THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 21, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:45 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is our intention to spend the balance of the meeting conducting a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.
Before we begin, I have some reminders on a few points. If senators are not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We want to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process. In terms of mechanics, wish you to remind you that when more than one amendment is proposed to be in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators have intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. I think in these circumstances, at least today, we don’t have a significant number of amendments, and I’ll try my best not to lose track of where we are. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given an opportunity to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
I will also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill and there is a process by which we can address that, although I think it’s unlikely that will happen today. In the spirit of this, it would be useful to use this process of a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in the bill that could be affected. Otherwise, it would be difficult for members to remain consistent in their decision making.
We will endeavour to keep track of the places where subsequent amendments might need to be moved and draw our attention to them, although perhaps today won’t be a day when we face that circumstance. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence and which ones could be contradictory. Again, that is probably not a concern today, but it’s useful to keep in mind.
If committee members ever have questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, please raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument and decide. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak, have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation, and I ask all of you to consider other senators and keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously will provide unambiguous results and the clerk will undertake that when requested. Senators are aware that tied votes negate the motion in question. Any questions about that procedure?
Senator Batters: This isn’t about that procedure in particular, but I was wondering about is that many times, obviously, for government bills and private members’ bills we have officials present, so they can answer questions. We might have more technical questions about how the bill is going to be, if there are amendments that we need to ask about, how they will affect a particular part of the bill or the existing framework that is currently in place. I don’t think there are any officials from any department here. Am I correct? And why not?
The Chair: Well, it is Senator Pate’s bill, so maybe Senator Pate could speak to that.
Senator Pate: If there are particular parts that people have concerns about, I certainly have documented the evidence we have received from Public Safety and the Parole Board of Canada. I would be happy to address that.
Senator Batters: Quite some time ago, a number of months, I think it was maybe the first time that we were dealing with this bill prior to it getting interrupted by another bill, we had a witness from CBA, Tony Paisana, and I had asked him a technical question about how a part would be interpreted and he said that’s a very technical question and he would have to get back to me, and he indicated that he would.
When I last checked about this in June, we had not yet received any answer from Tony Paisana about that, and the clerk at the time, Mark Palmer, was going to check with him. I wanted to confirm that no such answer was received by the committee.
The Chair: It wasn’t communicated to me, but let me inquire. Can I take that under immediate advisement, Senator Batters, to make the inquiry as requested? I am assuming the answer is going to be no, which is normal and expected. If the answer is yes, we will figure out a way of handling that.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I also note that the presence of Department of Justice officials, which is part of our committee’s usual practice, serves the essential purpose of informing the committee’s deliberations.
For bills introduced by senators and House of Commons bills that aren’t government bills, there hasn’t necessarily been an analysis of their impact on existing legislation. Government bills usually go through that process.
Is there a particular reason why Department of Justice representatives weren’t brought in today for this clause-by-clause study?
[English]
The Chair: The best I can answer is that no decision taken not to invite them, but there was no decision taken at all. I’m in your hands as to what, in your view, the normal practice should be for the consideration of a Senate public bill.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: That’s problematic. I want to raise another point. The bill before us is fairly substantial. It is 17 pages long and contains 51 clauses, and it amends several acts. As I said before in the chamber in a speech about another public bill, I’m somewhat uncomfortable introducing or amending a relatively complex bill that affects many different government operations or aspects of our criminal law without a Department of Justice analysis of the bill’s impact and the number of files. We don’t have a GBA either.
We don’t have an opinion on the constitutional aspects. We don’t know the bill’s spending implications. I understand the dilemma when a parliamentarian introduces a public bill.
When someone introduces a bill to designate a national day to celebrate the heritage of people from Lebanon or some other country, people who make huge contributions to our history and our society, I feel capable of assessing the importance of the bill and making up my mind easily.
With a bill the size of this one, though, I don’t feel I can form an informed opinion about it because it has both political implications — I realize it’s an expression of certain philosophies — and practical implications when it comes to incorporating these changes into the Criminal Code, the Parole Board’s mandate and law enforcement mandates.
I will say that, personally, I’m not against some of the ideas Senator Pate has put forward. Some of the testimony I heard, including from yesterday’s witnesses, left an impression and made me think. That being said, I really can’t imagine automatic systems for anything other than summary offences.
For summary offences, it makes sense that an individual can be automatically released after a given time. For criminal offences, including those that Senator Pate excludes and others, an automatic system would allow gang members, mafiosos and people with known criminal ties to get an automatic pardon, unless the police bring certain things to the Parole Board’s attention. Senator Pate called that “raising the flag.” That strikes me as a big change to how the pardon system works. I really don’t think we have the expertise to take things that far today.
I wonder if the best solution in this case — because there are so many good ideas here — would be to take the testimony and ideas in Senator Pate’s bill, put them in a report to the Department of Justice and the government, and ask for a response. For example, wouldn’t this be a good opportunity to restore the waiting period for a pardon application to what it was before the previous government’s amendments?
Our report could sum up what we heard about the impact of longer waiting periods for pardon applications.
In a nutshell, why don’t we talk about using everything we heard to draft a Senate committee report requiring a government response?
[English]
The Chair: I’m going to invite Senator Pate to respond in a minute; it’s her bill. You’re proposing, then, that we essentially not report the bill and not undertake clause-by-clause consideration but produce a report in relation to the bill?
Senator Dalphond: Exactly, Mr. Chair, that we don’t go to clause-by-clause consideration, and instead of reporting the bill, it will be a special report to the chamber in due course of our findings, options and suggestions for the government.
The Chair: I skipped over Senator Boisvenu, but it might have been more on the procedural stuff. This is a bit more substantive. Could we carry on with this and —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’d like to follow up on what Senator Dalphond said. May I?
[English]
The Chair: I would invite Senator Pate to respond.
Senator Pate: I’m happy to hear what Senator Batters says first.
The Chair: Oh, I’m sorry. Are you on the same topic, Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: I don’t think Senator Boisvenu was done yet.
The Chair: Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Basically, there are two ways to look at this bill: as a person who has been convicted and incarcerated or as a victim. I understand that people can be on either end of the spectrum. Having listened to the stories of people who have gone through this process, I also understand that it needs to be reformed because it’s complex and it takes a lot of work for an offender to get a pardon. This bears thinking about, and there should be more flexibility, but I’m definitely not okay with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say.
I haven’t received a satisfactory answer about the fact that Canada has almost 450 provincial jails and prisons, which handle about 55,000 offenders per year. On average, offenders go back to provincial prisons eight times. For federal penitentiaries, it’s four times.
I toured federal penitentiaries in Quebec, and I asked the wardens, “How many of the offenders who come here for the first time have ever been incarcerated in a provincial prison?” The answer is about 50%. I also asked, “How will the Parole Board of Canada, which has nothing to do with provincial prisons, be able to track these 55,000 offenders coming through provincial prisons?” We have 173 police forces in Canada. How are they supposed to keep tabs on these people and make sure they haven’t committed any offences during the automatic pardon eligibility period? Technically, it’s almost impossible.
I think this bill is dangerous, especially for women. It makes significant changes to a system that merits meticulous study with experts — as Senator Dalphond was saying — on the costs, benefits and public safety consequences.
I don’t think we’ve really looked at that aspect at all. How will automatic pardons impact public safety? I don’t have the answer to that, and I think a thorough study with experts from Public Safety or Justice would give us some clarity on that and provide a lot more reassurance to the public and to victims. It would also make the system much more acceptable to people who serve their time and apply for a pardon.
I concur with Senator Dalphond: This bill seems premature. We need an in-depth study to understand the consequences. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: In trying to regularize this debate, Senator Dalphond, may I suggest that we can take yours as a motion not to report the bill, to move in the direction you described and therefore not conduct a clause-by-clause consideration, and treat it as a debate on that motion?
Senator Dalphond: I’m content with that.
The Chair: Senator Pate, I don’t think we have to have all the pros and the cons organized in that way. I’ll give you an opportunity to respond to Senator Batters. Do you want to go now, Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: I will briefly say that the first question on the clause-by-clause script is to ask, “Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?” Therefore, I’m not sure it needs to be a separate motion but simply a discussion that, no, we don’t agree that it proceed. Then talk about this report idea, perhaps.
My brief intervention on that is that, yes, this could be a way to go. The evidence we heard yesterday did nothing to alleviate my concerns about this bill as I expressed yesterday, particularly regarding the automatic nature of this. In the event that we have a report, we will see if we call additional witnesses and evidence, which I think would probably be needed, rather than simply basing it on what we’ve heard on this particular bill. But I don’t see myself agreeing that, yes, Canada does need an automatic free pardon system.
Senator Pate: Thank you for raising those concerns. We did actually have Public Safety appear before us, and they talked about the fact that they’re working on an automatic process that they anticipate would be in effect within the next 18 months. As those of you who have been on the committee for some time will remember, when Minister Goodale appeared before us, he talked about the need to then adjust the version of the bill that had been presented at that time and talked about the need for a streamlined process for records. So that was included as a result of those consultations.
So we have heard that it is, in fact, in the works.
We also heard from Catherine Latimer, who is now with the John Howard Society of Canada, but when she was with the Department of Justice, she designed the very same kind of process through the Youth Criminal Justice Act, also known as the YCJA. So she was well aware of some of the issues and challenges, and she spoke in favour of this approach in this context as well. She is someone who intimately knows the issues.
In addition to the witnesses who provided evidence, I would suggest that everything about this bill embodies a gender-based analysis; in fact, it goes further, including an intersectional analysis that looks at race, circumstances and some of the very real issues that are unfolding before us as we speak in terms of homelessness, economic challenges and access to employment.
All of the experts agreed that after a crime-free period, the reality is that the chances of recidivism reduce for every single offence category, which was part of the rationale that the government had as part of its agenda in 2015 in going forward to amend the legislation. A previous bill introduced by the government did include an automatic process albeit not for every offence.
So clearly, that is in the works.
I would strongly urge that we proceed at this time with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I think there’s abundant evidence; we’ve heard abundant evidence about the value of this sort of approach and really no need to proceed.
As well, we have, as recently as Bill S-205, considered substantial and substantive amendments to the Criminal Code in a private member’s bill without this kind of process that’s been proposed in terms of officials appearing or having a gender-based analysis or even a Charter analysis. So it’s not without precedent. In fact, there have been a number of those cases. Bill S-205 is one that comes to mind.
Like Senator Boisvenu and others, I go to the people who have expertise in these areas in the provinces and territories, as well as the federal government in this case, because these are federal records.
As we heard from, I believe, the Ontario Provincial Police, also known as OPP, and Chad Westmacott from Public Safety Canada, these are processes that are being worked on and while there is still work to be done, they are further along than what Catherine Latimer described the process was when the YCJA was introduced and these sorts of provisions were introduced.
I propose to add, in recognition of some of the issues that have been raised by police, Public Safety as well as by some of you, my honourable colleagues, an amendment that would allow for an investigative process, which actually puts us back in the same place these provisions were before this bill. It basically doesn’t change much of anything in terms of how the records are kept by sequestering. Vulnerable record checks are still permissible for those who are concerned. It’s very clear that if someone is — I think one of the issues raised yesterday was that if someone is persistently reoffending, presumably they would never have the free-and-clear period to be able to qualify for the record of expiry in the first place, because their record would be flagged. The legislation is clear that if a record is flagged, it’s not an automatic process; it would require an application then from the individual.
So I would like to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chair: I have Senator Boisvenu first, and we will move to the question.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have a question for Senator Pate. I think this one is critical.
You’ve talked a lot about recidivism, Senator Pate, but did you know that the federal system doesn’t keep track of 55,000 provincial offenders when they reoffend? Are you aware of that?
If someone commits a crime and serves time in a provincial prison, that recidivism does not enter into the federal government’s calculation. That means the system you’re proposing will affect 15,000 people who are incarcerated in the federal system — in penitentiaries — but it won’t affect the 55,000 people who are incarcerated in provincial prisons. When those people reoffend, the federal government won’t get that information.
I hope you see that this is the big problem with your bill: It will affect one in five offenders in Canada. Four out of five offenders will not be affected by your bill.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Chair, we are at clause-by-clause consideration. I have never seen this happen. Let’s proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. The kinds of questions that Senator Boisvenu is asking of the sponsor were questions that should have been asked when she was testifying, not today. We are at clause-by-clause. We are all ready to go to clause-by-clause consideration. I suggest we proceed now.
We never have these discussions. We should just proceed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. I think this is a debate about whether we go to clause-by-clause consideration, and I agree with you that we should be spending —
Senator Jaffer: — should we go to clause-by-clause —
The Chair: If I might. We haven’t quite gotten there, but I think the point you make is correct: This is not a time to be debating the substance of the bill, or hearing or seeking more evidence in relation to it.
Senator Jaffer: We have done that. This is not the time to ask more questions.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’ve been asking these questions throughout the process, and I’ve never gotten an answer from the senator. Excuse me.
[English]
The Chair: That might be true, Senator Boisvenu, but this is not an evidence-giving session. We are left in that situation.
Senator Simons: The question is: Shall we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration? Let’s do that. Then we’ll vote, and if there’s a vote to go ahead to clause-by-clause consideration, then on we go, and if enough people vote no to that, then we don’t.
The Chair: I think that’s very helpful. The clerk has advised me of the wisdom of Senator Batters’s approach — that we don’t really need a motion premised on Senator Dalphond’s intervention. The main question is whether we are going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Will you speak to that point, if you could, Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes. On that point, there is also an opportunity, usually at the start of clause-by-clause consideration before you go through the formal process of having a bit of a debate. We haven’t done this as much the last four or five years, but previously, there were many times where I would call others on the committee to have a debate, actually, about the bill — with, for example, former senators Joyal and Baker. So there is that opportunity. Also, Senator Pate is the sponsor of this and has the opportunity to answer questions for those of us who might be wondering about certain parts.
The Chair: Are there other interventions on the question of whether we will agree to move to clause-by-clause consideration?
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: We’ll take a vote on this.
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, eight; nays, three.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion has been adopted to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the remaining clauses be considered in groups of 10, or would you like me to proceed with them individually?
Is it agreed that we could do them in groups of 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 2 to 10 carry?
An Hon. Senator: No.
The Chair: Is this maybe where one of your amendments is, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: It’s in clause 11.
The Chair: On division or do you want a vote? This is on clauses 2 to 10.
On division? Yes.
Senator Batters: Senator Pate made a couple of comments when she was explaining about proceeding with this bill as compared to a report or something like that, which I wanted to respond to. I didn’t have the opportunity earlier, so I just wonder when that might happen.
The Chair: Why don’t we provide that opportunity once we finish the clause-by-clause consideration? Is that suitable? We’re well underway on this.
Senator Batters: I get it. It’s just that it speaks to the premise of the bill. But that’s fine.
The Chair: Shall clauses 11 to 20 carry? Senator Pate? This is where we’re going to hear your amendment.
Senator Pate: Yes. I have circulated the proposed amendment to clause 11 at pages 6 and 7 of the bill in the English version and also in the French version. I’m proposing this in light of the testimony as well as concerns raised by some of our colleagues on this committee:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 11,
(a) on page 6,
(i) by replacing line 31 with the following:
“(3) The prior approval of the Minister is not required
(a) for”,
(ii) by replacing line 35 with the following:
“that has been imposed for an offence; and
(b) to disclose the existence of the record to a police force in prescribed circumstances when that police force considers the disclosure to be desirable in the interest of the administration of justice or for any purpose related to the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada.”;
(b) on page 7, by deleting lines 28 to 34.
The Chair: Would you like to say more about the nature of the amendment, Senator Pate, or shall I invite others if they wish to speak?
Senator Pate: This speaks to the concern raised that in addition to the vulnerable sector check, there was a desire for the provisions that currently exist to be present in this bill. I consulted with a number of folks, including police forces, and while they thought they would be able to use the provisions that existed then — and we heard testimony about that — this would certainly expedite the process and could be covered without necessarily allowing for the release of records. We’ve heard in particular from our witnesses yesterday but also previously about not allowing for the records to be used willy-nilly for purposes of housing, employment and the like.
The Chair: Senator Batters, will you comment on this?
Senator Batters: What I’m wondering about is the part where it says that the minister’s approval isn’t needed and whether the police service believes sharing this information about the expired judicial record is necessary for the administration of justice or the safety of Canada.
When wouldn’t it be necessary for those types of things to share that?
Senator Pate: I’m not sure if you wanted to see more specificity. This is basically allowing the police to do their job for investigating.
Senator Batters: Right, but if the police service is asking for that information on an expired judicial record, what sort of circumstances would exist that would have them requesting it for a situation that would not be for the administration of justice or the safety of Canada?
Senator Pate: Well, the issues that were raised by the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, or CABL — I believe it was — were things like carding or other situations where there may be a targeted —
Senator Batters: This government put random alcohol testing into place in Canada, so — okay.
Senator Pate: One of the things this is in response to is the question you asked about what happens when police want to investigate. I take all of those issues seriously. As I say, when I spoke to the policing authorities, they felt that they could probably get approval through the ministerial release provision but that this would make it more operable and easier for them to get access.
Senator Batters: I have another question on this: What is the anticipated number of requests that would still go to the minister? Would that make it a situation that’s really unworkable because of the sheer volume of requests that are going to a minister?
Senator Pate: The view is that it would actually obviate that. However, I’m not closing the door that there might still be a need for requests. Certainly if someone else were coming forward to try and get access to it for some reason and are having to establish why it’s in the interest to disclose, they could approach the minister. When I asked how often others have approached to get records, usually that’s done through the police record check, which would be the process that exists right now.
On the point of provincial records: Provincial records are turned into the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, unless they’re not serious or not seen as particularly germane. That’s the issue that has been raised — what records don’t get in there. As I believe we have heard from police officers here — and certainly what I have heard from police officials — is that if something is not in CPIC, it is often not very serious, because if it is serious enough that it needs to be taken into account, it is usually entered into CPIC.
Senator Batters: Okay. I don’t remember which clause this applies to, but I’m wondering, chair, if you have received an answer about the Tony Paisana thing? From the Canadian Bar Association. Did we receive an answer from him?
The Chair: We have inquired, and so far there is no record of having received anything with respect to this submission.
Senator Batters: It is a bit unfortunate because we don’t have the Justice or Public Safety officials to ask about anything here today. We don’t have that information.
The Chair: I don’t mean to interrupt you, Senator Batters, but I received a message from Mr. Palmer, the former clerk, indicating that we do not usually have Justice officials for Senate public bills in clause-by-clause study. I’m operating as a novice on this question, but it seems to me that I should share that communication based on the history of the committee.
Senator Batters: Will we have a time when we could have a general discussion about some of the merits of this bill or not?
The Chair: You will no doubt embed some of those in your interventions, but we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at the present time.
Can I invite other comments with respect to this amendment to clause 11? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried, on division.
Shall clause 11 as amended and clauses 11 to 20 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 21 to 30 carry?
There is an amendment by Senator Pate.
Senator Pate: This links to the previous amendment. Clause 24, page 11 and the same in French.
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 24, on page 11, by replacing line 6 with the following:
“(Subsections 6.1(8) and 6.3(2) and sections 7 and 7.2)”.
This is to bring it in accordance with the previous amendment.
The Chair: Are there any comments with respect to this amendment?
Do you have an amendment to clause 21, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: I do. It’s a consequential one.
The Chair: Is that the one, Senator Batters, that you have?
Senator Batters: I think she should read it out so that we are dealing with the correct thing.
Senator Pate: Yes. Sorry about that.
The Chair: You may have gotten ahead of yourself there, Senator Pate. Do you want us to the amendment you’re proposing to clause 21?
Senator Pate: Yes. My apologies, I’m on 14. I went to the next one, which is a consequential one as well. My apologies for that confusion. This is clause 21, page 10.
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 21, on page 10, by adding the following after line 14:
“(c.12) prescribing circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 6.1(3)(b);”.
This is to basically allow for the regulations to be put in place that accords with the amendment just made.
The Chair: Is there any debate on this amendment? Hearing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
I’m trying to do these in groupings. This takes us to clause 24.
Senator Pate: You may recall when we introduced this bill that there were a number of inconsistencies because the law clerk was working with the previous version of the bill, so an old number was left in. It was thanks to the eagle eyes of our analyst, Ms. Keenan-Pelletier, who found the mistake and notified us. We were notified that we would be changing it. I’m told by the law clerk that it is possible that this fits within their ability to make the changes themselves, but out of an abundance of caution, they wanted to bring them forward in case there is an issue down the road.
The Chair: Could you read it for us? This is also one that’s just arriving for each of you, senators.
Senator Pate: Yes. It’s just arriving. It’s Bill S-212-24-11-6a. And there is another one for the next clause, which is 10a. The first one is the one I mistakenly read out a minute ago.
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 24, on page 11, by replacing line 6 with the following:
“(Subsection 6.3(2) and sections 7 and 7.2)”.
This eliminates subsection (6).
The Chair: May I interrupt you? Your reading was elegant but inconsistent with the document I have. In reference to subsections, I have 6.1 (8) and 6.3 (2). Am I describing that correctly, Senator Pate? And sections 7 and 7.2.
Senator Pate: Yes. You’re correct.
The Chair: Can we be comfortable going ahead with my reading of the amendment?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Can you clarify which text we’re talking about by stating the number of the amendments, which is in the top right corner of the documents?
[English]
The Chair: Yes. The one that we’re working with is KP‑S212-24-11-6. I think we can take the amendment as read. This is, I think, a technical amendment as you noted, Senator Pate. Is there any discussion or debate with respect to this amendment?
Hearing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Thank you.
Senator Pate, there is a second amendment in this group that you would like to bring to our attention.
Senator Pate: Yes. It’s 212-25-11-10. It’s clause 25, page 11.
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 25, on page 11, by replacing line 10 with the following:
“(Subsections 6.1(8) and 6.3(2) and sections 7 and 7.2)”.
Senator Simons: And what does it do?
Senator Pate: That basically corrects the numbering from previously. These were the ones that I indicated on the day we introduced the bill needed to be made. Our analysts had flagged that for us, and so at the time we thought the motion being accepted would address that, but we’re not certain, so we are amending it out of an abundance of caution.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Pate. Is there further debate on this amendment? Hearing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Senator Boisvenu: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 21 to 30 as amended carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 31 to 40 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clauses 41 to 51 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Batters: Recorded vote.
Senator Pate: When I was starting to read out 6(a) and 10(a), it turned out I had the correct version and the incorrect version was mistakenly circulated, so my apologies for that, the numbering of those provisions.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we’re comfortable with this being regarded as a technical adjustment that the clerk can address?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: What’s the situation?
Senator Pate: It’s the one that I read out, which was 6.3(2) and sections 7 and 7.2, not including the —
The Chair: The provision that I read, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: It takes out 6.1(8), which we just removed through the previous amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I just want to be sure about what we’re voting on, please. Are we talking about amendment KP‑S212-24-11-6 or the two amendments we just passed? What exactly are we taking out?
[English]
Senator Pate: What we’re removing from clause 24 is subsection 6.1(3). In addition, in clause 25, we’re removing 6.1(3) because those were further to the amendments. Those were mistakes in the changing of the bill from the previous version when it was, I think, 258. I can’t remember the number, sorry.
The Chair: Senator Dupuis, I’m advised that these are technical, non-substantive corrections. We can do either of two things: Leave it to the clerk to take care of it. I think the purpose of the change is clear. Alternatively, if you wish, we could suspend and recirculate the precise version. I would recommend the former, but, of course, I’m in your hands if you would prefer to see the actual document rather than leaving it to the technical adjustment.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: In any case, I think the committee will delegate authority to make the necessary adjustments to the steering committee. My concern is that we shouldn’t be here in a public meeting voting on things when we don’t know what we’re voting on. If they’re technical things, I’m fine with that. I just want to be clear about what we’re being asked to do. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: It’s almost in this case as though Senator Pate tried too hard to solve the minor technical issues and we got ourselves bogged down a little bit, but it is easily sorted out with an adjustment by the clerk and legal advice. Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: This is on a technical matter. Are we moving on?
The Chair: Can I declare that we are comfortable with this being resolved in the way that I described, through the clerk?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I take that as acceptance by the committee. Senator Clement.
Senator Clement: Thank you. I just want to formally thank Senator Pate for this bill.
The Chair: We haven’t voted on whether the bill will carry. Senator Batters asked for a recorded vote.
Senator Clement: I wasn’t going to congratulate her; I was going to make a comment.
The Chair: Do you want to save it until we complete the clause-by-clause consideration and voting on the bill? I think it qualifies, Senator Clement, as a speech in favour of carrying the bill, but I think it might be better if we voted on that and then you spoke, if that’s acceptable. There is a recorded vote having been called on the last question. We’ll take that vote now.
Senator Clement: I don’t think I was out of order in speaking now, but if it’s already been called for, that’s fine.
The Chair: The call is as follows: Shall the bill, as amended, carry? There was a voice vote on that, and Senator Batters asked for a recorded vote. We’re well into the voting, if that’s okay with you, Senator Clement.
Senator Klyne: [Technical difficulties] started out in the preamble as something different than what you wanted to get to. Did you want to make a comment on the bill before it got voted?
Senator Clement: I think I was in order to speak, but that’s what I believe. I’m going to defer to the chair. If the chair says we’re already voting, it’s back to you and I’ll wait.
The Chair: I think we’re already voting.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Abstention.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Klyne?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 7; nays, 3; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
I’m not entirely sure, Senator Clement, about the intervention you wanted to make and whether it should proceed now or whether I should proceed through the various other votes and then invite you to speak. I’m kind of in your hands. Why don’t we complete these and then I’ll turn the floor to you.
This now addresses, to some extent, this technical point. Is it agreed that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including updating cross references and renumbering provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? Hearing none, the answer appears to be no.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, without observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Clement, I feel like I cut you off, but I don’t know quite what I cut you off from.
Senator Clement: I have not experienced being stopped from speaking at the committee, ever. And I don’t usually intervene to be irrelevant.
I do want to thank Senator Pate for the work done on the bill. I was going to refer to the testimony of yesterday and refer to the testimony of June 1, 2023, which was very supportive of yesterday’s testimony. I was going to be speaking about the reframing of public safety and the fact that people have been waiting for this legislation.
I understand that it’s good to report and to study. I think that has been done, but I think people’s lives and their reintegration are hanging in the balance, and I’m very hopeful that this will proceed and help.
The Chair: There had been a point, I think, Senator Batters, where you wanted to make an observation either about the process or the bill, and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to do that.
Senator Batters: Now that the bill has passed, yes, I wanted to provide a couple of points of debate about the bill in response to what Senator Pate had said much earlier in the meeting, and that’s dealing with the comment that Senator Pate made about former Minister Goodale making some reference to the government potentially proceeding with such a situation about pardons and maybe even making them automatic or something like that. Any such comments by former Minister Goodale would have been when he was still a minister and would have been at that committee, and that probably would have been five years ago, because he has not been a member of Parliament since the fall of 2019.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act referenced that Catherine Latimer, one of the witnesses who is now with the John Howard Society, came into place more than 20 years ago. Any reference to the Government of Canada, this particular Government of Canada, perhaps bringing forward these types of things, again, that would have been quite some time ago because we haven’t heard any of those comments for a considerable period of time. Thank you.
The Chair: Some of it before my time I think.
Are there other matters to be considered at this meeting now that we have concluded clause-by-clause consideration? I will report the decisions of the committee back to the Senate in as timely way as possible. I think that brings our deliberations to an end.
(The committee adjourned.)