Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you, Your Honour. I think I understand the general direction of the question, and it’s a question that I have recently asked of the department.

In fact, the finance minister’s instructions to ministers is to look for reductions in expenditures by departments — reductions that are not directly related to outcomes. This is a hard thing for a minister to understand because it is a delicate balance.

We were talking about status cards a few moments ago. This is a space where we need more people in order to efficiently process the volume of renewals that are on people’s desks right now. As I mentioned to the honourable senator, there may be ways to increase efficiency using a digital approach.

There are also employees in the department who are providing direct services. We are hiring more nurses, for example, and we would not want to in any way undermine the day-to-day functioning of communities by removing people who are essential to supporting First Nations.

The question is around program planning, and that is where it becomes difficult for ministers to understand because if we reduce capacity, it will reduce the ability for the government to deliver on its agenda.

I have a lovely new deputy minister, Gina Wilson. Many of you will have met her in your travels. I am confident that she is doing the analysis right now to make sure that where we decide to reduce our numbers of public servants, it does not in any way undermine the capacity of the department to deliver.

Finally, I want to thank the hard-working members of Indigenous Services Canada, especially over the last two years during a pandemic when we had extraordinary demands placed on the department from a variety of urgent situations. They really rose to the occasion.

Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you very much. I will have to defer the answer to my colleague Minister Miller, who is working actively in this space and is responsible for some of these decisions.

I am focused on preventing the next generation of Sixties Scoop. I will talk about the work we’re doing on child and family services reform through Bill C-92. I want to thank this place for helping to get that important landmark legislation through last term. It is coming to fruition, and it is exciting.

I was in Wabaseemoong six or eight months ago, signing the first agreement in Ontario with that community to regain control over their child and family services. It is that work that I think will prevent the need for future inquiries about yet another generation of children removed.

That is the transformational work that I am proud to be a part of — not just addressing the harms of the past, but looking toward the future and creating the legislative and funding frameworks that, quite frankly, we, as a country, need to decolonize. In fact, there are many colonial practices that still exist today, that are still determining the lives of Indigenous people and that are still doing so inequitably.

Hon. Kim Pate: Thank you, minister, for being here and thank you for the work you have done since being in government, and also in the community before being in the government.

You spoke earlier about the importance of prevention. As you will well know, successive governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees fighting Indigenous people and communities in court.

Minister, could you please share with us the kinds of processes that are considered, and, in fact, how social, human, environmental and fiscal costs are assessed in terms of deciding whether to fight international charter and human rights decisions in courts versus the manner in which resources might instead be used to provide preventative services and avoid the sorts of litigation and court decisions that you have already mentioned?

If you are not able to share that, would you commit to requesting, say, the Parliamentary Budget Officer or another arm’s-length body to do that kind of assessment?

Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you. I am afraid I wouldn’t be able to answer that question because I am often not in those conversations and wouldn’t have a direct line of sight in terms of how some of those decisions have been made.

I’ll start with this: Our government has been clear that we would prefer not to litigate and that negotiated solutions are the best way to pursue reconciliation, quite frankly. This is an agenda of my colleague Minister Miller in his role within Crown‑Indigenous Relations to settle, for example, land claims and treaty claims in a way that is built on the principles of negotiation rather than litigation. He has had some tremendous success over the last year, as did his predecessor. I am grateful for a Prime Minister who understands that this is the approach we should be taking.

Having said that, there are times when the legal advice to the Government of Canada is that there are questions that need to be answered from a legal perspective. In those cases, the government chooses a litigious path.

From my perspective in the work I am doing now — for example, with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, or CHRT — the door always has to be open to negotiated solutions, even if there are questions on particular rulings. That will be my direction as minister, and I will certainly work closely with my colleagues in that respect.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Welcome, minister. First, I would like to say how impressive Canadian-Indigenous participation was at COP 27.

Since the 2019 report of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic, climate change issues in the North have accelerated. The melting of the permafrost, in addition to melting sea ice, is posing critical problems with the building and maintenance of infrastructure, including airport runways essential to accessing northern communities. As you said to Senator Plett, the Government of Canada has committed to close the infrastructure gap by 2030.

Is there a status report on progress on these issues indicating where we stand now in 2022?

Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you very much. The honourable senator is getting at the crux of something that I think is tricky but also important — namely, the transfer of self-determination and control which, ultimately, should result in reduced need from the department’s perspective to micromanage the lives and affairs of Indigenous peoples.

There are some communities on what was called the 10-year block funding approach. They have a commitment of funding for 10 years, an escalator of that funding, predictability and they are managing their own affairs. I will take note of going back to see if it has reduced the need from the department’s perspective to have “staff” working on those files. We want to be there for communities when they need support. However, increasingly communities are saying that they need to have those tools of self‑determination.

I will end on this point, honourable senators. My colleague and my predecessor, Minister Miller, received funding in Budget 2021 for the tools of capacity building for communities in both financial and governance capacity. This is exciting work because there are communities that want to do this and have need of some support to be able to have the tools to get there. I think that is transformational work.

Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you very much. I don’t know if I visited those specific communities but I was in Tataskweyak about a month ago; I am visiting God’s Lake, Manitoba, tomorrow. I have visited some remote communities and I am aware of the challenges remote communities face in terms of accessing health care.

I will say this: The provinces and territories who are funded to provide health care must be partners in this work. Of course, the federal government funds, for example, community nursing stations that provide emergency or urgent care as well as preventative care. However, as you know, the federal government doesn’t provide health care and relies on provinces to be supportive partners. I will point to Saskatchewan and Whitecap Dakota First Nation, where a clinic that is fully funded by the Saskatchewan government exists on that First Nation, where they deliver primary care services not just to residents of Whitecap but also to some of the farmers around the community. That is astounding. We need more of that. We need more communities, municipalities, provinces and territories to realize that we will all benefit when we work together and ensure that every citizen of this country, no matter who they are or what their status is, has a right to, and will do better with, equal access to services.

[Translation]

Hon. Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario: Thank you very much. Just today, I was working with my department on understanding how they are making progress in pulling together the pieces of a distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategy. This is an area that is near and dear to my heart. It is related to my previous work prior to politics. I was really excited about the National Summit on Indigenous Mental Wellness we held several months ago in Toronto which brought together programs and solutions to mental wellness and substance use developed, designed and led by First Nations and Indigenous peoples. That is the way of the future.

We have distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to different Indigenous providers of mental wellness and substance use services. I am interested in increasingly ensuring those are culturally appropriate and designed by Indigenous people. Many people are in dire straits, not only in Indigenous populations, but also throughout the country; we have a crisis of astronomical proportions around opioid use, for example. Imposing western‑based solutions, and healing solutions in particular, on Indigenous people is not working — I would hazard a guess that it has never worked — and I am excited about the movement that’s happening led by Indigenous health care professionals and mental health specialists that is about designing culturally appropriate care.

Finally, let me just say that programs like Choose Life, developed by Nishnawbe Aski Nation, are showing great promise in reducing suicide and promoting life, which, as the people in that program will tell you, is the preferred way to talk about this. It’s even about language when we talk about suicide prevention.

Hon. Bernadette Clement moved second reading of Bill S-11, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-11, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law. I’m proud to sponsor this bill and grateful for the support of Department of Justice staff; they have done so much heavy lifting.

Bill S-11 is a technical piece of legislation and a long read. It clocks in at 161 pages and 639 clauses. It amends 51 statutes under the responsibility of nine federal departments. It’s also the result of several decades of work, and I’d like to give you an overview of the process that led us to this bill — the fourth in a series of harmonization efforts.

[Translation]

I would also like to tell you why I am sponsoring this bill.

I am a graduate of the University of Ottawa’s Civil and Common Law program. I mentioned this in my speech on Bill S-215, sponsored by Senator Moncion and entitled An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post‑secondary institutions. This unique gift, this unique opportunity to learn in French and in English, is something that I highly value.

Imagine my surprise when Bill S-11 was introduced in the Senate. When I heard the title, I suddenly looked up. I thought to myself, this is part of my history. As a former Quebecer turned Franco-Ontarian, this bill directly relates to the beginning of my legal career.

[English]

I remember my first day of law school. From that very first day, I learned about our country’s two unique legal systems, and it was important for me to understand both. If Canada has embraced both common law and civil law, then so will I.

Our inclusion of two languages and two legal traditions and the legacy of two colonial founders means we’re constantly grappling with complexity. This makes me hopeful for our country’s ability to further embrace diversity and do the work necessary for truth and reconciliation. I’ll come back to that in a moment. For now, let me tell you a little bit about the historical foundation of our current complex situation.

In 1774, the Quebec Act established and formalized the coexistence of civil law and common law traditions in Canada. After Britain’s decisive victory, they laid the framework for a colony that included Catholics and Protestants, anglophones and francophones, common law and civil law. The common law is law that is not written down as legislation; it’s law that has evolved into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in making later decisions in similar cases.

Civil codes contain a comprehensive statement of rules. Many are framed as broad, general principles to deal with any dispute that may arise. Unlike common law courts, courts in a civil law system first look to a civil code and then refer to previous decisions to see if they are consistent.

[Translation]

The coexistence of these systems was confirmed by the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives the provinces substantial residuary power in the areas of property and civil rights.

In 1993, the federal Department of Justice created the Civil Code Section, which examines federal legislation to ensure that it accurately reflects the legal traditions of both common law and civil law. The section was created prior to the coming into force of the new Civil Code of Quebec, which replaced the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1994.

[English]

Since then, civil servants have been reviewing hundreds of statutes that regulate matters of private law. Private law deals with relationships between individuals or institutions rather than relationships between governments and individuals or institutions. Private law includes contracts like wills and marriages.

We’re making progress in harmonization efforts: Bill S-4 amended more than 50 statutes, Bill S-10 amended 26 statutes and Bill S-3 amended 12. Luckily, since 1995, new legislation follows the federal Department of Justice’s policy on legislative bijuralism. This ensures that bills are drafted with terminology, concepts, notions and institutions of both of Canada’s private law systems. New bills won’t be added to our list of statutes in need of harmonization.

I’ll pause a moment to stress that. The goal is not to have to harmonize statutes forever. New bills are written with bijuralism in mind.

[Translation]

Legislative bijuralism, as you have heard, is a project involving decades of work on hundreds of laws. It is worth the trouble. We are making sure we speak to Canadian citizens in English and in French in both legal traditions. The Charter Statement in relation to Bill S-11 emphasizes the importance of this work. We know that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality of status of English and French. The Charter Statement offers this reminder:

[English]

This bill contributes to the respect of the equal use of both official languages by seeking to ensure that federal laws are equally understandable in both English and French from a provincial and territorial private law perspective. It also facilitates access to justice by making legislation more accessible for all Canadians, whether they are English‑speakers or French-speakers, and whether they belong to the common law or the civil law legal tradition.

Since my appointment to this place, I have resisted the notion of a language binary: that French and English are our founding languages and the only ones worthy of recognition. Let me take a moment to make the same case here and remind us all that Indigenous languages and laws are worthy of recognition and revitalization too. Our common law and civil law tradition are a legacy of colonization by France and Great Britain.

We should not forget what came before, and what still exists — a tapestry of Indigenous laws and traditions that are valued by hundreds of unique communities.

Indigenous law is as diverse as the communities on Turtle Island. It is not static. Elders and knowledge keepers have carried and protected the laws of their communities — despite colonization, and despite residential schools.

Indigenous language revitalization is so important. Legal concepts are rooted in language. Language and law are connected. We can’t understand one without the other. As we promote language revitalization, we’re opening doors to the revitalization of law, too.

While Bill S-11 does not promote the use of Indigenous laws in Canada, there is plenty of work happening in other areas. For example, the national centre for Indigenous laws at the University of Victoria, once open, will provide space for learning, practice and research. This is one example of communities receiving support in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 50. This Call to Action speaks to the need for equity within Canada’s legal system. The commission calls for the federal government to collaborate with Indigenous organizations:

. . . to fund the establishment of Indigenous law institutes for the development, use, and understanding of Indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the unique cultures of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I hope that when we speak about harmonization in the future, we think about harmony as more than binary, but as a complex collection of traditions.

[Translation]

The Department of Justice is working to create a formal consultation process for future bills, since Indigenous communities were not formally consulted regarding Bill S-11. A formal consultation process with Indigenous Canadians will be put in place as part of Canada’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The consultations on Bill S-11 were completed in 2017. As we all know very well, although these consultations were completed four years ago, this bill was shelved for many years while the government responded to the urgent priorities brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 2017 consultation process for Bill S-11 involved over 400 stakeholders sharing materials. Justice Department staff received comments, met with banking institutions and heard from key stakeholders such as the Government of Quebec. Some groups recommended minor changes, while others stressed the importance of the harmonization efforts.

[English]

Indeed, as we look to pass this fourth harmonization bill, I’d like to take a look back at the first three bills, and highlight how significant this work is, both at home and around the world.

In 2001, Senator Pierre De Bané spoke to Bill S-4:

Harmonization will also benefit Canada internationally. The bijural nature of Canada requires respect for two great contemporary legal systems: the civil law and the common law. Globalization of markets and Canada’s ever-growing openness to some very diversified countries continue to have an impact on Canadians. Bijuralism, honourable senators, gives us a better understanding of the laws of countries operating under one or the other of these systems, and such countries account for almost 80 per cent of the countries in the world. It gives Canada a leg up when developing and negotiating international rules embodying concepts from either of these systems and makes it easier to adapt to these rules.

In addition, other countries with a dual system will be able to follow Canada’s lead, which has no equal or precedent. We are becoming a model for the entire world.

In 2004, while speaking to Bill S-10, the Honourable Serge Joyal told his colleagues:

We must recognize that the desired result of the overall exercise is that the civil code and the common law tradition will develop, both in accordance with their own genius and so that both will achieve something in common. Essentially, that is in keeping with the philosophy of this country, that is, we maintain our identity while we move forward together. We want to join our respective genius, talents, resources and diversities in creating a multi-ethnic and diverse society in which we can live and thrive together.

Finally, Senator David Angus took a different tack when, in 2011, he described Bill S-3 as a “gripping page-turner.” Folks, I’d argue Bill S-11 is even more interesting.

Senator Angus also said that:

. . . all Canadians benefit from harmonization. Not only does harmonization enable Quebecers to identify more with federal legislation, but it also clarifies federal statutes, which become more respectful of institutions proper to the civil law or the common law. In addition, it makes the application of federal legislation more efficient, which should improve the overall effectiveness of the administration of justice in Canada.

I’ve told you about my experience. I’ve given you the history. Now, let’s dive a bit into the bill. Truly, there is something for everyone. Bill S-11 is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get.

I have to keep you invested in this speech. It’s dry, folks, but I’m trying.

As you flip through its many pages, you’ll see amendments to everything from the Privacy Act to the Dry Docks Subsidies Act. Senator Omidvar may be interested in the amendments to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. Senator Cormier, the Official Languages Act is also amended by Bill S-11. Senator Simons may have noticed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act is on the list of amended acts. And Senator Black may be interested to know that the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act is amended.

[Translation]

The objective of Bill S-11 is to ensure that the appropriate terminology and concepts from civil law and common law are used when federal legislation is based on provincial or territorial private law rules. For example, it adds the English term “hypothec” more than 100 times to various laws.

Many of the changes made by Bill S-11 are typical bijural changes, involving adding, deleting or changing a word to ensure that it respects the traditions of common law and civil law.

[English]

For example, some federal statutes respecting contract law are missing the civil law term “mandatary.” The solution is to twin the words “agent” and “mandatary” in the English texts.

Another example is replacing terms that we don’t use anymore, or that are incompatible with a new private law concept. For example, English texts use the word “letting” or “hiring” when they’re referring to leasing. Those terms are not applicable in civil law anymore. We’re replacing them with the term “lease,” which is the appropriate word in both civil law and common law.

[Translation]

Colleagues, thank you for listening. As we continue studying this bill, I hope that we will bear in mind the advantages of this process for Canadians, the decades of work accomplished by Justice Department staff, and the harmonization efforts that still lie ahead.

[English]

Harmonization makes statutes easier for all Canadians to understand. It’s an important modernization process that ensures accessibility and proper application of federal legislation where it refers to provincial and territorial private law.

I hope you join me in efficiently sending Bill S-11 to committee for further debate and discussion.

Thank you. Nia:wen.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which relates to great apes, elephants and certain other animals. This is more simply titled the Jane Goodall act.

I want to speak briefly on the process and the timeline of the bill and add my support for the bill receiving further study at committee. As you will recall, the bill has three key goals: first, to protect wild animals in captivity; second, to improve public safety; and third, to promote wildlife conservation.

The bill, in the absence of meeting new requirements, would prohibit the acquisition and breeding of over 800 species at roadside zoos, including for big cats, bears, wolves, many primates, seals, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles, anacondas, venomous snakes and more. It would also phase out elephant captivity in Canada. With our cold weather, it’s not hard to see why keeping them in captivity is not the best practice for elephant welfare.

For those wild animal populations currently in captivity, the bill would grandfather — or grandparent — them in, and they would remain in place. New captivity breeding and exports would require permits from the federal or relevant provincial government, with only the federal government able to authorize transport across boundaries. Such licences could be granted for animals’ best interests regarding individual welfare and conservation or for non-harmful scientific research, and there would be conditions applying.

The bill would also ban performance for entertainment and elephant rides unless licensed by a provincial government, also subject to potential conditions.

In addition, Bill S-241 would create a transparent and accessible legal framework for animal care organizations, such as high-quality zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries which must meet five criteria in order to obtain a federal licence to breed or relocate individuals of affected species. These five criteria include the following: first, administering the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care; second, providing whistle-blower protection; third, refraining from activities that misrepresent or degrade captive wild animals, such as performances for entertainment; four, acquiring wild animals in a manner that does not harm wild populations; and five, maintaining any other standards established by the minister following expert consultations based on the best available scientific veterinary animal care or animal welfare information.

Our former colleague Senator Sinclair introduced the Jane Goodall act two years ago. Senator Klyne, our sponsor of this new version, spoke to Bill S-241 in March of this year. We have heard eight speeches on the bill since then, with debate time totalling over two and a half hours.

Colleagues, this makes Bill S-241 the most debated non-government bill at this stage in the Senate in this Parliament. To put it simply, we could describe here the zoo bill moving at a snail’s pace. I’m just checking to see if you were listening there.

Our debate will soon benefit from a critic’s speech as we move forward to the first vote. I acknowledge and appreciate that our friend and critic Senator Plett has been visiting many zoos in preparation, as he has indicated, but in considering the bill, we will also need to hear the views of animal scientists and other experts. This includes the world-renowned Dr. Jane Goodall and many other scientists and experts eager to contribute, including representatives of animal welfare organizations.

As with any other bill, the appropriate venue for fair and open consideration of evidence is a committee study; a study would help us wrap our arms around the key issues, and there are some big ones that this bill lays out.

As Senator Cordy noted on October 4, our committees are available to hear from witnesses now, and we should take this opportunity while we can. For that reason, I’m in favour of moving this bill expeditiously to a second reading vote and committee study. The Jane Goodall act continues the good work of this chamber for wild animals, and that includes the work of Senator MacDonald on shark fins and that of former senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Sinclair with Bill S-203, the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act.

If passed, this bill would create the strongest legal protection in the world for wild animals in captivity. I would also note that the greater protection for wilder animals in captivity is reflected in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s mandate letter, as is attention to wildlife trafficking, reflecting Canadians’ democratic support for these policies.

We know from correspondence and social media that many Canadians and people around the world, including young people especially, are following the Senate with a close interest in the Jane Goodall act. The public is wondering about next steps, as are some of us in here. As such, this bill is an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians and members of Parliament the Senate’s thoughtful work and collegial process.

Before his retirement, Senator Sinclair spoke to this chamber again of his vision for a Senate that becomes Canada’s council of elders. To realize this, he told us we should bring greater fairness and transparency to our debates and decisions on behalf of Canadians. Let’s live up to that ideal, colleagues, in our deliberations on the only legislation that Senator Sinclair singularly authored. It has since been further developed by Senator Klyne, who has our thanks. I add my voice to those of many colleagues eager to move to our first vote and a committee study on the Jane Goodall act. Thank you for your attention.

Senator Plett: Well, of course, there are people saying that AZA meets a higher criterion. CAZA, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, are strongly denying that, and there is no evidence of any kind that AZA, in fact, does that. I want to continue, at least if for no other reason than getting this on the record, and I will speak to this in due course.

The AZA is vehemently opposing the SWIMS Act and is warning its members that if this legislation passes, it will soon be extended to include animals such as elephants, great apes, big cats and other species. They are urging their members to act now to communicate to Congress that this legislation establishes a dangerous precedent. This is AZA — the organization that is so much better than CAZA — warning their representatives in the U.S. that they do not want this to happen to elephants, big cats — something that Jane Goodall is coming into Canada to promote, but not the U.S.

Senator Dean, can you explain to me why we would turn over our accreditation standards that are not superior — that some people are telling you are superior but are not superior — to an organization that not only doesn’t support our own current standards but is actively opposing the requirements opposed by zoos by Bill S-241?

Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Plett, for the follow-up questions. They are very good ones. My sense is this: The bill is at second reading. We are here to discuss the principles of the bill and its goals and objectives, and I have tried to outline those for us today. I would welcome submissions from the AZA and its Canadian counterpart and experts in this matter to come to committee, debate, explore and educate us on these very questions that you raise.

Perhaps the best thing for us to do is to get to a second-reading vote, get us into committee, and then we can wrap our arms around these sorts of details. I would like to be able to answer those questions today but I can’t. I think they can be adequately answered at committee, so let’s move this thing along and explore those and other issues together in the way we should.

Thank you very much for raising these questions with me today.

Senator Dean: On this matter, I can tell you that I am much happier sitting here and hearing long questions than providing lengthy answers. You must do whatever you wish. I am not going to return to my snail’s pace analogy, but yes, we do what we do. I believe that the place for technical questions and to examine the detail of a bill is at committee, but I don’t discourage you from going wherever you like and looking at whatever you would like to look at.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Cordy, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Martin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, minister, but your time has expired.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?