Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, in the early 1990s, when the fixed link joining Prince Edward Island to the rest of Canada was under construction, the Government of Canada asked former premier Alex Campbell to chair a committee to select a name for the bridge. That committee recommended Epekwitk Crossing, the original name given by the Mi’kmaq for the land now known as Prince Edward Island. But the federal government rejected that recommendation and, in 1996, named the crossing Confederation Bridge.

Late last year, I was contacted by Island resident Peter Rukavina, who reminded me of the 1996 decision and suggested that it was time to correct this mistake. I immediately contacted my colleague Senator Brian Francis and then Senator Diane Griffin, and a series of meetings were organized.

After confirming the support of Indigenous groups, we met with the leaders of three political parties in Prince Edward Island: Premier Dennis King of the Progressive Conservatives, Official Opposition leader Peter Bevan-Baker of the Green Party and Third Party leader Sonny Gallant of the Liberals. They all agreed to jointly move a motion urging the federal government to rename the bridge Epekwitk Crossing, using the traditional Mi’kmaq spelling.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to report to this chamber that the motion passed unanimously last Friday in the P.E.I. legislature.

Senator Downe: The Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island have an obligation to work in full consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people to uphold their rights as well as to redress past and ongoing harms.

Language is important to preserve a culture, and this effort to reclaim the Epekwitk name that was recommended in 1996 would be a powerful symbol of the true history of our province.

Colleagues, as I stated, many people have worked to correct the mistake made in 1996, but we would not have achieved this milestone without the outstanding leadership of former chief and current Senator Brian Francis. Let the record show that he made the successful passage of this motion happen. All praise to him and to the Mi’kmaq people of our province.

The unanimous passage of this motion in the P.E.I. legislature is a wonderful development and important first step. I want to congratulate the Progressive Conservative, Green and Liberal MLAs for working collectively on this motion and urge the Government of Canada to take immediate action to change the name of Confederation Bridge and make the name Epekwitk Crossing a reality as soon as possible.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, yesterday marked the beginning of Eid al-Fitr, also called the “Festival of Breaking Fast,” celebrating the end of the sacred month of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting. This is an important religious holiday celebrated by Muslims in Canada and around the world. I had the privilege of celebrating with my two sisters, Aisha and Nurjah, who graciously hosted me at their home in Aurora, Ontario, this past weekend.

Colleagues, Ramadan is a time for prayer, spiritual introspection and reconnecting with loved ones. It is a time for giving back to your community. It is also an opportunity to celebrate Muslim communities and the important contributions they have made, and continue to make, within and beyond Canada.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Memorial University’s Muslim Students’ Association helped to ensure that all students who were observing this sacred month were able to do so with ease. The association, which is supported exclusively by donations and dedicated volunteers, organized daily prayers for brothers and sisters at the MUN chapel and facilitated iftar dinners on campus, which were attended by more than 200 students every day, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank the students who have been instrumental in ensuring that these sacred traditions continue for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, including Akheel Mohammed, Raiyan Rahman, Jannath Naveed, Muhammad Patel, S. M. Fahim and Mohammed Shakeel. Islam is a faith that embraces the ideals of peace, benevolence and generosity of spirit. They have exemplified these fundamental principles.

Muslims in my province are part of a broad interfaith coalition that works towards community-wide efforts to help those in need. Collaboration and education help to strengthen the bonds of community amongst those of different faiths and traditions and to eradicate any preconceptions based on misunderstanding.

For all those who observed this sacred month, I hope you had a blessed and peaceful Ramadan. On behalf of my fellow Muslim senators — Senators Ataullahjan, Jaffer, Gerba and Yussuff — and, colleagues, on behalf of all of you, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all celebrants Eid Mubarak.

Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and your views. We all respect and take it seriously. No, I do not think we failed our duty, senator. I think that we had a proper and appropriate debate based upon all the information which included, Senator Lankin, the issues of the economic impact, Canada’s reputation and the health material necessary to protect Canadians’ health which go beyond simply vaccines, as we have discussed many times here. All the issues were on the table, including the Charter analysis and the Charter discussion.

I think we were correct in our legislative role in ensuring that the legislation complied with the Charter in the sense that the limits on rights that, clearly, back-to-work legislation imposes — that goes without saying — are nonetheless justified under the circumstances, of course.

In a free and democratic society, the courts can also play a role — I was going to say second-guessing us, but that’s not correct — in reviewing legislation once it is passed and given Royal Assent. We look forward with confidence to the decisions of the courts in this regard. The respect we have for our Canadian judiciary is no less than we have for our own good work. We did good work on that, even if we disagree on the results.

[Translation]

Senator Gignac: In accordance with the mandate letter she received from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is supposed to work with the provinces and territories to move toward mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. South of the border, the Securities Exchange Commission is already taking action and has released proposed regulations to require U.S. businesses, among others, to disclose the impact of climate change on their business model.

Senator Gold, would it be possible to know the status of discussions between Ottawa and the provinces? Have discussions begun about making financial disclosures on the impact of climate change mandatory in Canada? If so, has a deadline been set?

Hon. Clément Gignac: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which represents over 21 million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries and manages over $550 billion in assets, submitted a brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce last week regarding the low levels of investment in Canada.

In its brief, CPP Investments talks about important considerations related to the challenges posed by climate change. The brief states, and I quote:

Having consistent and accurate climate change-related financial information enhances our ability to make sound investment decisions in the best interests of our contributors and beneficiaries.

Senator Gold, if Canada is to successfully achieve its energy transition, don’t you think it would be important to provide pension funds and long-term capital providers with better tools for assessing investment opportunities in Canada?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, Budget 2022 announced $8 billion in new defence spending. However, it also ties most of this spending to yet another defence policy review. I participated in good faith in the last review held by this government in 2018, but I’m now anxious to see tangible action, especially considering Defence Minister Anand’s recent statement that Arctic security is a priority for this government.

Senator Gold, how long does the government anticipate that review to take, and does your government anticipate upgrades to our now very outdated North Warning System?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the challenge to Canadians, especially those seeking to buy their first home, not only in Toronto, where I had the pleasure of living for many years, but really all across this country, even in smaller communities.

The government continues to try to do its part along with the provinces, municipalities and the private sector to address this very pressing problem for Canadians. It designs programs based upon the best judgment and information as to what would help, and when experience shows that adjustments need to be made it will make those adjustments. That’s the prudent and responsible thing to do.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but public policy-making is and should be a matter of, in some sense, trial, and when there is error, failed results, incomplete results or inadequate results, to make adjustments.

This is not a matter, senator, of doubling down on a failed program. This is a matter of doing the government’s part and its best to tailor programs and adjust as circumstances change, as they certainly have changed in our economy throughout this pandemic and as we emerge from it.

So in that regard, the Canadian government will continue to work to do its part to assist Canadians seeking to enter this rather overheated and challenging housing market.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate the occasion of Asian Heritage Month in May. Twenty years ago, the month of May was designated as Asian Heritage Month by the federal government to recognize and celebrate the contributions and sacrifices of Canadians of Asian descent.

Throughout our country’s history, there have been challenges faced by the Asian-Canadian community. In the early 19th and 20th centuries, many were discriminated against with the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Amid these difficulties, Asian Canadians have risen above this prejudice and have contributed significantly to the development of Canada into the prosperous nation that it is today. From the construction of the transcontinental railroad to the fight against tyranny during the two World Wars, these Canadians never turned down the call to help their country.

These contributions have been persistent throughout our great nation’s history. In the arts, countless Asian-Canadian actors, dancers, artists and musicians captivated audiences around the world. This diverse representation no doubt inspires younger generations of artists to follow in their footsteps.

In sports, from Olympians to professional hockey players, Canadians of Asian descent break world records and win medals, all while embodying the spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship.

In business, Asian-Canadian entrepreneurship provides the backbone of many local economies, creating thousands of jobs and contributing to the development of communities, big and small.

Finally, in the public service, Asian Canadians break long-standing systemic barriers while devoting their life to the betterment of Canada. I am proud to serve alongside many of them within this chamber.

Colleagues, during this Asian Heritage Month, let us celebrate Asian Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us share our stories, support our local businesses and remember that our nation’s strength lies within our diversity.

I would also like to send my best wishes to everyone celebrating Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan. Thank you, xie xie.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to join my friend and colleague Senator Marshall in recognizing and supporting Mental Health Week. Since I last spoke on this subject almost three years ago, there have been many developments: the pandemic, warfare and the resultant social and economic turbulence that made the world a more dangerous and tense place. People are losing trust in our institutions and each other. Indeed, apart from the obvious impact of these developments, one could assert that there has been an impact on our collective mental health and, in today’s parlance, we can also assert that none of us are immune.

Mental Health Week is a vital reminder that we must all think about mental health and fight any related stigma year-round. This year’s theme as set by the Canadian Mental Health Association, or CMHA, is empathy.

Helen Fishburn, the CEO of the CMHA Waterloo Wellington — my original home area — has written that we are now transitioning to a “learning to live with COVID” phase after two years of this pandemic. This shift in messaging presents challenges, as it requires resilience and adaptability after two long years of understandable fear and distrust.

Anxiety, stress and fear are set to continue over the coming months, and the lingering effects on our mental health will last much longer. Whatever the new normal will be, it is important for all of us to practise empathy. Certainly for us as senators, as the managers we are, we must practise empathy with our teams to build and maintain the safest possible work environments both in our own offices and in the Senate as a whole. We must also be prepared to seek mental health support for our teams and, indeed, for ourselves.

When I spoke on this subject three years ago, I referenced the Senate’s nascent Mental Health Advisory Committee, which comprises senators and staff colleagues in their offices and the administration. Championed by our Speaker, the committee has benefited from the work of its chair, Christopher Reed, the participation of human resources staff and the guidance of Senators Kutcher and Marshall. I am proud to work with all of them on this committee.

Soon, colleagues, you will all receive copies of the Mental Health Handbook for Parliamentarians and Staff, developed by Senator Kutcher and MP Ya’ara Saks. There will be more to come.

Honourable senators, good mental health need not be an elusive concept. It is certainly not without its challenges, but if we all do our part, individually and collectively, we can mitigate those challenges. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted on March 31, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit its final report on its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be extended to October 17, 2022, provided that the committee submit an interim report on mental illness as a sole underlying condition no later than June 23, 2022; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, more than three weeks ago, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited President Zelenskyy in Ukraine’s capital to hold talks with his counterpart and to show the world his country’s solidarity with Ukraine against Russian aggression. Since then, leader, any number of foreign dignitaries have travelled to Ukraine to meet with its president and to personally witness the devastation caused by this illegal war. Even Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie was there this past weekend to meet with refugees.

Senator Gold, the NDP-Liberal government here in Canada thinks we’re only good at convening, and yet no official has travelled to Ukraine to offer their support in person, as many of our allies have done. Why is that, Senator Gold?

Senator Plett: It’s unfortunate, leader, that you don’t touch upon the question asked. I didn’t ask you about all that our government has done; I asked you why they were not doing something.

As I said last week, we have a Prime Minister who thinks nothing of flying all over the place for climate change meetings and vacations. We have a Prime Minister who met, bowed his head and shook hands with Iran’s foreign minister just one month after Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, PS752, killing Canadians.

Senator Housakos: Shameful.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, honourable colleague.

The Canadian government has provided and continues to provide important financial and military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians. It stands in solidarity with the people fighting this war. We are opening our doors to Ukrainians seeking to come to Canada, and we will continue to work with our allies and the Ukrainian government to respond to their needs, as we should.

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada is considering all steps that it can take to reopen the embassy and provide consular and other services to those who need it. When a decision has been made, it will be announced.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

I was thinking just the other day about all the personal information I carry on my phone and laptop these days, thinking how much more of my life is on my devices than was there before the pandemic began. For the last two years, Canadians have been working from home, shopping from home, dining from home and entertaining themselves at home. Our phones, laptops, tablets and even our Apple Watches, know more about us than ever before — what we watch, what we eat, what we read, what we buy, where we’ve been, who our friends are and whom we date.

Our devices hold our most intimate and embarrassing secrets — more than our teenage diaries ever did. And, more than ever, they hold the confidential work we do, no matter where we work or who our clients or patients or colleagues or constituents might be. It is against that backdrop that we debate Bill S-7 today.

A history lesson: In November of 2020, in a decision known as R. v. Canfield, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act offended against section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it did not impose any limits on when and how searches of personal electronic devices, including smartphones, tablets and laptops, could be conducted at the border.

Honourable Madam Justice Frederica Schutz, Madam Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf and Madam Justice Ritu Khullar held unanimously that the act violated the protection to be free of unreasonable search and seizure because it allowed for what the court called “suspicion-less and unlimited searches” of private information. That violation, held the court, could not be saved by section 1 of the Charter because it allowed unfettered and unrestricted access to people’s most personal and intimate information.

Canada’s courts have long recognized the inherent privacy of what they have termed, somewhat poetically, our “biographical core of personal information.”

In its 1993 R. v. Plant decision, the Supreme Court put it this way:

In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.

Almost two decades later, in the 2012 case R. v. Cole, the Supreme Court was even more explicit:

The closer the subject matter of the alleged search lies to the biographical core of personal information, the more this factor will favour a reasonable expectation of privacy. Put another way, the more personal and confidential the information, the more willing reasonable and informed Canadians will be to recognize the existence of a constitutionally protected privacy interest.

Today, when we carry so much more of ourselves and our lives on our phones, our tablets and our laptops, a search of those devices, said the court in Canfield, strikes right to the heart of our biographical core.

To quote the Canfield judgment:

. . . while the search of a computer or cell phone is not akin to the seizure of bodily samples or a strip search, it may nevertheless be a significant intrusion on personal privacy. To be reasonable, such a search must have a threshold requirement.

The greater the intrusion, said the Alberta Court of Appeal, “the greater must be the justification and the greater the degree of constitutional protection.”

The court did not specify what it thought a proper constitutional threshold would be. But it suggested it might be something akin to “reasonable suspicion,” as opposed to the more stringent standard of “reasonable and probable grounds.”

So now we have before us Bill S-7, a somewhat belated, already outdated effort by the government to amend the Customs Act to meet the constitutional requirement set out by the court two and a half years ago.

With this legislation, the government has created a wholly novel test for a search of an international traveller’s cell phone or computer, a threshold without precedent in Canadian law.

Bill S-7 would allow Canada Border Services Agency officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers doing pre-clearance of travellers leaving Canada for the United States to examine documents, including emails, text messages, receipts, photographs or videos, that are stored on a personal digital device if and when the officers feel a “reasonable general concern” that something on that device might contravene the Customs Act.

What does a “reasonable general concern” mean, legally speaking? I wish I could tell you but I can’t since there is no Canadian jurisprudence related to this newborn phrase.

A reasonable concern, one might intuit, is a lower standard than a reasonable suspicion because a concern, in common parlance, is less grave and less specific than a suspicion. And maybe, just maybe, a test of “reasonable concern” might pass constitutional muster. But throw in the word “general” and you water things down even more. I mean, what in blue blazes is a “general concern?” It sounds even more vague and more subjective than a good old-fashioned hunch or an inkling. It is a fuzzy, ill-defined threshold, one that opens the doors to all kinds of possible misapplication or abuse.

Is there any traveller alive who might not inspire “general concern” on the part of a border officer on a bad day?

Now, imagine someone who is Black or Muslim or Chinese or Indigenous. Or someone who is queer. Or someone who wears unconventional clothes. Or someone on the autism spectrum. How might such a general concern be provoked in an officer who is acting on such a loose and intuitive test?

What’s particularly perplexing is that there was no need for the government to concoct such an untested legal standard. The obvious legal threshold to conduct a search already exists right in the text of the Customs Act. Section 98 of the act, for example, provides that an officer can search any person “if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his person” any prohibited, controlled or regulated goods.

The act provides that any imported or exported mail may be opened and examined if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it contains any prohibited or regulated goods. The act further authorizes goods to be examined and any package or container opened where the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the Customs Act has been or might be contravened.

All throughout the Customs Act, in fact, the standard test is suspicion “on reasonable grounds;” it is the well-established legal threshold. Why on earth should it be easier for border agents to search the contents of our personal electronic devices than it is for them to search our mail or our coat pockets or our car trunks or our suitcases? Yet that is precisely what Bill S-7 allows.

We all understand that we have fewer privacy rights when we cross a border than when we cross a city street. Entering or exiting a country is a privilege. We routinely subject ourselves to searches of our luggage and our persons that would not be legal in ordinary daily life when we ask to cross a border. But a border is still not a Charter-free zone.

Bill S-7 would allow border officers, acting only on a “reasonable general concern” to scroll through our texts and photos, our love notes, our bank statements, our SkipTheDishes orders, our Amazon purchases, our dating history and our private health and fitness data.

Now, you could certainly argue that the original text of section 99 of the Customs Act, at least as it has been previously interpreted, already gave them that right, but, up until now at least, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, had its own internal rules which were supposed to preclude such fishing expeditions. According to the CBSA handbook, searches were only supposed to be conducted if there were “. . . a multiplicity of indicators that evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”

The court in Canfield explicitly said that was not good enough. And yet the language of Bill S-7 — let me stress this — actually lowers the bar for a search. Far from enhancing our privacy rights, as the court explicitly directed, S-7 may, in fact, diminish them, granting border officers more latitude — not less — to pry into our personal devices. Either way, it’s a fair bet that this novel legal threshold is going to create confusion, not clarity, for many border officers. And it will undoubtedly become the subject of aggressive litigation almost as soon as it’s applied.

This is not what the Court of Appeal in Canfield required when it struck down the law, and it certainly doesn’t align with previous recommendations of Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.

Our border rules were originally created to allow customs agents to look for “stuff:” illicit goods, things like smuggled drugs or smuggled cigarettes and smuggled exotic animals. They were designed to ensure we weren’t sneaking back from vacation with shoes or dresses or artworks on which we hadn’t paid duty. But when we treat the private secrets carried on our digital devices as though they were goods, we weaponize the Customs Act in fresh and unintended ways.

I know it is politically risky to criticize Bill S-7 because it has been framed for us as a way to fight child pornography. In this fraught time, no one wants to be smeared as a defender of child porn or pedophilia. I certainly don’t. But most child porn is not imported into this country physically, carried on individual personal computers. It’s bought and sold and shared online.

Creating a lower novel threshold for searching our personal computers won’t do much to stop the scourge of child sex abuse, but it will put the privacy rights of thousands of Canadian travellers in real jeopardy.

Perhaps you think that S-7 won’t matter to you because you obviously don’t carry child porn on your phone or laptop. But this bill isn’t just about child pornography. Prohibited items under the Customs Act include hate propaganda, obscene material, treasonous or seditious material and even something as benign as reprints of Canadian copyrighted works.

That leaves me with what you might call a reasonable general concern that some travellers could be targeted for phone and computer searches based on their political views, or rather, based on what a border officer’s general concern about their political views might be.

Your phone and laptop can also be searched if a generally concerned officer is looking for receipts or banking information stored on your devices that might show you bought a few more things abroad than you’ve actually declared.

And, perhaps most worryingly, as Senator Boniface explained in her introduction of the bill last week, if officers discover what may be evidence of a criminal offence — an offence that has nothing to do with the Customs Act — that evidence may be provided to local police, who may then conduct their own criminal investigation and consider possible criminal charges.

Colleagues, we have a chance to do what the court in Canfield asked us to do: to find a balance, to come up with a proper threshold test for invasive searches of our digital devices — a test that recognizes the need to protect our borders and our national security, while at the same time safeguarding our privacy rights.

Reasonable general concern is not the appropriate threshold, not in 2022, not when our phones allow us to hold our lives in our hands. We owe it to Canadians to do better, not to rush through this constitutional debate just because the government missed a court-imposed deadline to write this legislation. Let’s apply some sober first thought to a bill that badly needs it.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much. I raised in my speech similar considerations that needed to be had around the threshold, but I do want to make sure that the Court of Appeal’s paragraph 75 was clear. I want to ask if you would agree that this is in fact what paragraph 75 of the Canfield ruling said that in their view:

 . . . the threshold for the search of electronic devices may be something less than the reasonable grounds to suspect required for a strip search under the Customs Act. . . .

and that:

Whether the appropriate threshold is reasonable suspicion, or something less than that having regard to the unique nature of the border, will have to be decided by Parliament and fleshed out in other cases. . . .

Is it not clear to you in Canfield that they were giving the range for Parliament to make a decision around that? Am I correct?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows:

Monday, May 2, 2022

EXTRACT, —

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,

(a)on the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted;

(b)on a sitting day extended pursuant to paragraph (a),

(i)proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),

(ii)after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,

(iii)motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,

(iv)the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(7.1) or 67.1(2);

(c)until Thursday, June 23, 2022,

(i)during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates,

(A)all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,

(B)the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,

(ii)when debate on a motion for concurrence in committee reports is adjourned or interrupted, including on the day of the adoption of this order, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House leaders of the other recognized parties, but in any case not later than the 35th sitting day after the interruption,

(iii)a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage,

(iv)a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment;

(d)notwithstanding the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, and Standing Order 45(6), no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2022, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Members’ Business item, for which the provisions of the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, shall continue to apply; and

(e)notwithstanding paragraph (j) of the order made Wednesday, March 30, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit to Parliament a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be no later than Monday, October 17, 2022, provided that an interim report on mental illness as a sole underlying condition be presented to the House no later than Thursday, June 23, 2022, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that Standing Order 28(1) be amended as follows: “(1) The House shall not meet on New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day. When St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fall on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day; when those days fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet the following day.”.

ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.