THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 10, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act; and, in camera, to study Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
Colleagues, we will pick up where we left off last week, at clause 14 of the bill. There are three remaining amendments before us: One to clause 14, which was shared with everyone today; and two to the preamble. We also have a list of draft observations that were distributed to you yesterday. It is my hope that we can move through all these items efficiently today and report to the Senate as quickly as possible.
I want to avoid making any promises because who knows what issues will arise. I, of course, hope to have your collaboration and cooperation. We were at clause 14, Senator Petitclerc.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, chair. Yes, we were at clause 14. If you recall, I was addressing some wording irregularities that were pointed out by many of the witnesses that we had here. The intention here is to bring it to more conformity.
As a quick reminder of what I was saying last week, when you go back to the first draft of the bill, clause 14 says, “This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.” It was then amended at HUMA, which is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The amendment changed it to, “This Act comes into force no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.”
This wording is a bit unusual. Some of the witnesses say it’s problematic. The part that is unusual is where it states, “no later than.”
I will quote Ms. Krista Wilcox, who is here with us from Employment and Social Development Canada. Last week, her response to my concern was that:
. . . the “no later than” doesn’t actually have any way to be implemented, so there is no authority that has been given to the Governor-in-Council to actually bring the law into force earlier than the first anniversary.
I’m proposing a version here that would combine both options. I believe you have it in front of you. It will say:
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 14, on page 7, by replacing line 21 with the following:
“14. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.”
This way, it will conform to a more usual wording and achieve what was intended to be achieved when it was amended at HUMA.
I will leave it there. I’m now happy either to answer questions if you have questions or to move the amendment.
The Chair: I do have a question of clarification, Senator Petitclerc. Last week, we approved an amendment tabled by Senator McPhedran about the regulations to be developed within 12 months of coming into force. Technically, it is possible that the benefits could flow, at the longest, after two years, or they could come before that. Am I clear in understanding that?
Senator Petitclerc: That is also my understanding. In fact, my understanding is that with or without Senator McPhedran’s amendment, my proposed amendment fixes some of the problematic wording. However, it doesn’t really have an impact on the timeline that is included in the bill.
Senator McPhedran, I’m sure you have thoughts about whether or not we are correct that this proposed amendment has no impact on your amendment.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: We may need to seek advice. I’m hoping that we can seek some clarification from our law clerk perhaps.
The intention of the amendment that I proposed, which was accepted, was that there would be a flowing of the benefit within the year. However, with this wording, I think it becomes two years, potentially. Can I get some guidance on this, please?
Senator Seidman: I want to ask a question. I thought the amendment that we agreed to had to do with the timeline for the regulations. I didn’t think that we had agreed to when the benefit should flow. I think you have something in a preamble amendment which we haven’t dealt with yet. I’m trying to understand. The amendment we accepted from you had to do with when the regulations should be completed and it was one year. We approved that amendment.
This amendment says:
This Act comes into force on the day to be fixed by order of Governor in Council, but no later than the first anniversary following royal assent.
Senator McPhedran: I can see a scenario where the amendment that the committee accepted last week combined with this amendment could see everything occur within an initial 12-month period. Does this open up the possibility that we would actually be looking at a two-year period, potentially? That’s my question.
The Chair: I do not see anyone raising their hands.
Senator Petitclerc: We may want to ask for clarity from the officials. I see exactly what you are talking about Senator McPhedran, but I don’t think what I’m doing changes what you are worrying about because the current wording in front of us says “no later than the first anniversary,” so your amendment falls into that anyway. What we’re adding with my amendment is a mechanism to give the possibility for the act to come into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council, but it keeps the wording “no later than the first anniversary.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that I do not believe it makes a difference for your amendment. I do see that with or without this amendment — because the coming into force can happen all the way up to the first anniversary, which then brings up all the different report stages. If the act comes into force through an order of the Governor-in-Council before one year, then it starts the process of the different — the 10 months, the 6 months, the 12 months. That’s my understanding.
Senator McPhedran: What I’m trying to seek clarity on before we vote is combining this proposed amendment and the amendment accepted by the committee last week. The longest possible period of time we’re looking at would be two years. That’s a question. I’m looking for the actual wording right now, but that’s what seems to me to be the likely effect.
Senator Petitclerc, your understanding is that, regardless, we’re talking about a 12-month period; is that correct?
Senator Petitclerc: A 12-month period maximum for the coming into force.
Senator McPhedran: With the possible additional period for the regulations.
Senator Petitclerc: Which we have even if we don’t propose my amendment. I really would like for the officials — because we can’t —
Elisha Ram, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: To clarify, Senator Petitclerc is correct. As we indicated last week, the current coming-into-force provision likely means that the Governor-in-Council does not have authority to bring the act into force any earlier than one year following Royal Assent.
The proposal today would give the Governor-in-Council the ability to fix the date within one year, so it could be earlier but no later than one year. Then we have to stack on top of that the amendment that was adopted last week, which indicates the regulations have to come into force within 12 months of the act coming into force. You’re also right, Senator McPhedran, that at the limit, that would give up to 24 months for the regulations to be introduced. However, that is true whether or not today’s amendment is also considered.
Senator McPhedran: We would hopefully see a scenario where the Governor-in-Council moves more quickly than that. We’re talking about the longest possible periods. Okay, thank you so much.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Let’s move on to the preamble.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Dasko: I think everybody has a copy of the proposed amendment. This is the preamble on page 1.
I move:
That Bill C-22 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by adding the following after line 8:
“Whereas persons with disabilities may face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or indigenous status or other intersecting statuses;”.
Colleagues, this is the proposed amendment. You will recall that we heard from a number of witnesses about additional barriers faced by women, racialized Canadians and Indigenous people with disabilities. It therefore seemed appropriate, fitting and relevant to include this principle in the bill. I felt that the preamble was a very good spot for that.
If you read the wording of this amendment, you will see that it fits in, I think, very well as the third statement in the preamble. You can see the statement above it which says:
Whereas persons with disabilities often face barriers to employment, including work disincentives such as the loss of income and other benefits as a result of becoming employed;
This would follow by saying: “Whereas persons with disabilities may face additional barriers . . .”, so it actually follows upon the language that is already there. “May face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or indigenous status or intersecting statuses.”
I have put this forward. I think it reflects what we have heard at committee. If I may, I will quote statements from Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair, Ase Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disabilities. She spoke about Black Canadians with disabilities and how she felt they should be recognized in this bill. I asked her, do you see this as part of the amendment process? Her answer was:
Yes. . . . You have to prioritize and really state the prioritized — those who are “multi-marginalized,” those who are disproportionally impacted by poverty. It should be stated there. It should be a goal to reduce poverty among that population.
I note that in a previous amendment we have also included a statement that refers to intersectionality and recognizing that as a factor to be taken into account when benefits are being created. I realize it’s already there, but I also felt this was an appropriate place to recognize that reality and the testimony that we had from witnesses.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Senator Dasko. What I would like to do is just introduce an important issue that is contained in a document that we all know, Senate Procedure in Practice. If you go to page 143, it talks about public bills, and it specifically talks about amendments to the preamble. Number 16 says:
A substantive amendment to the preamble is normally only moved if required by amendments to the bill, to increase its clarity, or to ensure uniformity between the English and French texts.
I want to put that on the table so that committee members know that we generally don’t introduce amendments to the preamble unless there is a substantive change in the bill that requires a change in the preamble. That is what this is saying. This is a substantive amendment to the preamble.
The question is whether we have made amendments to the bill that demand that we make a substantive amendment to the preamble. I think it’s up to the committee to decide whether they think this is a substantive amendment and that we shouldn’t be making it, because there is no reason based on whatever amendments we have made to the bill or not made to the bill.
I’ll just put that on the table, and I’ll leave it to the committee to decide. This comes from Beauchesne. It is an authoritative rule and procedure and practice for us in the Senate.
Senator Dasko: I would observe, I’m speaking here from the documentation that was provided to us from the House of Commons in their deliberations statement about preambles:
A preamble is an aspirational statement that provides important background information for understanding an Act or that explains matters that support its constitutionality . . . . Preambles can have a significant impact on how courts interpret the legislation in the future. As such, the preamble of this Act grounds legislation in relation to other Acts related to the rights of persons with disabilities and poverty eradication.
I read this as indicating that the preamble is something that has significance, and if you look at it in this light, I think the statement is relevant to our consideration of a change to the preamble.
We know that the Senate has made changes to preambles on other bills, and I have two examples right in front of me where I can name bills where we have amended preambles. So it has been done, and the government, in turn, can accept or not accept preamble that we have introduced.
In one example I have, the government did accept an amendment to the preamble and in the other it did not. So I think it’s entirely in our scope to be considering a change to the preamble.
The Chair: Senator Dasko, could you cite one precedent? You said you have two examples. We don’t have too much time. If you could cite one.
Senator Dasko: I have two examples. One was Bill C-92, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. So there was a preamble that was amended by the Senate, and it was accepted by the government.
The Chair: I beg your pardon?
Senator Seidman: If I might respond to that.
It’s good to know the Senate has amended preambles, but that isn’t the relevant issue here. The relevant issue is to know whether there was in that bill a significant amendment to the bill that required an amendment to the preamble. That is what the issue here is at hand. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to amend preambles. I think it’s nice to think that we could make important statements in preambles. However, the fact is that the rules are clear that a substantive amendment to the preamble is normally only moved if required by amendments to the bill.
So the question is this: In that piece of legislation, did they make amendments to the bill that were substantive that then required a substantive amendment to the preamble?
Senator Dasko: I do have other examples.
The Chair: I am going to my speaker’s list.
Senator Bernard: I want to speak in support of Senator Dasko’s motion. Given the evidence we heard from the only African-Canadian voice in the whole study of this bill in both houses, given what we heard about the silence and the absence around intersectionality, and given, I think, our aspiration to be more intentional about addressing intersectionality, I would say that is strong evidence in support of the motion.
Senator Kutcher: I think Senator Seidman has brought up a very important point. The House of Commons has its directions; we have our directions and rules. I wonder if Senator Dasko could respond to Senator Seidman’s concern about what substantively changed in the bill to change the preamble.
Senator Dasko: I’m not exactly sure I can answer it quite that way. In the materials that I had read with respect to — I don’t think the meaning of a preamble is different in the House of Commons than it is here. We are both looking at the same legislation, and we are looking at statements that are important, both from an aspirational point of view and an impact on the courts.
We have a bill in front of us. They deliberate on that bill, and we deliberate on the same bill. So the importance of preamble is stated here, and when I was looking at this, I felt it was appropriate. I saw other examples of change, and I felt it was appropriate.
Senator Kutcher: With all due respect, that wasn’t my question. Just wondering — Senator Seidman raised a concern. I would just like to hear your answer to her concern given the statement from the Rules of the Senate; that’s all I’m asking.
Senator Dasko: I’m not sure I can answer it in exactly those terms.
Senator McPhedran: I want to go back to the previous amendment that we made, which Senator Bernard and others spoke about very eloquently, that also dealt with intersectionality. I would argue that amendment lines up with the proposed addition to the preamble.
Senator Dasko: I think that’s an excellent point. I think that is where the tie-in does come because we did pass an amendment on intersectionality. We put it into a clause that is extremely important because it requires the officials to look at this factor in determining the benefit. If we’re looking for a substantial tie-in, in relation to what is in the bill, we have actually done that, I would say.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have some further interpretation from our Rules. Senator Seidman, thank you for that. As Senator Seidman quoted:
A substantive amendment to the preamble is normally only moved if required by amendments to the bill, to increase its clarity, or to ensure uniformity between the English and French texts.
This wording, “normally only moved,” does not mean that such amendments cannot be moved, and committees have moved such amendments in the past.
The amendment we adopted last week, the one that Senator McPhedran was referring to I believe was moved by Senator Dasko; no, it was moved by Senator Lankin. The amendment dealt with the factors that the government must take into consideration when setting the benefit level beyond the poverty line. There were a number of factors. One of them was the intersectional needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups.
We approved that amendment at the last committee meeting and then this, according to the rules, could be consistent with the amendment that is being proposed by Senator Dasko to the preamble.
That being said, the preamble, as it currently appears in the bill is not currently inconsistent or incorrect as it is written, so the amendments are not necessary or required. It would nevertheless be acceptable for these amendments to be put before the committee to decide. So more obfuscation, perhaps, less clarity, but having said that, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion carries.
We’ll move on to another amendment to Bill C-22, 3-2-9.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I’m very grateful for the conversation that we’ve just had. Thank you, Senator Seidman, for raising this. I think we can make consistent arguments for this as well, given two amendments: one that we made last week proposed by me that relates to the timing of the process, the purpose of which is to pay out the Canada disability benefit as efficiently as possible, and the amendment that we’ve accepted today proposed by Senator Petitclerc.
This addition to the preamble, while we all understand has no legal effect, no legal obligation, speaks to both of those amendments in terms of timing and having some framework that guides the government in implementing this promise. For clarity it would state:
. . . whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using its best efforts to begin paying the Canada disability benefit within one year of this Act coming into force;
That is consistent with the amendments already adopted by the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, is there any discussion on this?
Senator Osler: Perhaps just a clarification. This question is for Senator McPhedran. The first part of the amendment states “by replacing line 9 with the following,” but does it not read exactly the same as in the preamble?
Senator McPhedran: Actually, to be really honest with you, Senator Osler, I skipped over that and didn’t propose it because I think that’s unfinished work. I’m focusing only on paragraph (b), which is after line 13. What I just read would be inserted after line 13. I’m sorry, I should have been clearer about that. I thought, without saying it, we could go straight to the amendment that I’m proposing.
The Chair: It’s correcting the “and” —
Senator McPhedran: To be consistent, nothing else has “and whereas,” so this would be consistent starting with “whereas,” and it would be after line 13. It would be before the existing clause in the preamble that begins: “Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . .” Sorry, I should have been more precise.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, I need some clarification. Line 9 currently reads in the preamble: “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to the economic and social inclusion of persons with disabilities . . .” Your line 9 says, “Whereas Parliament recognizes the leading role . . .”
Senator McPhedran: Yes, but as I said, I did not read that into the record because I do not intend to propose that part. What I’ve read into the record and what I’ve asked for is after line 13.
The Chair: Okay. Colleagues, that’s in order. Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
We are going straight to paragraph (b), and that is the amendment that we are discussing, without the “and.”
Senator McPhedran: Without the “and,” yes. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Without the “and.”
Senator Petitclerc: I don’t want to reopen that, but my understanding — and it doesn’t make a difference; maybe it’s just for the English language — is when you go into enumeration, you can’t have the “and” and then “and.” So you take off the “and” before line 9 and you start with “whereas” because then you’re adding an “and.”
Senator McPhedran: I’m not touching line 9. I never read it into the record.
Senator Petitclerc: I’m just saying this is why I understand there were paragraphs (a) and (b).
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, when we were talking about amendments earlier and people were withdrawing amendments, it was really clear it was withdrawn. Senator McPhedran, what you’re saying is you are withdrawing the written suggestion of paragraph (a).
Senator McPhedran: That is correct. Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Her paragraph (a) is formally withdrawn.
The Chair: Okay. Let’s go with that.
Senator Seidman: I’m going to ask the same question I asked regarding Senator Dasko’s amendment. Indeed, the answer that we received was that we already added intersectionality in that amendment that we agreed to last week, so we weren’t changing anything by adding that in the preamble. I just let us work it through. Now, however, I’m wondering if we are changing something. That’s what I’m trying to understand. You’re saying that:
. . . the Government of Canada is committed to using its best efforts to begin paying the Canada disability benefit within one year of this Act coming into force;
I don’t know if we’ve made an amendment that asked them to pay the disability benefit within one year of the act coming into force. That’s where my problem lies with this. We indeed made the timeline, but the timeline was about the regulations. We’ve indeed created a timeline about the coming-into-force date, but we’ve never made a timeline about payment of the disability benefit. That’s what you’re asking us to do in this amendment in the preamble, which is really a substantive change to the bill made in the preamble.
I guess I’m putting it out there again and will let the committee figure it out. Thank you for the indulgence.
Senator McPhedran: I think there’s a consultation.
The Chair: No, we’re looking for lines, replacements and withdrawals, et cetera. It’s my confusion, not yours. Thank you, Senator Seidman, for that clarification.
Senator McPhedran: I think a question was essentially posed, so I would appreciate being able to respond. It just looks like it’s paining you, but I would still like to make my response.
The Chair: I’m sorry if I look pained. I don’t mean to. There are a lot of moving parts here, colleagues.
Senator McPhedran: Right. May I?
The Chair: Of course.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I think that we need to ask ourselves why we place this emphasis on both the regulations within a time period and the movement by the Governor-in-Council within a time period, because there are two amendments that this committee has made. Why have we cared about that? What is the purpose of placing a time frame around the regulations? Surely, it’s to follow through on the promise of this act. Surely, it’s part of our recognition that among the poorest, most marginalized, least advantaged people in this country, are people living with disabilities, for whom a Canada disability benefit could be, in some cases, transformative for the quality and dignity of their lives.
In putting forward this proposal, I know that a preamble does not have a legal enforcement capacity. However, it is the larger statement of intention for a new piece of legislation. That is why I’ve made this proposal. It doesn’t interfere with the timelines — and we have actually amended the act with these timelines — but it does speak to that higher purpose. Why are we making these precise amendments? We’re making them because the paying out of the Canada disability benefit is a priority, not only for this committee but also for the government.
I would respectfully ask for your consideration.
The Chair: We’re going to go back to the “ands.” The table has determined that we do need an “and.” So the “and” that was removed goes back in.
Do you agree, Senator McPhedran? This is your amendment.
Senator McPhedran: I’m sorry, someone else was speaking to me.
The Chair: We need to put the “and” back in.
Senator McPhedran: Do we?
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Senator McPhedran: Sure, if that’s proper. I just didn’t like that it was the only “and.”
The Chair: It’s for the last paragraph.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. If it works, it’s fine with me.
The Chair: It works.
Senator Osler: I am just asking clarification for line 9 and line 13. Where is the “and” coming out? Where is the “and” going in? Thank you.
The Chair: Line 9, which starts with “and,” that “and” on page 2 gets removed. Then Senator McPhedran’s amendment would start with:
“And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using its best efforts to begin paying the Canada disability benefit within one year of this Act coming into force;”.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Madam Chair. Essentially, we are talking about the amendment as submitted with (a) and (b) back in, correct?
The Chair: Some of us are confused, but my law clerk tells me that your version is correct. Thank you.
Senator Moodie: All I was saying, Madam Chair, is the last thing Senator McPhedran did was disqualify (a). She said she didn’t want to include (a), so we are now restating it.
Senator McPhedran: Whatever works. I’m not fussy about this. It’s whatever works.
The Chair: Colleagues, I feel slightly uncomfortable. At this point, I’m going to ask for advice.
Colleagues, we have clarification. The version originally submitted by Senator McPhedran before anything was withdrawn is the version that we are looking at and the version that is correct.
Senator McPhedran: Madam Chair, I will clarify on the record that that is, indeed, my motion as originally submitted.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: And I apologize for messing this up.
The Chair: The “ands,” “ifs,” and “buts,” but this is legislation; we have to take it seriously.
Now we’re discussing paragraph (b) of Senator McPhedran’s amendment.
Senator McPhedran: It is:
“And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using its best efforts to begin paying the Canada disability benefit within one year of this Act coming into force;”.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, I take Senator Seidman’s point. Nowhere in the amendments that have we made have we said that the benefit must come into force within one year. We’ve put timelines on regulations. We’ve put a timeline on coming into force. Those two timelines may shrink or overlap. It could be less or more. The preamble, as Senator Dasko correctly pointed out, is aspirational, but it is also used in court decisions.
I’m stepping out of my role as chair a little here, but this is my reading of what we have before us.
Senator McPhedran: To which, of course, you are completely entitled. With all due respect, I would like to respond with a somewhat different look at this.
In no way does this contradict the two time amendments that this committee has accepted. Those two time amendments, as with this in the preamble, are geared to moving as quickly as possible to implement the promise in this act, which is to begin payment of a Canada disability benefit.
The aspiration is entirely consistent with the amendments that we’ve already passed. The aspiration is that those amendments are really the outer edges, if you will. This proposed amendment is staying within those outer edges and saying that it’s the paying out — the result of these other two amendments in the bill — that is the desired scenario, the aspiration, of this bill. The primary purpose of this bill is to pay out the Canada disability benefit as efficiently as possible.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. What is your will, colleagues? Shall the amendment carry? We can have a roll call vote, absolutely.
Emily Barrette, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bernard?
Senator Bernard: Abstain.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Kutcher?
Senator Kutcher: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: No.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Petitclerc?
Senator Petitclerc: Abstain.
Ms. Barrette: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Barrette: Yeas, three. Nays, seven. Abstentions, two.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: 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 of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
The Chair: Colleagues, rule 12-16.(1)(d) allows us to go in camera to discuss a draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss the observations in public or in camera? If we go in camera, colleagues, the officials will be asked to leave the room. Is it agreed that we go in camera? It is agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)