THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 20, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2025.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I declare open this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning. Pat Duncan, a senator for the Yukon.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, also Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Welcome. I am Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario, specifically a traditional Mohawk territory.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from all of Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Once more, before we begin, I would like to ask all in-person participants to please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please ensure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the sticker that’s on the table.
Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study on the report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2025. I would like to begin by thanking members for their participation and contributions at yesterday’s meeting. To help us with our examination, we are once again joined by officials from various departments in attendance today to respond to questions from senators relating to the acts and the provisions under their responsibilities.
Today, we will continue our progress by examining items 15 through 28 of the report, which include a number of proposed repeals. We will then conclude with a discussion on drafting instructions in the last half hour of our time.
Drawing on our experience yesterday, we will proceed item by item, following the list set out in the annual report provided by Justice Canada. I’ll call each act or provision in turn for discussion and questions.
Seeing as Justice Canada has already given an opening statement, we will move right away to get into this, unless Justice Canada wants to make any comment before we start. I see none, so we will just proceed.
Colleagues, we’re now on item 15 on page 1 of the document that I have in front of me. It’s the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, 2013, specifically sections 12, 13 and 46.
Senators, are there questions for this group of witnesses?
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our witnesses. I wanted to understand. It says:
Deferral will allow for the time necessary to complete the work and bring the necessary regulations and provision into force.
What has been the cause of the delay and when do you imagine that this work will be completed? Can I ask you to introduce yourselves?
Matt MacMillan, Director, Military Justice Implementation, Military Justice Modernization, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: I can start. I’m Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan. I’m the Director of Military Justice Implementation within the Canadian Armed Forces.
Amanda Stringer, Director, Military Personnel Policy Integration, and Director General, Military Personnel Strategic, Chief Military Personnel, National Defence Headquarters, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Amanda Stringer, Director of Military Personnel Policy Integration within the Chief of Military Personnel at the Department of National Defence.
Mr. MacMillan: Depending on which section you are actually referring to, we’re talking about section 46 that relates to the Military Judges Compensation Committee. Since the appearance last year, there has been significant work to move and advance that file forward.
In relation to a regulatory scheme, work is ongoing on that one. The exact time frame is not determined. We are expecting it before the appearance next year.
Senator Simons: I made a practice of this yesterday, but I don’t know if you were here yesterday. If you could let us know, if this happens within the calendar year and you are not coming back, it would be lovely to have an update to say, “Hey, remember the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act? We have got that all worked out.”
The Chair: Are there any other questions for this set of witnesses?
I will now move to the next act: the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, 2013, Chapter 25, specifically sections 1 to 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. This is for Mr. Kennedy.
Senators, are there any questions on this act?
Senator Tannas: I was actually the sponsor of this bill when I was in the government caucus, and we had a great celebration with the signing and the passage of this bill.
My understanding is that the Chief and council went home afterwards and were thrown out in the next election, and subsequent councils refused to ratify it. So now we are going to repeal it because it is a 12-year-old dead deal.
Are there any negotiations continuing? Can you give us any colour on hope for the Yale First Nation and some kind of an agreement sometime in the future?
Jake Kennedy, Director General, Policy and Partnerships Branch, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. As the senator noted, there has been very little communication with the First Nation around the implementation of the act, so we are looking to repeal it. We have reached out to them five times this year alone. There are no active negotiations. We have had no response, so this is why we are choosing to move forward with the repeal of the act at this time.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Any further questions from other senators? I see none. We’ll move to the next matter, which is the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, 2013, Chapter 33, specifically subsection 228(2). This is for Mr. Burnett.
Senators, are there any questions for this witness? I see none. You are free to go.
The next issue is the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, 2014, Chapter 2, specifically section 47. This is for Ms. McCready.
Senators, are there questions for this witness?
Senator Clement: Hello. We were in the washroom together earlier. I’m sure you weren’t expecting me to go there, but I say that because we exchanged about this process. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that we value this work and the fact that you’re all here. We live in an age where politicians and bureaucrats don’t live in a beloved sort of warm blanket sometimes, but we understand the value of the work that you do. And I just wanted to publicly say that, not just in the washroom but also publicly.
I do have a question on this because it is from 2014, and then I notice at the end the indication that the Government of the Northwest Territories does not currently have the necessary statutory authority to enact equivalent regulations. What does that process look like? Why are we talking about this in 2025? What do they need to be able to get to the space where this will make sense?
Heather McCready, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much for the question. I’m Heather McCready, Director General of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs with Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am absolutely fine with you disclosing our bathroom conversation, which was very pleasant. I was saying that I found this process to be useful because it keeps these things on the radar. We’re so busy with the present day, and it keeps things from 10 years ago or more on the radar.
I can’t speak specifically to the process in the Northwest Territories. They need to decide if they want to enter this space and then enact laws and regulations that would be equivalent to what we have on the books currently. We are in active conversations with them about this, in part because we have these appearances, so we need to check in with them to see if there has been any progress. I spoke with them as recently as about a month ago. They are considering this with a suite of other things that they are doing as part of devolution, and those conversations will be ongoing, and we’ll be able to update you on those if there is any progress.
Senator Clement: Okay. You don’t get any community concerns about this?
Ms. McCready: Not presently. I haven’t had any.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions for this witness? I see none, so we will move to the next matter, which is the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, 2014, Chapter 2, specifically section 83 and subsection 90(2). And Georgina Lloyd is here to help us. Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness? I see none, so thank you, Ms. Lloyd, for coming.
The next item is the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, 2014, Chapter 20, specifically sections 371 to 373. Kevin Wagdin, you are back again.
Senator Pate: I am really happy to see they came into force. What was the situation that allowed that to happen in October?
Kevin Wagdin, Director, Old Age Security Policy and Legislation, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for the question. Good morning. My name is Kevin Wagdin, Director of Old Age Security Policy and Legislation with Employment and Social Development Canada. There were two factors. The first was that we needed to enter into an information-sharing agreement with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to ensure we were getting the most up-to-date sponsorship information we had. That’s been done. There is a letter of agreement that was signed this year with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The second was that we had a fairly long runway on this. The first cohort of individuals who would have been impacted by these provisions wouldn’t have been impacted until January 2026. We actually had some policy runway that way. But, really, it was much more of a logistical issue, just to ensure that the two systems could speak to one another and we could implement the provision properly.
Senator Pate: Okay. Congratulations.
The Chair: Any other questions for this witness? Thank you, Mr. Wagdin.
The next item is the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, 2014, Chapter 29, specifically section 28, subsection 29(1), sections 31, 33, 35, 37 to 39, subsection 40(1), sections 41 to 49, subsections 50(2) and 50(5) and sections 52, 53, 55 and 56. Mr. Marier, thank you for coming.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Marier. I am curious to know if we’re waiting for the convention to come into force. Can you walk us through what steps have to happen for that — are we waiting for certain other countries to ratify? How confident are we that we will be there by 2027?
François Marier, Director, International Marine Policy, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. My name is François Marier, Director of International Marine Policy at Transport Canada. Yes, indeed, that is the case. We are waiting for this international convention to come into force. It requires 12 countries to accede to the convention, and there is a threshold as well built into the convention where these countries have to have received a certain amount of the hazardous goods that are covered by the convention, which is 40 million tonnes. We’re almost there. We have eight countries who have ratified so far, including Canada, receiving about half of the amount. What we have heard recently is that there are five European countries that are working hard to potentially ratify the convention early next year. That would then trigger the convention to come into force, which would happen 18 months later. Ideally, this convention would come into force by the end of 2027, which would then allow us to bring these provisions into force.
Senator Simons: I don’t suppose you can tell us who the eight countries are off the top of your head.
Mr. Marier: Sure. The eight countries that are currently party to the convention are Canada, of course, Denmark, Estonia, France, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa and Türkiye.
Senator Simons: Interesting range. I’m just a curious person, and I just wanted to know. So thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions for this witness, senators? I see none. Thank you, sir.
The next issue is the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, 2014, Chapter 39, specifically sections 306 and 308, subsection 309(1), section 311 and subsection 313(2). This is for Korey McKinnon and Jonathan Leblanc. I’m sorry to the third witness; I don’t know your name.
Jamie Heffernan, Counsel, Legal Services Unit, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Jamie Heffernan, Counsel, Legal Services Unit for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The Chair: Senators, are there questions for these three witnesses on this issue? I see none; therefore, thank you for coming today, and we will move to the next matter.
It’s the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, 2014, Chapter 39, specifically sections 387 to 400. Our next witness is Karen Favereau. Are there any questions for this witness, senators? Okay, I see none. You are free to go. This is a little cumbersome, but I don’t want to miss anything.
The next issue is An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, 2015, Chapter 11, specifically section 6. This is for Jennifer Esdaile. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for being here. This one would actually repeal section 6 of the act that’s entitled An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders. Section 6 would have introduced several important measures for victims, including access to the offender’s correctional plan, a requirement to provide victims with at least 14 days’ notice prior to release and an obligation to provide updated information when circumstances change. These provisions were adopted by Parliament in response to well-documented concerns from victims who have consistently reported that obtaining information about an offender’s status is difficult, unpredictable and heavily dependent on their own initiative. Since this section never did come into force and is now proposed for repeal, I would like to ask you some questions for clarity on this. First of all, since section 6 was adopted in 2015, has the department assessed whether the issues it sought to address, including personal safety and access to timely information, have since been addressed through other policies, practices or legislative changes? And if so, could you tell our committee what measures have replaced or fulfilled that intended role?
Jennifer Esdaile, Director, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: The measures that were outlined in Bill C-479 were simply attributed to the wrong agency. They attributed the provision of this information to the Parole Board of Canada. Former Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, came into force in 2015 and put into force the same measures that were in Bill C-479 into this act and corrected the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, specifically section 26, to attribute these provisions to Correctional Service Canada rather than the Parole Board of Canada. In fact, all of the measures that were outlined in Bill C-479 have come into force and been attributed to the correct agency to provide the information.
Senator Batters: To ensure that is the case, did the department consult victims or victim support organizations to determine whether they believed those provisions were deemed necessary before you recommended their repeal?
Ms. Esdaile: I would have to get back to you on that. The act came into force in 2015, shortly after Bill C-479 also received Royal Assent. I don’t know at this time who was consulted.
Senator Batters: Are you saying, then, that all of those issues that I mentioned in my preamble — access to the offender’s correctional plan, a requirement to provide victims with at least 14 days’ notice prior to release and an obligation to provide updated information when circumstances change — were directly transferred over into that other act?
Ms. Esdaile: Yes. They are all currently reflected in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in section 26.
Senator Batters: All right.
Section 6 would have also lowered the legal threshold for victims to obtain key information like temporary absences, release conditions and, critically, the offender’s planned destination upon release and any potential geographic proximity to the victim. For many victims, that kind of information is not just a matter of interest or curiosity; it is actually directly tied to their personal safety and their ability to plan protective measures and avoid renewed emotional trauma associated with the uncertainty surrounding release.
Given that access to information is expressly recognized as a principle in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, has the department assessed whether repealing the provision that we are talking about today is consistent with or potentially contrary to the Charter? Or are you going to tell me that those measures were also included in the other act?
Ms. Esdaile: All of those measures were included in the other act. Simply put, the agency that owns the information provides the information, and while the Parole Board makes decisions, Correctional Service Canada calculates dates, makes decisions about destinations and those types of things. It simply kind of shifted the responsibility to Correctional Service Canada. Each of the provisions that were outlined in Bill C-479 has been replicated.
Senator Batters: Just like with the previous one, I guess I would like to ensure that was considered acceptable to victims and victim organizations and whether there was any consultation done with those groups. If you are not sure today, just like for the previous questions, could you please find out and get back to our committee as soon as possible? Thank you.
Ms. Esdaile: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Actually, I first have a comment and then a question for the witness.
My comment is this: If there are consequential provisions that need to be amended when we pass legislation, they should instead be included in the legislative provisions we are examining. Otherwise, it will become hard to follow. I understand that this is a repeal, because another bill has been passed and it provides for consequential provisions. If they are consequential provisions, the review must be done at the same time.
I have the same question as Senator Batters, but I’ll take it a step further. I would actually have liked to know which advocacy groups had been consulted on the repeal of section 6, but you told us you were going to get back to us later. Mr. Chair, I’d like to have a list of all the victims’ associations that were consulted on the amendment we’re about to consider. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We are going to be reporting on this very shortly, so you will have to get back to us hopefully by tomorrow. Is that acceptable?
Ms. Esdaile: Okay.
The Chair: Any other questions for this witness?
Senator Tannas: My question was answered. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you, witness, for coming today.
The next matter is An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), 2015, Chapter 16, specifically section 3. This is for Nathalie Levman.
Senator Tannas: This bill passed unanimously by the House of Commons toward the end of the Forty-first Parliament. In the early days of the Forty-second Parliament, then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould announced that the new Liberal government would not bring this section into force.
Why wouldn’t the government legislate to remove it rather than go this route of letting it sit idle for a decade and then have a 30-second interaction here and it is gone?
Nathalie Levman, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question.
We have been studying these issues, generally speaking: mandatory sentencing provisions. I just want to highlight that Bill C-452 — which was the original bill that proposed this amendment — proposed in clause 3 a mandatory consecutive sentencing provision, which would have required the imposition of consecutive sentences in the situation where an offender is sentenced at the same time for trafficking in persons offences and any other offence arising out of the same event or series of events.
The human trafficking offences carry mandatory minimum penalties, and many of the offences that are generally charged in human trafficking cases also carry mandatory minimum penalties.
The government of the day under Jody Wilson-Raybould was quite clear when they brought into force the other three provisions of Bill C-452, where the mandatory consecutive sentencing provision was not brought into force because when combined with the mandatory minimum penalties for human trafficking offences and all of the other offences that are regularly charged in human trafficking cases, that could lead to grossly disproportionate cumulative sentences, which could amount to cruel and unusual punishment under section 12. You will know that these issues continue to come up in the courts, and the department continues to study them.
Senator Tannas: This is, essentially, the decision: Because of the evolving — over the last 10 years — court decisions around cruel and unusual punishment, this would be struck down quickly and it is pointless to carry on with holding it even on the books. Nobody would have the stones to actually do it through legislation, which would be the normal way to do it, right? We went through a period where we repealed a whole bunch of stuff through legislation, and this just didn’t make it on at that time, and it is just best to let it go this way. Is that fair?
Ms. Levman: Well, we continued to study it.
Senator Tannas: You’re not studying it. You’re proposing to repeal it, aren’t you?
Ms. Levman: Well, now it has come up for repeal in the context of the Statutes Repeal Act, but on the general issue of mandatory penalties, the department is seized of that matter, especially given recent Supreme Court jurisprudence which I am sure the committee is aware of.
Senator Tannas: So why would we repeal it? Why wouldn’t we defer it? Usually we get, “We’re still studying and we want to defer it,” not “We’re still studying and we want to repeal this.”
Ms. Levman: The most recent case was Senneville from the Supreme Court. It was very recent. This decision was made prior to receiving the Senneville decision. We had other decisions like Bertrand Marchand, et cetera, which created a lot of concern around section 12. If things should change as a result of Senneville, there is nothing preventing moving other amendments that could address some of the concerns that this particular amendment was targeting.
The government was very clear back in 2017 when they first proposed to bring into force the other three provisions in Bill C-452. That bill was originally tabled as Bill C-38 and eventually incorporated into Bill C-75. That’s how the rest of Bill C-452 was brought into force. At the time when Bill C-38 was tabled, the government released Charter Statements, questions and answers and a backgrounder explaining all of the concerns around this particular amendment, given all of the underlying mandatory minimum penalties.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions for Ms. Levman? Thank you very much.
The next matter is the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, 2015, Chapter 23, specifically section 32. Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan, we’re glad to see you’re still here.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can I ask my question in French? The act dates back to 2015, so 10 years ago. I would like you to explain to me in layman’s terms why we need another deferral. This is an act that applies tougher penalties to child predators, and section 32 refers to accused persons who comply or fail to comply with an order under the statute. Could you explain that to me in layman’s terms? I read it twice, and I’m having a hard time understanding.
Mr. MacMillan: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I will continue in English.
[English]
This is the first time this section has been dealt with under the Statutes Repeal Act. In short, I’m confident this will not appear again. This was going to be addressed in former Bill C-66, which died on the Order Paper earlier this year. Bill C-11 has been proposed, has been tabled and is currently being studied at the National Defence Committee in the House of Commons.
Once the bill died on the Order Paper, immediate action was taken to bring this into force. In short, section 32 amends subsection 119.1(3) of the National Defence Act. It doesn’t deal specifically with penalties per se. It ensures the aspect of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, that came into force in 2015 can be dealt with by way of certificate evidence and a court martial. In simple terms, that enables the person whom an offender is supposed to report to. They sign the certificate saying that they have not reported or carried out their obligations, and the fact that they’ve signed this certificate can be presented as evidence at a court martial.
The “so what” in relation to that is this evidence can still be given at a court martial right now, except the individual would have to appear as a witness. It doesn’t impact the prosecution of these offences. It is administrative in nature. Work has been ongoing to bring it into force, and it is also being addressed, as I indicated, in Bill C-11.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If I understand correctly, that modifies the signing procedure, but the procedure itself will still be done before a witness?
[English]
Mr. MacMillan: It can be dealt with right now at a court martial. It just amends how the evidence is brought forth at a trial.
The Chair: Any other questions? There are none. Sorry, I didn’t see you, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Your report and also what you just indicated both note that Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, which was recently introduced by the government in fall 2025, contains an identical amendment to this. Why did the government choose to reintroduce a measure that was already adopted by Parliament rather than just bring the original provision into force by order-in-council?
Mr. MacMillan: That is routine. When something has not come into force previously and we’re dealing with a bill that deals with the same subject matter, it’s routine to do that. There is a provision in the actual bill that if it comes into force in advance of the actual bill receiving Royal Assent and that provision coming into force, it will be dealt with. As I indicated, once former Bill C-66 died on the Order Paper, work commenced immediately to bring that provision into force. That is ongoing at this time. Irrespective of the fact that it’s in Bill C-11, there is still work concurrently going on to bring that into force immediately.
Senator Batters: You said the implementation work began right away, so it was in January, I guess, when it officially died on the Order Paper.
Mr. MacMillan: Correct.
Senator Batters: What obstacles remain to doing that? We don’t know: Maybe Bill C-11 will end up passing fairly quickly and maybe it won’t. What obstacles remain to doing that? What realistic time frame do you have for full implementation independent of the process of Bill C-11?
Mr. MacMillan: The work, for the most part, is complete. I anticipate that it will not appear next year under the Statutes Repeal Act framework.
Senator Batters: So you expect to have it completed within a year, and then you’ll see whether or not Bill C-11 needs to come.
Mr. MacMillan: Correct.
Senator Batters: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. The next matter is the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, 2015, Chapter 27, specifically sections 10, 15 and 35. This is for Ms. Pollard Bussey. Senators, are there questions for the witness?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: In the amendment, just so everyone is following, a deferral is being recommended. This would allow for information sharing between customs officers and the Canadian firearms registry, and the deferral recommended is to allow time to complete the review of the provisions within the current firearms control framework.
I have two questions. Will the repeal of the sections hinder the ability of the Canada Border Services Agency to intercept prohibited weapons? I could ask my second question right away so as not to waste time. I would like to know what the current gaps are in terms of information sharing.
[English]
Deidre Pollard Bussey, Director, Firearms Policy, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for your questions. My name is Deidre Pollard Bussey, Director of Firearms Policy at Public Safety Canada.
With regard to your first question around whether or not there are current challenges with the importation process, the answer is “no.” The integrity of the framework is there and it’s in existence. The goal of these particular provisions was for the sharing of information between the Canada Border Services Agency and the Registrar of Firearms. It doesn’t change the information that needs to be received by the Canada Border Services Agency upon the importation of firearms. That is in existence today, as it would have been in 2015.
In terms of loopholes, there is a permitting process for the importation of firearms into Canada. It is governed by the Customs Act and also by the Export and Import Permits Act under Global Affairs Canada. Firearms that are restricted or prohibited can be on the Import Control List, so there is a specific importation process and permitting process required to be undertaken if these types of firearms are to be imported into Canada.
The integrity of the regime is still there. This was to further enhance the information sharing back with the Registrar of Firearms.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: In other words, you’re asking for a deferral to have more time to complete the review of the current gun control provisions. Then my initial question should have been this: Why do you need a deferral to continue this review of the gun control provisions? Is the review of the provisions not complete? Why are you asking for a deferral? What’s the problem? That’s why I used the word “gaps”. If you’re asking for a deferral, it’s because you need more time, so what are the reasons and what are the challenges you’re facing?
[English]
Ms. Pollard Bussey: Thank you for your question. There have been a number of changes to the firearms regime over the last number of years since 2015. In that case, it has been challenging to look at this in the context of that constant changing environment under firearms.
The intention is for us to look at this provision in the context of the new regime, which came into force at the end of 2023. It would allow us to look at this equally in the context of the new regulations that were proposed at the end of December 2024, which equally was for the collection of technical specifications and information about firearms and to share them with the Registrar of Firearms.
We just want to ensure that we are looking at this holistically to ensure that all of the pieces of the regime do their intended purpose and that they work in concerted effort together.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: In closing, I have a comment to make. Next week—unfortunately—marks the 12 days of action to end violence against women, from November 25 to December 6. The 2024 statistics on femicides are staggering: 62 out of 187 femicides were committed with a firearm. I would like people to realize that, including committee members, although it doesn’t quite relate to my question about the urgency of continuing to work on this. We have to protect society from this growing phenomenon that leaves us all speechless and is extremely sensitive. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for their work. I know they have the same objectives.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Oudar, for those comments. To the witness, thank you for coming. You’re free to go now, ma’am.
The next matter is the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, 2015, Chapter 29, specifically section 2. This is for Ms. Tara Lang.
Senator Simons: I want to understand a little bit better what the current rules are for people entering the country who come from countries where polygamy is legal and who haven’t broken any of the laws in their home country. I’m very uncomfortable with describing polygamy as a barbaric cultural practice. I find that nomenclature deeply offensive. Be that as it may, polygamy is not legal in this country, although serial monogamy certainly is.
Can you explain to us what the current rules are and to whom they apply and how they are applied? Do they apply to refugees? Do they apply to people coming in on temporary visas? Is it only for permanent residents? How does it actually work?
Tara Lang, Director General, Integrity Policy and Programs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question.
Currently, under subsection 36(2.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals can currently be found inadmissible for “. . . transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence . . . .” And this includes practising polygamy. This practice of polygamy is also described in section 293 of the Criminal Code.
It is possible for an immigration officer to refuse an application if there is evidence that the applicant is in a polygamous marriage and intends to remain polygamous after entering Canada. No criminal conviction is required to be found inadmissible for transborder criminality.
They can also be found inadmissible if it is discovered that they misrepresented their marriage or marital status in an application.
Senator Simons: So if they say, “This is my wife and this is my sister-in-law or my sister”?
Ms. Lang: That’s right, and if it was discovered there were other members of the marriage, for instance, they could be found inadmissible because of misrepresentation.
We also have subparagraphs in sections 117 and 125 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, where it excludes an applicant from the definition of “spouse” if “. . . the sponsor or the spouse was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person,” so they’re in a polygamous marriage somewhere else. You cannot sponsor someone in that situation.
Right now, we do have many tools to defend against polygamy and polygamous marriage. However, we are very cognizant of the fact that there are a number of vulnerable people who could be in these situations. It’s not that I want to say: It’s not by any means ignored, but one of the reasons we want to defer this is to study it a little bit more to see how many times and how often the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is used for this definition of “polygamous marriage” and how many times we speak with sponsors around polygamy. We have interacted with partners who have concerns around vulnerable women, in particular, who could be victimized if they’re a sponsor or they’re a spouse because they’re one of many spouses perhaps and would be, therefore, subject to removal.
We have plenty of legislation on the books already, which is why we want to defer this and see how it’s working in practice from an immigration context.
Senator Simons: If somebody is a convention refugee or an asylum seeker, do we apply this?
Ms. Lang: It’s possible that it could be applied in an inadmissibility finding, yes.
Senator Simons: These are difficult cultural questions. We wouldn’t stop someone from coming in with his wife and his mistress.
Ms. Lang: We could stop someone from coming in with his wife and mistress if it came out that they are living in a polygamous situation and they want to continue living in that. It’s possible technically, I would say. In practice, I don’t know. I think it would be a very rare occasion that someone would apply to the immigration department and say, “I want to move to Canada, and we’re going to live as a spouse and a mistress.”
Senator Simons: That would be something they call a throuple.
Ms. Lang: 6-7.
Senator K. Wells: You’re going to go viral.
Senator Simons: I find having one spouse is quite enough to get on with, but these are evolving social mores. Thank you. As I say, I was just interested.
Senator Batters: It’s actually a violation of the Criminal Code is what it is.
My question on this is: When I first saw the title for this referred to in the Library of Parliament report but also, more importantly, the government’s report and then the reference today, I thought: I’m pretty sure that we repealed the name of that act, and we did. The short title of that act — the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act — was repealed. It was a Senate public bill that was brought forward by Senator Jaffer, I believe. It was passed into law and received Royal Assent in 2018, and it’s not supposed to be called by that short title anymore. It’s supposed to be called by the long title. Why does the government, seven years later, have this reference throughout?
Ms. Lang: Thank you for the question. I have no explanation. I apologize for the error.
Senator Batters: Yeah, let’s try to follow the law. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That brings back memories for me. In the past, I testified before this Senate committee and criticized that title, which I thought made no sense. I’m trying to understand why, 10 years later — because we’re studying a bill that’s 10 years old — you haven’t resolved the difference in wording that you mention. According to the wording, temporary residents are allowed to enter the country with a polygamous spouse, even if immigration officers know that these individuals are practising polygamy. Is that what you want? Explain it to me a little better so that I can understand the need for an extension, because we’ve had this bill for 10 years.
[English]
Ms. Lang: Thank you for the question. We’re asking for a deferral — and this is our first request for deferral — of the repeal. The reason is we want to make sure that we can study this in partnership with groups who have expressed concern around the vulnerability of this extra piece of legislation, but also, more specifically, there has been a large data gap for us pre-pandemic and post-pandemic. We have good factual data for the pre‑pandemic period, which would explain how and when people have been found inadmissible either at a port of entry or otherwise for polygamy specifically.
However, post-pandemic, with the different influxes of people and different flows, backlogs and inventories, we haven’t been able to capture a good one-to-one comparison. We wanted to take it this year, and we committed to reviewing this before next year’s discussion to see if we recommend a repeal or if we want to implement, et cetera. That’s why we want the deferral: to study it more closely.
However, we have these existing pieces under the Criminal Code, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations that already allow us and immigration officers to refuse people before they enter Canada for the practice of polygamy. That also applies within Canada, if they are going to sponsor someone, and we find out that they are in a polygamous relationship. Those already exist. What we want to do is find that data, review it, see what those numbers mean and then have some conversations and do an analysis to see if this is a reasonable amount of findings of inadmissibility. Or do we need something very specific in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that is an inadmissibility, in and of itself, tied to polygamy? We believe that section 36, which is serious criminality, already covers this, but we want to study it to find out if this is actually happening.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Following up on that thought, I’d like to ask you if you have thought about the gendered nature of polygamy, in the sense that the victims tend to be women and the perpetrators tend to be men — polygamy doesn’t very often go the other way.
[English]
Ms. Lang: Absolutely, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Could you treat women and men who are trying to get into Canada differently?
[English]
Ms. Lang: In theory, we would say that we would absolutely not treat people differently, but we know that in practice, vulnerable partners tend to be women. That being said, this will absolutely be part of the study to see if we see any stats of men in different situations, women and the impacts of having specific inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or if the existing measures are enough to protect people but also to make sure that criminality is dealt with properly.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for these witnesses? Thank you, witnesses, for coming. The next matter is the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, 2015, Chapter 36, specifically subsection 169(2). This is for Korey McKinnon.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning, Mr. McKinnon. What has prevented subsection 169(2) from coming into force for 10 years? Why should we accept that justification today?
Korey McKinnon, Acting Director General, Temporary Workers Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: It was intended to allow foreign nationals with temporary resident status to apply for visas during their stay in Canada, as there was perceived to be a lack of clarity and flexibility with the department’s ability to accept in-Canada applications. However, since the interpretation of that section has since evolved, the trends in digitization and diversifying lines of business have contributed to a broader interpretation of this provision. A foreign national’s subsequent application may be submitted from inside the country. This renders the subsection redundant.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that. Has the department assessed whether repeal would be preferable to another deferral? If not, why not?
Mr. McKinnon: I believe that assessment has been done, which is why we’re recommending this recommendation.
Senator Loffreda: Why?
Mr. McKinnon: It’s because it has been deemed to be redundant based on the new trends that we’ve seen.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness?
Senator Tannas: Just to be clear, it’s redundant because you could be sitting in Canada, and you could electronically apply from anywhere in the world. You don’t have to walk into a consulate in Islamabad to make your application. Is that correct?
Mr. McKinnon: You are correct, yes.
Senator Tannas: I see. Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further questions? Thank you, sir. The next matter is the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Act, 2015, Chapter 38, specifically section 4. This is for Jewel Cunningham.
Senator Clement: Parks Canada, you bask in a warm glow of belovedness, so that is good, but it’s also very complicated. Everything to do with Parks Canada is complicated.
I want to understand a bit more. This is Ontario; there’s an agreement with Ontario. It was 2015, so we’re 10 years later. There has been Indigenous consultation. Why has it taken this long? What’s left to be done here so that lands, I think, are being transferred to the Province of Ontario. If you could flesh that out, I would appreciate it.
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy, Business and Digital Services, Parks Canada: Thank you. My name is Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President of Strategic Policy, Business and Digital Services at Parks Canada. Thank you for the compliments. It’s fantastic to work at Parks Canada. However, anything associated with land transfer is very complex, as you’ve stated.
We have been working more than 10 years on this section. Section 4, amending Schedule 1, is essentially a description of the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area and a description of the lands. In order for it to come into force, we need to transfer lands from the Province of Ontario to Canada, and that has not yet occurred. What’s involved in a land transfer of this order of magnitude is certainly extensive consultations with the 1850 Robinson-Superior Treaty area, which is a collection of Northern Superior First Nations communities — it’s 14 in total.
In addition to that, there was a title claim associated with this area as well, so the lands in question have been negotiated with a large group of First Nations communities. At this point, we do have a draft agreement in place that has been accepted by all of the First Nations communities, and it is waiting for signature pending the transfer of the lands.
In addition to that, we have also been doing consultations with the Métis Nation of Ontario as well as three other Métis groups associated in the local area, again, with an agreement in place. First Nations and Indigenous consultations have taken the majority of the time because of the complexity of the environment, and accommodations were made as well. In terms of lands that were originally identified, there has been survey work and also extractions of some of those parcels of land associated with accommodations that have come out of those consultations.
All of that has been completed. We are ready on the First Nations and Métis consultations aspect of things. The outstanding barrier at this point is continued discussion with the Province of Ontario as it relates to fisheries management associated with the regulatory regime with the national marine conservation area. That work is still ongoing, and from there, we would expect that once those are settled — and those conversations are still taking place — we can then invoke a six‑month period from the federal-provincial agreement to continue with the transfer. Our optimistic hope is that in the next 12 months, we will complete this work. However, there is a risk, obviously, as we continue to discuss fisheries management in particular with the Province of Ontario.
Senator Clement: I’m just curious about how much land we’re talking about and whether there’s a risk politically here in terms of where our governments are going with regard to environmental protection and forging ahead to deal with all kinds of other existential issues.
Ms. Cunningham: Certainly, it’s a complex environment with regard to this situation that you’ve described as well. I don’t have the actual land mass or the waters associated with Lake Superior. It is quite significant. It’s one of the largest land areas that we would be in the process of negotiating at this time.
Regarding the duration of time, certainly, and the changes in the political arena as well as the changes from provincial colleagues in various provinces, these shift as time progresses. At this point in time, communications are still open. We are meeting regularly at this time. We don’t have reason to believe that we couldn’t come to a resolution with regard to the outstanding issues. Also, other aspects of this particular legislation did make accommodations for provincial concerns that were raised previously with regard to water taking, for instance. We’re still working through. I’m not sure I’m able to say at this point whether the position of the province will be an impediment.
Senator Clement: I have one last question. It is about Indigenous consultations generally.
It sounds like your department has gone through an extensive process. I’m curious about your process — do other departments learn from that process? Is there collaboration between federal government departments around successful and model processes in terms of sharing? Do you know where I’m going with that?
Ms. Cunningham: That’s a great question. We’re very proud of our Indigenous Stewardship Policy as well as the ways we engage First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities with regard to establishment. I would say every engagement is different, and we need to be open-minded with regard to how and in what ways we engage.
With regard to this particular project, it’s taken quite some time. It has twists and turns, but we are certainly proud of having gotten to this point with our First Nations and Métis partners with regard to this site in particular.
We do share and communicate quite readily through our various communications with federal departments. I’m not sure anybody has a perfect way of doing it. I think we share best practices with colleagues with regard to how we engage and how we relate.
I’ll also say that we have co-managed sites with Indigenous partners, so we’re also quite active on the ground at these places, doing all sorts of activities with partners when it comes to communications, engaging visitors, cultural practices on the lands and those sorts of things. That certainly helps solidify the relationships we have. Because we have actual practices on the lands where we work in concert, that certainly helps when it comes to negotiations and consultation.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Ms. Cunningham: Thanks.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. I want to follow up on the questions from Senator Clement. I will begin by saying congratulations on your work in solidifying agreements with various First Nations groups.
Consultation, as you know, has been a subject among many Indigenous groups with governments, whether federal or provincial. I can only imagine what the landscape of those discussions are, but is it fair to say that a key element in terms of reaching those agreements is solidifying certain levels of trust? Could you expand upon that a little bit?
Ms. Cunningham: Thanks for the question.
It certainly does. I’m not directly implicated in First Nations engagement on this file at the current time given where I sit in the organization, so there are certainly other people within Parks Canada who can speak more directly. Certainly, though, the building of trust is fundamental.
Being co-managers of the land and understanding each other’s roles and responsibilities have been evolving ways of thinking. Traditional use and practice are also things we’re quite active in. All those are ways in which we are working together, and I think that helps when it comes to formal consultations.
Many of our Parks Canada employees in sites across the country work directly with First Nations in a local context and also as it relates to the place that we all value in special ways. There are numerous opportunities in which we are just fortunate as an organization to work so closely in practice and on the ground in building that trust. It does contribute, as I said, to some of these larger projects.
The co-management aspect is a big part of it. We do share administration. In these particular cases and agreements, we are talking about how we would actually administer the conservation of the lands in the future together.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Ms. Cunningham: Thanks for the question.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness? I see none.
Once again, thank you to all our witnesses for being with us today and for engaging so fully with our questions. Ms. DuPont, I would like you to convey to all the witnesses of the last two days — I know some have already left — the gratitude of the committee members for helping us with this study and report.
Colleagues, this concludes the study portion. Since we have been mandated to report back to the chamber by —
Senator Saint-Germain: I will make a comment before we agree on the report. This will be later.
The Chair: Okay.
Colleagues, since we have been mandated to report back to the chamber by December 4, I suggest that a brief report be prepared for the Senate, which includes a short summary of who was invited and what was heard. It would also be useful to have the analysts include a short explanation about the Statutes Repeal Act, the purpose of the annual report and the process for this parliamentary resolution, just by way of background.
I will now open the floor for discussion if members have any observations, questions or concerns as to what they would like to see in the report, how it be constructed or any advice to the parliamentary analysts.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a proposal to add an observation to Bill 26, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. I would like a report to be sent to us on the way things evolve in the next six months.
I thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for bringing this forward. I rather fear that the same situation and the same report will recur a year from now without sufficient progress being made in discussions with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I would like a progress report on the status of the discussions to be sent to this committee in six months.
[English]
The Chair: There is consensus for Senator Saint-Germain’s point, I see.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I looked at previous reports from this committee before I was in the Senate. The exercise we’re conducting is complex and very technical, but necessary, and I thank all the officials who are here to enlighten us. Last year we made, or the committee made, the following comment to the government:
Your committee encourages the government to, in future, provide a statement of reasons explaining why the Acts and provisions listed in the annual report have not yet come into force . . .
The committee wanted a timeline from the government to notify us and the public of the implementation of acts and provisions listed in the annual report. When we get the annual report — which deals with these provisions and provides explanations — it’s a matter of transparency on the government’s part. This has to be published in the annual report.
In our current report, I would suggest making the same recommendation to the government that was made during our committee’s previous report, in the hope that the government would implement our recommendation as a matter of transparency and clarity for Canadians. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments on Senator Oudar’s point? All right. We have Ms. DuPont here. It is a valid expectation that you are asking for, and we are expecting that to be followed through in a much more rigorous way than in the past. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Just with respect to the point that Senator Saint-Germain raised at the start of this discussion, I would also just ask that people use the proper name of the act when we’re making that reference — and hearing that we don’t propagate what I was quite surprised to see the government continuing on with seven or eight years later.
More generally on this, the government brings this forward to the Senate. They propose to have our Senate Legal Committee deal with it, as has been done for a number of years. Our committee decided to start dealing with this two weeks ago, yet only yesterday, just a few hours before our meeting, we received a document from the government that turned out to be something that we had already received from the committee earlier. It was the same but less. Yesterday’s meeting had a bit of chaos because it was very difficult to decipher which matters we were dealing with because there were different charts — the Library of Parliament had one chart, the Government of Canada’s annex had a different ordering and then there was another document, so we had three different documents we were trying to juggle. You did a good job today, chair, in taking us through what we were dealing with here.
I would just ask: When the government wants us to deal with these things at this committee — and it is already a complex thing — could they please ensure that we have what we need to be able to do a thorough job? Near the end of yesterday’s meeting, I was asking if the government could please provide a revised document because the document they provided only had 20 items. I believe the things that were not included on there were the items scheduled for automatic repeal, but there is still a definite explanation to be provided.
I would ask that if the government wants our committee to do a thorough job, they need to provide us with the material to do so. I think we should make a comment on that in our report.
The Chair: I agree. Again, Ms. DuPont is here. I believe that those are constructive suggestions.
It is clear to the committee that we take this very seriously, and there is an expectation that this kind of information should be provided in advance so that we can do our work thoroughly. We have a reasonable expectation, in my opinion. Thank you for that.
I would say it wasn’t chaos yesterday. It was very close. It was just confusion.
In any event, Ms. DuPont, would you like to make any comment? You have heard the issues that the senators have raised, and we’re hoping that there will be better collaboration and cooperation in the future so that we can be more effective.
One thing I should say is in the past, we tried to do this in one day. The steering committee met, and we decided to stretch it over two days because we wanted to be thorough about our work and our responsibility to the Senate.
Senator Duncan: Thank you for allowing me to make a comment.
I think it should be clear: When Senator Batters is referencing different documents, there were some that were produced by the Government Representative’s Office, and when she says “the government,” there are also the Library of Parliament documents and there are some provided by the analysts. I think it needs to be clear what we are referencing regarding what is provided to senators by the committee and what is provided by the Government Representative’s Office. Thank you.
The Chair: That’s a good point. I believe that the clerk will work in cooperation with Ms. DuPont to meet that expectation.
Senator Tannas: I have a question, and I may be off base with this. A recollection I have is that this is a draft report. I think at one of these meetings that we had over the last few years, there was actually a change between the draft report and what wound up being filed.
Could we just clarify what the process is in order to give us a heads-up if you have changed your mind either because of circumstances or maybe because of comments that came from here?
Linda DuPont, General Counsel and Director, Legislative Services Branch, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for those questions and concerns. I have taken lots of notes to ensure that for next year’s process, things are easier and the different documents are easier to go through.
The process includes the tabling of the annual report. Let me share my thoughts about the confusion. You have a document with the motion to defer or repeal some pieces of legislation, and there are 20 items, but the annual report has 28 items. What we will be looking at is how to improve the communication in how we present the information so that it is clearer around the table.
I apologize if we created any confusion in the process. We try hard not to do that but, obviously, listening to the comments about yesterday and today, I realize that we need to look at our process again to ensure that you have clarity when you sit down to study these proposals.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Just to make it clear, the Library of Parliament is not government; it is Parliament. As I indicated, the annex that was provided a few hours before yesterday’s meeting came from the Government Representative’s Office, which is why I asked Senator Duncan about it. That was the one that had 20 items. The government’s annual report has 28 items, so, yes, those two need to be intermixed appropriately so that we have the same information in both of them and have explanations provided for both. If the Government Representative’s Office is going to provide us with a document to help us with our study, then please provide a document that will actually help us with our study.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments by senators to give instructions to the parliamentary analysts in preparing the draft report? I see none. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, senators, for your feedback and collaboration. Once again, thank you to Ms. DuPont. We look forward to seeing you again next year. I hope we have reduced some confusion.
We will dedicate the second portion of our meeting on Wednesday, November 26, to reviewing the draft report as prepared by our analysts. This review will be informed by the observations and conclusions from our study both yesterday and today. Thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)