Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 27 - Evidence - April 22 Sitting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 22, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-66, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-300, respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal for Canadians who have served with an international peacekeeping mission; and Bill C-84, to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bills and to give consideration to the Report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Senator Mabel M. DeWare (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we plan to proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-66. As well, we have on the agenda a report from the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs is also prepared to report Bill C-300 to the committee this morning.
I understand that Bill C-84 came to the committee last night. That is the immigration and citizenship bill. If we have time this morning, an official will be here to explain the bill. If that happens, we will be able to determine if we need to hear other witnesses on that particular bill.
Senator Bonnell: Did you have a steering committee meeting, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Bonnell: Did the steering committee decide on anything?
The Chair: Senator Bosa and I, after a conversation he had with Senator Losier-Cool, decided that we would proceed to clause-by-clause consideration this morning.
Senator Bonnell: You did have a meeting, did you?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Bonnell: Did you keep any minutes of that meeting?
The Chair: No, we did not.
Senator Bonnell: Then it was not a meeting at all. It was just a chat.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Bonnell: If you had a steering committee meeting, you should report to this committee for approval.
The Chair: There was only one item on the agenda. I am reporting to you now on what we decided.
Senator Bonnell: You did not tell us what the decisions were and who was there.
Senator Cools: Madam Chair, now that you have told us the steering committee held a meeting, perhaps you could report to us the substance of the meeting and the conclusion.
The Chair: The clerk was present.
Senator Cools: Perhaps the clerk could read back what was just reported.
The Chair: Only one decision was made, and that was whether we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. My colleagues on the full committee did not want to proceed with clause-by-clause. I was outvoted 2 to 1 by the other members of the steering committee.
The clerk has drafted an agenda this morning including clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-66. You have the decision of the steering committee before you.
Senator Bonnell: Do you want it approved or rejected?
The Chair: Senator Cogger?
Senator Cogger: Madam Chair, I thought yesterday afternoon my colleague Senator Phillips had requested an opinion from Mr. Audcent, our law clerk, as to the standing of the various officers of Parliament, one of whom testified before us yesterday, and their relative importance to the Ministry of Justice. Are we now not supposed to hear Mr. Audcent?
The Chair: We contacted Mr. Audcent. His statement to us was that the minister does not have to contact anyone when he is drafting a bill. It his decision. Therefore, there was no reason for Mr. Audcent to come before the committee this morning to explain that.
Senator Cogger: With all due respect, I do not think it is for the law clerk to decide whether he appears before the committee or does not appear. Is that his position?
The Chair: He said that there would be nothing else for him to report. The minister has the sole responsibility for his legislation.
Senator Cogger: I fully appreciate that, but that was not the question.
I raised with the minister yesterday the concern that was raised by the privacy commissioner and the letter that had been filed by the commissioner for access to information. The minister's reply was that he consulted with the Department of Justice. He seemed to indicate, in his view, that that was enough.
I thought Senator Phillips raised a valid question. He asked if, in the standing order, the Department of Justice takes precedence over those two officers of Parliament. That was the question to Mr. Audcent, not whether the minister was solely responsible for the legislation. We all know that.
The Chair: Senator Cogger, I believe you have the notes of the minister. He said in his notes that the Department of Justice is developing a package of proposals relating to the hearings, powers and procedures of these boards. You all received that yesterday. The Department of Justice is developing a package. They are concerned as well about the powers of the boards.
Senator Cools: I think before we go on, the issue I was trying to raise is how and when a decision to proceed directly to clause-by-clause consideration was made. My understanding of the rules is that the steering committee does not run the committee. My understanding of the rules is that the steering committee may have opinions and may express them, but that is exactly what they are. However, at no time does any opinion of a steering committee become a command to the clerk and the staff of the committee without approval of the wider committee. I am a little startled at what has happened here. If the steering committee had such a recommendation to make as it made in privacy last night, it could have made it to the committee in toto yesterday and let the committee in toto consider it.
What I do not understand and find unacceptable is the fact that the steering committee met after the full committee had met, made a decision contrary to the wishes of the committee, did not seek approval from the committee, and then put that decision into action by giving instructions to the staff. My clear understanding when we left the full committee yesterday was that we were proceeding quite differently from what the agenda currently outlines. Perhaps someone can give us an explanation.
I am not even sure that this sort of discussion should be occurring in the presence of our witnesses, because, as far as I am concerned, we are wasting their time.
The Chair: I was not prepared to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration this morning, but the members of the government side and the other members of the steering committee felt it was very important for us to proceed with this bill. When I am outvoted, I do not think I have any choice.
I would like to read something into the record, please. It is dated Tuesday, March 26, 1996. It says:
The Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and one other member of the committee to be designated by the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman after the usual consultation; That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee; That the subcommittee be empowered to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
Senator Cools: We are into basics. The subcommittee has no power to act. If so, we will have to decide this very issue now. The subcommittee does not have powers to supersede, replace, substitute or overrule the full committee.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chair, when I arrived at the meeting yesterday morning, a notice had already been sent out by the clerk stating that this committee would meet on the subject of Bill C-66 and consider the bill clause by clause. This is not a new thing.
I think that you, Madam Chair, wanted to disregard that notice; you did not want to proceed in that way. The steering committee said, no, we will stick to what had already been published. This is not a new thing. It was merely reconfirmed last evening when the chair wanted to change the order of business.
The Chair: I wanted to change the order of business for a reason. A lot of information has come before our committee. I note that Senator Bosa has not had a chance to read all of that information, and it was very important for us to digest some of the briefs we received.
Senator Cogger: Would Senator Bosa not agree that agendas are tentative? They indicate a plan of work.
Yesterday, I heard some testimony that gave me further matters to reflect upon. If the truth be told, I am not ready to go into clause-by-clause consideration today. Important questions were raised.
In an article in this morning's The Globe and Mail, Mr. Andrew Coyne had a piece of advice for all of us when he wrote:
Honourable senators, you have been working too hard. Relax. Live a little. Take a long lunch. Maybe work on your golf swing. Tell you what -- why don't you just take the rest of the week off?
The Chair: Senators, we can take a decision on this issue if you like.
Senator Cools: There is something very embarrassing and improper about all of this. The steering committee meets in secret and the full committee meets in public.
The Chair: Clause-by-clause consideration is always an open meeting.
Senator Cools: I have no problem with openness. I understood very clearly after yesterday's meeting that we were proceeding one way. It was not my understanding that we would proceed to clause-by-clause study this morning. Maybe I misunderstood, and I am quite prepared to be wrong. I frequently am. I am used to being told I am wrong even when I am right.
My clear understanding yesterday was that we would take a different road. What we had yesterday was a situation where the whole committee took decisions publicly, then the steering committee met privately and now its decisions are being implemented without reference, discussion or even approval from the whole committee. I find that staggering.
The Chair: Senator Cools, I do not remember the committee making a decision yesterday before we finished our meeting.
Senator Cools: Perhaps I am wrong, but my clear understanding yesterday was that we were proceeding with other witnesses today.
Senator Cogger: My clear understanding was that the first order of the day would be to meet with Mr. Audcent. He works for the Senate.
Senator Maheu: He refused to come.
Senator Cools: The law clerk of the Senate cannot refuse to come before a Senate committee.
The Chair: He did not agree to come. I have to apologize to you for not making that public to the committee.
Senator Cogger: I do not think it is proper for him not to agree to come. For whom does he work anyway?
Senator Cools: He cannot refuse.
The Chair: Shall we decide on whether to proceed, honourable senators?
Senator Cools: The decision is not whether we proceed. The decision is whether we accept the steering committee's report.
The Chair: The question is: Do you accept the steering committee's report that they are prepared to proceed to clause-by-clause study this morning? All those in favour of proceeding?
Senator Bonnell: Before we get to that, I do not have a copy of the minutes here. We should get a report from the steering committee for the full committee. The steering committee has no power. Could the clerk write up the minutes and perhaps sign them?
The Chair: The report of the steering committee is that we proceed clause by clause; that is all there is in the report.
Senator Bonnell: Is it signed by you?
The Chair: Not yet.
Ms Jill Ann Joseph, Clerk of the Committee: I will write it now.
Senator Bonnell: You should do it properly, not after it is all over.
I think the steering committee can meet and make a recommendation to the full committee. The clerk of the committee should then report in writing and there should be a motion that either we accept or reject this report. We discussed things verbally but we did not hear from other members of the steering committee as to whether or not that is the real thing.
Senator Bosa: I attest that everything the chairman said was the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Senator Bonnell: You overruled her, but she got her vote in first, did she?
Senator Bosa: There was never a vote; she voiced her opinion.
Senator Bonnell: She told us that you overruled her.
Senator Bosa: She told us that she did not wish to proceed with the bill on a clause-by-clause basis, and Senator Losier-Cool and I decided to proceed, as was established yesterday morning, according to the notice that was sent to every member of the committee.
Senator Cogger: Did the steering committee consider the request by Senator Phillips?
Senator Maheu: Yes, and it was refused.
The Chair: No, the steering committee did not. I received a notice from Mr. Audcent saying that the minister had all the power to deal with this legislation and that he felt there was no point in his coming before the committee. Maybe I am naive about some of these things but when someone tells me that, I cannot imagine what questions we could ask the minister, if that was his decision at the time.
Senator Cogger: Frankly, I find it extremely high-handed that an officer of the Senate, a person whose office is right across the street, when called upon by a senator to appear before the committee, says, "No. I do not have anything to say." I have never seen that. That is not the way things work here.
Senator Cools: I move that the committee call Mark Audcent to appear before us now.
Senator Bonnell: There is already a motion on the floor.
The Chair: Your motion?
Senator Cools: No motion was moved on the floor.
Senator Bosa: Yes, there was, namely, to sign the report.
Senator Cools: That motion cannot be moved. It was not even signed and processed. We should do things properly.
The Chair: We have one motion on the floor, namely, that the committee report --
Senator Cools: Could we hear the motion, please?
Senator Forest: What is the motion, Madam Chair?
The Chair: The clerk is writing it out.
When the steering committee sits down and makes a decision regarding what witnesses we will have before us, we give you a list of those witnesses.
Senator Cools: That is not the way it happens. There are times when the steering committee can exercise a wide range of powers where the full committee allows it to happen, but the steering committee can only operate with the agreement of the full committee. There is usually only a problem when the two come into conflict.
The Chair: Things happen in this committee, for some reason. It must be the controversial bills that come here.
Senator Cools: How about the bad bills?
The Chair: The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedures recommends:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology proceed to clause-by-clause study on Bill C-66, An Act to amend the Canadian Labour Code (Part I) --
Senator Cools: No, that is not the motion.
The Chair: Yes it is. It goes on to state:
-- and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts on Tuesday, April 22 at 9:00 a.m.
Senator Cools: The proper issue before us is whether or not the full committee should accept the report of the steering committee.
The Chair: This is the report.
Senator Bonnell: That is a motion.
Senator Cools: Yes, that is the motion. The primary issue is: Does this committee accept the report of the steering committee?
The Chair: I am giving you the report.
Senator Cools: Someone has written up a motion. It is a little different. The report of the steering committee should also address hearing these witnesses this morning.
The Chair: Well, it did not. It did not mention hearing any witnesses. We just recommended that.
Senator Cools: Could we have copies of the report of the steering committee?
Senator Bosa: Madam Chair, will you put the motion?
The Chair: They wanted know what our recommendation was. The recommendation of the steering committee was that we proceed this morning, April 22, at our 9:00 a.m. meeting, with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-66.
Senator Bonnell: Could someone move that the report be adopted?
Senator Bosa: I so move.
The Chair: Is the report adopted?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Could I have a showing of hands, please?
Carried. The report is adopted. Therefore, we will proceed.
We now have another motion on the floor about hearing witnesses. If we move to proceed, can we entertain another motion to hear --
Senator Cools: That is what I was trying to say, namely, that the motion that was just put was improper.
The Chair: Well, it is a motion. You are accepting the steering committee's report.
Senator Cools: I should like to move a motion that the committee hear Mr. Audcent, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate.
The Chair: Before we start?
Senator Cools: It would be pointless to hear him when we have finished.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Cools that we hear from the law clerk on the position of the Privacy Commissioner and the Commissioner for Access to Information.
Senator Cogger: Yes, regarding his position relative to the Department of Justice.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Senator Bonnell: Before we agree, first, I do not want to hold the committee up waiting for this fellow to come from some other building to give his evidence. He should be here now.
Second, can we proceed with the clause-by-clause study until we reach the clauses that he needs to participate in while we are waiting for him to arrive?
Senator Cools: No. You cannot do that.
The Chair: I do not think so.
Senator Bosa: There is a motion on the floor.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. I will have to ask for hands. All those agreed with hearing him? All those agreed with the motion of Senator Cools, please say "Yea".
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: All those against, please say "Nay".
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senator Bonnell: I am in favour of hearing him, but I do not --
Senator Maheu: If he does not want to come, he does not want to come.
Senator Bonnell: He must come, even if he does not want to do so.
The Chair: It is a tie, so the motion is lost.
We will have to proceed with the agenda for the morning. We will now proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-66.
Shall the title be postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Do you have your bills with you?
Senator Cools: Are we into clause-by-clause study?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Cools: These witnesses from the Department of Labour cannot be at the table when we are doing clause-by-clause study.
The Chair: I may invite them to sit at the table in case you want further clarification on a clause, but technically they are not supposed to be sitting at the table.
Senator Cools: Madam Chair, I believe the practice is that once we are into clause-by-clause consideration, the discussion proceeds with senators only.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Cools: We have strangers sitting at the table.
The Chair: We will ask them to leave and if we need them, they can return.
Senator Cools: The witness made it quite clear that he was taking advice only from you.
The Chair: That is fine.
Honourable senators, shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 19 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 23 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 25 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 26 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 28 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 29 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 30 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 31 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 32 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 33 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 34 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 35 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 36 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 37 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cogger: No, I do not agree with clause 37 and I think some of my colleagues do not agree. That has to do with replacement workers and so on. Proposed section 87.7 is the one I object to, and that comes under clause 37.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I disagree.
Senator Cogger: A lot of people disagree. Ask for a show of hands.
Senator Cools: I would have thought, Madam Chair, that it is very obvious that we are proceeding in a highly inappropriate way.
The Chair: I am proceeding clause by clause, Senator Cools.
Senator Cools: Yes, but you are not calling for votes one way or the other. You are taking the lead of Senator Bosa.
The Chair: I am not hearing anyone saying "No".
Senator Cogger: We need a vote on clause 37 which includes proposed section 87.7.
The Chair: Will those in favour of clause 37 please raise your hands?
Ms Joseph: Six.
The Chair: Will all those against please raise your hands?
Ms Joseph: Five.
The Chair: The clause is carried.
Senator Cools: Are you not going to call for abstentions?
The Chair: Will those senators who wish to abstain please raise their hands?
Senator Cools: Let the record show that I have been trying to abstain throughout but no one has been asking.
The Chair: If I do not hear a "nay", I will not call for a show of hands.
Senator Cools: The truth of the matter is that Senator Bosa is speaking for everyone. He keeps saying "agreed" and that is what is accepted.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is what he usually does.
Senator Cools: Maybe so. I have no problem with that. He can do what he wants. However, it seems to me that when you put a question, you should ask for those in favour, those opposed and those abstaining.
The Chair: If no one says "no", Senator Cools, I have no reason to ask for abstentions.
Senator Cools: I would have thought that it was established early in the discussion in this committee that there was some disagreement and some discontent.
The Chair: As soon as I hear any disagreement, I will call for a show of hands.
Shall clause 38 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do you wish to abstain, Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Yes. I wish to abstain on every one.
The Chair: Shall clause 40 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 41 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 42 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Will all those in favour of the clause so indicate?
Will all those opposed to the clause so indicate?
Senator Cools, are you abstaining?
Senator Cools: I want the record to show that I am abstaining on all clauses.
The Chair: That clause carries.
Senator Cools: An old politician once taught me that when victory is in hand, it is easy to be magnanimous.
The Chair: Shall clause 43 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 44 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 45 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 46 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 47 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 48 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 49 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 50 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The clause is carried.
Shall clause 51 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 52 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 53 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 54 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Cools: I did not hear the motion.
The Chair: The motion is: Shall clause 54 carry? It is the one on privacy.
Senator Cools: Abstention.
The Chair: It is carried.
Shall clause 55 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 56 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 57 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 58 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: Shall clause 59 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 60 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 61 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 62 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 63 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 64 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 65 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 66 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 67 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 68 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 69 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 70 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bonnell: Madam Chair, may I move that all the rest of the clauses carry?
Senator Cools: No. This is clause-by-clause study.
The Chair: Shall clause 71 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 72 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 73 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 74 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 75 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 76 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 77 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 78 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 79 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 80 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 81 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 82 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 83 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 84 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 85 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 86 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 87 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 88 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 89 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 90 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 91 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 92 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 93 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 94 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 95 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 96 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 97 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 98 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 99 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title of the bill carry?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Madam Chair, before we get to the end, I should like to register as having abstained from voting on certain clauses of the bill, except on the ones with respect to which you called for a show of hands. I did so because I was not present when this bill was studied. I do not want to vote blindly for something I have not studied. I would like to have my abstention registered on every clause, except the few with regard to which I voted against.
The Chair: Shall the title carry, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill?
Senator Cogger: No.
Senator Cools: No.
The Chair: Order. Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: What is the motion before us?
The Chair: That the bill be reported without amendment.
Senator Cools: Who moved that motion?
The Chair: I asked: Shall I report the bill without amendment? I have to ask that.
Senator Cools: I thought it took a motion.
The Chair: It does.
Senator Cools: I thought you were putting a vote without a motion. I did not hear the motion moved.
The Chair: Shall the bill be reported without amendment?
Senator Cogger: Does Senator Bosa move that it be reported without amendment?
Senator Cools: Senator Bosa, you have been calling the shots.
Senator Bosa: I do not mind sharing the honour with you.
Senator Cools: I know how much you share with me, Senator Bosa, but this time it is quite all right. I know how generous you are.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chair, I move that the bill be reported without amendment.
Senator Cogger: Madam Chair, I thought you were calling for the vote.
The Chair: I am. Is it agreed that the bill be reported without amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: There are six in favour and six against. I cannot report the bill today. The vote is tied. Therefore, the motion is lost.
The Chair: The next order of business is the report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
We have the report of the subcommittee entitled, "Steadying the Course". We would like to approve it today and report it. We also have Bill C-300 which we would like to report today.
Would you like to make some comments, Senator Phillips?
Senator Phillips: Madam Chair, thank you.
This study was carried out by the subcommittee following passage of Bill C-67. We visited Charlottetown and met with the officials there. We received excellent cooperation and answers to our questions. As a result, we have made 18 recommendations, and, as the title of the report indicates, we will continue to follow the progress made by the department. The backlog on first adjudication has been reduced to 8,000 from 9,000, and we expect this improvement to continue and in fact to accelerate.
I express my thanks to the members of the committee and to the staff of the committee for their assistance and cooperation throughout.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would ask for a motion to accept the report and report it this afternoon to the house.
Senator Bonnell: I so move.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I am in agreement with adopting the report. However, could someone tell me what the word "apuré" means on page 24 in the French version?
I am raising the question that I feel that the French translation in this place is going down the drain. If "apuré" is a word, I will learn a new word and so much the better. However, I have never heard of the word.
The Chair: Is it not the French word for "audited"?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Not unless the accountants have developed a new vocabulary of which I am not aware. It is the only paragraph I have read because I just got the report, and I think we have to be a little more careful.
I know you will not be reading the translation, Madam Chair, and I am not asking to you do so, but when we are adopting something in both languages, someone in this house should be responsible for checking things like that.
The Chair: Senator Bonnell has moved that the report be adopted and reported to the house. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: Will you be reporting it today, Senator Bonnell?
Senator Bonnell: Yes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, thank you very much.
We will now proceed with Bill C-300. Some senators on both sides of the house are anxious to have this bill reported. The page is handing you a copy of the report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. It reads:
Your Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, to which was referred the Bill C-300, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal for Canadians who have served with an international peacekeeping mission, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on April 15, 1997, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with the following recommendations:
The Subcommittee affirms the recommendations of the National Council of Veteran Associations (as contained in the Subcommittee's report "Keeping the Faith: Into the Future", and briefs submitted to the Subcommittee on January 20, 1997 and April 21, 1997, respectively) regarding the creation of new awards and medals, with the intention that these recommendations should be given effect in such manner as to ensure a timely completion of awards and medals commemorating the end of the Second World War; and
The Subcommittee recommends that the Government of Canada include, in its Honours and Awards Committee, representatives of the major veterans associations in Canada and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Respectfully submitted,
ORVILLE H. PHILLIPS
Chairman
Do we have a motion to accept this report?
Senator Bonnell: I so move.
The Chair: Is the report accepted, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Can we report it to the house this afternoon?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: General Roméo Dallaire and another general appeared before the subcommittee last night. In their testimony in support of Bill C-300 and the medal, they made the point that, as a result of these deliberations, DND is adopting a policy that, when it awards medals, not only will they be awarded but they will be presented personally. The department will now follow that policy. The committee commended the department and also lauded the fact that it is about time that we begin to rebuild the morale of the military in this country.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the next item on the agenda is "Other Business".
Last evening in the Senate we had referred to this committee Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act and Immigration Act. In consideration of the time that is available to us this week, Senator Bosa contacted the department, and we have three officials with us this morning to explain the bill to us and to tell us why it is before us.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Why did we receive these bills in the last two days?
The Chair: It received second reading last Wednesday, April 16.
Senator Bosa: I personally spoke to Senator Berntson who has agreed wholeheartedly this is a non-controversial bill designed to protect Canadian citizens and designed to prevent criminals from becoming Canadian citizens. Senators opposite, including Senator Lynch-Staunton, agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will proceed with our witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Please proceed.
Mr. Brian Grant, Director, Program Development, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration: I am here to answer any questions you have on the bill. With me this morning are Mr. Eric Stevens, Legal Counsel, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and Mr. Norman Sabourin.
Mr. Norman Sabourin, Registrar, Canadian Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Good morning, I am the responsible for --
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you speak French, Mr. Sabourin?
Mr. Sabourin: Yes, Senator Lavoie-Roux. My name is Norman Sabourin, and I am the registrar at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am responsible for the administration of the Citizenship Act. I will be talking to you today about Bill C-84, which is aimed at addressing a void both in the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act.
[English]
I will try to bring a snapshot of what this bill is about and what it seeks to accomplish. If there are any questions, my colleagues and I will be happy to answer them.
In a general sense, Bill C-84 tries to address a void in the Citizenship Act and in the Immigration Act which has been identified by the Federal Court of Canada. In August 1996, the Federal Court of Canada in Zundel decided that the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, known as SIRC, appeared to be biased against Mr. Zundel and therefore could not fulfil its duties as prescribed in the Citizenship Act.
The minister responsible for citizenship believes that Mr. Zundel constitutes a threat to Canada's security. He therefore, pursuant to the Citizenship Act, referred this case to SIRC. Because that committee cannot act, this case cannot proceed. It is stuck in this void.
Although the minister has appealed the decision of the Federal Court of Canada, the minister and the government are concerned that other cases could become problematic if it is believed, in any specific case, that the Security and Intelligence Review Committee cannot act, cannot give advice and make an investigation regarding national security. If that happens, we could have a situation where a person who is a threat to Canada's security nonetheless becomes a citizen because there is no opportunity for the minister to have the matter heard by SIRC.
Bill C-84 proposes that, in those rare instances where the SIRC is unable to act due to bias or any other reason, the Governor in Council may appoint a retired judge to take the place of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The process to be followed by this retired judge would be the same as that followed normally by SIRC. In other words, this retired judge would be impartial and would step into the shoes of SIRC, if you like, in order to fulfil the duties of SIRC under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act, as the case may be.
This retired judge would be appointed pursuant to a recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the leaders of the established parties in the House of Commons. That is the same process now followed for appointing members to SIRC.
This retired judge would be appointed for a fixed term of three to five years but would only serve as needed in specific cases. Of course, he or she would only be paid on a per diem basis as needed in specific cases.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Would only one judge be appointed for the whole of the country?
Mr. Sabourin: That is correct. This one retired judge would serve in any case where it is believed that SIRC is not impartial or is biased or is prevented from acting as it is supposed to act under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act.
My legal advisor is pointing out that, technically, it would be possible to have a retired judge appointed under the Citizenship Act and one appointed under the Immigration Act if there were a few cases proceeding at the same time. However, there could be at any time no more than two judges, one for citizenship cases and one for immigration cases.
That was my brief overview of the intent of Bill C-84, which is to have an independent person, a retired judge, take the place of, and act in the place of, SIRC whenever SIRC is incapable of acting.
This is a process issue. We are putting in place a mechanism that will allow a fair and impartial process without going into the substance of the exact cases.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Why should we appoint a retired judge? That is something which doesn't happen every day, and is quite rare. Why can't this be done by a judge who is still in office?
Mr. Sabourin: The reason why we identified a retired judge as the person who could act is that we need someone impartial but not involved in the judicial process, because these cases might eventually come before the courts. The role of this impartial individual, who in this case is a retired judge, is not so much judicial but rather investigative. He has to investigate the circumstances of a case and see if the minister's report considering that the person concerned is a risk to national security in based on verifiable facts, and whether the evidence seems to support the minister's conclusions. The role of the retired judge will in fact be an investigative one.
Someone other than a retired judge could in fact have been chosen, but the government considers that the person best able to show impartiality is a retired judge.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I have no objection to it being a retired judge. There are retired judges receiving quite a generous pension, and they are going to be rehired. I was wondering whether it will be possible to avoid that. How many such cases may there be in a year?
Mr. Sabourin: We believe that there will not be very many, perhaps five or six. I think it would be a very exceptional year if there were five or six. If I were to make a forecast, I would say that there would probably be two or three. These are very rare cases. The Review Committee deals with security and intelligence, and the situation has to be one where it cannot fulfil its role, where it is considered biased and prejudiced against the individual in question. Only in such circumstances would someone be appointed.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Who will decide whether the committee is biased?
Mr. Sabourin: The Act provides that the committee itself may declare itself unable to act. Obviously, that could also be following a court judgement, as has occurred in the Zundel case.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Was he the person who propagated Nazi propaganda?
Mr. Sabourin: Yes, remuneration will be based on a daily rate, and the individual appointed would be remunerated for the work done rather than receiving fees for the year or for the length of the term of appointment.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: What do you mean by daily remuneration?
[English]
Mr. Sabourin: In discussions with people who deal with payment in these situations, the fact that the person is a retired judge and has a pension already would be taken into account in deciding the appropriate amount to be paid.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you any idea what the indemnity would be?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have some information for you.
[Translation]
At the present time in the courts, retired judges are supernumeraries, and I think this is more or less the same thing. They work when they want to. You cannot force them to work. They receive a per diem. However, that would not involve more than one or two judges a year. I do not think that will add to the deficit.
[English]
Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I am having some difficulty understanding the circumstances in which the committee would feel it is unable to act. As I understood your evidence, the committee would decide if it was biased. Then you go on to say there are other possible reasons. I am wondering what type of reasons there would be. Bias I can understand. Is it an inability to gather evidence? Why is a retired judge able to obtain information and perform duties that the present committee cannot do?
Mr. Sabourin: We want to make sure that the committee is not paralyzed again and that the government is not paralyzed if some other reason occurs to prevent the committee from fulfilling its legislative mandate. If the legislation only said "bias" and there were some other reason that we cannot fully anticipate now, we would again be paralyzed.
I can think of one other example: apprehension of bias. There may not be bias in fact, but in looking at a situation, someone might think that the committee could be biased, and the committee might think it wise not to act in a certain case.
I think the real answer is we want to make sure we are not stuck again, and so we drafted the bill with this wider wording.
Senator Phillips: What is there to prevent an individual under investigation from going to the Federal Court?
Mr. Sabourin: Nothing prevents that, as is true for any proceeding before a federal board or tribunal.
Senator Phillips: It seems to me, then, that we are going through an extra step. We will have a committee. Now we are putting in a retired judge. The whole thing will end up in the Federal Court anyway. You leave me wondering why the bill was introduced.
Mr. Sabourin: I understand your concern. One way to keep track of the process is to see the SIRC process and the retired judge process as parallel, but alternate, routes. It will be one or the other. We are saying that a process is in place that allows for full investigation because national security involves very serious matters and secret information at times. You need an impartial person who has the ability to fully investigate the circumstances of the case.
We are saying if that does not work, not after that process but instead of that process, we will use the retired judge process. It is really an alternate process. It will be one or the other.
It is clear that at any point, in any proceeding involving federal legislation, a person can seek redress before the Federal Court on a matter of natural justice, bias or any other matter within the purview of the Federal Court. Obviously some people love and enjoy litigation and will press these matters to the Federal Court at every opportunity.
I think this alternate process will prevent what could possibly happen in the case of Mr. Zundel and in other similar cases.
Senator Phillips: Madam Chair, I cannot see any great benefit to passing this bill. On the other hand, I hope it does not affect the stock market any further.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Mr. Sabourin, I can understand that you do not want to speak about particular cases, but if we consider that of the Belgians who, I believe, were expelled last week, and who has settled near La Malbaie. Where they stayed for a few years -- and I am not trying to come to their aid -- but I would like to know whether such a case could provide grounds for appeal, and why they are not allowed to stay here. Apparently, the man concerned committed a theft a car in Belgium. No doubt you would have read the details of the case?
Mr. Sabourin: No.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: No? Anyway. They returned him to Belgium. He wanted to go to the United States and they returned him to Canada, where he was told: "Out!" In such a case, would there be any recourse for the individual concerned, or would his only recourse be to appeal to the minister? Is there a deadlock here because the committee is unable to do its work or has a positive or negative bias towards the individual, and is not totally neutral? Or is this just a recourse for a minister in a difficult situation, or is it something which an individual, an immigrant, could use to appeal to a more neutral judge?
Mr. Sabourin: I would explain this as follows: this is not a recourse. In fact, that is not what it is. To reiterate what Senator Phillips said, this is not a mechanism enabling the applicant or the minister to seek a decision at a new level. It is rather an alternate process.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Therefore, it is a tool available to each and every minister?
Mr. Sabourin: Or to the review committee, or to the claimant. In any case where it is considered that the review committee cannot act, the claimant could raise the issue and argue: "Review committee, I believe that you are prejudiced against me". And if the review committee agrees, it would respond: "Rather than having me investigate this case, I think it should be done by the retired judge".
Therefore, it is just an alternative mechanism. My colleague reminded me a few moments ago that this process of inquiry into the fact is not subsequently repeated before the Federal Court. Investigation of the facts, by the review committee or the retired judge, deals only with the facts, with the circumstances of the inquiry. If the case goes to the Federal Court, the latter carries out a judicial review and looks into the process followed. The Federal Court will not reexamine the facts: that has already been done by the retired judge or the review committee. The Federal Court will simply examine the process followed, to determine whether it was fair and equitable; to see whether in fact an impartial process was followed.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: However, if the individual, the claimant, rightly or wrongly considers that the committee is not impartial, can he or she take the initiative and say: "Look, you are biased. I hope I will be able to go to that high authority, namely the retired judge". Is it possible for the claimant to do that?
Mr. Sabourin: Under the process provided by the Act, it is up to the Review committee to identify cases where it cannot act.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: So, the Review committee will act as its own judge and jury?
Mr. Sabourin: I wouldn't say that, but it will be the catalyst or, if you prefer, the individual who will determine whether this other mechanism should be used. Should a separate mechanism be used or not? However, if a claimant appears before the committee and argues: "You are biased", and the SIRC does not proceed to refer the case to a retired judge it will then be in an untenable situation. The same thing would apply if a court of law were to decide that the review committee did not act impartially, as the review committee would have to refer the case to a retired judge.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Is the purpose not just to provide the Minister of Immigration with another tool, but one which also helps to protect the claimant? Would I be mistaken saying that?
Mr. Sabourin: That is right. In an inquiry of this kind on national security, the most important thing is that the claimant had the opportunity to be heard, to explain his viewpoint, to argue against the minister and state: "No, I am not a risk to national security; I am not a dangerous individual," and this has to be done before an impartial judge. If the SIRC is not able to assume that role, as was decided in the Zundel case, what can be done? Either we are obliged to give citizenship to the person concerned, because there is no alternate mechanism, or we have to say that we need an impartial person if the SIRC is not impartial. We have to find someone else who is impartial to investigate, to enable the claimant to be heard, to enable him to argue against the minister, and to enable him to make a report which, in the case concerned, will be decisive.
[English]
Senator Forest: I can certainly see that the process has been paralyzed here, but is this the first time that SIRC has ever identified itself as being biased or unable to proceed with an investigation?
Mr. Sabourin: That is correct. This is the first time that SIRC has been unable to act. These cases are few and far between. It is not every day that the minister says, "I think this person is a risk to Canada's national security." The Federal Court tells us that the legislation says that SIRC investigates but if it cannot be SIRC because they are biased, the legislation says nothing. The Federal Court said, "Government, you should change your legislation."
Senator Forest: Yes, and have an alternative process.
Mr. Sabourin: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you for coming here today on such short notice. We needed this explanation before we could proceed with the bill.
Senator Bosa: I move that Bill C-84 be adopted without amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: There is one other question I would like to ask you. Do you believe that this might unduly prolong all the procedures that these people often go through? Basically, even if you do not go to another level, the fact is that this is a supplementary procedure which will prolong things. Will the judge have to make his ruling within a set time? Will there be rules with which you will have to comply so as not to unduly prolong all these difficult procedures?
Mr. Sabourin: As regards the time frame, there is no strict time frame imposed on the judge because he has to be allowed to carry out his investigation impartially and independently. There is always a possible risk. This is not an additional process, but rather one which replaces the current review committee process.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: He may have gone through the first process.
Mr. Sabourin: No. It will be one or the other. I would predict that the Zundel case which was judged by the Federal Court, will be the only one which will have to go through both processes. And if it is considered that this case may go to an impartial judge, it will be the only one to have been heard before both the review committee and impartial judge. Even in this case, the review committee could not really examine it because at the beginning of the inquiry Mr. Zundel asserted that there was bias against him. The committee had to suspend its activities pending the decision of the Federal Court.
[English]
Senator Bonnell: We do not want another Somalia affair. If judges are getting paid by the day, they will continue their work on such cases indefinitely to get extra money on top of their pensions.
Please tell your minister to make another amendment next year to set rules for these judges. Otherwise, they will have jobs for life, with no answers coming out. When that happened recently, the minister had to move and public opinion was against him. The minister should think about that.
Having said that, I support the motion.
Senator Phillips: Madam Chair, I am concerned that this may affect some of our so-called civil liberties in Canada. It affects applications for citizenship and immigration, and I think that before reporting the bill we should hear from someone on that subject.
Senator Bosa: We have a motion on the floor.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I think we should attach a recommendation to the report about the framework for the work of appointed judges so that they do not exceed reasonable time limits, et cetera. Perhaps we can make an amendment in that regard next year.
Senator Forest: In response to the comment by Senator Phillips, I understood that it would be the same process, that there would be the same guarantees of justice and fair play as there would be with SIRC.
Mr. Sabourin: That is correct.
Senator Forest: The appointed judges would operate under the same framework?
Mr. Sabourin: That is correct.
The Chair: Senator Phillips, are you placing that as a motion?
Senator Phillips: No, it is just a request.
Senator Bonnell: There is a motion on the floor.
The Chair: The motion is that we report the bill unamended, but with a recommendation.
Senator Phillips: What is the recommendation?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The recommendation would be that there be a set framework for the work of judges.
Senator Phillips: It is to prevent double dipping.
Senator Bosa: Madam Chair, this recommendation is redundant because double dipping is not allowed. A judge cannot draw a salary and a pension at the same time.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: My recommendation is not about double dipping. It is that there should be some framework so that there is no abuse.
The Chair: We will draft such a recommendation for your approval before we present it.
The motion on the floor is that we report the bill unamended with a recommendation to the minister.
Will all those in agreement so indicate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
The committee adjourned.