
It does list, as the fourth option from the table officers, this:
The committee could decide to adopt a report recommending that the Senate not proceed further with the bill, in which case it could identify concerns about the need for a Royal Recommendation as the reason for making such a recommendation.
Given that option, which we have been very clearly given from the Senate table officers, I think it is very clearly within our ability to do that should we want to.
The Chair: Let me invite Senator Oudar and then maybe I can suggest a way forward in our decision making.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I would like everyone to have a chance to speak, so I will yield the floor to you.
[English]
Senator Clement: I would like to get on the record on the issue of this bill and the support that I had for it initially and that I continue to have, especially in light of the fact that the government has issued Canada’s Black Justice Strategy in June of this year with 114 recommendations. Number 96 clearly speaks to limiting the use of Structured Intervention Units for Black prisoners. A lot of the issues just discussed by Senator Pate are clearly included in the Black Justice Strategy.
I will continue to speak of the Black Justice Strategy at every opportunity that I have, at this table and in the chamber, so I’m doing it here on the record in support of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. The list is building.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I understand that there are various options. In my view, the third option would exclude a part of the population that has no voice, that is not able to come here and highlight that the number of incarcerated people has never been so high, a part of the population that, despite people’s good intentions, has been judged in a biased manner all too often. My view is that, given the major investigation into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and knowing that Indigenous people have been tried and given overly long sentences — all while not being guilty at the end of the day — change is taking too long. I think that, whether we like it or not, this responsibility falls on our shoulders. I can’t speak for you, but I want the bill to continue making its way through the democratic process. I want the bill to make it to the chamber so that we can debate it, discuss it and ensure that silent voices are heard in this space to the greatest extent possible.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I listened carefully. Thank you, Senator Pate, for that context, which I think is helpful to new members. It is also helpful to those watching.
You spoke very well of the failures that you have borne witness to for your entire career in the prison system. The fact is that we have this issue where the Senate cannot initiate bills that cost money. While I know we have something out there in reference to a bill that’s going to cost $8 million — and it is a government bill — this is, potentially, orders of magnitude larger, and particularly when you consider what it is you’re looking for, that’s where the big money is that they don’t have and don’t want to spend.
I will make the motion if it is appropriate. I know Senator Batters may want to make the opposite motion, so it either wins or loses. I move that the committee report the bill with no amendments but with an observation that tells the story of the receipt of the Royal Recommendation, the discussion and that we have a concern that is best addressed in the chamber, and that we append the PBO report and even the relevant recommendations we got from the committee’s table officers if you thought that was necessary. Basically, we append everything as transparently as possible and pass it through to the Senate.
The Chair: We don’t actually have the language for such an observation. From your description, I anticipate you haven’t prepared one, but perhaps you have.
This may not be the route suggested by Senator Batters, but I will take that as a motion on the floor for observation language to be crafted concisely in a little break, but we have the sense of the motion, I think.
Senator Simons: I was just going to say we should have a motion before we have any more discussion.
The Chair: I’m sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking.
Senator Simons: I was frustrated that we didn’t have a motion on the floor. Now that we have a motion on the floor, I’m a happy camper.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I believe the arguments justify highlighting the need for a Royal Recommendation. To respond to Senator Miville-Dechêne, I would say that the question of a Royal Recommendation can be brought up prior to any vote, at any stage involving a vote. That would describe the current stage.
Having said that —
[English]
The Chair: Could I take that as a point of order here, in a way?
Senator Carignan: No, I will continue.
[Translation]
As for the proposal itself, in my view, it is essential to highlight the issue under debate, either here or in the chamber. There should be a link showing that the committee had certain reservations, that it obtained information about the costs, and that there is clearly still an issue that is worrying the committee and that must be discussed in the Senate. If Senator Tannas agrees, I can get behind that, even if my personal view is that the bill is not acceptable. We will have that debate in the chamber.
[English]
The Chair: If I understand correctly, we can craft an observation along those lines that meet Senator Carignan’s concern that this be information provided to the Senate on the basis of information provided to us by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would be uncomfortable trying to prejudge the point about Royal Recommendation, but we could craft something that identifies this point, and it could be short — I know Senator Batters encourages short observations. We could produce a link to the report, which would save us from having to crank it out. The magic of technology could save us the burden, and Senator Batters could celebrate another short observation. Are we comfortable moving in that direction?
Senator Pate: If the link is to suggest that a question was raised at committee as to whether a Royal Recommendation was required or not, that’s fine, but I would certainly take issue with some of the numbers that have been bandied about because $6.8 million, which is what he said was the cost — and I’m happy to debate this in the chamber as what I see as incorrect in some of those — but even so, $6.8 million is less than 1% of the budget of Correctional Service Canada, and the amount they have not been able to account for is way higher than that. The PBO was clear that it’s optional whether some other expenses would come into effect, and the option would basically depend on what the government decides to do.
If we are talking about $6.8 million, that’s fine, but if people want to start bandying around numbers, I suggest we leave that for the chamber. So if the observation says that the question about whether Royal Recommendation is needed was raised, and that’s part of the reporting back, that’s fine with me.
The Chair: We are in a small bind because we don’t actually have the text of the observation, and I think there is a degree of delicacy to the language needed.
We have a couple of options. We can propose that we adopt this with the understanding or with a motion that the language of the observation be approved at the steering committee. Are we moving in the direction where we might achieve a degree of consensus? I will still invite each of you to speak before we close the door on this.
Senator Simons: This is really important, and I don’t think anybody has quoted this. The introduction to the PBO report clearly says:
. . . this does not mean that the bill authorizes any additional spending. Rather the direct cost of the bill represents an opportunity cost – the resources which would be needed to comply with the new obligations, and which may no longer be available for other responsibilities.
The bill does not authorize any additional spending. That is his conclusion. When we are crafting that observation — and I think it would be fine to let the language be approved at steering — I mean, he says, hypothetically, in a perfect world in which Kim Pate was perfectly happy, they would need to spend billions of dollars, but that’s not actually what the bill authorizes.
The Chair: There seems to me there’s an attractive argument to provide that linkage to the report. With the greatest respect, it enables us not to relitigate this question here because, if it gets raised, we’ll have an opportunity to litigate it somewhere else. I think we’re getting close.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I agree that we should report the bill. We spoke about this previously.
The report would not include amendments, nor would it be unanimous. I believe there were dissenting voices. I proposed a number of amendments to Senator Pate that she decided not to proceed with. I support sending the bill back to the Senate, where it should be debated. As for the question of finances, even if you did deliver a ruling, Mr. Chair, it would not bind the Speaker of the Senate, who would have to decide, after hearing from people who are not present today, whether or not a Royal Recommendation is required. I do not want to force you to deliver a ruling now when the Speaker herself is examining the same issue in relation to Bill S-15 and will be setting out guidelines that will inform our work going forward.
The bill should be sent back to the chamber, where this kind of debate should take place with all senators present. I agree that it should go back. It was suggested that the committee request a study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and that the study be attached to the committee’s report. It’s very simple, it’s two lines. We don’t need to design a camel, a horse or anything else together. We don’t need to say how long our observation will be or what the introduction to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report means or doesn’t mean. I’d avoid getting into that, because it won’t put an end to the debate anyway.
[English]
The Chair: Just before I call on Senator Oudar and Senator Batters, the tenor of the discussion appears to be that we would look to a motion that I report the bill without amendment but with observations in accordance with the tenor captured in this conversation and with the final version to be approved by the steering committee.
Does that sound like a motion — subject to further conversation — that we may be comfortable with?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I agree. We just need to be sure that we’ve exhausted all other solutions. I understand that we’re not in a situation where we’d make an amendment to the bill that would reduce the costs, eliminate them or make them more acceptable. Far be it from me to encroach on the Speaker of the Senate’s role — which is not my intention — but I agree with attaching the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. However, we all know what happens next. As a jurist, I am well aware that any bill that puts a strain on the public purse cannot be accepted.
Before we proceed with this solution, have we ruled out the possibility of making amendments to the bill we’re currently studying in committee? I’m going to side with the majority. I’m just asking the question to make sure we’ve exhausted the other solutions.
[English]
The Chair: I think it is fair to say in answer to that question that no amendments were proposed at committee, and so we moved, therefore, onto adoption of the bill without amendment, and that’s where we still are presently.
Senator Carignan: With the observation?
The Chair: With the observation, today, along the tenor that we have discussed, maybe borrowing from the artful language of Senator Dalphond.
Senator Batters: I just want to make sure that such an observation would reference that at least some members of this committee think that this PBO report lends the necessity of a Royal Recommendation so it makes some sense to the Senate why we are attaching a PBO report and why this is happening.
Also, as to the comments that Senator Simons made about how the PBO’s report says that there is no direct cost, actually, as I’m just looking at this, the very first highlight says, “The direct cost of new activities required by Bill S-230 is estimated to be $6.8 million annually.”
Senator Simons: That’s not what I said.
Senator Batters: Okay, I’d have to look back at the transcript, but the summary table also lists direct costs of $6.8 million, with the cost of the policy in the second table being up to $2 billion.
There is obviously a big gap there, but I just wanted to make those points.
The Chair: I think what we should try to avoid is summarizing what is in the PBO report. People will be able to read that along those lines.
Are we close?
Senator Simons: What I said, for the record, Mr. Chair — and I read directly from the text — is, “. . . this does not mean that the bill authorizes any additional spending.” That is an exact quote. It’s from the introduction.
That is what I said on the record. Those are the words of the PBO report. I just don’t appreciate the insinuation that I misled the committee.
The Chair: We are at the stage now of trying to see if we can get a consensus or at least vote. I will try to describe that motion again.
Is it agreed that I report this bill without amendment but with observations in accordance with the tenor of this conversation and which will include a link to the PBO report that we have already discussed?
Is it agreed?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: However, we need to explain that the question of Royal Recommendation was raised, hence the request for the report, as Senator Batters explained. This also explains the delay between the end of the study, the passage of the bill and the report.
[English]
The Chair: I think there is a way to say that in neutral language.
Senator Carignan: Neutrality is really important. I agree with you.
The Chair: Your point will rely on the skill of Senator Batters of ensuring that the language is suitably neutral.
Senator Pate, you are the sponsor. I give you the last word. I took it that we voted on this.
Senator Pate: I am happy to have neutral language. I think it may help people understand how amenable I am to this. It was me who recommended that we do a PBO report. That wasn’t something that the committee somewhere else — I said, “Let’s get a PBO report to discuss it.”
I am quite happy to say that the discussion of a Royal Recommendation by the committee led to the recommendation by the sponsor that we get a PBO report, and here it is attached.
The Chair: We will do a little bit of work on the language in short order.
Let me just return to the vote. Is it agreed that I report the bill without amendment but with observations in accordance with the tenor of the conversation that has preceded the vote?
Agreed or not?
Senator Simons: We voted, didn’t we?
The Chair: Well, to be fair to Senator Carignan, he wanted to have an intervention, and I think he had one.
Is it on division or not?
Senator Carignan: For me, that’s on division.
The Chair: On division.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes, as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. That concludes all of the business we needed today. I appreciate the richness of the dialogue and the mutual respect that has occurred on a delicate matter.
(The committee adjourned.)