Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-11, to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), met this day at 4:17 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have some housekeeping matters to attend to prior to this afternoon's vote in the Senate.
At our last meeting we were in camera and did not table the answers from the various provinces. With the agreement of committee members, I think we should do that today and attach the answers to our minutes.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: After the Easter break, Minister Cotler will be appearing before the committee on Bill C-10. We will then hear from different witnesses interested in the bill. It will probably take us several weeks to hear pertinent testimony. Bill C-10 is the only government bill that has been referred to us to date.
We also have on our slate Bill S-5, the proposed Statutes Repeal Act; Bill S-13, Speakership of the Senate; Bill S-20, the proposed Federal Nominations Act; Bill S-21, to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children); and Bill S-24, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals). We will deal first with Bill C-10 and see how much time we have in our hands to deal with the S-bills just in case we do not receive any bills from the House. However, I am sure that other bills will be coming from the government.
I want to thank Senator Mercer and Senator Pearson, who have welcomed delegations of representatives of the Finnish Constitutional Law Committee. From what I hear, you represented our committee very well and the meeting was a success. Members of the Finnish delegation were very happy.
In addition, I have received a letter from Senator Jaffer. It is a personal letter mostly, but I want to let committee members know that the application of sharia Muslim family law in Ontario and in Canada is an important matter for many people. She has asked me to meet with some people she wants to introduce to me, but I will see if I can have other members of the committee meet with them. I will talk to her first and get back to committee members, but I wanted you to know that I had the letter from Senator Jaffer.
One other item of business. Senator Lapointe will replace Senator Sibbeston and Senator Léger will replace Senator Eyton.
Senator Joyal: Madam Chairman, could we have copy of the amendments? Maybe we could circulate them and our members will have time to read them through.
The Chairman: We still have another five minutes before the vote. We have them in hand and we will be studying them because we need some amendments to the bill to be able to adopt it. We have an amendment from Senator Lapointe, and Senator Joyal has another amendment that he wishes to discuss.
Senator Joyal: Madam Chairman, copies of two one-page amendments have been circulated. The first amendment should be proposed by Senator Lapointe.
The Chairman: There are two amendments.
Senator Joyal: The second amendment will add a clause to the bill that will become clause 2.
The first amendment, the one that amends the bill as it is presently drafted, reflects the intention of the mover, Senator Lapointe, to the effect that we are not eliminating video lottery terminals; we are ensuring that they will be operated in casinos, race courses or betting theatres.
As I understood the original bill, the scope was wider than the intention of Senator Lapointe. We are returning to the intention of Senator Lapointe, if I understand the explanation that Senator Lapointe has proposed.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could briefly describe clause 2.
Senator Joyal: The proposed clause 2 is meant to reflect the preoccupation that if we are to change the present situation, there should be a phase-in period. Three years appears to be a reasonable period of time for adaptation, considering the fact that, as has been tabled, the Quebec government proposed last December to establish five betting theatres in the province. Those theatres would take a year to be established. If we give two more years to the Quebec government, we will have enough time to really establish the infrastructure needed to redirect VLTs in those locations.
The new clause also states that the federal government will contact the governments of the provinces and territories to offer them an opportunity to participate in consultation and implementation. In other words, the federal government undertakes to contact the provinces affected by the legislation and to negotiate with them how the bills will be implemented and the adaptation that would be required. This amendment fairly reflects the preoccupation expressed around the table on the phase-in period three years and consultation with the provinces and territories. That is essentially the substance of the amendments.
[Translation]
I might add for Senator Rivest's benefit in particular that we have examined the Social Union Framework Agreement. We know that Quebec did not sign the Agreement. However, the Agreement does set out procedures that the Canadian government must follow if it wishes to alter any existing arrangements with the provinces. Quebec has never challenged this particular provision, as it does not form the basis of the province's objections. We wondered what mechanism is set out in the Social Union Agreement if the current situation changes. That is reflected in this proposed amendment.
We have tried to draw our inspiration from existing procedures, so that the minister responsible can clearly rely on a regulatory procedure that is not perceived as one where unilateral action is taken or legislation passed unilaterally without taking into account problems that could arise at the provincial level. Madam Chairman, by adding the provinces' letters in response to your letter to the minutes of proceedings, we would be demonstrating our desire to hear from the provinces before enacting legislation.
The Chairman: We have already contacted the provinces.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I think that is an important point. If the bill is adopted here in committee and then by the chamber and is referred to the House of Commons, it is important that those documents be part of the minutes of the committee so that the Commons knows the approach that we have tried to follow to ensure that we pay due attention and care to the present situation. We do not want to change it overnight.
The Chairman: We also have the observations for Bill S-11 that we have to deal with when we come back. I suggest that we suspend at this point.
The committee suspended.
The committee was resumed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eyton: I appreciate that Senator Lapointe is honest and well motivated, and I applaud him for that, but it will come as no great surprise to the honourable senator or anyone else that I disagree with the bill. It is a very short bill. I do not know whether that makes it easier or harder to disagree, but I want to say now that I intend to vote against the bill and to speak against it in the chamber.
In a sense, clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, which is very modest anyway, is not particularly relevant to me. I can offer reasons for that opinion, but I think I have already stated them several times.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Eyton.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I move that Bill S-11 be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 8 to 17 with the following:
"b.1) for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a game that is operated on or through a video lottery terminal or slot machine, within the meaning of subsection 198(3), situated on premises other than a casino, a race-course or a betting theatre referred to in paragraph 204(8)(e); or".
[English]
The Chairman: Do you wish to debate the amendment, senators?
Senator Milne: Madam Chair, I just want to ensure that this is an amendment to clause 1 on page 1. I heard through the interpreter that it was clause 2.
The Chairman: No, it is clause 1 on page 1. No debate is necessary?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that the amendment be adopted?
Senator Eyton: I vote against.
The Chairman: Adopted, on division.
It is agreed that clause 1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eyton: Against.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 2 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Before the question is called on this clause, I would like to propose a new clause 2.
[English]
I move:
That Bill S-11 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing lines 18 to 20, with the following:
2. This Act comes into force on a day, not later than three years after the day on which it receives royal assent, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council after the governments of the provinces and territories have been offered an opportunity by the Government of Canada to participate in consultations on its implementation.
The Chairman: Do you wish to debate the amendment, senators?
Senator Eyton: I wonder if the chair could repeat it so we can understand it.
The Chairman: Do you have a copy?
Senator Eyton: I do have it, yes.
Senator Joyal: Maybe I could give a word of explanation. Senator Eyton was not here when we discussed it earlier. I will let him read it first.
Senator Eyton: I understand it.
Senator Joyal: There are essentially two elements to that clause, which is a phase-in period of three years within which time the Government of Canada will notify the provinces and territories concerned with the object of the bill to try to define ways for its implementation. It is a reflection of the substance of the social union that has been entered into by the Government of Canada and nine provinces. If the Government of Canada changes something in the context of previous agreements with a particular province in the social field domain, the Government of Canada will notify the province and leave an opening for the province to express views and come to terms with the federal government on the implementation of the new policies.
Senator Eyton: I understand. It is an improvement, but I will vote against it because the words "offered an opportunity" are not solid.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that the amendment be adopted?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Adopted, on division.
Is it agreed that clause 2, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that the bill be adopted, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: On division?
Senator Eyton: Yes.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Is it agreed that I report Bill S-11 to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I think you all have copies in your hands.
Senator Eyton: I would like the opportunity of making observations.
The Chairman: Do you wish to discuss the observations in camera?
The committee continued in camera.