Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for raising awareness of the challenges posed by the many wildfires burning across Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia and the rest of the country.

It is my understanding that a large number of the firefighters in Canada are volunteer firefighters, and one of the challenges facing communities is how hard it is to recruit enough firefighters to meet their increased needs. That being said, and with all due respect, it simply isn’t true that the government isn’t doing anything. On the contrary, following a request by the Province of Quebec, the government approved the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to help them deal with the situation.

I’m told that the government is also assessing whether additional federal resources are available to meet the province’s needs. The government knows that the current forest fire situation is and will continue to be difficult across the country for a number of reasons, including the climate, of course, but also a lack of volunteer firefighters. Your suggestion is important, and I will bring it to the minister’s attention.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Every year, during the July 14 festivities in France, I am always impressed to see the thousands of firefighters in uniform marching in the Champs-Élysées parade. France has more than 252,000 firefighters, including 197,000 volunteer firefighters, who the country can call upon in the case of wildfires or other natural disasters. Many of these volunteers are retired members of the military.

Yesterday, I was shocked to see that the Prime Minister seemed unable to tell us what was going to be done to get the wildfires under control. We are talking about 2,200 wildfires so far this year, and it is not even summer yet. Unfortunately, wildfires, flooding and tornadoes all seem to be on the agenda for the coming years.

Will Canada stand idly by or will it do like France and set up a mobile volunteer fire brigade to intervene when major disasters strike? Believe me, we are going to need it.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, the only dollar figure Prime Minister Trudeau actually revealed in his Special Rapporteur’s mandate was David Johnston’s $1,600 daily fee. Now we are learning just how expensive “special rapporteuring” can be. Johnston has decided he needs an entire entourage to help him. He hired high-powered lawyer Sheila Block. This major Liberal Party donor and “the team she led at Torys” helped Johnston interview more than 50 people. Bay Street law firm Torys is one of the largest and most expensive law firms in Canada.

Now, Senator Gold, my legal career was in Saskatchewan, not on Bay Street, but I do know that kind of help would rack up a ton of sky-high billable hours. How much are all those legal fees costing Canadian taxpayers?

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, Minister Marci Ien announced that $1.5 million is being allocated to Canada Pride to be used for safety precautions during Pride parades and festivals this year. This money is being allocated in a reactive manner in response to the very real rise in violence and threats of violence to the 2SLGBTQ+ community. 2SLGBTQ+ people also experience everyday violence year-round here in this country in the form of workplace discrimination, systemic discrimination in the medical system and harassment.

Senator Gold, given the acknowledgement of this increased violence towards this community during Pride Month, what kind of support does the government plan to offer after Pride Month is over, and what other strategies are the government planning to put in place to protect 2SLGBTQ+ people year-round?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator, and for underlining this important issue and the vulnerability of the LGBTQ community to forms of discrimination that regrettably, and often tragically, continue apace.

This government is proud of the measures that it has taken to strengthen our laws against discrimination. We, in this chamber, had occasion just a few short years ago to debate amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to broaden the protection for members of that community. The funding that you announced and other measures are designed to increase and enhance support provisions to bring back the court challenges program as another mechanism whereby the infringement of legal rights, which is too often the case, can be challenged by those who would not otherwise have the means to do so.

The work will never be finished, and more will always need to be done until all Canadians can live with the full respect and dignity we are all entitled to regardless of our sexual orientation, our gender orientation and how we choose to live. This government is proud of its commitment to support those in that community. Actions speak louder than words, and actions will continue to be taken to support the community.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Former Governor General David Johnston was given a task by this government to inquire into the serious issue of foreign interference. He has been subjected to the most odious character assassination and has had his integrity impugned time and time again. In my 72 years on this earth, I have never seen such an attack orchestrated and sustained by a political party, by an opposition that has taken rhetoric to such depths. In that regard, I think that if the former governor general felt the need to defend his integrity and to make sure that the job he was doing could be done in an appropriate way for the benefit of Canadians, then his decision is something the government is prepared to support.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the other place on Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

A year after our comprehensive study of the bill to reform the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA, we are finally close to modernizing Canada’s legislative framework on toxic substances. I need not remind you that CEPA was adopted in 1999 and had not been updated since. Twenty-four long years is an outrageous amount of time to leave untouched the most important tool for protecting the environment and our health while science has progressed at an unprecedented rate and has warned us.

As we see the omnipresence of plastic pollution, microplastics in human organs, uncontrolled toxic spills, terrifying wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events caused by polluting gases warming the atmosphere, I can’t help but wonder: If we had revised CEPA 15 years ago, would we be at this dreadful cul-de-sac?

[Translation]

Bill S-5 is coming back to the Senate with a set of amendments modifying 38 clauses. We are grateful to the House of Commons, whose amendments are generally based on the work of the Senate. The House of Commons made no changes to 21 of our amendments, which validates the good work we did in committee. I sincerely thank every member of the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

The other Senate amendments were for the most part clarified or reformulated, and only a few were rejected by the Commons.

In my speech, I will address a few specific amendments, which, I believe, were improved by the House, and also a few remaining gaps and weaknesses.

[English]

One of the main features of Bill S-5 is the inclusion of the concept of a right to a healthy environment. During our study, most witnesses applauded the concept but criticized the bill for simply instructing the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop and implement a plan rather than enshrining the actual right.

The House made a few modifications, but the intent remains the same. It added a definition of a healthy environment, describing it as “an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable.” It restructured the Senate amendment that required the implementation framework to elaborate on the reasonable limits to which that right is subject but maintained the Senate’s intent.

It also further clarified the principle of intergenerational equity by stating that:

. . . it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

Under CEPA, the government is tasked with assessing substances and categorizing them depending on their toxicity. The government assesses approximately 600 substances new to the Canadian market each year. However, it does not give itself enough resources to assess all the substances currently in the Canadian market. For that reason, I had attempted to amend the bill by imposing a set timeline for the minister to finalize an assessment and publish its results. At the time, the committee had opted not to impose a deadline, as the timeline of an assessment would depend on the amount of government resources dedicated to that matter.

To address this issue, the House proposed what I think is a reasonable compromise. If the assessment of a substance has not been completed after two years, the minister must publish a statement indicating the reasons for the delay and an estimated time frame within which the final decision is to be published.

This is a question of ministerial responsibility. Therefore, it is incumbent on the minister to justify any delay that could harm our health.

The next point I would like to address is confidentiality. Currently, when a corporation provides information on a substance requested by the minister, they can request confidentiality by written request. Under the current CEPA regime, confidentiality appears to be granted automatically with no need for approval by the minister. This demonstrates a lack of transparency. Of course, there may be many valid reasons for the need for confidentiality, including trade secrets, integrity of contracts or protection against financial loss. However, the requester should have to demonstrate why confidentiality is needed, and the responsibility should fall on the minister to grant or deny it. This is something that both Senator Miville-Dechêne and I had argued in our committee study. Unfortunately, the committee opted to defeat our proposal.

Thankfully, the House of Commons picked up on this important issue of transparency and found a compromise. Their amendment would require the minister to review a statistically valid representative sample of confidentiality requests granted and determine whether the request is justified under a set of four possible justifications. The requests that don’t qualify are then deemed non-confidential and the minister shall report annually on these confidentiality requests.

I believe this strikes a good balance. When information does not need to be confidential, Canadians have the right to access that information, especially when it concerns their health and the protection of the environment.

Overall, I feel the other place has reinforced the Senate’s work on this bill. That is not to say, however, that there aren’t any remaining gaps or unaddressed issues with CEPA.

Environmental policy experts are not satisfied with the removal of the title of Schedule 1. This list exists because these substances have been found to be toxic in certain contexts, amounts or paths of exposure. The industry complained, saying that some of these substances can be found in everyday products. Whether or not the title of this list includes the words “toxic substances” does not change any legal requirements on these corporations — it is merely a labelling issue. Out of transparency, and for the benefit of the average Canadian, nomenclature is important. Hiding the fact that these substances were scientifically found to be toxic in certain contexts is not being transparent with Canadians.

Another major issue remains with the government’s capacity to assess substances. The government is over-reliant on industry to provide the scientific basis for assessments and often merely does a literature review rather than scientifically testing the substances themselves. This is problematic as we rely on industry for decisions that are the minister’s responsibility. For example, just last week, we learned through an article published by the CBC that industry knew for decades about the risks of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, and kept it hidden. Major industry players knew these substances were toxic, yet they are present in everything from cookware to makeup. These chemicals are known to cause liver problems, pregnancy issues and cancer. Worse yet, the industry used tactics reminiscent of the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to muddy the water around the toxicity of forever chemicals and to prevent more research to study the matter.

This is completely unacceptable, and it is our job as legislators to adopt a legislative framework that better regulates the industry. We cannot play with the health and safety of Canadians. We cannot rely on experiments that are overwhelmingly designed, performed, analyzed and disclosed by industry for the purpose of sales and profit rather than for the best interest of Canadians. We must equip our government with the adequate resources to make its own rigorous and transparent scientific assessments.

[Translation]

Colleagues, Bill S-5 makes essential updates to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It’s not perfect, and we still have a lot of work to do to ensure that our environmental protection act really focuses on preventing pollution, not managing and monitoring it.

The current Minister of Environment and Climate Change promised that more revisions are to come, and I eagerly await those proposals. Never again should we wait 24 years to modernize legislation that is so crucial to protecting our health and the environment.

I encourage you to support the bill while continuing to advocate for other improvements in the near future.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Could you ask your question, Senator Plett?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, if you answered a question once, you would be able to stop rolling your eyes every time we ask a question.

For us to ask questions about forest fires, which we all agree are devastating — no one is suggesting that we shouldn’t spend money on fighting forest fires. For you to try to get away from the Beijing interference is shameful.

You referenced your 72 years of your life. I can’t remember all 73 of mine, but never have I seen a government as corrupt as this Liberal government or as afraid of answering questions as this Liberal government.

You know, Senator Gold, if you would answer a question once, we would be able to get along much better in this chamber.

Thank you, Senator Dean. You can help me, talking about echo chambers.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of June 1, 2023, moved:

That the Certificate of Nomination for the proposed reappointment of Heather Powell Lank as Parliamentary Librarian, tabled in the Senate on June 1, 2023, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament for consideration and report; and

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

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

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-248, an initiative brought forward by a passionate and diligent advocate for patient autonomy and dignity, Senator Wallin. I know this legislation, like her amendment to the previous government bill, is based on a very personal and painful experience and is presented with sincere intentions.

In the previous speeches I have made on assisted suicide, I have stressed my concern with the speed and the magnitude of the expansions the government has made to what was initially a careful, cautious response to a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada.

While we were keenly aware at the time of the paradigm-shifting nature of legalizing assisted suicide, most of us were also aware of the need for clarity, certainty and stringency in the law so that we could ensure no life would end prematurely without careful evaluation and the express consent of the individual.

For many of us, the safeguards at the time fell short, yet, as I have said before, I could never have imagined that a few short years after our “slippery slope” arguments were dismissed, we would be legalizing assisted suicide for people suffering from mental illness and tabling committee reports recommending the expansion of assisted suicide to children. These are proposals I find indefensible.

However, I would not put Bill S-248 in that category. I am sympathetic to the rationale for advance requests, particularly for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia, who fear living in an unfathomable state as their illness progresses.

That said, in practice, this legislation would eliminate one of the most fundamental safeguards in Canada’s assisted suicide regime: the need for unequivocal, unquestionable and clear final consent before ending the life of a person.

Advance requests eliminate the ability of a physician to ascertain the person’s present desire, leaving a very real possibility that a person’s life could be ended against his or her wishes.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Carter emphasized numerous times that a person requesting assisted suicide must provide clear consent. If the consent must be clear and unequivocal, it must also be contemporaneous. According to the experts, there are data highlighting the risk of providing assisted death to a patient against his or her wishes.

In discussing advance requests, or ARs, the report of the Council of Canadian Academies on advance requests for MAID prepared for the Government of Canada stated that:

The primary risk involved in ARs for MAID is the risk that a person will receive an assisted death against their wishes.

This risk is supported by Health Canada data. Health Canada’s first, second and third annual reports on assistance in dying in Canada demonstrate that, on average, approximately 20% of people who withdrew their requests for assisted suicide did so immediately before the provision of the assisted suicide.

That is a striking statistic, and one that should give us all pause.

I was not a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, but I did read the testimony and the final report with great interest. While some witnesses certainly agreed with what Senator Wallin is proposing, others raised serious legal, ethical and practical charges with advance requests.

There were three overarching concerns raised by witnesses. The first was the inability of an individual to predict with accuracy what their quality of their life would be in the future, particularly if they are living with a chronic medical condition. The second concern was the inability of a person to withdraw consent, and the third was that the advance requests present the possibility of abuse, coercion and undue influence of vulnerable patients.

On the first point, several witnesses provided examples of the limitations of our ability to assess our future quality of life. Dr. Romayne Gallagher, Clinical Professor of Palliative Medicine at the University of British Columbia testified on behalf of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, stating that:

 . . . . medical and social science literature reminds us that people are poor at anticipating what life would be like with a life-changing illness or disability. People adapt to illness and disability and adjust their needs for a decent quality of life. Many medical conditions have long and unpredictable courses. . . .

Dr. Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry similarly noted that patients making advance requests may have experiences and desires that are different from those that they had in the past. They have never experienced what it is to live a life with fewer cognitive capacities.

He gave the illustration of a 75-year-old man named John who has lost the capacity to make his own health care decisions. It is widely accepted that when health care decisions are made on someone else’s behalf, they should only be made for the benefit of that patient. Dr. Beaudry noted that one would assume that John, without dementia, when he was, say, 50 years old, would know his future self better than anyone and that he would instinctively know what is best for John at the age of 75.

However, that is not so obvious. For one thing, John may be making decisions to, first and foremost, ease the burden on members of his family. He might also imagine his future self bedridden and highly dependent and feel shame at the thought of being seen this way. These assumptions may be based on widely held discriminatory beliefs about the quality of life of people with illnesses and disabilities and about whether their lives are worth living at all.

Dr. Beaudry noted that many people live happy lives with various significant medical conditions or a high level of dependency. However, if John or anyone in his family or health care team does not agree or is unaware of that because of ableist generalizations, John at 75 years old would become the victim of these ableist or ageist stereotypes.

Dr. Beaudry’s overarching point was that when it comes to health care, we should care for the patient before us even when that patient has advanced dementia. It does not mean that John’s past experiences are irrelevant. The holistic assessment of what is in his best interests may include his past wishes and preferences.

The bottom line is we do not give the last word to the former self of a patient, particularly a cognitively and experientially distant self.

The committee also heard from Dr. Alice Maria Chung, a geriatrician who has worked with elderly patients for 30-plus years and teaches capacity assessments to medical students, residents and practising physicians so that they will be able to identify whether a patient is capable of making a medical decision.

Dr. Chung posed this question:

What right does the 60- or 70-year-old you have to judge the quality of life of the 80- or 90-year-old you? Patients with chronic illnesses can often adapt to their altered circumstances and develop a new equilibrium and sense of self, and feel that their quality of life is actually quite good.

There is a body of medical literature demonstrating this point. She noted that she had seen it in her practice as well.

In response to this concern, Senator Wallin said that we do this all the time within the law. We write wills and we leave them with lawyers, we have “do not resuscitate” orders, et cetera. That is all true. However, we all know that actively ending a person’s life without certainty of their present consent is entirely different. In this case, I would argue, if there is any risk of getting it wrong, we cannot ethically proceed.

The second issue is that an individual would be unable to withdraw consent, which is an essential component to informed consent. Consent is a concept that has permeated public discourse over the past several years, and we have come to a societal understanding that, on the most serious of matters, consent must be current, explicit and unambiguous. I cannot imagine a more serious circumstance in which consent must be ascertained.

Are we really suggesting that a lack of refusal constitutes consent? We know that it does not and it cannot.

We can all agree that a person’s autonomy must be respected, and if an individual is capable of decision making and able to clearly communicate that decision, it is reasonable to hold a view that those wishes should be honoured. However, we have decided as a society that there are necessary limits to freedom of autonomy.

Dr. Félix Pageau, geriatrician and researcher, told the committee:

The government must protect vulnerable people and protect people from themselves. Which is why it has established a legal age for alcohol consumption and requires people to wear seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycles. Freedom of autonomy is therefore not absolute in Canada; it is regulated.

Similarly, our current law places necessary limits on the ability of a person to make future decisions without the ability to change their minds on the most serious medical decision one can make. It is well-documented that when it comes to assisted death, requests and minds are being changed immediately prior to administration. Requests are being withdrawn. This option to withdraw consent at the last minute must remain.

Finally, there is the risk that allowing advance directives for people with dementia and Alzheimer’s could lead to abuse. People already face undue influence to avoid being a burden to their loved ones. As Dr. Chung stated:

I have had multiple patients who have been heartbroken at having been coerced into selling their home and moving into a facility because of family pressures to not be a burden. I cannot currently protect vulnerable elderly from financial abuse with the current safeguards. I do not believe safeguards could be crafted to adequately protect them from undue influence to accept or request MAID.

Trudo Lemmens is an expert in health and law policy. In the submission to a joint committee on this topic, he provided international context to the discussion, highlighting the requirements of other countries that have implemented advance requests for assisted suicide. He noted that:

Belgium only allows MAID based on AR when persons are permanently unconscious, to avoid euthanizing people who still enjoy life and may resist. The Netherlands originally had difficulty with MAID based on AR, since it was considered impossible to defend this practice on the basis that persons ’suffer unbearably’, when they were no longer able to confirm this. It now has permitted it for persons even when they appear to resist.

Neither regime involves explicit contemporary consent, which is arguably constitutionally required in Canada given the Supreme Court’s emphasis on clear consent in Carter.

Lemmens notes that our current medical assistance in dying, or MAID, regime already goes well beyond the Belgium law, while our social and health care support is below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, average. Finally, he pointed out that perhaps, not surprisingly, the Dutch experience with advance requests has led to insurmountable ethical and legal challenges.

Colleagues, while I have tremendous compassion for people who have received a troubling neurocognitive diagnosis in which the future is unknowable and the fear of a poor quality of life sets in, as the experts have stated, there is no way to predict with certainty how one will feel as the illness progresses.

Giving the final sign-off or the last word to the past version of a person is wrong. We cannot give prior wishes of people who cannot fully appreciate their future lived experience priority over current interests. The stakes, colleagues, are too high.

Given that Health Canada’s own data states that 20% of those who withdraw their requests for MAID do so immediately before the procedure, if this bill passes, there will undoubtedly be people who fall through the cracks, patients whose lives are ended against their present wishes — the involuntary ending of a life.

The cost of getting it wrong far outweighs the cost of not acting. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak today as the critic of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

I would like to acknowledge Senator Wallin, the sponsor of this bill, for her hard work and advocacy on the issue of advance requests.

As I’ve stated before, medical assistance in dying has been — and remains — one of the most complex and deeply personal issues for individuals and families across the country. There is a wide range of valid opinions in this chamber on what the appropriate parameters and safeguards should be as we continue to grapple with these questions in the development of our MAID regime.

As the critic of Bill S-248, a bill that will permit advance requests for MAID if an individual loses the capacity to consent, I would like to outline a few concerns regarding this bill and talk about important safeguards that need to be put in place. We have heard in detail from colleagues on what this bill does and doesn’t do. We have heard colleagues raise important points on the need for clearly defined safeguards, such as the length for which an advance request is valid, the role of independent witnesses and what constitutes voluntary and informed consent.

Bill S-248 amends the Criminal Code to:

(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and

(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

The content of Bill S-248 was originally proposed as an amendment to Bill C-7, which passed in the Senate but was rejected by the government. If passed, this bill will give Canadians who have been diagnosed with a grievous and irremediable medical condition the ability, before they lose the capacity to give consent, to make an advance request for MAID.

As co-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, I worked with committee members as we reviewed medical assistance in dying with respect to palliative care, mature minors, protection for persons with disabilities, mental illnesses and advance requests. As a committee, we heard from various witnesses who supported and advocated for advance requests.

Dr. Helen Long, Chief Executive Officer of Dying With Dignity Canada, said:

Canadians tell us that they are concerned about their capacity to provide informed consent to MAID due to a family history of neurocognitive conditions, such as dementia or Parkinson’s, or that an accident or other medical problem could result in diminished mental capacity. Advance requests for MAID would allow those who so choose to avoid a life of grievous and irremediable pain and suffering if loss of capacity occurs.

Dr. Serge Gauthier, emeritus professor and neurologist, described how many of his patients want the choice to make advance requests, with some of his patients advising that they would contemplate suicide without having advance requests as an option.

Sandra Demontigny, who is 43 years old and has early-onset Alzheimer’s, shared what an advance request would mean for her:

However, I don’t want to experience the final phase of the disease, completely dependent and unable to express myself very much, if at all. I’ve seen it and I don’t want to live through it. That’s what I would specify in an advance request. It would definitely give me more time.

Without wishing to put pressure on you, if advance requests were not approved by Parliament, then unfortunately, I would have to decide to leave before entering that phase, in order to avoid becoming trapped.

We also heard from witnesses who cautioned that important safeguards must be put in place to be sure when dealing with advance requests.

Mr. Pierre Deschamps, lawyer and ethicist, said:

. . . the challenge for legislators is to design robust safeguards that will protect persons who have made advance requests for medical assistance in dying — such requests are generally made many years before the condition that may potentially give rise to their activation appears — from abuses such as medical assistance in dying that is provided too early or in haste under pressure from family members or medical staff who sympathize with the state of mental deterioration of the person, who will thus be put in a highly vulnerable position.

Dr. Alice Maria Chung, as quoted earlier by our leader, said:

The issues with advance directives for MAID are several-fold. First, we are not able to predict with accuracy what our own quality of life will be in the future, let alone if we are also living with a chronic medical illness. . . .

Second, with end-stage dementia, there would be absolutely no chance to withdraw consent, which is also essential to informed consent. Someone else, a health care worker who may not know the patient, or a caregiver, would have to decide when it’s time for MAID to proceed. . . .

Finally, there is the risk that allowing advance directives for patients with dementia could lead to abuse. . . . I do not believe safeguards could be crafted to adequately protect them from undue influence to accept or request MAID.

In the 2018 report from the Council of Canadian Academies, entitled The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying, the expert panel cited a number of knowledge gaps regarding advance requests.

McGill University physician Catherine Ferrier appeared before the Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and raised this concern, stating that the utility of advance directives in general is being seriously questioned by many experts. She noted that there is growing evidence that people tend to poorly predict their quality of life in hypothetical situations due to cognitive biases, such as projection bias — projecting current preferences onto future situations — focalism — focusing on what gets worse, not what remains positive — and immune neglect — underestimating one’s adaptive capacity.

Another knowledge gap noted in The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying dealt with the broader impacts of allowing advance requests for MAID in Canada. This would include the impacts experienced not only by those requesting MAID but also by those responsible for deciding if and when to follow through with the requests and by society as a whole.

Honourable senators, medical assistance in dying is indeed a complex and deeply personal issue. As the eldest daughter and primary caregiver of my late mother, who lived with advanced dementia for over a decade, it would have been impossible to follow an advance request had the law allowed her to put one in place before the disease had advanced. Neither she nor I could have anticipated the joy she exuded and spread to everyone on her floor as a person whose advanced dementia made her angelic and happy about everything.

I cannot imagine how I could have followed my mother’s wishes for an advance request for MAID at any point in her care.

MAID and the issue of advance requests are matters that are challenging for every parliamentarian. As legislators, we want to know we are making the right decision. We want clear evidence that our efforts are helping people and not harming them. Yet, on these highly emotional social issues, the path forward is not always clear. It is my hope that through the witness testimony at committee, we will be able to find that path, to hear from those experts in the field about advance requests for MAID and what safeguards we can put in place to ensure Canadians are protected and to ensure that their wishes are heard. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the second reading of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Colleagues, I rise today at second reading of Bill S-256, the short title of which is the Canadian postal safety act. I fully support the objective of the bill, as described by Senator Dalphond in his November 29 speech. He said, and I quote:

The Canadian postal safety act’s purpose is to assist law enforcement, Indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous drugs, particularly fentanyl and other opioids, that could be delivered by the mail system, especially in remote areas. . . .

The aim of this bill is not to weaken or change requirements for searches and seizures, but rather to remove an old statutory limit that prevents police from fully assisting Canada Post inspectors and customs officers in enforcing the law.

The old statutory limit that Senator Dalphond was talking about is subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which reads, and I quote:

Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention.

This provision clearly sets out a broad prohibition — applicable to police officers in particular — on seizing or retaining items in the course of post. As Senator Dalphond pointed out, when an item entrusted to Canada Post is being sent, the police cannot intervene without the assistance of a Canada Post inspector.

The fact is, postal inspectors can open all mail items that weigh 500 grams or more to check whether they contain objects that contravene any Canadian law or regulation. This authority is set out in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This provision is an exception to the prohibition on seizure and detention set out in subsection 40(3).

Senator Dalphond summarized the very important limits that subsection 40(3) places on police work as follows, and I quote:

While an item is in the mail, the only option the police have is to work closely with 1 of the 25 inspectors at Canada Post — 25 to cover the whole country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is found inside. Subsequently, based on the information communicated by the inspector, the police could seize the item for further investigation and possibly to lay a charge.

In his Bill S-256, Senator Dalphond proposes an exception to the prohibition in subsection 40(3). He proposes that this prohibition not apply if the seizure or detention of mail is necessary for the enforcement of federal laws, including the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as well as provincial laws.

Personally, I wonder if it would be better to simply repeal the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs also recommended repealing this subsection. The association believed that this would, quote, “increase the effectiveness of the proposed changes to combat the trafficking of contraband,” according to a May 19, 2023, letter from the assembly that I will come back to later.

In my opinion, subsection 40(3) was rendered obsolete in 1982, when protection from unreasonable seizure was enshrined in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is important to note that the prohibition on seizure in subsection 40(3) is a privacy safeguard established long before 1982. Indeed, the current wording of subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act is substantively very similar to previous versions from the last few decades. Examples include the 1981 version, subsection 38(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and the 1951 version, section 41 of the Post Office Act, which reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, nothing is liable to demand, seizure or detention while in the course of post, except as provided in this Act or the Regulations.

Like Senator Dalphond, I think the current wording of the ban is undesirable because this ban is far too broad.

This provision jeopardizes the safety of Canadians and it even prevents a judge from issuing a warrant under section 487 of the Criminal Code or section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to allow police officers to open a letter which they have reasonable grounds to believe contains fentanyl or other banned substances.

This problem was raised in 2017 in R. v. O’Dell in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. In fact, Ms. O’Dell was charged with trafficking in fentanyl. The day before her arrest, she dropped off a package containing that drug at a Canada Post office. Police officers seized it without a warrant, but obtained one afterward before opening the package. The judge found that the seizure of the package was not authorized under the Canada Post Corporation Act, because of the ban in subsection 40(3).

This subsection also prevents, for example, a judge from authorizing police, under section 487.01 of the Criminal Code, to intercept and secretly open an envelope left in the possession of Canada Post by a suspect. That was the finding in the 2018 Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling in R. v. Perkins. In that case, an individual was accused of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In its ruling, the court accepted the admission of the Crown prosecutor that the judge could not provide this judicial authorization given the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

I am going to the trouble of citing these examples to demonstrate that if subsection 40(3) did not exist, the police would have to respect the usual privacy protections found in the Constitution, the Criminal Code and other laws.

I am obviously thinking of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Charter, and also sections of the Criminal Code imposing rigorous conditions that police must satisfy in order for a judge to issue a search warrant.

In addition to these legal provisions, there are thousands of court decisions interpreting them. In other words, since section 8 of the Charter was created in 1982, there have been more than 40 years of case law, primarily from the Supreme Court of Canada, requiring police officers to obtain judicial authorization to conduct investigations or seizures in situations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy or protection.

Thus, the common law principles created by these decisions will automatically apply if exceptions are created or if we repeal the prohibition on seizing or retaining objects in the intended course of post.

This contradicts the argument that Bill S-256 proposes overly broad exceptions to the prohibition set out in section 40(3), a provision that, on the face of it, no longer serves any purpose. It has become outdated since the Charter was created.

Bill S-256 grants no new investigative or seizure powers to police officers compared to those they already have with respect to packages shipped by any company other than Canada Post.

As Senator Dalphond pointed out, traffickers have spread the word that there is much less risk of their packages being intercepted if they send them through Canada Post rather than through any other private courier company, such as FedEx, UPS, Purolator or DHL.

It is critically important that we do everything we possibly can to combat fentanyl. Bill S-256 is a step in that direction. It also represents a concrete solution to enable police to tackle one of the links in the fentanyl trafficking chain by allowing judges to issue authorizations to police officers to open parcels and letters in the possession of Canada Post, when there are reasonable grounds to believe they contain fentanyl or other criminally prohibited goods.

As the saying goes, great sorrow is often silent. This is true of the sorrow experienced by many people who are, or will be, suffering from opioid addiction. Many of them will die or find themselves vulnerable, living on the margins of society or even homeless. They need us, as parliamentarians, to speak out and take action against the ravages of opioid trafficking on public health and public safety.

Opioids have caused over 32,000 deaths in Canada according to statistics recently posted on a Government of Canada website.

The trafficking of opioids and other hard drugs does not just affect addicts. This scourge tears families apart and increases the violence and profits of criminal organizations. That is the situation described by Justice Moldaver in his dissenting opinion in the 2021 Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Parranto, which was uncontradicted on that point. Justice Moldaver said, and I quote:

The dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, have long been recognized in Canada. . . .

Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates . . . .

A further and perhaps even more devastating consequence of the hard drug trade is its impact on families and the intergenerational trauma it causes . . . .

Justice Moldaver goes on to say that the threat posed by the trafficking of drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, and I quote:

 . . . pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. . . . [F]entanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one. . . .

The scale of fentanyl’s devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths . . . .

Therefore, to prevent such misdeeds, I urge you to vote in favour of Bill S-256.

As I explained, this bill will finally close the loophole that traffickers have been exploiting in the Canada Post Corporation Act. This loophole, which only applies to items sent by Canada Post and not through other courier companies, means that traffickers prefer to do business with Canada Post because they know that this law deprives the police of their usual legal means of seizing, opening or tracking items containing lethal drugs.

As Senators Dalphond and Boniface mentioned in their speeches, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has in fact publicly expressed, in a resolution adopted in August 2015, the need to close this loophole as soon as possible.

Why is it that, six years after this resolution, the federal government has not introduced a bill to try and address this urgent problem? How seriously does the government take the fact that the Canada Post Corporation Act deprives police and postal inspectors of essential powers to intercept mail containing drugs or other illegal and dangerous items?

On this point, I would like to return to R. v. Gorman, which Senator Dalphond referenced in his speech. In this case, the judge found, among other things, a very important power of inspectors in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to be unconstitutional.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador was not appealed by the federal government. In fact, the Attorney General of Canada even decided not to intervene to plead legal arguments before the judge.

The court first gave the federal government one year, which ended on April 12, 2023, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Subsequently the court granted an additional six months, which will end on October 12.

On April 20, the government introduced Bill C-47, the 2023 budget bill. Clause 509 of the bill proposed a legislative amendment required to comply with the ruling in R. v. Gorman.

Let’s recall that, in this case, the court found that the challenged provision was contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it allowed the postal inspector to open a package without objective reasons to suspect that it contained an illicit object. If the bill is passed, the wording of clause 509 would correct this problem. The relevant part of clause reads as follows:

“Non-mailable matter” is defined in a regulation as “Any item transmitted by post in contravention of an Act or a regulation of Canada.”

Although section 509 of Bill C-47 makes it possible to comply with the ruling in Gorman, I find it disappointing, inexplicable and very worrisome that the proposed amendment still proposes maintaining the words “other than a letter” in subsection 41(1). That means that postal inspectors are still not allowed to open items that are being transmitted by post weighing less than 500 grams, which is the regulatory definition of a letter, even if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the letter contains fentanyl or other illegal objects within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Five hundred grams of fentanyl is a lot, given that consuming even the tiniest bit of this drug can be fatal.

If the government chose to amend subsection 41(1) through the 2023 budget bill in response to the Gorman decision, why didn’t it take the opportunity to incorporate the contents of Bill S-256, the heart of which is an amendment to subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which I mentioned earlier? The federal government was well aware of this problem.

As evidence of that, here’s an exchange that took place in the Senate on December 1, 2022, between Senator Dalphond and Minister Hutchings, Minister of Rural Economic Development. Senator Dalphond asked the following question:

As you may know, it is reported that, for fentanyl sellers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice, and often the only one available to ship these illegal products into rural and remote communities.

 . . . are you ready to consider proposals such as Bill S-256 to remove from the Canada Post Corporation Act restrictions that impede the police from seizing illegal drugs and other illegal items shipped through mailed envelopes?

The minister replied with the following:

Thank you, senator. That is an incredible question because it alludes to what I mentioned earlier about the terrible drug problem that we have in rural Canada. As you know, Canada Post is a Crown corporation, but I will be following that bill’s progress to the detail. I know that is exactly how some of the drugs are getting into these rural communities.

If Bill C-47 on Budget 2023 were adopted and came into force in its current form, postal inspectors would still be prohibited from opening an object weighing less than 500 grams in the course of post containing drugs, weapons or any other object prohibited under the Criminal Code. Police would also still be prohibited from opening any object in the course of post with the assistance of a postal inspector even if the police had obtained a search warrant from a judge.

In view of these facts, are you, like me, seriously concerned about the fact that the federal government is not taking seriously the threat of the trafficking of hard drugs, such as fentanyl, shipped through Canada Post? Why is the government not closing as quickly as possible the loopholes I have just mentioned that are in the Canada Post Corporation Act?

Another thing in Gorman fuels my concerns about the inadequate measures taken by the federal government to combat trafficking in hard drugs. In this case, a significant amount of cocaine was seized: It was two kilograms of apparently high purity. What’s more, the judge found that Mr. Gorman was planning to receive more packages containing the drug, again for trafficking. I’m concerned that because of government Bill C-5, which just passed, this individual will be given a sentence to be served in the community and not in prison.

In closing, I completely agree, on one hand, with the purpose of Bill S-256. I invite you to refer this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further scrutiny. On the other hand, I hope the Senate committee will carefully consider in its study of Bill S-256 the two recommendations for amendments that I raised in my speech. These are exactly the same recommendations that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs made in the letter I mentioned previously and that it sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as part of its study of Bill C-47 on Budget 2023.

I will read an excerpt from that letter about these recommendations. The assembly makes the following recommendations to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

1) Replace the current section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act with the proposed amendment from Bill C-47, and remove the words “other than a letter” from the provision; and

2) Remove section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act in its entirety.

I also note that the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed during the study of Bill C-47 by the Senate committee was along the same lines as the two recommendations made by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

In closing, I thank attorney Michael Spratt and law professors Steven Penney and Steve Coughlan, and the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal-Laval-Longueuil and the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense for sharing their observations about certain aspects of this bill with my team. Thank you.

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

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Daniel Allain, Minister of Local Government and Local Governance Reform, from the beautiful province of New Brunswick. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Mockler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill S-264, An Act to establish International Tax Justice and Cooperation Day.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to introduce Bill S-264 to establish international tax justice and cooperation day.

You might be thinking to yourselves that this is just one more international day. That may be true, but of the 200 international days recognized by the United Nations, not one of them has any connection whatsoever to taxes.

I think it’s important to correct that oversight for two reasons. First, taxes are an essential part of the social contract in all societies of the world and they often represent the biggest expenditure in people’s budgets. So I think it’s important to have a day in the year where we collectively consider the importance, usefulness and effectiveness of taxes in our societies.

Second, whether we’re talking about the Pandora Papers, the Paradise Papers or the Panama Papers, multinational companies that are profiting from double non-taxation, e-commerce operations that all too often manage to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, or tax havens, news reports regularly remind us of how such tax scandals are continuing to occur and of how much they affect Canadians’ confidence in their institutions.

In fact, I think everyone will agree that all of these scandals led to a growing need for cooperation between countries and tax authorities around the world, especially in Canada.

The concept of tax justice evolves with the times and in various parts of the world. It also varies depending on the type of tax, its function, its shape, its base and public acceptance. Whatever its definition, however, the need for tax justice is as old as taxation itself. History shows, with its various tax revolutions, that if any form of taxation exists, it must be fair.

Tax justice is so important that several countries, including France and Italy, have elevated the notion of a “fair share of taxes” to the status of a law in their constitutions.

Tax fairness is at the heart of Canadian taxation. For example, in our recent 2023 budget, our government prioritized the notion of a fair share of taxes and fair taxation of taxpayers, corporations and digital companies.

As Senator Downe so wisely reminded us on April 18 in his speech on Bill S-258, beyond the considerable loss of money for tax authorities, it’s also unfair to those who play by the rules and are being deceived by those who are skipping the system.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that people living in Canada and companies operating in Canada pay their fair share of taxes. This requires a high degree of cooperation between countries and adherence to international tax rules that are fair to all.

In fact, societies rise up — rightly or wrongly — against tax injustice for two reasons: non-compliance with the applicable rules and, from a moral standpoint, the feeling of injustice.

Taxation without tax justice cannot be allowed to continue. However, it doesn’t stop there. These days, in a world that is ultra-connected since the advent of the internet, taxation must be coupled with international tax cooperation if it is to exist fairly and effectively. Taxation is one of the components of a sovereign state; therefore, it is up to each state to decide whether they will cooperate.

International tax cooperation has several advantages for countries. For example, by cooperating with each other, countries have managed to put an end to banking secrecy over the last 10 years and, as a result, significantly curb international tax evasion.

International tax cooperation can also help countries better administer their tax systems by exchanging and sharing tax methods, systems and knowledge, particularly under the aegis of the OECD, which has several reports on this subject.

Most importantly, international tax cooperation is crucial to addressing international tax competition. Indeed, some states are waging veritable tax wars to attract capital and investment, but this also results in the erosion of other countries’ tax bases.

For a long time, tax regimes were established by governments without any consideration for the consequences this might have outside their borders.

Over the years, globalization of the economy and trade liberalization — starting with capital and the dematerialization of activities — have been a game-changer. Governments have become stakeholders in global economic competitiveness, and having a competitive tax environment has become a weapon.

Although the movement of capital around the world has always existed, it is the ease and speed with which it happens that is now an issue.

Considerable sums can be transferred with a simple click of a button to the other side of the world, without being traceable or being tracked in either direction.

At the end of the day, these are national budgets that come with a cost, when fewer financial resources are collected to invest in our public and social services or in supporting our society when it comes to climate change, for example.

Another notable consequence is that, to continue to offer an adequate level of services with fewer resources, the tax burden is spread out differently among the remaining taxpayers. This can translate into direct or indirect tax increases.

What’s more, the lack of fiscal cooperation primarily affects developing countries. To remain attractive and receive foreign investments, the most vulnerable countries are sometimes forced to sacrifice their right to tax the activities that occur in their jurisdiction.

This means fewer resources for states that are already heavily indebted and that often find it hard to deliver sufficient infrastructure and services to their citizens.

As we can see, every country is dependent on the legal and fiscal framework of its neighbours. This interdependence should make all countries aware of the need to cooperate. There are no long-term winners in this tax competition. There are only losers between countries. All countries have much to gain if they cooperate. The aim is not to restrain public or private economic players, but to establish the rules of the game in order to balance different interests.

Of course, the challenge is not a simple one in a globalized, financialized economy that is sometimes considered borderless, because, at the same time, tax issues and tools are attached to countries and borders. We therefore need to rely on the goodwill of each country to participate in a collective movement without feeling like it’s losing an advantage.

Despite the difficulties inherent in international tax cooperation, progress is being made, which is welcome news. We’re seeing one initiative after the other, both bilateral and multilateral, most likely thanks to public pressure, a certain political will on the part of leaders and some high-profile media cases. I’d like to highlight a few multilateral initiatives here, because they’re broader in scope and more likely to have a global impact on the international community.

[English]

In recent years, there have been numerous initiatives, notably under the aegis of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, to advance tax transparency and cooperation, combat fraud and establish tax harmonization rules for greater tax justice. Since 2009, under the mandate of the G20 and since this Group of Twenty declared the end of banking secrecy, the OECD has been working within the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, made up of 168 states and jurisdictions, to implement international standards designed to put an end to the problems associated with tax evasion, tax havens, double taxation and money laundering.

In 2012, member states of the OECD and the G20 adopted an action plan to curb tax base erosion and profit shifting. This plan aims to prevent tax optimization strategies by companies that take advantage of the lack of international tax harmonization and cooperation.

Among the achievements of this plan, I note the creation in 2016 of the Platform for Collaboration on Tax, a joint initiative of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group and the United Nations. This platform is notable in two respects. First, it allows these four organizations to more easily exchange information relating to their operational activities. Furthermore, it facilitates the provision of technical assistance to developing countries seeking to strengthen their capacities and have a greater influence when international rules are formulated.

In 2019, the OECD proposed rules for the establishment of a global minimum tax on corporate profits. In July 2021, 130 countries agreed on this standard, which should come into force in 2024.

A century earlier, circumstances seemed equally opportune for states to establish the first harmonization of international taxation after the First World War. Indeed, in the aftermath of the First World War, the costs of debt and reconstruction were particularly high for all belligerents. Increased direct taxation was a lever widely used by governments, provoking capital flight.

However, in the absence of any transmission of tax information between state administrations, it is easy to evade taxation altogether. Moreover, multinational companies making profits in several countries incur multiple taxation. It therefore appears necessary to collaborate on a larger scale to not only curb the effects of double taxation but also stop export tax evasion.

The Genoa Conference of 1922, attended by 34 countries, launched the movement towards multilateral collaboration on taxation. Under pressure from the French and Belgian governments, a resolution was passed to set up the first permanent international tax committee under the auspices of the League of Nations, of which, incidentally, Senator Dandurand was the second president. This committee, named the Committee of Experts on Double Taxation and Tax Evasion, tackled both issues jointly for the first time — tax evasion and double taxation.

At the time, the committee’s Italian president recalled the ambitious and broad objective of reaching an agreement which would “eventually be the subject of an international convention.”

Interestingly, the committee held its first meeting on June 4, 1923, just over 100 years ago. This is why this bill proposes that June 4 be the international tax justice and cooperation day.

[Translation]

This is still a burning question a century after this international tax committee began its work. The establishment of an international tax justice and cooperation day would provide an opportunity to debate this major issue in order to continuously improve our common tax regulations in a constructive manner, without waiting for public scandals to occur.

Canada is an important player when it comes to international tax reform. Our country has an important seat at the negotiating table in its bilateral and multilateral relations with major international organizations, such as the United Nations, the OECD, the G7 and the G20.

With this bill, I am proposing that Canada become the first country to suggest to the United Nations to establish such a day and that we continue to be a leader on this issue, which is so important to global justice and stability.

Although I’m alone in bringing this bill before you today, I do so as the spokesperson for many influential stakeholders, organizations and leaders who are all engaged in this noble cause. I’m thinking, of course, of Brigitte Alepin, a well-known tax expert in Quebec and elsewhere in the world, but also of CPA Quebec, UQAM’s School of Management, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and figures like Pascal Saint-Amans, former director of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.

Your honour, honourable senators, in addition to the binding legal standards that are absolutely indispensable to ensure tax justice and cooperation, we also need to launch more symbolic initiatives that seek to promote greater awareness of public opinion. Let’s be as ambitious and exacting when it comes to tax justice and cooperation as our ancestors were, as Senator Dandurand was, over 100 years ago.

Thank you for your attention. Meegwetch.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.