Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and your ongoing attention to the serious human rights violations in China and the crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong.

The government continues to work with its allies to do what it can in this regard. With respect to your question regarding former Chief Justice McLachlin, that’s a decision that the former chief justice has made and I have no further comment on that.

Senator Plett: Honourable senators, the Government of Canada, regardless of its political stripe, has been supporting important projects over years, long before the expensive and ineffective bureaucracy of the Infrastructure Bank was created. It should continue to support worthwhile projects, even after the Infrastructure Bank is abolished, as a committee of the other place recommended earlier this month.

Leader, last month, you also mentioned the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project to Nunavut from Manitoba, a project that the Conservative Party has supported, as you may know. In the memorandum of understanding for this project, which was signed over two years ago, in February 2020, the Infrastructure Bank is said to be playing an advisory role. At the time, the former CEO told the media that the Infrastructure Bank might invest in this project, but it doesn’t appear that it has happened.

Could you also please inquire, leader, as to what the current status is of the project and whether they have invested?

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill S-8, followed Motion No. 42, followed by Motion No. 41, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

(On motion of Senator Harder, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

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

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on February 2, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

Senator Saint-Germain: Of course, former leader of the government in the Senate.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Saint-Germain, yesterday our colleague Senator Carignan suggested it’s not the job of the Senate to provide sober second thought on measures introduced by public servants but to properly study bills passed in the House of Commons. I’m wondering if you’re aware that under Senator Carignan’s leadership as then deputy leader with our colleague Senator Martin moved a government motion to pre-study the former Bill C-23, known as the Fair Elections Act, on April 1, 2014, and subsequently gave notice of time allocation on the same day, limiting debate on even the need for a pre-study.

On that same day during Question Period, Senator Carignan was asked about the pre-study of Bill C-23, to which he responded:

As I often say, further study is further study, and having the opportunity to study a bill at the same time as the House of Commons does not mean we cannot fulfill our role of sober second thought after the bill passes in the House of Commons and is sent to us in the Senate. It is better to make as many improvements as we can. If we have the opportunity to study this bill twice, so much the better.

Therefore, Senator Saint-Germain, do you share this view that Senate pre-studies can allow the Senate to engage in proper study and debate and complement the work of the elected House of Commons?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Gold, for the question. I just consulted my list of the pre-studies, tabled then by the government, and I see Bill C-23. My chart is in French, so I will read in French.

[Translation]

The bill in question, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, was a non-budgetary bill. I see that the bill was introduced by MP Pierre Poilievre and was the subject of a pre-study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 8, 2014, and passed in the House of Commons on May 13, 2014.

[English]

This gives me the opportunity again to make this comment. Why is it good under a specific Parliament, a specific government, and not good under another government? I think that we have to ask this question, and I reiterate that pre-studies on complex bills are relevant, so I don’t blame the previous Conservative government at all. However, what I do not agree with is the inconsistency in the consideration of the relevance of pre-studies and even of the tabling of government bills in the Senate, when so relevant. It’s not always relevant. It does not need to become the new normal. I do agree with this, and I agree with Senator Carignan to that end; but obviously, during the current context, from my standpoint, there is no doubt that Bill C-11 and even Bill C-13 deserve pre-studies.

Senator Gold: Thank you.

I do want to remind colleagues that in my speech, as in that of Senator Saint-Germain, we made it clear that this does not preclude all stages of inquiry, which the Senate will decide upon.

But, senator, during the debates in this chamber on Bill C-10, there was much criticism of the proposed legislation and, dare I say, much misinformation. All of that aside, I’m confused as to why initiating a pre-study on Bill C-11, proposed legislation that purports to address the criticism of the previous iteration — Bill C-10 — is somehow unacceptable. The major complaint we have heard — even in your remarks, colleague, which I appreciate, so thank you — is the lack of time that we have to do our work properly.

The motion here is offering time, and it’s offering time free of any reporting deadlines and any procedural constraints.

So whether we receive the bill on day one or in week two after a pre-study has begun, we will be ahead of the game. That doesn’t prevent us from doing our work, including all the stages thereafter once we do receive the bill. So what am I missing?

Senator Dasko: Thank you, Senator Gold. My view of this process is that I feel it’s a lesser process. From what I have observed, it doesn’t feel like it’s a thorough process; it seems to be truncated, in my observation. It also doesn’t allow us to make amendments.

So from what I have observed, I feel that it’s lacking.

I know you have given some assurances of time, but at the same time, senator, yesterday, you did talk about the absolute need and the pressures coming from various communities. I understand there is pressure. I live in Toronto, and the cultural community in Toronto is very supportive of this bill. They want this to go forward.

But when June comes — and it’s just around the corner — we always get this feeling of pressure to pass bills. I fear that we have this pre-study coming down the track along with the end of June coming, and they end up colliding with each other. Then we end up getting pressure to pass a bill.

In this case, I worry we will be in a process that doesn’t allow us to examine it the way I feel it should be examined, especially given the uncertainties in the other place and what they will do, as well as what sorts of amendments and changes they may come up with. The last time this happened, it was really rather a mess. You might remember from last year what happened in their committee and all of the amendments. They were rejected by their Speaker and they had to go back. It truly was a mess.

That is where I am coming from with my concerns. This is coming along this track and the end of June is there; we know what June is like. You yourself have said that there is an urgency to get this bill passed because of the various stakeholders and so on who are involved. So this all leaves me just a little bit suspicious.

That’s where I’m coming from. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable colleagues, I rise today as the critic — a friendly one — of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (investments), which was sponsored by my colleague, Senator Ataullahjan.

Colleagues, this important bill is about money — the money of Canadians; your money and mine. It’s a bill about clarity for investors and about accountability. It’s a bill about limiting and ultimately eliminating the horrific damage, mostly to civilians, done by a certain class of weapons. Ultimately, colleagues, this bill is about global responsibility and humanitarian leadership.

Colleagues, I would like to start off by bringing this topic closer to home. As far as I can tell, cluster bombs have never been used on North American soil. But a weapon with some similar characteristics and impacts has been used in cases of domestic terrorism in the United States.

Colleagues, do you remember the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing when two bombs went off near the finish line, instantly turning that location of athleticism and excitement into a gruesome scene of bloodshed and chaos?

At approximately 2:49 on the afternoon of April 15, two pressure cooker bombs loaded with nails and ball bearings went off, killing two women in their twenties and an eight-year-old boy, while more than 260 other people were wounded. Sixteen people lost legs, with the youngest amputee a seven-year-old girl. The devastating impacts were both immediate and long-lasting for the people affect that day.

Now, colleagues, with that human devastation in Boston in your minds, transport yourselves back to the Vietnam War era. Colleagues, just imagine the situation between 1964 and 1973 for the farmers, small business owners, school children and the elderly people of Laos when the United States Air Force and the CIA’s own airline, Air America, as part of its secret war, dropped two million tons of ordnance — more than all the bombs dropped during the Second World War — decimating that country and its people.

Laos is the most bombed country in the world per capita. The U.S. dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day for nine years. By 1975, one tenth of the population of Laos, or 200,000 people, was dead and twice as many were wounded. It is estimated that at least 25,000 people have been killed or injured since the war because of unexploded cluster bombs — people trying to eke out a living in their rice fields or children innocently playing with these shiny objects.

A cluster munition, colleagues, is a container filled with small submunitions. The container may be a shell, a rocket, a missile or another device. It is dropped from aircraft or fired from the ground. It opens up in the air and releases a carpet of submunitions over a large area.

The submunitions, or bomblets, are often the size of a tennis ball, and are actually fairly similar to those pressure cooker bombs used in Boston in that they are packed with more than 300 pieces of metal designed to destroy human targets. The blast of one submunition can cause deadly shrapnel injuries in a 65‑foot radius and injure anyone within a 328-foot radius.

Colleagues, we now have documented cases of cluster munitions being used by the Russians in their war in Ukraine, including the shelling of a railway station in Kramatorsk, killing at least 50 civilians, including children, and injuring many more.

Photos from Ukraine indicate that unexploded submunitions now contaminate residential areas of Kharkiv. Shopping mall parking lots, city streets and residential areas are now contaminated with these deadly, unexploded weapons.

In the 2020-21 period, cluster munitions were used in Syria, and by Armenia and Azerbaijan in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Since the end of the Second World War, at least 23 governments have used cluster munitions in 41 countries, some using them on their own citizens.

The U.S. has used cluster munitions in Cambodia. I mentioned Laos. They have used them in Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In addition to using them in Ukraine, Russia has used cluster munitions in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia and Syria.

There are 16 countries, colleagues, that produced cluster munitions, including the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, Israel and North and South Korea.

Colleagues, with that background and context of cluster munitions, let’s turn our attention to Canada and to this bill, Bill S-225.

Canada participated in the Oslo process that produced the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and advocated for strong provisions on victim assistance and on international cooperation and assistance.

The process and the substance of the convention were modelled on the Ottawa Treaty that banned anti-personnel landmines in the late 1990s. That was a significant international diplomacy achievement for our country, Canada.

Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on December 3, 2008, and ratified it on March 16, 2015, with it coming into force that September. The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years and assistance to victims, their families and affected communities.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions has a total of 110 states parties as well as 13 signatories who have yet to ratify it.

Canada has never produced, nor has it used cluster munitions, although we did purchase them. In accordance with the convention that we have signed, Canada destroyed its stockpile of over 13,000 cluster munitions and 1.36 million submunitions.

Colleagues, the bill we have before us today is a bill which would amend Canada’s Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

When Parliament passed Bill C-6 in 2014, there was much criticism from a number of MPs, senators and from Canadian and international expert civil society organizations. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines — Cluster Munition Coalition called it the worst legislation of any state party to that convention. Colleagues, critics have found Canada’s legislation to be flawed on two counts.

First, critics said then — and they still assert now — that Canada’s cluster munitions law allows for Canada to participate in military operations where cluster munitions are used with other countries which are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, including the U.S. — a close ally of ours. This is something known as military interoperability.

Observers indicated that there had been a long, drawn-out, interdepartmental battle largely between the then-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence, and that a political decision was taken supporting the Department of National Defence’s position on this provision in the law, which ultimately passed on November 6, 2014.

That’s the first area of concern. But that’s not what this bill is about.

The second area of concern related to our existing cluster munitions law is the omission of a clear and explicit — and I underline “explicit” — provision for prohibiting Canadian investment in companies manufacturing cluster munitions or their components.

Domestic and international critics indicate that Canada’s legislation fails to meet the standards of the historic Convention on Cluster Munitions that it is supposed to uphold, and they are surprised that the Liberal government did not act immediately to clean up the law when it came into power in 2015.

Colleagues, the bill we have before us, Bill S-225, addresses one of those two loopholes in our current prohibition of cluster munitions legislation — that matter of investments.

This is the second time Senator Ataullahjan has tried to address this important gap by introducing legislation amending the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

In 2017, Senators Ataullahjan and Jaffer and former Senator Hubley spoke in favour of the previous Bill S-235 at second reading. The Senate actually referred the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but it did not progress from there.

Senators, as stated so clearly by our colleague Senator Ataullahjan in her recent second-reading speech:

Bill S-225 aims to bring the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act in line with the spirit of the convention. By explicitly prohibiting investments in cluster munitions manufacturing, we would set clear guidelines for Canadian financial institutions . . . .

We know that some of these institutions welcomed this idea over a decade ago. Bill S-225 also closes other related loopholes by prohibiting Canadian financial institutions from loaning funds to the manufacturers, and it prevents them from acting as a guarantor for their loans.

So, colleagues, you might be asking yourselves — as am I — what Canadian companies are these that have been investing in these cluster bomb manufacturers in the U.S. and other countries? Might I, through my investments, be inadvertently causing Canada to be in contravention of this important convention, and might I also be unwittingly contributing to the pain and suffering of innocent people in other countries?

Colleagues, where does the proverbial buck stop?

In the most recent Stop Explosive Investments report issued in 2018, seven Canadian companies had been identified as investors — and I said “had been” because we don’t know who is today — in cluster munitions producers. These are: Power Financial Corporation, AGF Management, BMO Financial Group, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Scotiabank, Sun Life Financial and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

In 2016, four Canadian companies, CI Financial, Manulife Financial, Royal Bank of Canada and Sun Life Financial, were identified as being in the so-called Hall of Shame for investing in cluster munitions producers. In that year, the group tracked $12 billion in investments by 49 global firms. Canada is not alone in this.

An updated list of companies should be available in the Stop Explosive Investments report to be released later this year, and it will be very important for all of us to have a look at that report. Let’s hope that more companies have moved over from the Hall of Shame to what they have also developed, which is called the Hall of Fame. I’m confident that there has been some movement.

Colleagues, I would like to commend Mines Action Canada, the Cluster Munition Coalition, PAX, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Humanity & Inclusion and all organizations working hard every day to prevent future cluster bomb atrocities, to clear the significant, unexploded ordnance in many regions of the world and to ensure care for victims.

Shining a light on the investors and companies producing these weapons and supporting them to move out of the so-called Hall of Shame into the so-called Hall of Fame is a critical part of this important work. Who would want to do this? I’m sure our Canadian companies don’t want to be there.

Colleagues, Canada has a proud history of working with its international partners to create a more peaceful, humane and just world. Preventing human rights abuses and protecting lives is what drives Canada’s interest in shaping and joining international efforts to regulate weapons.

In addition to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Canada is a signatory to other international conventions and agreements on a whole variety of weapons, including biological and toxin weapons, chemical weapons, certain conventional weapons and anti-personnel land mines. Canada is not currently a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Bill S-225 seeks to improve the way Canada meets its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Colleagues, with cluster munitions being deployed in several regions of our world today, and with the flaws identified in our current law, it is time to move this bill along to committee for further study and serious consideration.

Honourable colleagues, before I conclude, I would like to share a quote by renowned Nova Scotian pacifist, feminist, community activist and member of the Order of Canada, the late Muriel Duckworth, who said:

. . . war is the greatest destroyer of human life, the greatest polluter, the greatest creator of refugees, the greatest cause of starvation and illness. . . . .

I don’t know how you reach people who are making money out of making war, who are getting prestige out of making war, who are exerting their power and are getting more power by making war.

Honourable colleagues, with this bill Canada can stop the flow of Canadian money to the manufacturers of these horrific instruments of killing and maiming, and, hopefully, we can influence our international peers by our actions. Ultimately, this is one more step toward saving innocent lives and preventing human suffering.

I can’t think of a better reason to move a bill forward. Let’s move this forward, colleagues.

Wela’lioq. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

Senator Gold: I will ask a supplementary question.

As all senators know, by definition, pre-studies do not allow for amendments. That’s in the nature of a pre-study. But, senator, given that there is no reporting deadline on this, that it is not a truncated process and that the pre-study can continue even after the bill is received — whenever it is received — is it not the case that, suspicions and calendar aside, the representative of the government has stood in this place and said on many occasions outside of this that I understand and respect the importance of the Senate doing its job properly?

This is a motion to expand the time that we have to get acquainted with the changes that Bill C-11 is introducing to Bill C-10 such that when we do receive the bill, the committee is even better prepared to engage in the study that it will undertake. And again, the Senate will determine what stages the bill will go through. The committee will determine how long it needs to study it and so on.

Would you acknowledge, suspicions notwithstanding, that what is before us is, in fact, a reasonable approach in order for the Senate to tackle an important issue of public policy?

Senator Dasko: Senator Gold, I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you for reiterating the issues around time. That’s very important for our considerations.

To go back to the comment that you made yesterday and that I put into my comments today with regard to Senate committees being the masters of their fates, I intend over the next week or so to be in contact with my colleagues on that committee to do a poll, so to speak, of their views with respect to the importance of making sure that we have what I would call the real process of review through the study. That is what I intend to do. Then, hopefully, we can be satisfied that we’re going to get what I would hope that we would have, which is fulsome review. I thank you for your comments. They are much appreciated.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I will take a page out of Senator Dalphond’s way of asking questions and, clearly, Senator Gold’s way of asking questions, which is of putting forward statements rather than questions. So let me do that as well, Senator Dasko. Thank you very much for your speech.

If we pass this particular motion, it will be passed, in all likelihood, not before Tuesday of next week, which is May 31. Clearly, the very first time that the Transport and Communications Committee would possibly be able to meet, just to organize, would be June 1, which is their slot for their committees. That leaves us exactly four meetings, if we go to the very end of June.

I think you said that, in this iteration of Bill C-10, there have been 30 committee meetings in the other place. Now the Leader of the Government is asking us to do a pre-study and try to rush this through. He says he has no reporting deadline. Clearly, there should be no reporting deadline, because there won’t be time for a pre-study, a regular study or anything without us not doing our proper due diligence that this bill will clearly deserve. We have no indication of when it is coming here.

So I would suggest — I’m doing this the way your colleague did, Senator Gagné. I’m just encouraging her to agree with me. Would you agree, Senator Dasko, that there is simply no adequate time to do proper service or proper justice to this bill?

Senator Dasko: Yes, I think if we all look at the calendar, we would come to this conclusion. I thank Senator Gold for his comments.

With respect to there being no time limit on this, obviously this would seem to take us well into another season, whether that be summer. I don’t know if we’re trying to sit then, I doubt it, but probably into September. I mean, that seems to be logical, yes. That would seem to be a logical time frame for looking at this bill.

I’m pretty sure that we need much more than the number of meetings you just referenced, four meetings. I’m quite sure that our committee needs more time than that to look at this bill. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: My speech will show that, at the same committee, two members of the Independent Senators Group have different positions. No, I have not been “whipped,” as you would say, Senator Plett. I rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 42 and to support a pre-study of Bill C-11 by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, of which I am the deputy chair.

The online streaming act is crucial for the future of broadcasting in a world where more and more cultural products are moving to the digital realm and where listening and viewing habits are changing at breakneck speed. For Quebecers and francophones across the country, the main concern with regard to this bill is how much space French-language music and film will be able to occupy in the online streaming arena. I should mention that in Quebec, French-language music is still protected by quotas of approximately 30% that apply to radio, but with the migration to Spotify, YouTube and other platforms, no more than 8% of the songs being streamed are in French.

Therefore, this is an important bill, but it is also complex because it involves many stakeholders.

[English]

But let’s get back to the motion before us, which is about a pre-study of the bill.

Since my arrival in the Senate, the complaint I hear most often is that we do not have enough time to study bills in depth. I have experienced this myself, of course. I find it very frustrating. The calendar, the bottleneck at the end of sessions, parliamentary tactics — many factors conspire to reduce the time we have to carefully study legislation.

In his question, Senator Plett said that we only had five sessions in four weeks to do this possible pre-study if we vote for it, but in fact if we had passed that motion on Tuesday, when it was presented, we would have had one and a half extra weeks. So by debating this particular motion, we are once again losing time, and I am once again frustrated.

This context is precisely why I believe a pre-study of Bill C-11 would be particularly useful.

I see two main reasons. The first is that a pre-study would give us more time to hear from key witnesses, experts from various persuasions, affected groups and so on; in short, to understand the fundamental tenets of this important bill.

I would like to cite our honourable colleague Senator Patterson who, in February 2019, supported the pre-study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, in these words:

. . . I rise briefly today to speak in support of this motion calling for a pre-study of Bill C-91 . . . . This is a bill that is vitally important to get right. With this ever-increasing slough of legislation we all know about, we need the time to do our jobs. A pre-study is a responsible way of taking advantage of the time available to the Aboriginal Peoples Committee at this moment.

I could not agree more.

I know that some of my colleagues are worried about wasting their time studying a bill that could be substantially amended by the House of Commons. I understand these concerns and I share them in part for the more technical aspects of this bill.

But on the substantive issues — on the main orientations and the political foundations of this bill — the questions and positions are well known, and they will not change.

In my opinion, the Transport and Communications Committee could benefit from a pre-study to learn about other models of cultural promotion around the world and to hear and understand the political and ideological visions that will inevitably clash over Bill C-11.

I also think that members of the committee — myself very much included — would also benefit from certain educational presentations on the technological aspects of contemporary platforms, very basic, user-friendly presentations, in some case. This kind of presentation seems to me particularly appropriate for a pre-study, and if I can make a joke, appropriate for our age group.

The second reason why a pre-study seems useful is that it should have no impact on the duration of the formal study of Bill C-11 as it will be adopted by the other place. We retain control over our future agenda. Although the government may want us to pass its bill quickly — and that is evident — it will be up to us at that time to resist the pressure if we feel that we do not have the time to do our job properly. There is no election or prorogation in sight. Bill C-11 will not die if we continue to study after June. If anything, a pre-study will give us more time to study the bill and understand its context, not less.

I am confident that we have all the tools necessary to resist the pressure to pass this bill quickly once the pre-study is completed. I know that, for some of us, pre-studies should only be accepted in very few circumstances because the Senate is a legislative body, not an advisory one. According to this logic, it should therefore intervene after the House of Commons, and not concurrently.

With respect, I do not find this principle very convincing in this case. A pre-study of Bill C-11 would simply allow us to perform our legislative work with more expertise and a better understanding of the complex issues and technology underlying this bill. Nothing prevents us now, or later, from taking all the time necessary and using the full powers of the Senate to debate and improve the bill as we see fit.

Pre-studies were rare traditionally, but times can change. Right now, the Senate is studying Bill S-5, an important piece of legislation before the other place. I support this initiative, and I can certainly confirm that this has not diminished the quality of our work. Many amendments are being considered, as we saw this morning.

In any case, I don’t think we should be prisoners of tradition. The risk seems especially high for the Senate, an institution that some consider outdated. For all these reasons, I think we should be flexible and seize the opportunity of a pre-study when it offers us a chance to have more time and expertise to perform our legislative duties. I believe this is what a pre-study of Bill C-11 would allow us to do.

Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?