Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Bill

Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-12, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 73, on page 34, by adding the following after line 14:

“(1.01) Despite paragraphs (1)(b.1) and (b.2), a claim is not ineligible if the claimant

(a) was under 18 years of age on the day of their entry, and

(b) will become 18 years of age at any time before June 2, 2043.”.

Colleagues, I urge you to support my amendment in order to prevent harm to children.

Thank you.

Resuming debate.

Senator Carignan, do you want to ask a question?

I was going to ask Senator Youance a question. I thought Senator Simons was going to ask Senator Youance a question, but she gave a speech. Given that she supports the amendment and seems to have made up her mind, I’ll ask her my question.

You support it so passionately that I’m sure you’ll be able to answer my question.

Why paragraph (b)?

I understand the intention of not penalizing a child under the age of 18 who has already entered Canada once and who subsequently returns by denying them refugee status, because they had already come once when they weren’t necessarily even aware that they had entered Canada, but I don’t understand paragraph (b).

Thank you, Senator Youance.

Thank you, Senator Simons and, indeed, others, for helping to illustrate the large number of frailties that arise when minors are caught up in this complex system.

Two or three times today, I’m not going to speak to my own views on the amendments that we’re going to hear but to offer what are necessarily late-breaking observations from the government, because we’re all in a position where we’re responsive to late-breaking amendments or amendments that have been changed, tweaked and improved.

I’m going to pass along some commentary that I’ve received from the officials and specialists that I’ve been working with over the past weeks. The first set of comments is for Senator Youance, of course, because this is what we’re talking about right now.

Regarding the under-18s, I have a few very brief comments.

Minors are usually under the responsibility of parents in making or not making a claim. There are different approaches with a family where there is a risk of separation if ineligible families receive decisions more quickly than others.

An age-based approach would be better set out — this is the bottom line — in regulations rather than in the act. I think that, Senator Youance, you’ve probably heard this advice already.

Regulations allow for flexibility in the approach and would better allow for unintended consequences to be mitigated, the worst of which would be to see families separated. That, of course, is the worst outcome of all and one that we would want to avoid.

The minister and department are thinking about these issues. They’re working on them. Regulations, of course, can’t be released before a bill is passed. They need to be gazetted, but I have been told that will happen fairly quickly after Royal Assent.

Those are comments in relation to Senator Youance’s proposed amendment, colleagues.

Senator Dean, will you take a question?

I will.

I think Senator Dhillon raised the issue of these cases of extortion that are happening in B.C. There currently is a loophole for some of these individuals who are now being investigated by the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, or even ordered to be removed; they’re claiming asylum in order to prevent the deportation.

It’s my understanding that this one-year rule is a central provision of Bill C-12, which would bar individuals from filing a refugee claim if they have been in Canada for more than one year.

It’s my understanding that many of them have been in Canada longer, since many extortion suspects are foreign nationals whose original student or work visas have already expired.

Isn’t this a very important provision for this bill?

It is, senator. I think you’re probably speaking to an amendment yet to come, but you’ve done it really eloquently.

Yes.

In fact, you now get to do it twice.

Senator Dean, will you take a question? Thank you.

I also notice in the amendments to the act that under Part 6 there is a paragraph on representation, which is 6.1. We know within this act it talks about ministerial powers, in particular, to support vulnerable populations:

6.1 (1) The Minister must, in the prescribed circumstances, designate a person to represent a person who is the subject of a prescribed proceeding or application if the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application is under 18 years of age or is unable, in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application. That obligation does not apply in respect of a proceeding before a Division of the Board.

With that, I think this is a critical point about minor children. We know that minor children can be alone and not have their parents with them.

Since we’ve talked about the regulations articulating this more, could the protection of these minors while they’re still under the age of 19 be captured in a paragraph such as an obligatory representation in the process? I realize it’s only one of the situations that has been mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, I understand that the provision you’re talking about indeed applies to either stranded minors who are separated from their parents or minors who, on their own part at age 16, decided to take a trip and decided to stay. They would be considered as minors for all the provisions of the legislation, and this would ensure that the support they need for whatever process they are going through would be provided to them.

My question is short.

Would you take my question, Senator Dean?

Yes, of course.

Thank you. I want to recognize your long years of service in government at the highest ranks of civil service in Ontario. Therefore, I think I’m quite safe in assuming that you were involved many times in the creation of regulations that had been promised in bills. Would I be correct in assuming that before I pose my question?

You most certainly would. Please continue.

Thank you. In your long experience, was there ever a time when regulations were promised to accomplish something and either the regulations never happened or the regulations did not, in fact, sufficiently meet the promised goal that was raised at the time of the act?

My experience is that in some cases, regulations were promised. Sometimes they were promised and varied but were not completely in concert with what people were hoping for or expecting, and, in some cases, they weren’t delivered at all.

In this case, when there is a spotlight on an issue such as the vulnerability of children in our immigration and asylum system, I am — as an individual and as a senator — prepared to accept the minister at her word when she says she will deliver such regulations.

Thank you for the question.

Would you accept a supplementary question from me, Senator Dean?

I would, yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that answer. I think it’s a very helpful exposition of the range of possibilities that occur around regulations. In the almost 10 years that you and I have been in this chamber, I want to point out that there have been numerous times when regulations that were promised either did not meet the promise or did not happen at all. I would also point out this: Is reliance on a particular minister not highly problematic? We see changes in cabinet all the time, and we see new ministers coming in and not being bound by the promises of another minister who made those promises.

As I’m sure you paid close attention to its journey through this chamber, I would cite the Canada Disability Benefit Act as a particular example, given the way in which regulations have either not happened at all or when they have happened, they have been a massive disappointment to those who rely on the regulations to give them something that they desperately need.

May I frame my supplementary question this way: Do you think it is possible that in this bill, with the promised regulations, there could be a possible scenario where either those regulations don’t happen as promised or they do not meet the goal promised?

That’s a theoretical question, and I’ll give you a theoretical answer. I theorize that in this particular circumstance, I have confidence that these regulations will emerge, given what I’ve been told and what has been committed to me. Without them, there will be a considerable spotlight on the minister and the government by virtue of the vulnerability of the subjects of the regulations. I believe that they will emerge, Senator McPhedran.

While on my feet, let me return the compliment and say thank you for those kind words about my career. I would also like to recognize your long and storied career that goes all the way back to the roots of a particular march that occurred recently. You are well known for that, and your reputation is widely known and admired. I’m glad to be able to say that to you.

Senator Dean, I was out of the chamber very briefly during this whole amendment speech, but I did hear your brief remarks. I think what you’re saying is that you think regulations will be sufficient, and the amendment is, therefore, not necessarily needed. Given you’re the government sponsor of this bill and we haven’t heard a speech from any government representative, we have to find out from you: Does the government support or oppose this amendment? Usually we hear a clearer indication of that. I’ll let you answer that first, and then I have a supplementary question.

I believe that regulations are being developed and will see the light of day very quickly after Royal Assent if, indeed, the bill is passed.

Tell me the second part of your question again.

Does the government support or oppose this amendment?

How could I have forgotten that?

It is my view, given what I’ve heard, that the government is not supportive of the amendment. I’ve tried to separate out my tone of neutrality in these matters from that of the government, but since you’ve asked the question, I discern that the government would have a preference for the regulatory approach as opposed to the legislative approach.

Would Senator Dean take another question?

Of course I would, yes.

Thank you, Senator Dean. At clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12 at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I note that Senator Youance presented a very similar amendment that was narrowly defeated by one vote. This is slightly different from that amendment with the addition of:

(b) will become 18 years of age at any time before June 2, 2043.

As the sponsor of the bill, could you provide your commentary on that nuance and that addition to this amendment? In particular, given that it was narrowly defeated at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, do you have any commentary on that addition here?

Thank you for the question. I can tell you that the addition of that date has been seen as problematic. It appears to not have a healing impact or to embellish it, but it seems to raise a further complication.

Colleagues, very briefly, I would like to add my voice in support of Senator Youance’s amendment. It’s particularly timely, given that we adopted Bill S-212 yesterday, and Senator Moodie gave a stirring speech on the rights of children and the need for Canada to have a national strategy for children and youth. In her speech, she cited a number of international obligations that we have, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. By adopting Senator Youance’s amendment, we would be reinforcing our commitment to those fundamental rights and ensuring that children are not unfairly penalized because their parents or guardians happened to bring them to this country as minors, thereby starting the clock at that time.

Let me take the opportunity also to say that Senator Youance’s amendment is one of six amendments. I think you have received all of them now. All of them will be tabled over the course of today and tomorrow. They are, I should stress, complementary amendments. They have been worked on together by this group. There is no contradiction among them. They are all worthy of consideration, and passing one or two should not preclude adopting the other amendments to follow.

Also, all of these amendments, to foreshadow the amendment that Senator Martin has also foreshadowed — and I know Senator Coyle will be able to answer it just as well — the one-year, two-year or three-year cut-off, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with the extortion problem. I think we clarified that yesterday with Senator Dhillon. The relevant clauses that do deal with extortion are clauses 43, 44 and 47. We’re not touching those. I support those clauses. We need those clauses to make sure that the minister has some sort of discretion to make ineligible anyone who has been charged with serious criminal offences.

Finally, I would just like to touch on the question of regulations versus legislation. My reading of Senator Dean’s exposition is that the government is very sympathetic to the challenge facing minors and the injustice that they might experience if this one-year clock or this first entry is applied to them, which, of course, begs the question as to why we would not put it into the bill.

Now, perhaps — and I think his last answer hinted at the problem he has raised — there is a nuance or finessing that the government has, which it will put into regulations, and we, of course, hope that will happen. We have no reason to doubt that the minister has good intentions to make that happen.

Let me just say that we often talk about this problem here, about how we’re leaving everything to regulation. Sometimes it’s appropriate. Sometimes it’s not. But I want to point out that, in this bill, the regulations are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, which is the act that governs the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, of which I happen to be the joint chair.

We have the power to look at regulations, pursuant to laws that we pass, to see if those regulations are consonant with the law. As I understand it, this bill, along with, as you may remember, Bill C-5, exempted this bill from scrutiny under the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee.

So, of course, there will be other ways in which one could challenge the regulations, but Parliament’s ability through the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee will have been curbed. That’s another reason, perhaps, to give more weight to a legislative solution rather than a regulatory one. I hope you will support Senator Youance’s amendment. Thank you.

Senator Senior, do you have a question?

Yes, thank you. We ran out of time when Senator Dean was speaking, but I’m curious about his response to the last question, so maybe I’ll pose it to you, Senator Woo. It pertains to the whole issue of the date, part (b). I’m really struck by the response that part (b) is what creates the problem, and I had heard unqualified rumours by the government that this was possibly going to see the light of day. I am a little perplexed by that response around the date because it was trying to respect the bill, but also put some parameters around the dates starting from June 3, 2025. Do you have a response that you can offer?

This is a curious situation where I’m answering on behalf of the sponsor, who is answering on behalf of the minister. You know how “telephone tag” works: The answer is never reliable. I can only explain what Senator Simons has already explained, which is also an interpretation of what Senator Youance may be thinking. It is that any child who is brought into the country between now and 2043, as a child, should not have the clock start on that first visit.

Now, I can’t think of a scenario where somebody deliberately games it. There would have to be some pretty diabolical scheming to game that situation, so I’m not sure what the government’s resistance to part (b) is.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Youance for her concise and comprehensive amendment to this egregious bill, which is deemed to negatively affect tens of thousands of people, especially young people.

Regarding the promise for unaccompanied minors that we have heard here, it’s important for all of us to remember that most children cross with their parents, so very few children can be supported through the government approach that is being promoted here. The excellent amendment from Senator Youance is the way to actually protect young people and children.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, has been mentioned by numerous speakers. It is a virtually universal reference and instrument, as it is the most ratified treaty in history, with 193 states parties. To be truly effectual, the convention depends on effective application, especially in domestic law, but full implementation of the CRC by all states parties is still problematic, less so in Canada than in some other countries.

In principle, every state party is responsible for acting on its international commitments and its international obligations and may not rely on the provisions of its own domestic law to avoid the obligations it has assumed under the treaty.

While the Convention on the Rights of the Child has not been incorporated into Canadian laws, this convention was, in fact, cited five times in the Supreme Court of Canada between 1993 and 1996, but up to that point, it had not really had much effect.

Then came 1999. The Supreme Court judge — only the second woman ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court — Madam Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, sometimes known as “the great dissenter,” wrote an opinion in the Baker case in 1999, and that put the Convention on the Rights of the Child through the door of the Supreme Court of Canada in allowing references to the convention in a contextual approach to statutory construction and in judicial review proceedings.

For those of you interested in how the law operates, it is a pretty big deal to have this happen, and it was entirely based on a child-centred analysis by a woman judge.

Since then, there have been several other decisions of the highest court that have addressed the question of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and expressed some openness to continue using it for interpretive purposes, not only with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also for ordinary statutes, in particular, youth protection.

In speaking in favour of this amendment, I thought it might be helpful to remind this chamber of what the Convention on the Rights of the Child actually says and does and to implore every one of you to think about our obligations to the children of this nation, today and to come.

Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, I will be brief. I noted the reference made to the amendment proposed by Senator Youance at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The initial version of the bill aimed to allow a child accompanying its parents prior to the legislation’s implementation to subsequently file a claim unfettered by the one-year limit following entry into Canada. This would have allowed a child who grew up and reached 50 years of age to enter Canada and claim refugee status by saying, “My parents came here 50 or 70 years ago,” or 72 years ago if that person was my age.

I understand the logic behind saying that young children, generally speaking, don’t enter Canada without their parents when they come here for the first time. A very strict interpretation of “entered for the first time” could include those people who may have entered, unknowingly and not of their own volition, at the age of six months, a year or two years, as part of a family that was moving to Canada.

I don’t really know how we should interpret “first entry into Canada.” If it means a person entered for the first time unawares, or came to the country for medical care travelling aboard a medical aircraft not knowing they were going to land in Canada, or came with their parents at the age of two and that constituted first entry into Canada for the purposes of this legislation, then when we look at the purpose of the act, I’m not sure that’s really a “first entry” within the meaning of the act. I’m sure the courts will have to consider this matter in the future.

I am grateful that, to address this concern, which she undoubtedly considered legitimate, Senator Youance amended her proposal to say that the act would give a child under 18 years of age who entered Canada before June 2, 2025, the right to request an exemption that would apply until 2043, which is when the youngest of the children who entered before June 2 would turn 18. In other words, a child who entered Canada with their parents on June 3, 2025, would be covered by the current statute as it is and could therefore not benefit from this statutory amendment.

Senator McPhedran, rightly so, referred to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I don’t know if Canada will be complying with these obligations under this treaty if we say that we allow children who came to Canada before June 2, 2025, to enter without being subject to the standard law but that those who came to Canada on June 3 or 4 cannot benefit from that. I wonder if this kind of discrimination would be justifiable under our obligations under international law to treat people in a fair and equal way.

That brings me to my conclusion. I think this is a well-intentioned amendment. Unfortunately, this achieves some relief for a very limited group of people but creates further obstacles for those who don’t fit in the subgroup. Therefore, I am rather of the view, like Senator Dean and contrary maybe to Senator Woo, that proper regulations are the way to address those types of issues, not to make a statutory amendment that will grant some rights to a few and deny, implicitly, the same rights to others.

I think the proper way to address this difficulty is to amend the regulations to provide what the date of first entry is. Is it when you are 1 or 2 years old and not really willing to come to Canada but are considered to have entered Canada?

I think that was the meaning of Senator Carignan’s question, “Why subparagraph (b)?” If you want to grant the right to enter, why do you limit it to those who were in Canada before June 3?

For these reasons, unfortunately, although I understand the good intent behind the amendment, I’m going to vote against it because I think it doesn’t achieve the proper answer. Thank you.

Honourable senators, given the way in which this debate has gone forward, I just want to make a couple of comments. I do so having been the founding executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, and the first Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I say that not out of the pride I obviously have for those roles but because they are somewhat relevant to this debate, in the sense that I and many others have commented on the pride we take in the Immigration and Refugee Board’s reputation that has been developed over the number of years — I hate to say how long — since it was founded. It always took advantage of the changing nature of refugee protection in expanding and defining the issues over the years that change refugee law.

Canada has been viewed as a jurisdiction at the cutting edge of refugee protection. Indeed, before the Immigration and Refugee Board was created, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, gave Canada the Nansen Refugee Award, the only time a country received the award for its refugee protection.

So I come at this debate as somebody who is grounded, I believe, in the notion of the protection Canada can give. After all, it gave my parents protection as well.

As Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I went through a number of legislative processes — none of which were particularly pleasant — in various parliaments. The issues I see being addressed today gave me the shakes and the sense that I should rise and speak.

I think we’re getting into a series of amendments — Senator Woo, I have looked at all of yours — where we, as a legislative body, are not prepared to trust the officials whose organizations we now take pride in, like the IRB or Citizenship and Immigration, to interpret the law and the regulations that are yet to be forthcoming or in utilizing aspects of the toolkit that they have to deal with compelling cases of protection that might, on the face of the amendments to the bill before us, otherwise be precluded. I’m not prepared to accept that.

I think there is goodwill in the system at the officials level and, indeed, at the oversight or ministerial level.

What we’re risking doing in Parliament is what I call “whataboutism.” In other words, what about this case? What about that case? What about here? What about there?

We’re forgetting to look at the framework. It’s the framework that the government has proposed some amendments to, and they propose those amendments in the context of the last few years of experience.

Certainly, in the course of the last election, in a number of jurisdictions in Canada, this was a hot issue at the door. Remember, it is a minority Parliament, even though it’s getting close, in which to advance this legislation. The opposition locked arms with the government to give us the bill that is before us.

So I take some comfort in the fact that a minority Parliament is seeking to address the real concerns of Canadians by adjusting the framework of our law but not challenging its historic reputation.

The final point I would make is that, as Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I was always focused on how we can ensure that the system is effective. The system is effective if it has the number of features as follows: First, does it have broad public support? Second, is it resourced so that it can meet the publicly stated processing expectations of Canadians and applicants? Finally, third, is the reporting such that Canadians can make that judgment?

This is why I welcome the amendment that was passed the other day that Senator Dean introduced — because it gives parliamentarians and the Canadian public, frankly, greater tools of monitoring the effectiveness of the system. I would trade that amendment for any of the other amendments that we have because, frankly, that’s the one that will ensure the system’s integrity over the long haul.

Therefore, colleagues, I would encourage you to resist the “whataboutism”, focus on the structure of the bill and reflect on the reputation that Canada has enjoyed and the fragility of the institutions that we are seeking to protect.

Would Senator Harder take a question?

Yes.

Thank you for your comments, because they are very relevant to the discussion. A great deal of work was done in committee on Bill C-12. I believe this work is extremely important.

I have two questions for you. You talked about trust in federal institutions, and my question really relates to the erosion of trust among many of the groups we heard from at committees, groups that no longer have that trust. I understand that you still have it, but what has happened over time? How has that trust been lost? How can we get the groups we heard from to regain that trust?

Senator, it won’t surprise you for me to say that, for every piece of immigration legislation that I have had some association with, this issue has come up. There is, rightly, on a number of activists’ agendas — and the system needs activists — the reluctance to accept the government’s rationales for various pieces of legislation.

It turns out that, generally speaking, in the implementation, there is a good working relationship between the public service and the legal bar and others who are part of making the system work.

So, I’m not surprised there is a great deal of concern by the refugee protection and legal communities with respect to the bill. I keep in touch with them and have met with them in the course of this legislation being brought to you. Before they would testify, they would share with me what their concerns were and which amendments they would like. I told them, “If I were you, I wouldn’t go there. I would do something different.” The most powerful thing they could do is to convince parliamentarians that they ought to hold the government to closer account for the system and to ensure there is adequate funding for the determination system. A system in which “yes” means “stay” and “no” means “stay” is not a system.

Therefore, I am on the side of parliamentary oversight of the systemic challenges to our immigration and refugee protection system and not for the oversight of the “whataboutism.”.

Thank you, Senator Harder. You brought clarity to certain issues that we may not necessarily have heard in committee. The matter of changes in government was also mentioned; at some point, new decision makers can change the way that claims are processed. Could you give us your perspective on that?

The Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, was put in place by a Progressive Conservative government. The first chair of the IRB was Gordon Fairweather, who had been a long-time Conservative Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal and was the first commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, appointed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The first time immigration levels increased substantially in Canada was when Bernie Valcourt was the minister in the Mulroney government. I always enjoyed being his deputy.

I mention this just because we should not associate the integrity of the refugee and determination system with one party. I have served five prime ministers as a deputy minister and have gone through sometimes more jolting changes within a party change than across a party change.

Your question is a good one in the sense that parliamentarians have to govern, and the systems and institutions we create have to be resilient to democratic change. I would point out that this bill before us has the support of the opposition in the other chamber. That should tell us something, as well.

Therefore, I’m not quite as cynical as some here about the quality of Canadian democracy.

Would Senator Harder take my question?

Of course.

Thank you.

Senator Harder, I have no doubt that, being such a learned man, you’re familiar with the book The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. Am I correct?

You are, indeed.

Thank you.

When you mention the IRB and you state your confidence, let me assure you, as a member of the Social Affairs Committee, that we share that confidence. Unfortunately, this draft law will take away much of the jurisdiction of that board of which you and we all think so highly. There are all kinds of people who now would have access to that very excellent and fair process who will be shunted over to this pre-removal risk assessment, or PRRA, with officials within the bureaucracy who do not have the training and the independence. The result of that will be a denial of the basic human rights that Canada has prided itself on in protecting refugees and respecting international law on refugees.

This bill is retrograde. This bill allows the cabinet of this country to do what we did to the Jews on the MS St. Louis and what we did to Japanese Canadian citizens.

That brings me back to my question, using Hannah Arendt. One of the signs that she wrote about concerning what to look for regarding the rise of totalitarianism was the removal of citizenship from certain identified groups. This bill allows for the massive cancellation of the permanent residence of people who have lived here, who own homes, work, pay taxes and have children who need to go to school. This allows the cabinet of this country — did you factor that in your great trust in the framework that is laid out in this bill?

In a word, yes. In a few words, let me say that the bureaucrats, the officials in the department that you seem to be disparaging with your comments, are the same departmental officials who have managed refugee flows of those selected overseas and managed our immigration selection system. So, yes, I have confidence in them. They will do the work that legislation authorizes them to do, and they will do it in an impressive fashion.

When the Immigration and Refugee Board was appointed, they were accused of being partisans because they were appointed by orders-in-council as opposed to being bureaucrats, who are appointed through the Public Service Commission. I found both descriptions disparaging, and I tend to have a more gentle view of humankind.

There is one minute left for Senator Harder’s speech.

May I ask a question just for clarification? The Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB, which you helped create and about which you stated that you had such faith in — the acknowledgement that you made in the answer to my previous question is also an acknowledgement that that board will no longer be the deciding body in many of the cases for which it is currently the deciding body, and that the shift over to the PRRA — and I really reject the adjective “cynical.” You’ve spent your life in government. I’ve spent my life as a human rights advocate, and I’ve seen all of this before. So I need to understand why you’re so prepared to let go of the jurisdiction and expertise of the IRB.

Senator Harder, you have 13 seconds.

Well, I guess I will be brief. I have confidence that the officials involved in the PRRA process will be well trained and perform their functions. Having said that, in all of my meetings with the advocates who came to me with their concerns about this bill, I urged them at committee to get commitments with respect to the resourcing and the transparency around the PRRA —

Senator Harder —

That will be the test of the success of this bill —

I’m sorry to interrupt, Senator Harder. Your time has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer questions?

No.

Are senators ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the length of the bell?

Fifteen minutes. Is leave granted, senators?

Leave is granted. The vote will be at 4:47 p.m. Call in the senators.