Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 11 -- Evidence
Ottawa, Thursday, May 16, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-275, to establish the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians; and Bill C-13, to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin with our study of Bill C-275, I wish to give you a briefing.
Senator Kinsella raised in the house a legitimate point, namely, that when we pass a bill in the Senate it is treated in the House of Commons as if it were any ordinary private member's bill. It is not recognized that it has the imprimatur of the Senate and that we, as a legislative chamber, have debated it, discussed it, passed it and sent it to the other place.
With the help of Senator Milne's assistant, Vincent MacNeil; and my clerk, Dr. Lank, we went about seeing how we could, perhaps, put together a message to the House of Commons with respect to Bill C-275 indicating that we feel our bill should be treated in a somewhat different manner in that it had been passed legislatively. We felt it would be simple to add a recommendation to Bill C-275 to this effect, which is why I raise this issue before we get into a discussion of the bill.
Subsequently, I have learned that at some point in the history of the House of Commons, they decided they did not like to receive messages attached to bills from senators, which did not have a great deal to do with the specific bill. They now just bury those messages. It ends up being placed on a sessional paper, which no one ever sees.
That does not mean that we should not send a message. However, I suggest that we should send a message separate and apart from Bill C-275. I suggest we discuss such a message after we have completed our consideration of Bill C-275 today. I wanted Senator Kinsella in particular to know that this topic is still very much on the plate of this committee since he raised the point in a debate in the Senate.
I will share with members of the committee the kind of message that we propose to send, but not in the form of an amendment to the bill. In this way, they will receive our message. They will have to hear it. After having heard it, perhaps they will pay some attention to it.
Senator Kinsella: Madam Chair, I would be satisfied if this committee would submit to the Senate a separate report recommending that a message be sent to the House of Commons along the lines of the text prepared by our colleague, Senator Milne. That would make the report of the committee on Bill C-275 more congruent with the rules, which many interpret to provide that a committee reports a bill with or without amendments and that the practice of attaching recommendations is more an exercise of poetic licence by committees than it is something provided for in the Rules of the Senate of Canada.
If we examine the Rules of the Senate, we see it is provided that committees, when examining bills, are to report the bill with or without amendments, period.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Kinsella: Perhaps at today's meeting a report on Bill C-275 with or without amendments would constitute the report of the committee. Perhaps a second report, namely, a recommendation for a message, would be in order.
The Chair: According to our rules, it could not be a message from this committee because we are not mandated to do that. Certainly, as an individual senator, I, or any other senator, with the approval of this committee, could move a motion in the Senate that we cause to be delivered such a message to the House of Commons. Technically, it would not be a message from this committee.
Senator Kinsella: Would it not be possible for this committee to submit a report on Bill C-275, followed by another report, the substance of which would be the recommendation that the Senate consider submitting a message to the House of Commons? Perhaps we could receive clarification about whether or not that is possible.
The Chair: As I understand it, we can only report items which we have been mandated to debate and discuss. We have not been mandated to come up with a report on this particular section. Therefore, an individual senator would have to take that message to the Senate as a whole. I certainly would take the direction of this committee and be prepared to be that senator in order to bring the message to the Senate. I would have no difficulty in any discussion of the motion to say that it has been discussed in our committee and that it has the approval of the committee if, in fact, we obtain that approval.
I have just received a message to the effect that Mr. Boudria, who was to appear before us on Bill C-275, is at the present moment arguing a point of order in the House of Commons. He will join us as soon as he possibly can.
If it is the will of the committee, we will have some discussions on Bill C-13, after which we will turn to Bill C-275. The witnesses on Bill C-13 are here. Is that agreeable, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: With us today are three witnesses from the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. They are Corporal Jeff Warren of the RCMP; Helen Banulescu, Chief, Law Enforcement Group; and Mr. Warren Black, Senior General Counsel.
Would you proceed, please?
Ms Helen Banulescu, Chief, Law Enforcement Group, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada: It is our pleasure to appear before you again this morning.
We have had the opportunity to review the transcript of our discussion with members of the committee last week. As a result, we have a couple of supplementary comments to make which we hope will address any outstanding concerns.
First, with respect to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, members of the commission are Governor-in-Council appointees who serve for a term not exceeding five years. As for former RCMP members serving on the commission, according to commission staff, one appointee was an RCMP constable approximately 20 years ago, for a period of approximately three years. Presently, however, he is a lawyer in private practice.
For your further information, we have provided the chairman with a complete list of the current members, as well as a brochure on the commission, its role and functions.
The second issue regards the use of the word "person" as opposed to using the word "witness" or "protectee." For example, clause 6(2) deals with emergency protective services.
On reflection, we felt that using the word "person" in that instance is probably more appropriate than using the word "witness" in that you could have an individual who has not yet agreed to give information or evidence but who still finds himself threatened. As I mentioned earlier, members of the House of Commons Justice and Legal Affairs Committee felt it important to provide explicitly in the legislation for the protection of such an individual or person.
The use of the word "person" was also highlighted with regard to clause 11(5). This subclause refers to a "protectee" or "former protectee". However, rather than using this phrase three times in the paragraph, the drafter probably decided that using the word "person" would make the provision less cumbersome. Taken in context, the word "person" clearly refers to a protectee or former protectee.
Third, a concern was raised with respect to clause 9(1). In particular, the fact that the RCMP commissioner may terminate protective services for, among other things, a failure to disclose information relative to the admission of the protectee to the program was mentioned.
To clarify the type of information which is at issue, I refer committee members to clause 6(1)(b). That clause states that a witness shall not be admitted to the program, unless the commissioner has been provided with such information concerning the personal history of the witness.
We are referring to information dealing with, for example, work history, number of dependants, financial status, et cetera, which the RCMP needs in order to assess admissibility. That is the type of information referred to in clause 9(1)(a), not information about a case.
That brings me to the point about a spouse who enters the program along with her husband, who is the key witness. The question was: If the spouse enters into a protection agreement and it happens that she has information about a case, is she obliged to reveal it under the terms of the agreement? Under section 8(b)(i), the obligation of the protectee is to give information or evidence, or participate as required. I emphasize the words "as required."
As the chairman pointed out last week, you can either come into the program as the main witness -- that is, the key person who has to give the evidence or the information -- or as a family member, in which case the protection agreement for you, the spouse, would not require you to provide any information or evidence.
While future protection agreements must be consistent with the act, they will continue to be tailored for the individual. In this case, the spouse would not be required to provide the information.
Another key issue was how the protectee enforces the contract or settles disputes arising from the agreement. As we mentioned last week, the first step would be for the RCMP to try to resolve the matter directly with the protectee. If that does not work, the protectee can lodge a complaint with the Public Complaints Commission or launch a law suit. With both the PCC and the courts, there are mechanisms, such as going in camera, to protect the identity of the person.
On the other side of the coin, if the protectee is subject to a law suit by a third party, the RCMP will act as intermediaries to protect the individual, including escorting the person to and from the courtroom, if necessary.
On the subject of processing name changes in Quebec, I should like to ask my colleague Corporal Jeff Warren to say a few words on this issue.
Corporal Jeff Warren, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: On reading the transcript, I received the impression that the committee may have been led slightly astray in terms of what the RCMP does in the name change process versus the provincial authorities.
As I mentioned last week, the Province of Quebec is slightly different in that, as of today, we have been unable to strike an agreement with the Minister of Justice and the vital statistics department to enable us, the RCMP, to do name changes for RCMP cases. As of about three months ago, or slightly longer than three months ago, the sûreté and the Montreal city police have been able to strike an agreement with vital statistics and the justice department of Quebec to allow them to do it for their cases.
We continue to go outside of the province of Quebec for cases that originate inside Quebec for the name change. We must do that because we are unable to do it securely in the province. We are hoping for an agreement. As we speak, meetings are taking place with the ministries to try to sign an agreement and reach a protocol whereby we can do our name changes securely in Quebec. As of fairly recently, the SQ and the MUC can do them. They then come to us to do the federal side of the re-documentation process. There is a problem. We are hopeful that it will be changed down the road.
Senator Beaudoin: I gave further thought to that problem. In Quebec, the change of a name is very public. It is publicized in the newspapers. That is exactly what police are not interested in doing. I understand the RCMP's problem.
If a Montrealer, for example, is working for the RCMP and wishes to change his name, he will go, let us say, to New Brunswick, where the procedure is quite different and much less publicized. I understand that, and I accept that, because the police obviously have a good reason for asking for a change of name. In that sense, we must do something.
How do you do this? Suppose the person is a married man with children. Is the name change for everyone or just for him? What happens to the marriage? The marriage exists and will remain that way. What happens with income tax? If you reside in Quebec, you must pay income tax to the provincial authorities. If you go to New Brunswick for, let us say, one month, to change your name, I do not see a problem; but if you go to New Brunswick for a longer period, it may be material for the income tax purpose.
I am worried about the interaction between the federal and provincial matters. I agree entirely with the principle of the bill. However, for changing names, we must follow the provincial laws, and the provincial laws of Quebec are different. You say that you are going to New Brunswick, for example, to change a name. I do not have any problem with that, providing that the police are complying with the laws of New Brunswick. If they must stay there for six weeks, then they must stay there for six weeks.
How is it done in practice? Could you explain that to me?
Mr. Warren: In practice, New Brunswick is quite often chosen by us to do the name changes, particularly for those cases originating from the province of Quebec. The residency requirements in New Brunswick are probably the least of any province. For example, in Ontario, there is a one-year residency requirement. The vital statistics people will not alter that even for participants in our program. In many cases where the individual has not lived in Ontario for one year, we will take them to New Brunswick as well, because it is a 48-hour residency requirement.
Senator Beaudoin: Did you say 48 hours?
Mr. Warren: Yes. I sometimes wonder if it is a registration slip from a motel as well.
Senator Bryden: It is a growth industry. We provide ourselves as a haven for protectees for name changes.
Senator Gigantès: A point of order, please. Would our chairman please ask the members of all groups present here not to use this barbarous neologism "protectee"? It does not exist in the Oxford dictionary.
The Chair: It exists in this legislation, Senator Gigantès.
Senator Gigantès: I should like an amendment banishing the word "protectee" from this legislation. They are a protected person. Why can we not say that?
Senator Kinsella: What is wrong with "protectee"?
The Chair: I suspect you could use "protected person," but that would lead to another discussion about why we use "person" in this legislation.
Senator Gigantès: We have already agreed that "person" is better.
Senator Beaudoin: The time requirement is very short in New Brunswick. It is not only Quebec but also Ontario that are taking advantage of this. What are the consequences for the person?
Mr. Warren: In terms of income tax, for example?
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, income tax and his family.
Mr. Warren: In terms of the family, you asked whether the whole family is included in the re-identification process. They are. Children, spouse, or any other members --
Senator Beaudoin: And the grandchildren?
Mr. Warren: Potentially.
Senator Beaudoin: It is a dynasty.
Mr. Warren: It can be.
Senator Beaudoin: What about income tax?
Mr. Warren: In terms of income tax, again, the province of Quebec is slightly different. With all the other provinces, through our contact with Revenue Canada, we can enable them to do what they must with Revenue Canada and their databases to switch the information securely from the old identity over to the new identity. I will not get into the process because I do not think it serves any useful purpose.
Because of the different method of filing income tax in Quebec, we run into a bit of a problem. There are a number of ways we can deal with it. One way is, if the participant in the program has been living in Quebec until November under the old identify, he or she gets a name change done one month before the tax year ends. We will have the income tax file for the whole 12 months in the old identify.
For a variety of reasons, we do not put a lot of participants in the program into Quebec. It is primarily a language problem. If they come from B.C., for example, and are unable to speak both official languages, it becomes fairly problematic to us. Likewise, when we do a name change, we rarely leave them in the same province. It just makes no sense to us. Therefore, in subsequent years they file their income tax under their new identify in their new province.
Senator Beaudoin: I understand that you are now negotiating a contract with the Sûreté du Québec.
Mr. Warren: In fact, it is with the Minister of Justice.
Senator Beaudoin: Are the negotiations between the Ministers of Justice of Quebec and Canada?
Mr. Warren: They are between the RCMP witness protection coordinator in Quebec and the ministries of vital statistics and justice in Quebec.
Senator Beaudoin: That is ongoing?
Mr. Warren: It is.
Senator Beaudoin: Are there any problems that we should anticipate?
Mr. Warren: Not other than that we have not, as yet, been able to strike an agreement, but then the SQ and the MUC were only able to do so within the last few months.
Senator Beaudoin: Do they object to this bill?
Mr. Warren: Not at all. They are very supportive.
Senator Gigantès: I did not clearly understand what you said. Assume that a protected person lived in Quebec until the end of November. You move that protected person to New Brunswick and 48 hours later you change that person's name. That person will probably stay in New Brunswick.
Mr. Warren: Yes, or go to another province.
Senator Gigantès: According to the existing law, that person should pay tax in the province of residence on December 31.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes.
Senator Gigantès: But you say they will pay tax in Quebec.
Mr. Warren: Revenue Canada does not consider them to be residents of the province of New Brunswick. They could be considered visitors. It is a temporary thing.
Senator Bryden: I enjoyed the letter sent by Ms Banulescu to Senator Carstairs. If you are not going to change it -- and I am not asking you to do so -- you must give a good explanation of why it is right. It is the second paragraph that I enjoy so much. It reads:
With respect to subsection 11(5), the drafters could have used the expression "protectee" or "former protectee," but it would have been very cumbersome because the expression would have had to appear three times in the subsection. This was avoided by using the word "person."
I studied under an old professor of legislative drafting who constantly reminded us that legislative drafting had to concentrate on clarity and consistency and that we were not writing poetry.
The reason that the same words are used over and over is so that there will be consistency and total clarity.
Senator Doyle: I assume that we will not even consider an amendment which would provide for some clarification of the people who will cease to be protectees.
I wanted to offer the suggestion that it may be less offensive to use "in or with evidence of" rather than "of the opinion of the Commissioner"; that is, that there be evidence, not only an opinion.
When we pass a law that says we are going to uphold the opinion of the Commissioner of the RCMP, I get nervous.
Senator Gigantès: Senator Doyle, your point is that you would like there to be proof; something more solid than an opinion. I find this to be a valid point, having suffered from the opinion of a deputy minister who had absolutely no evidence but had an opinion. I do not think we should disregard Senator Doyle's point.
A deputy minister and the Commissioner of the RCMP, who is at the level of deputy minister, were involved in the case to which I refer. Before we passed the law which severed CSIS from the RCMP, no one could question their opinions, although their opinions could be wrong. I am one who suffered from such a wrong opinion and it took three and one-half years to get out from under their wrong opinion.
I therefore think that the point of Senator Doyle is worth considering.
Senator Doyle: Most of us around this table are quite aware that the word "Commissioner" does not mean the Commissioner; it means whichever officer he may have delegated to look into a particular matter.
The Chair: Senator Doyle wishes to change the wording in clause 9(1), which presently reads "in the opinion of the Commissioner." As I understand it, he wishes to have that changed, following the word protectee, to state "if the evidence shows that there has been."
Senator Gigantès: I support that amendment.
Senator Lewis: What would be added?
The Chair: We would remove "in the opinion of the Commissioner" and replace it with "if the evidence shows that there last been (a) a material..."
Ms Banulescu: If members look at clause 10, they will see that for a refusal to admit or a termination the commissioner must provide the protected person with written reasons. It is not just his opinion. He must set out the reasons for his decision. In essence, the evidence must be laid out as set out in clause 10.
Mr. Warren Black, Senior General Counsel, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada: I should like to add a few points. Even though this is now drafted to say "if the opinion of the Commissioner," it is fairly fundamental in law that, even where a discretion is given, the discretion must be exercised in accordance with the purposes of the statute.
That would preclude the commissioner -- certainly in addition to the fact that written reasons must be given -- from acting arbitrarily. He would have to exercise that power in accordance with the provisions of the statute and for the reasons given. There would have to be good reasons under the statute.
With regard to the other point made by Senator Doyle on the matter of delegation, subclause 15(b) provides that this power to terminate the protection provided to a protectee can be delegated, but only to the assistant commissioner designated by the commissioner as being responsible for the program. The decision would still have to be made at a very high level, which should help to ensure that it is a responsible decision.
Finally, there is the point which Ms Banulescu just made about having to give written reasons. All of these would be a check on arbitrariness.
I should like to suggest to the senators here that perhaps that would be sufficient and that no amendment to the provision would be necessary.
Senator Gigantès: I do not like the word "opinion." If you three care to have lunch with me one of these days in the Parliamentary Restaurant, I will tell you the story upon which that is based. The RCMP was involved. The commissioner gave an opinion. He was not supported by any fact. I carried this on me for 11 years. It was based on the opinion of one man who was backed by the commissioner of the RCMP on the basis of totally insufficient and stupid evidence sent to the RCMP by the John Birch Society.
I am sorry. I cannot accept this word "opinion" in there. Even very august public servants sometimes hold wrong opinions.
The Chair: If we change the words from "the opinion" to "the evidence shows," that does not change the fact that it would still be the commissioner who would make the decision. In essence, if he based it on his opinion or on his evidence, it is still the same RCMP commissioner who would make the decision. Am I correct in that interpretation?
Mr. Black: I think that is true. The difficulty is that these decisions must require a certain degree of discretion. If it simply said "if the evidence shows," that would open up every decision to a review in the courts and basically to an appeal procedure. There could be a second-guessing on a decision which may have been taken on the basis of many factors, perhaps factors on which reasonable people would disagree.
Senator Gigantès: Absolutely. I was not given the right to appeal.
Senator Doyle: I simply would add that all these arguments are being made right now by the committee investigating what happened in Somalia. There we have another military-type organization with many people of good conscience and impeccable record trying to do the right thing. It is coming back now to the legislatures to sort out what happened and what went wrong.
Any time we have changed over to provide a little more protection for the public, we are doing what we are paid for.
Senator Beaudoin: The amendment of Senator Doyle and Senator Gigantès is material in law. This is why I support it. If the evidence shows that, obviously a court may rule on this at a certain time. It is much stronger than if you say "in the opinion of," because one power is discretionary and the other power is based on facts and the court has the right to intervene. I cannot but agree with that amendment.
After all, we are concerned with very important things here. For the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is much better to have "if the evidence shows" than to leave it to the discretion of an officer.
Senator Gigantès: Absolutely.
Senator Lewis: If this amendment were be accepted, I would not like the use of the words "if the evidence shows." What evidence? To what are we referring there? There is no hearing. It should have to be worded a little differently than that.
Senator Bryden: I wish to make a suggestion. I was concerned about the same thing. I may create my own errors in instant drafting but it would read:
The commissioner may terminate the protection provided to a protectee if he has evidence that there has been...
Senator Maheu: Or she.
Senator Bryden: Yes, if the commissioner has evidence. Someone must be responsible for the evidence. Once again, you can go to the courts and say, "There was no evidence."
There are a couple of competing things here, namely, the public interest and the protection of the protectee. You cannot make it so cumbersome that appeals are always ongoing; on the other hand, the protectee should not be treated in an arbitrary fashion by the commissioner.
The amendment could say that the commissioner may terminate the protection provided to a protectee if the commissioner has evidence that there has been a material representation or a deliberate material contravention.
Senator Doyle: I do not think that would save you in your brush with the RCMP. They said they had evidence, did they not?
Senator Gigantès: But Senator Beaudoin said that if the word "evidence" is used, then the courts can come in.
The Chair: Senator Doyle, are you satisfied with Senator Bryden's reworking of that motion or would you prefer your original motion, which contains your wording?
Senator Kinsella: Let us hear it again.
The Chair: He has suggested that, under clause 9(1), we leave it to a protectee "if the Commissioner has evidence, there has been..."
Senator Bryden: He must have evidence. It is not just in his opinion.
The Chair: It is not an opinion. Essentially, it says: "has evidence."
Senator Bryden: At least a protectee can question whether there was evidence.
Senator Doyle: I would prefer my own recommendation, but I think I could go along with that because, if there is evidence, then he could be compelled to reveal what it was.
Senator Beaudoin: In law, the difference is not so big. I may agree with Senator Bryden on this. Obviously, in law it is what we call justiciable. A person may go to court and ask the commissioner what that evidence was. Whether you say it that way or the other way I have no problem, providing it is clear-cut that there is evidence there.
Mr. Black: I wish to make a few additional comments. The amendment proposed would make a fundamental change. Perhaps that is what these members wish to do. However, they should understand that the effect of using the words "if the commissioner has evidence that there has been" will oblige the commissioner, if this is taken to court, to reveal the evidence on which he acted. Whereas if you look at clause 10, it talks about written reasons that are sufficient to enable the agency for the witness to understand the basis for the decision.
It is envisaged here that the reasons might not go into all the detail necessary because there may be matters under consideration here concerning the operation of the program, which should not be revealed. That is why in clause 10 we talked about written reasons to enable the protectee to understand the basis for the decision. In other words, they might be written reasons that were sufficient to bring home the essence of the decision but not all the detail, whereas if we now use the phrase in clause 9 "if the commissioner has evidence", the commissioner will be obliged to go into court and reveal all the evidence, which may be detrimental to the operation of the program. Senators should understand that this change of wording can put the commissioner in the position of having to quote chapter and verse about all the details of why the person is being terminated from the program, whereas it may not be in the public interest to reveal quite that amount of detail.
Senator Gigantès: He can tell the judge in camera, then. What you are saying is exactly what Senator Doyle said. We are going back to the Somalia case, and other cases where it is not convenient or in the public interest. Here we are protecting an individual right and we are talking about the Charter of Rights. The commissioner can say to the judge, "I cannot reveal these things in open court. I can reveal them to you in camera."
Senator Doyle: That is right.
Senator Bryden: In response to that, the amendment would require the commissioner to provide in his letter to the protectee that he has evidence and he can give whatever evidence he wishes. That does not automatically, then, end up in court. Presumably, if that is not satisfactory, it would go to the protectee's lawyer. Most of these, I take it, would be determined outside of the courts.
Finally, if it were to occur in court, the point was made that it can be in camera, and all names can be pseudonyms. This is the same justification that was given for not having an ombudsman or an appeal process.
The amendment puts more onus on the commissioner to be sure that when he terminates the program, he has evidence so that, if called upon, he could justify his decision, either in a court or to a lawyer representing the protectee. I do not see how that would necessarily require you to open the books on the entire program.
Senator Pearson: I am always concerned with particular cases because we have been talking about abstractions here. I understand we are talking about approximately 50 cases per year, which is what you talked about before.
This arises not only in this clause, but also in subclause 6 of clause 11, where again it is written "in the opinion of the commissioner." Do you think that these changes would result in fewer people being taken into protection and, therefore, would people feel that this will be too complicated and they would not do it?
Mr. Warren: From a layperson's perspective and from someone who has been involved in administering the program, I do not think it would make a whit of difference.
Senator Kinsella: I would like to revisit the present wording, where it provides "in the opinion of the commissioner," because the term "opinion" is equivocal. Some will use the term "opinion" and understand that it means informed opinion, but as any introductory text on logic will show, in the section dealing with opinion and the categories of opinion, there are also opinions which are ill-informed. It is our duty to express informed opinions.
Our difficulty is around the equivocation that is possible with that term. There seems to be common ground around the table that one wishes to provide for the justiciability of the decision that is taken, while at the same time wishing to provide for the administrative practicality of the commissioner exercising judgment.
I wonder whether or not we would accomplish those two objectives of justiciability on the one hand and practical, applied, reasonable judgment on the part of the commissioner on the other, if the wording -- building on what Senators Bryden, Doyle and Gigantès have suggested -- read "that the commissioner may terminate the protection provided to a protectee if the commissioner has reasonable grounds to decide" and continuing "there has been".
Senator Gigantès: I like the word "evidence."
The Chair: Senator Kinsella, that is a suggestion, but it does not seem to have resonated with either Senator Doyle or Senator Gigantès.
Senator Gigantès: "Reasonable" is equivocal. Reasonable in the opinion of whom?
Senator Kinsella: It is justiciable.
Senator Gigantès: What seems reasonable to me may not seem reasonable to you. It happens every day.
Senator Kinsella: But reasonableness is justiciable.
Senator Gigantès: But "evidence" is stronger.
Senator Kinsella: But we have the testimony of the witnesses who indicate that if "evidence" is used, then all the evidence, which could breach security and undermine the whole program, would be called upon and placed in jeopardy in order to sustain the reasonableness of the judgment.
Senator Gigantès: This was answered by Senator Bryden. It could be done in camera. The commissioner can say to the judge, "I can answer these questions for you, sir, but not in open court," and the judge would accept.
Senator Bryden: I would be very surprised if our witnesses would find your terminology better than the terminology that was used. That really opens the debate up.
Senator Kinsella: Let us ask them, then.
Senator Beaudoin: It is because you opened a debate on the word "reasonable" and what is not reasonable.
Senator Kinsella: Exactly.
Senator Beaudoin: Perhaps it is a bit more complicated. If you just say "if the commissioner has evidence that," it is justiciable and I think it should be justiciable. But if, for security reasons, they wish to have a trial in camera, it is quite possible. I do not envisage big difficulties. The courts know that this is a special matter. This is done for the protection of the state.
Senator Gigantès: And for the protection of the individual.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, under the Charter of Rights. But there is always a balance between the protection of a state and the protection of an individual.
I do not see any big problem with your amendment, or your amendment as amended by Senator Bryden. It is about the same, so I would accept it. But if you add "reasonable grounds," you open the debate more.
The Chair: This is obviously a debate among learned people. I ask this question more of my colleagues, who are legal scholars, than I do of the witnesses. If the present wording were to remain, is that not protected by clauses 10(a) and 10(b), which require that the commissioner provide written reasons, and also by the provisions of clause 9(2)?
Senator Gigantès: Clause 10 states:
Where a decision is taken (a) to refuse to admit a witness --
This clause deals with not admitting someone to the program, whereas clause 9 deals with terminating the protection of someone in the program. These are different things.
The Chair: Clause 10(b) provides for termination.
Senator Gigantès: That clause provides for termination without the consent of the protectee, with respect to which the protectee will receive written reasons in order to understand the basis of the decision.
Big deal! We will take the protectee who may not have great intellectual powers and the commissioner who is able to use his logic to brow beat the person into understanding why he is being terminated. No. I want the word "evidence" in there.
The Chair: Are we ready to proceed, honourable senators?
Senator Doyle: I have withdrawn by motion and accept the changes that have been put forward.
The Chair: What we are voting on now is an amendment to clause 9(1), which reads:
"If the Commissioner has evidence that there has been --"
Those words would replace the words "in the opinion of the Commissioner."
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The amendment is adopted.
Senator Lewis: I move that we report the bill as amended.
The Chair: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
I wish to thank our witnesses.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed with Bill C-275. Unfortunately, Mr. Boudria, who did arrive, had to leave again because he was called back to the house. Nevertheless, we have here this morning a clerk from the House of Commons.
As I understand it, Bill C-275 was proposed originally by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Senator Maheu, who is not a member of our committee, is here this morning because she is the sponsor of the bill. She may be able to provide us with any further information that is required.
I would ask the clerks to come to the table now, please. It would be easiest if you would introduce yourselves because I do not have your names.
Mr. Stephen Knowles, Clerk, Private Members' Business, House of Commons: Madam Chair, I am Stephen Knowles, Clerk, Private Members' Business, House of Commons. With me today is Mr. Rob R. Walsh, General Legislative Counsel, House of Commons; and Mr. Richard Prégent, Deputy Principal Clerk, Private Members' Business, House of Commons.
The Chair: Will you proceed, please?
Mr. Rob R. Walsh, General Legislative Counsel, House of Commons: We are opening your discussions on this bill because Mr. Boudria was called away. Much of what might be said about this bill which would be of interest to this committee may well be said later by Mr. Boudria rather than by ourselves. We are here to offer what information we have, which might be of assistance to you regarding this bill in terms of the technical information pertaining to its contents for which I am responsible as the drafter of the bill. My colleagues Stephen Knowles and Richard Prégent are familiar with private members' bills in the House of Commons. They are prepared to answer any questions you may have pertaining to those matters.
We have not come here with a presentation as such. We are simply here to answer any questions members of the committee may have.
I am not here on behalf of the association either, Madam Chair. If there are questions that they should answer, perhaps you might call them.
The Chair: Honourable senators, it has been pointed out to me that there seems to be a difference in the bill between the English and French versions.
In clause 2 and clause 5, the French version is very careful to make note always of "député." However, in the English version we find a strange anomaly called "senator or member of Parliament." Senators feel very strongly that they, too, are members of Parliament. Do you have any explanation as to why that particular wording is used in English while it was carefully not used in French?
Mr. Walsh: Given your comments, Madam Chair, I am reluctant to offer any explanation.
As the drafter of the bill, I am culpable of sharing in that misconception. I do not specifically recall addressing my mind to this question at the time this provision was being drafted. I take it you are referring to the definition of "former parliamentarian" in clause 2 where it refers to that person as having been a senator "or" member of Parliament. I suppose I must have had in mind that members of the House of Commons are referred to as "members of Parliament" whereas members of the other place are referred to as "senators." In that respect, that is why that terminology was used.
Senator Gigantès: The Constitution Act, 1867 specifies that the Parliament of Canada has two chambers.
Mr. Walsh: Indeed.
Senator Gigantès: We are all members of Parliament.
Mr. Walsh: I do not dispute that point of view at all, senator.
Senator Gigantès: You have done so in this text.
Mr. Walsh: There is nothing more I can say beyond "mea culpa, mea culpa."
The Chair: I gather you will not object too strenuously if we amend the bill accordingly.
Mr. Walsh: I see no technical reason not to do so, Madam Chair.
Senator Kinsella: What is the rule with reference to bills and the equivalence of interpretative authority of the English and French versions?
Let me be specific. In clause 2, the French version specifically and more accurately uses the phrase "député de la Chambre des communes." If one were to look at the French version and see "député de la Chambre des communes," by the rule or the practice, will the French version correct the English version which erroneously uses the term or the phrase "member of Parliament"? Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Walsh: The general rule is that each version is equally as authoritative as the other. Beyond that, the courts do their best, in the face of an apparent inconsistency, to reconcile the inconsistency in some manner, if they can.
In this case, I would suggest to you that if there were not an amendment of the kind earlier suggested and if this were the language with which the court was faced, having recognized that the French talks about "député de la Chambre des communes," they would probably look at the English version where it distinguishes a Member of Parliament from a senator by virtue of using the term "senator" and would probably recognize the English as having intended "Member of Parliament" to be a reference to the Commons, as is the case in the French version, and take the French version as probably reflecting the intent.
Senator Kinsella: Based on that, we would not need an amendment, because we have the problem in clause 5 where the French version uses the literal translation from the English. They say "députés actuels du Parlement".
Senator Beaudoin: Yes. That is the right expression.
Senator Maheu: On a point of clarification, in the French version they talk about "senateur" and "député de la Chambre des communes." As far as I am concerned, Senator Kinsella, the word "senateur" is used in French and "Member of the House of Commons" is used in French but it is not used in English. They differentiate senators from being members of the Parliament of Canada. I objected to that from the beginning. The House of Commons agrees with me that there is an anomaly there. They are not referred to as members of the House of Commons. They differentiate between the House of Commons and Parliament. We are members of Parliament. It is important that it be said in no uncertain terms.
Senator Kinsella: I could not agree more with you, Senator Maheu. In attempting to be helpful, we thought that, because of the equivalency of language, it could have been saved. Unfortunately, clause 5 is still a problem.
Senator Maheu: I have two amendments for those sections.
Senator Kinsella: My second question deals with the time line of the bill. Are you familiar with the dates on which this bill had first, second, and third reading in the House of Commons?
Mr. Walsh: This bill got speedy consideration in the House of Commons. The Journals of Friday, April 26, 1996 would indicate that, by unanimous consent, this bill was presented by Mr. Boudria, seconded by Madam Dalphond-Guiral and Mr. Ringma. The motion was, by unanimous consent, that it be adopted at all stages without debate or amendment, and that is what occurred on that date.
Senator Kinsella: It was adopted without debate on the principle of the bill at second reading?
Mr. Walsh: That is correct. It was done without debate or amendment.
Senator Kinsella: There was no referral to a committee for clause-by-clause analysis.
Mr. Walsh: That is right.
Senator Kinsella: We should not be surprised that errors can slip through.
Senator Gigantès: That is why the Senate is necessary.
Senator Beaudoin: In fact, it is essential.
Senator Kinsella: That is right.
This is a bill numbered C-275, indicating at first blush that it is a private members' bill. Members of the Senate are now seized of the question. I have had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Knowles in this regard in reference to another matter.
Could either yourself or Mr. Knowles give a brief overview of the procedure which is followed in the House of Commons when dealing with private members' bills and how that procedure is then used when a bill initiated in the Senate by an individual senator but adopted by the chamber is then sent to the House of Commons by message?
Mr. Knowles: When a senator's private member's bill is adopted in the Senate and sent back to the chamber, the bill is placed in the Order Paper under "Introduction of Senate Public Bills." At that time -- that is, if there is a sponsor in the house -- the sponsor's name is put beside the name of the bill. If there is no sponsor, the bill is simply entered. That means that the bill is ready for first reading.
Upon first reading, the bill would be transferred to what we call the order of precedence. The order of precedence are those private members' bills which have been drawn and, one after the other, on a daily basis, are under consideration in the house. This bill would be added to the bottom of that list.
However, all bills are not voteable. In the House of Commons, a maximum of five bills and five motions in private members' business can be voteable at any one time out of a maximum of 30. As must a House of Commons bill, so must a Senate bill be selected as voteable by a committee, in this case, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Senate bill is not drawn like a House of Commons bill. In a sense, you could make the point that a Senate bill does have a slightly different and more preferential treatment than a House of Commons bill, but I do not think I should make that point here.
Senator Gigantès: I do not think you could support it by evidence.
Mr. Knowles: Only in the sense that it goes right on the order of precedence immediately. The house procedure committee or its equivalent in previous parliaments has never not declared a senate bill voteable.
Senator Gigantès: Is that a public bill or a private member's bill?
Mr. Knowles: Private member's bills from the Senate are public bills. I am not talking about private bills at this moment.
Senator Kinsella: To the best of your knowledge, has this always been the practice in dealing with bills passed by the Senate or initiated in the Senate by an individual senator?
Mr. Knowles: Yes. This has been the practice.
Senator Kinsella: Is it your understanding that this is the same practice in other parliaments that follow the Westminster model of the two houses?
Mr. Knowles: To be honest, I am not qualified to comment on what happens with regard to a bill from the House of Lords, but I imagine that it is similar.
Senator Kinsella: Can you think of anything in the procedural literature which speaks to the rationale for such a dismissive manner of dealing with the bills passed by one-half of Parliament?
Mr. Knowles: A bill is taken up and treated exactly as a House of Commons bill.
Senator Kinsella: A private bill?
Mr. Knowles: Yes. A private members' bill, in every sense of the word, is not required to go through the draw.
The convention is well established that every private member's Senate public bill is declared voteable. The opposite would be absolutely unheard of.
Senator Gigantès: I do not see the purpose of this association at all. After I retire, I will probably seek the company of the senators around this table. Senator Kinsella and I have Jesuistic minds, and we like to talk to one another about these things over lunch. Senator Doyle was my editor, and we have a common love of various issues. Senator Beaudoin and I have long links that go up to the beginning of the 13th century when his ancestors assassinated mine, et cetera.
I will seek private meetings with kindred souls around this table and others in the two chambers. However, the idea of tottering here with a stick in order to meet every other doddering retiree on a stick on occasions is horrible to me. I do not see why we should go through the trouble of having this.
I move that this committee reject this bill as it is a totally unnecessary exercise. I should like to hear the reasons why people think such an association should exist. We are adults. We can deal with our own relationships by ourselves. We do not need an association.
Senator Lewis: There is already an association. This bill is merely incorporating it.
I take it that the incorporation of this association will not result in any burden on the finances of the government.
Mr. Walsh: No, it involves no expenditure.
Senator Lewis: Clause 7 deals with the powers and states:
The Association has the capacity of a natural person and, without restricting the generality of the forgoing, the Association may, in furtherance of its objects,
(h) expend, in furtherance of the objects of the Association, such moneys as may be appropriated by Parliament or by any other government for the activities of the Association.
I wonder whether this is the thin edge of the wedge and if at some stage an attempt will be made to have this association financed by government.
Mr. Walsh: I have no knowledge of that kind. The provision to which you draw the committee's attention is there simply to make it clear that, should the largesse of government or Parliament at some point provide moneys to the association, there can be no question that it will have the ability, legal and otherwise, to spend that money subject to such limitations as the government or Parliament may impose in giving that money to it. However, this provision imposes no obligation upon the government to make any such appropriation nor does the association have any expectation that it will receive any such moneys simply by virtue of that clause being there.
Senator Lewis: I assumed that. Was it necessary to put that in? One would think that the association could expend any moneys that may come its way.
Mr. Walsh: One sometimes includes in bills more than is necessary, strictly speaking, out of an abundance of caution.
Senator Gigantès: If you open the purse, money will come forth.
Senator Beaudoin: With regard to whether it is a money bill, it will cost money. If it does not, it will be a miracle. If Parliament is instituting a corporation, and if Parliament is invited to spend money, then government will do so.
I am not too worried about whether it is a money bill. I do not believe that this is essential, but I am not against it. It may remain as it is now.
I have some amendments to propose. In French you are a "sénateur" or a "député." You do not have to say "in the House of Commons" or "in the Senate." It is redundant.
In English you say "former parliamentarian" means a person who has been a Senator or a member of the House of Commons and who is not, at the present time, a senator or member of the House of Commons. In French you just say, 'ex-parlementaire' means personne qui a été sénateur ou député. We should not add "de la Chambre des communes." It is redundant.
However, you may say:
...Personne qui a été sénateur ou député au Parlement du Canada, mais qui n'est plus ni sénateur, ni député.
In French it is clear cut. In English, I do not know. I have never understood why we call a member of the House of Commons a member of Parliament, because a senator is also a member of Parliament. However, there is no word for that.
The Chair: They can call them members of the House of Commons.
Senator Beaudoin, I have already heard from Senator Milne on this issue. She also has amendments which are relevant to clauses 2 and 5. You may want to communicate with one another on whether your amendments are the same.
Presently, however, we are still dealing with the motion of Senator Gigantès.
Senator Beaudoin: The motion with regard to whether we proceed?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Doyle: Clause 10 states that the present constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations of the unincorporated association will form the basis.
Could you give us a copy of those rules, regulations, et cetera?
Mr. Walsh: I do not have a copy with me.
Senator Maheu: The association has not provided us with the rules and regulations. Ex-member of Parliament Barry Turner would be able to give us those. It constitutes the association in nearly the same way the bill does.
Senator Lewis: I would have thought that we would have had a witness from the present association to explain why they want this legislation and to tell us about their activities. Are we to go ahead and incorporate them without knowing anything about them?
Senator Maheu: But we are not incorporating.
Senator Doyle: I was going to get around to the financial side. We talked about whether or not they might ask us for money. The answer probably is that we would be awfully surprised if they did not. It says, "money appropriated by Parliament or by any other government."
Will they fly down to Cuba for their next annual meeting as guests of the government of Cuba, or to Ireland as guests of the Irish government? What is this "any other government" we are referencing? Is it the government of Quebec?
Senator Maheu: Yes, the provincial government.
Senator Doyle: Is this association organized in the province of Quebec?
The Chair: We have a number of questions that must be answered.
Mr. Walsh: Again, I do not purport to speak for the association. I can only speak about the bill itself. The objectives of the association are generally to promote parliamentary democracy and notions of parliamentary systems of government, et cetera, from clause 5 of the bill.
I suppose it may be the case -- and, I am speculating here -- that the association could be commissioned by a provincial government or by another parliamentary government to do a study, or to make comment, or to be presented or participate in a seminar relating to some issue of interest to that government. For that purpose, the association may receive some funding.
Again, I am speculating in terms of what the language would permit. You would have to ask the association directly whether it has some expectation of getting involved in those sorts of commitments with provincial or foreign governments. I do not know.
Senator Doyle: Is there some feeling that one of the projects that this association might undertake would involve a national unity debate?
Mr. Walsh: I have no knowledge of that. You would need to ask the association that.
Senator Doyle: I recognize that you have limitations, but there are political aspects here, to say nothing of the conflict of interest of all of us around this table.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Doyle. Mr. Boudria, who was a member of the association, was here. It is regrettable that he had to leave because he was called back to the other place. Some of those questions might have been debated with him.
Senator Maheu: On a point of order, Mr. Boudria is not a member. He is a sitting member of Parliament now. It is the Speaker of the House of Commons and, I believe, the Speaker of the Senate who presented the bill at the request of ex-MP Barry Turner. The Governor General had planned to recognize officially the order on the day that we are honouring former parliamentarians. No one can foresee the future mandates for this association.
I understood that the person who created the bill was told by the chair or president of the association that it was not a question of funding from the federal government. If we are getting into a national unity debate at some point, then I am glad that there are federal and federalist parliamentarians in some way, shape or form, who would be willing and could be mandated.
The Chair: We have a number of people on the list now for questions.
Senator Lewis: I should like to propose an amendment to Senator Gigantès' motion.
Senator Gigantès: Let me talk first, please.
Senator Pearson: I should like to see this bill before he goes.
The Chair: Senator Pearson has been waiting a long time, as has Senator Milne. Before Senator Gigantès makes any proposal on his amendment or discussion, it is appropriate that we hear from those senators who have not had any input into this discussion. I have three: Senators Pearson, Milne and Losier-Cool.
Senator Milne: Since we all, apparently, have a conflict of interest on this, I should like to declare that I have a double conflict of interest because I am married to an ex-parliamentarian and I am rather fond of him.
I agree with the objectives of this association. What it declares in clause 5 is good and valuable. I agree with every point of it. I would vote to defeat Senator Gigantès' motion.
Senator Pearson: I should like to speak in the same tone. I am not married to a former parliamentarian, but I am experienced with the association and the former heads of posts. These associations have an extraordinarily useful role to play. They provide opportunities for people to act. Perhaps because we are so old when we retire, most senators do not need this, but many former members of the House of Commons would enjoy an opportunity to participate in this association.
I can understand why there should be an act of Parliament because it provides a certain caché for work on an international scale which would not be there if it was simply incorporated under the rules of incorporation.
I am prepared for the few amendments as suggested, but I speak strongly in favour of offering these people a forum on which to promote parliamentary democracy.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I asked myself the following question: does the Association really need a mission as set out in clause 5? I think this is a very good idea.
As a member of the Retired Teachers' Association, I see the work that these associations do in each province every year and how they maintain direct ties with the Department of Education and its programs. I have some doubts with respect to clause 6. I am wondering how former parliamentarians could not have any political purpose? My concern is that such an association would become dependant on the party in power. These were arguments against the principle of the association.
[English]
Senator Gigantès: The association exists. It does not need to be accredited by Parliament. The value of its members and what they can do is not in any way limited by not being accredited by Parliament.
I am worried about the idea that some government might pay them. We have friendship associations which are invited by foreign governments, all expenses paid. I have always objected because they are invited for one very clear reason -- that is, in the hope that they will be influenced. If you accept such an invitation -- and I never have -- and do not do what they want you to do, then you have bitten the hand that fed you; if you do what they want you to do, then you have been bought.
I object to an association which might be mandated by any government. We can speak to clause 6, which states that the association shall not pursue its objects for any partisan political purpose. Senator Maheu was saying that if there was a national unity debate, she would want them to intervene. That seems to contradict clause 6. They could not possibly intervene. Whether or not I am a member of that association when I retire -- and I certainly shall not be -- I shall certainly fight hard in some constituency for the unity of Canada.
I do not see why the incorporation of this association by Parliament is in any way needed.
Senator Lewis: Some of us may come to the same conclusion. Before we do that, we should hear from the association itself.
For that reason, I will move an amendment to the motion.
I move that the motion not now be put until we have heard further evidence, particularly from the present association.
Senator Gigantès: I accept that motion.
The Chair: You accept that amendment to your motion, namely, that we will not put Senator Gigantès' motion until we have heard from further witnesses?
Senator Gigantès: Yes, but I reserve the right to reput the motion after we have heard from them.
The Chair: Yes, there is nothing to stop you from doing that.
Senator Kinsella: On that motion, which I wish to speak against, I think we are missing the picture of this bill completely. Valid issues that have been raised, including my own, have nothing to do with the bill itself, and for that I apologize.
The bill before this committee is a facultative bill. The words that we must focus our attention on are the words contained in clause 3 of the bill.
Senator Bryden: What fact is that? I have read public and private bills.
Senator Gigantès: The wording in French permits you to do something but does not oblige you to do something.
Senator Kinsella: That is right. The purpose is to establish a non-profit corporation. It is not for us to be speaking to the nature of the association but to speak to the issue of whether or not we agree that the powers of Parliament should be exercised to create this particular non-profit corporation.
I would have been much more comfortable had the House of Commons had more deliberation on the bill, but that did not happen. I can see nothing in the bill that offends any principle that I can think of that should guide us in judging the validity of this request, which initiated over in the other place, was adjudicated upon by the other place, and upon which we are taking a second look. The second look, once again, should be whether or not we agree that the powers of Parliament should be properly exercised in creating this non-profit corporation.
Senator Gigantès: We refused Opus Dei and that Indian fakir that your party loved so much. Do you not remember?
Senator Beaudoin: That is not material.
Senator Gigantès: We refused parliamentary action to give a corporation sole to Opus Dei and to an Indian fakir who was ill-treating members of his association. I am not saying that ex-Parliamentarians will ill-treat one another, but I am objecting generally to the idea that Parliament creates non-profit associations. Why should it?
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is clear that there are now a number of questions on the table. I will make the following suggestion, namely, that we adjourn debate on Bill C-275; that we ask Mr. Barry Turner to appear before us to give us more details concerning the association, its purposes and functions; and that he bring with him a copy of the by-laws, which he can share with us. If that is agreeable with the members of this committee, I will accept an adjournment motion.
Senator Kinsella: Before the adjournment motion, which is non-debatable, is made --
Senator Gigantès: How can you talk about the adjournment motion which has been made if it is not debatable?
Senator Kinsella: I had the floor, as recognized by the chairman.
The Chair: Yes, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: In responding to the suggestion that was made by the chairman, I can agree with that suggestion with a caveat which relates to when that would happen. There is an element of time, as I understand the petitioners. You are thinking that this would happen tomorrow?
The Chair: No. I am unfamiliar with the time pressure on this.
Senator Maheu: May 29, when the former parliamentarians are meeting with the Senate and the House, is what the Speaker would have liked.
Senator Doyle: But is there a reason?
Senator Gigantès: They would have met anyway, even without this.
Senator Maheu: I am not arguing that. If you want to vote against it, vote against it. It is not my bill.
Senator Kinsella: If I understand it, the Senate will probably adjourn for the Victoria Day weekend and return the Monday following.
The Chair: Yes, we will return on Monday, May 27. When is this wanted?
Senator Maheu: On Wednesday.
Senator Milne: The Wednesday of the week we return.
The Chair: The Wednesday of the week we return.
Mr. Walsh: It is my understanding -- perhaps Senator Maheu can correct me if I am wrong here -- that on May 29, there is planned the granting of Royal Assent to this bill as part of the ceremonies by the Governor General. May 29 is a Wednesday. With the House of Commons not sitting next week, if the Senate should wish to send a message to the House regarding amendments, between now and May 29, the House will be sitting tomorrow, May 27 and 28, the Monday and Tuesday before Wednesday, May 29. That is a point of information.
Senator Maheu: It is part of the program. If we adjourn the debate on this bill today, we will have to inform the Governor General that we will not be able to give Royal Assent in the House of Commons with the ex-Parliamentarians there on that day.
Senator Doyle: We have had many delays on Royal Assent.
Senator Maheu: It is just that they will all be together in the chamber on that day. It is not my bill. Please do not kill the messenger.
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is clear that we cannot in good faith take a vote on this bill today. There are too many questions that too many people have pondered to which they have not been given answers. I will suggest, however, that we call a meeting of this committee for the morning of Tuesday, May 28. I do not know if that would make it possible. If we passed the bill, it would require agreements to move it into the house. Unless senators wish to come back next week -- which I do not see any particular agreement to do -- we will meet on the morning of May 28. We will ask for Mr. Turner to appear at that time, and we will make our decisions as to whether we approve the bill. I would hope that Senator Kinsella would take the message to his caucus that if the bill passes, for obvious reasons we would then want to move it quickly through third reading in the Senate. I will take the same message to my caucus. If we do not wish to pass it, then it will die. We will make that decision.
Senator Beaudoin: That is the best thing to do. There is a principle in law, audi alteram partem. We must hear from Mr. Turner. After that, if we are satisfied, we vote immediately.
The Chair: I believe that Senator Doyle has something to add.
Senator Doyle: Would it not be advisable to invite either or both of the Speakers, since they have an interest in this matter?
The Chair: It is unusual for the Speakers to appear before committees.
Senator Gigantès: Invite them to appear informally, then, and not as witnesses.
The Chair: We will certainly look into that matter, Senator Doyle. If it is appropriate, then they will be invited to attend.
Senator Gigantès: Rushing through the three stages will require unanimous consent.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Gigantès: I will not give it.
The Chair: That is clear. Senator Gigantès will not give it, so the parliamentarians should be informed that they will not have their bill during their meeting in Ottawa on May 29. That will not prevent us, however, from meeting on the morning of May 28. I now alert you to that.
If it is possible on the morning of May 28, we will also deal with Bill C-33 -- that is, if it is referred to the committee this afternoon, which I have been given some indication will occur. That is the Human Rights Act amendment. We will have a busy morning. If it is possible, I will ask the clerk to arrange that we meet at 9:30 and make it a three hour meeting on Tuesday, May 28 at 9:30.
Senator Kinsella: Madam Chair, would it be in order for Senator Maheu to move that we report the bill without amendment? Perhaps it will pass.
The Chair: First, she cannot do that. She is not a member of the committee. Second, she is desirous to have amendments made to the bill with regard to the language changes.
Senator Bryden: With all the other priorities before the committee, I cannot believe that we will be spending three hours on this bill. I believe we are making mountains out of molehills. I feel like I am dealing with Alice in Wonderland. We are not talking about incorporating CSIS or another CSIS, or whatever.
Whether or not it is a bill of the Speaker, I wish to move that it be reported to the Senate without amendment.
The Chair: With the greatest respect, Senator Bryden, we have a motion on the floor right now. We have to deal with that motion first. Senator Lewis has moved that the matter be deferred and that we hear from a witness.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Senator Beaudoin: I am ready to vote on the bill today. However, the fact is that the wording in clause 2 in French and in English does not make sense.
The Chair: We can deal with that in a motion.
At the moment there is a motion before the committee which is an amendment to Senator Gigantès' motion. The motion in amendment is that Senator Gigantès' motion that we defeat the bill be now deferred and that a witness be heard.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, as amended?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Three senators are in favour of that motion and six are opposed. Therefore, Senator Lewis' motion is defeated.
Senator Gigantès' motion that the bill be defeated is now before us.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: One senator is in favour of the motion, while seven are opposed to it.
Is the Honourable Senator Doyle abstaining?
Senator Doyle: I am not opposed to what the bill sets out to do. However, if you are to do it, I would only want it with amendments, and serious amendments.
The Chair: My only question, Senator Doyle, was: Do you wish to abstain?
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Senator Milne: I have two motions to amend this bill. First, I move that Bill C-275 be amended in the English version in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 13 to 15 with the following: "-- who was, but is not at present, a member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada."
I also move that Bill C-275 be amended in the English version in clause 5, on page 2, by replacing lines 10 to 12 with the following: "(d) to foster good relations between members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada and former parliamentarians; and"
The Chair: Is it your pleasure to adopt the amendments, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The amendments of Senator Milne are carried.
Senator Kinsella: I move that the committee report the bill with amendments.
Senator Beaudoin: I have a big problem with this. We must also amend the French version. Clause 2, on page 1, at line 13:
«ex-parlementaire» Personne qui a été sénateur ou député...
It does not make sense to say "de la Chambre des communes."
...Personne qui a été sénateur ou député au Parlement du Canada, mais qui n'est plus ni sénateur, ni député.
I move that the words "au Parlement" be substituted for "de la Chambre des communes."
Senator Gigantès: We have just passed one amendment. I have no objection to Senator Beaudoin's amendment. However, I hope everyone realizes that if we amend this bill, we will have to send it back to the House of Commons and that the deadline of May 29 will not be met. We have passed the amendments of Senator Milne.
Senator Milne: We at the end of the table are being assured that it will be met.
Senator Maheu: The House of Commons has assured us that if the Senate passes the bill, it will pass the bill.
Senator Gigantès: You will need unanimous consent to rush it through the three stages. I will not give that consent.
Senator Maheu: The House of Commons is prepared to do it.
Senator Gigantès: Yes, but there is one senator who will not give consent.
The Chair: Senator Gigantès, if we report the bill this afternoon, you are quite right, we could not have third reading today, but we could have third reading on Monday, May 28. It could then go back to the House of Commons and they could agree to our amendments.
The amendment before us is on clause 2. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Gigantès: I wish to abstain, Madam Chair.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
We now move to the amendment of Senator Beaudoin with respect to clause 5.
Senator Beaudoin: We do not need to say "du Parlement."
The Chair: Are you suggesting, Senator Beaudoin, that in your motion we delete "actuels du Parlement"?
Senator Beaudoin: My first reaction would be to delete "du Parlement". Therefore, it would read, "entre les sénateurs et députés et les ex-parlementaires."
Senator Maheu: In English, the amendment states the "House of Commons of Canada."
The Chair: It has been deleted to "members of the House of Commons." Would you like to have it read the same in French?
Senator Beaudoin: No. I am not too worried about whether it is exactly the same in French. The French version is fine.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Senator Doyle: May we now consider clause 7(h)?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Doyle: I move that that paragraph be removed.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Doyle that clause 7(h) be deleted in its entirety and that the other clauses be renumbered accordingly. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Senator Kinsella: I move that the bill be reported today, with amendments.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I declare that the bill is carried with amendments.
The committee adjourned.