Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, Lawyers Without Borders Canada, a non-profit organization based in my hometown of Quebec City, recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. That is 20 years of solidarity, international cooperation and commitment to the mission of giving access to justice to those who need it most and who could not otherwise access it.

Lawyers Without Borders Canada was founded in October 2002 by Dominique-Anne Roy, Pierre Brun and Pascal Paradis. These three committed lawyers from Quebec decided to join forces and participate, on a voluntary basis, I should note, in international solidarity efforts for justice. Lawyers Without Borders Canada is now an internationally recognized cooperative organization, known for its expertise, its credibility and its dedication to the promotion and protection of human rights. This organization makes a meaningful contribution, on the ground, to strengthening access to justice and legal representation.

Over the years, Lawyers Without Borders Canada has launched 52 projects in 32 countries with many local partners, helping hundreds of thousands of people. That is very commendable. Right now, Lawyers Without Borders Canada has 140 employees and volunteers in Bamako, Bogota, Guatemala City, Montreal, Port-au-Prince, Quebec City, San Salvador and Tegucigalpa. A total of 18 international cooperation projects are under way with 135 global partners.

[English]

Lawyers Without Borders Canada is a pioneer in the field of international legal cooperation. Its great achievement is to have allowed more than 100 lawyers from here to get involved elsewhere in service of those who need it the most. This pro bono commitment amounts to $7 million of non-billed legal work over the past five years. This involvement of our lawyers allows their expertise and dedication to shine through — without borders.

For all these reasons, dear colleagues, I salute in this chamber the 20 years of success of this remarkable organization, an organization born here and now serving throughout the world. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Quebecer, an exceptional man who left his mark both on Quebec and the entire country. We are deeply saddened by the recent passing of the Honourable Jean Lapointe.

Above all, I want to express my deepest condolences to his family, his fans and all those from whom he commanded — and will continue to command — admiration and respect. During his maiden speech in the Senate, the Honourable Jean Lapointe shared his views on tributes like the one we are paying him today. He said, and I quote:

I humbly offer a suggestion that would no doubt reduce the time spent on the interminably long tributes occasioned by deaths, retirements, or celebrations of famous people.

I realize that on such occasions some of our colleagues use the opportunity to speak more about themselves. My suggestion is therefore as follows. In the event of a death, or when tributes are made to living persons, I suggest that both Senate leaders make a short speech to mark the occasion.

The good old times.

There may be exceptional circumstances, where people acknowledge that a colleague was a very close personal friend of the departed, and I can accept this.

As you can see, he was very diplomatic.

I’ll be brief, dear colleagues, in order to respect his wishes and in honour of his courage to speak to the Senate at the first opportunity made available to him about a matter of general interest. I’ll be brief, but I hope nevertheless to do justice to a man with such a brilliant and rich career.

Jean Lapointe was an artist of a thousand talents, a singer-songwriter, humourist and comedian, and throughout his professional life he was generous with his talent and his accomplishments, in this place and elsewhere.

The great success of his duo Les Jérolas earned him two invitations to “The Ed Sullivan Show,” in 1963 and 1967, which was a first for a Quebec duo. They made an appearance even before the Beatles on that prestigious American show, in addition to appearing twice at the Olympia in Paris, the ultimate venue at the time for francophone artists.

As a senator, Jean Lapointe dedicated himself primarily to defending the interests of people grappling with a gambling or substance addiction. This cause that he championed was a major theme throughout his personal and professional life.

He embodied a model of courage that required you to never deny, to get back up again and again, to succeed and to give back. His legacy will remain in our collective memory and live on through La Maison Jean Lapointe, which he established and which continues to help the vulnerable.

It is thanks to him that many people now find the strength to ask for help and receive the help they need. For this, as well as the artistic and compassionate legacy he leaves behind, my message to him is, “Bravo, Honourable Jean Lapointe.”

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I am very pleased to join my colleagues from all groups and caucuses in welcoming Senator Leonard Andrew Cardozo.

[English]

While it may be the first time, Senator Cardozo, that you are present in this chamber, no one is thinking of you as a stranger to the study of legislation, federal politics, our work in this chamber or to the Senate’s overall contribution to Canadian society. Indeed, you have been one of Canada’s leading voices on public policy for many years. Whether as a columnist, a professor at the Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication, a commissioner of the CRTC or as the head of the Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy, you have brought attention to important and sensitive issues. Your contributions have helped Canada become a more progressive and fair country, and I have no doubt that you will pursue that great legacy in your time at the Senate.

Despite your very impressive career, what strikes me the most about you, Senator Cardozo, is your deep social involvement in your community. Over the years, you have been active in the Catholic Centre for Immigrants, the YMCA-YWCA of the National Capital Region, the Media Awareness Network and the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ottawa. All those organizations were fortunate to count on you for leadership and support.

As President of the Pearson Centre, you have often given a platform for senators to express their views. Many colleagues have been invited to events and conferences. For my part, I remember fondly co-chairing with you a successful panel on the work of Parliament in front of a wide audience of diplomats. I now know that was only the beginning of our collaboration.

You said recently in an interview that the role of the Senate as a place of sober second thought means that legislation is often improved here, and that senators are also able to shine a spotlight on issues that deserve attention. It seems to me you already fully understand what we senators aim to do, as well as what your role and purpose in the chamber are going to be.

I have a feeling you will hit the ground running in your new role, but if you ever find yourself in need of anything, please know that the Independent Senators Group will always be ready to help.

Finally, I also know we share a common passion for the arts. I am very impressed by the artistic side of you. While as a painter you specialize in the abstract, I have a feeling that your contribution as a senator will be a tangible one.

From all the members of the Independent Senators Group, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate of Canada. I have no doubt that you are in the right place at the right time.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for this response. In addition, I would like to know if applications for reconsideration are being processed more efficiently and if the medical committee that ultimately reviews these applications is willing to meet with victims.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate and it has to do with the management of the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program. I am asking my question with the permission of Yves Bourque and on his behalf. He is a Paralympic athlete and a victim of thalidomide, and his story is similar to the one we read yesterday and today in Le Journal de Montréal.

For the past 18 months, since February 2021, my office has been helping Mr. Bourque navigate the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program and deal with EPIQ, the firm to which the government delegated the management of this program. This firm has asked him over and over again for evidence from medical specialists and for X-rays. The doctor who treated his mother at the time passed away and another doctor took over. To put it clearly and concisely, the way he is being treated is inhumane.

It was only a few months ago, following a call from a senator’s office, that we were able to get the contact information for an agent from that firm, who was at least able to answer a few questions.

Here is my concern. Does the government plan to do something to ensure that the citizens who contact the delegated managers of this program are treated humanely and efficiently?

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Senator Saint-Germain: Once again, I’m not saying I’m opposed to the objective, but, given senators’ right to express their opinion on such an important issue and given our responsibility to ensure that the motion is constitutional, I move adjournment of the debate in my name.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating you and Senator Verner on your initiative, which I believe is worthwhile.

In her speech, Senator Verner talked about an “extraordinary process” that has never been attempted in the history of the Senate, which is true. However, because this is true, and notwithstanding the nobility of the cause and the strong desire that I myself may have to see this course of action against our former colleague happen quickly, I nevertheless believe that there is no reason to shut out senators who wish to contribute to the debate on this issue this evening and who would perhaps like to ensure the constitutionality of the motion being moved.

I don’t see any reason to deny them this opportunity, so why the rush to call for the vote immediately?

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable Senator Flordeliz Gigi Osler, all of my colleagues in the Independent Senators Group join me in wishing you the warmest of welcomes. We also welcome your family members. This will always be a very special day in your history. Our best regards to your family.

[English]

Senator, I would like to point out that you have demonstrated on several occasions how active and dynamic a woman you are, finding time not only to serve your patients but also to serve your professional association, in addition to sharing your knowledge and transferring your expertise to several universities in Canada and abroad. For the last several years, Dr. Osler, you have been volunteering in Africa to help train other surgeons in collaboration with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institute, Harvard University; University of British Columbia; University of Manitoba; and the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

This would be impressive enough, but I’m not done with your very impressive résumé. As a dedicated advocate for equity, diversity and inclusion, your appointment is a continuation of a career in which your professionalism, integrity and competence have long served the public.

Senator Osler, when you were only and mostly known as Dr. Osler, you once said:

In my own work, I’ve come to realize how important it is to say to a patient who is about to have surgery, “We’re all here for you,” and give them confidence that they’re in good hands.

As this new chapter in your illustrious career begins, I couldn’t help but think about this sentence and how, despite your great expertise as a surgeon, you realize just how important it is to reassure your patients about what they are soon to undergo. On a larger scale, whether it is the Manitoban community, the Filipino one or all citizens of our country you will be representing in your new functions, I have no doubt that you will exercise your role with the utmost empathy, and our fellow Canadians will surely be confident that they are indeed “in good hands.”

Senator Osler, you will bring a unique perspective to our discussions, and I trust that you will keep in mind our duty to ensure the best interests of all Canadians with the care, the dedication, as well as the patience that have marked your career so far.

You have expressed your love of being in the operating room. This I don’t share with you, though. Although this might not look like one, the issues we deal with in this chamber can be delicate in nature and require rigour as well as precision. I have no doubt that you will succeed with flying colours.

Today, you are officially opening in the Senate a new chapter of your life. As this chapter is beginning, I wish to express how eager all members of the Independent Senators Group are to work with you. With your rich background, your proven dynamism and your modern and innovative approach — we saw it on TikTok indeed — we can only look forward to a tremendous contribution to the future of the Senate, especially with the great advantage of the time you have before you.

Senator Osler, welcome to the upper chamber.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: The issues Senator Tannas raised are serious and extremely important. Anyone in this chamber who takes these allegations seriously could not possibly condone such an attitude were it to be displayed. What you’re talking about is contempt of Parliament, which is very serious and has consequences.

Having said that, given the seriousness of the matter raised, I reviewed the September 28 meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications at which Mr. Benzie appeared. I noted that Senator Housakos asked Mr. Benzie questions that gave him an opportunity to say he felt intimidated in the other place. However, during his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, he clearly felt quite confident.

Senator Tannas, to prove that you brought this question of privilege before this chamber by the deadline, you referred to a letter that Mr. Benzie provided to the clerk on September 29, the day after the Transport Committee meeting. I have the letter here. Mr. Benzie received it at 11:26 on the morning of September 28, which was before his appearance at the committee. The letter is from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying. It confirms that he has no obligation to disclose any funding received from parties other than a government. I will read it in English:

[English]

“. . . from any domestic or foreign government, at any level – federal, provincial/territorial/state, or local.”

[Translation]

At the time of his appearance, Mr. Benzie knew that he had not violated the Lobbying Act. He knew this when he was appearing before the committee, and the committee had no reason to question it.

The connection you are making with receiving this letter the next day and even later, because it had not been translated, does not, in my opinion, justify the notion that this complaint could have been filed immediately, on September 28. In my opinion, you therefore did not meet the deadline.

Something else that seems important to me is to separate what falls under the privileges and Rules of this chamber, and therefore falls within the purview of our Speaker regarding potential violations of the Parliament of Canada Act or the Rules of the Senate, from what falls within the purview of the other place.

The alleged elements are the responsibility of the other place and have been for some time. After all, Mr. Benzie’s appearance before the House of Commons committee took place four months before his appearance last week before the Senate committee. By his second appearance, he knew what this question was about and what to expect.

You also alluded to the allegation that witnesses who testified before the House of Commons on this same issue were intimidated, and that allegation was made by Mr. Benzie. Now, the important thing is to determine whether these witnesses were intimidated to the point of refusing to come testify before the Senate.

The Clerk of the Transport and Communications Committee has confirmed that no content creator who may have been intimidated at the House of Commons withdrew or declined an invitation issued by the Clerk on behalf of the Transport and Communications Committee. This information, in my opinion, has therefore not been documented.

What concerns me most about this question of privilege is not only the allegations, but the conflation being made between an MP, members of a House of Commons committee who are doing their job and questioning witnesses — rightly or wrongly, I don’t want to be the judge — and the fact that a member of Parliament was able to file a complaint with an officer of Parliament. To me, this is a fundamental issue.

Filing a complaint with an officer is not in itself an act of intimidation and certainly does not mean that the commissioner or officer of Parliament will complete the investigation in a non‑objective manner. If there are legitimate grounds, the officer of Parliament will investigate and come to a conclusion in an objective manner. We have confidence in those officers, whose appointment is endorsed by both houses of Parliament.

The other point that really concerns me is the fact that, once again, there is confusion between the Speaker’s authority over our work and the conflation with what may have happened in the House of Commons. I think that we all care about respecting the independence of both chambers. In my opinion, this misconception fails to respect that independence.

My last point — and I do not want to dwell on it because Senator Gold stressed this point — is that it is also a misconception to assume that any media outlet would cater to the government, an MP or anyone, and that it would choose to publish a news article on a particular day of the parliamentary calendar that would make it possible to somehow influence a witness or even abuse or harass them. It is a misconception to state that the situation is being created by members of Parliament or their employees.

Let me say that it has been stated with great certainty that a complaint filed with an officer of Parliament would be known to only a few people. With my six years of Senate experience, I could comment at length on the breaches of confidentiality that occur in the hallways and even in this chamber.

For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the conditions for finding that the question of privilege is in order have not been fulfilled. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, it is a privilege for me, as someone who recognizes and appreciates the value of public service, to welcome a distinguished public servant, our new colleague, the Honourable Senator Ian Douglas Shugart, P.C.

Your appointment, Senator Shugart, is indeed the culmination of an outstanding career entirely devoted to public service. In accepting this appointment to the upper chamber, you have chosen to continue your dedication to serving Canadians.

[English]

Since 1991, you have held numerous senior leadership positions in the federal public sector, including Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Employment and Social Development, as well as Global Affairs. All three portfolios closely related to challenges faced by governments all around the world and challenges at the heart of contemporary issues we must address here at the Senate.

You have served with impartiality and dedication under six prime ministers — a great achievement, as well as testimony to your professionalism and excellence.

Your outstanding journey through the public service culminated in 2019 with your appointment as the twenty-fourth Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. As the head of Canada’s public service, you helped lead the country through the unprecedented challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. For the latter, we all owe you a debt of gratitude.

With your swearing in today, you find yourself back on Parliament Hill, although on its other side. The multidisciplinary nature of your experience — your in-depth knowledge of public policy, of the subtle relationship between the legislative and executive branches, and of the complementarity between the two chambers of Parliament — makes you perfectly suited to fulfill the duties of a senator.

The Senate must serve for the benefit of Canadians. For that to happen, it is our responsibility to ensure — in this upper chamber of sober second thought — a healthy clash of ideas, while maintaining freedom of conscience and the modern governance that fits the contemporary needs of democratic institutions.

I believe in these ideals, as I know you do. Hence, I look forward to working alongside you in leaning closer toward achieving them.

Through my voice, all the members of the Independent Senators Group congratulate you and wish you a warm welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That the Senate of Canada:

(a)recognize the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, and to be free from any and all outside interference;

(b)recognize the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its sovereignty, which was recognized at the time of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and includes Crimea and the Donbas;

(c)denounce the fraudulent and undemocratic referenda forced upon the people of the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine by Russia;

(d)condemn all coercive and violent tactics undertaken by Russia in the Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine;

(e)affirm its steadfast support for the people of Ukraine and their right to peace and security; and

(f)condemn any and all escalation of military and other attacks on Ukraine and its people by Russia.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: It is with great sadness that I rise today to honour the victims and survivors of the violent attacks perpetrated in Saskatchewan a few days ago, on September 4.

On behalf of the Independent Senators Group, I would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the victims, the entire James Smith Cree Nation and the residents of Weldon, who are suffering today. We share your suffering.

[English]

This is an unthinkable tragedy, one of the worst to happen in our country, one that leaves us with many unanswered questions and deep sorrow, but most importantly one that requires us to stand in solidarity with the communities affected.

Every time such an event occurs, we are all concerned, and the only thing I can say right now is that all of us are in spirit with the people of Saskatchewan and those of the James Smith Cree Nation.

My thoughts are now focused on the bravery of some of the victims. People like Bonnie Goodvoice-Burns, a mother to five children, who died heroically protecting her children from the attackers; or like Lydia Gloria Burns who, at 61, was still a first responder and an addiction counsellor for the community. She will be remembered for her sense of duty and her commitment to the people of the James Smith Cree Nation. In a recent interview, her brother Darryl Burns echoed the same values as his late sister in saying, “She died helping people. And we have to pick up that torch and carry it.” How not to admire this sense of selflessness?

The survivors of this horrific event, especially the children involved, will require long-term and sustained support; let’s ensure they get it. Let’s ensure we do not forget.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate our solidarity with the citizens of Saskatchewan and our compassion for the Indigenous peoples and all the communities affected by this tragedy.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: As you’re making inquiries to follow up on Senator Carignan’s question, could you ask specifically if there is any obligation for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — who is third in the Table of Precedence — and the Speaker of the Senate — who is fourth — to remain in the country so they can respond to any eventuality while the Governor General and the Prime Minister, our country’s leaders, are abroad?

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: I rise today on behalf of the Independent Senators Group to pay tribute to a woman who exemplified the meaning of duty, Her late Majesty Elizabeth II, whose recent death at 96 saddens us all. First of all, I want to express our deepest condolences to the Royal Family, the people of Britain, as well as the many people who respected and admired the Queen.

Her passing marks the end of her 70-year reign. As head of the Commonwealth, she was the sovereign of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as the 14 Commonwealth countries, including Canada, and she reigned with incomparable finesse and constancy.

We cannot help but acknowledge her strength and admire her unwavering dedication to public service. Throughout all those years, she honoured her duty of restraint, even though her education and intelligence endowed her with strong, well‑documented opinions. I think that is a fundamental principle for the credibility of all Westminster-style parliamentary institutions, including ours.

This dedication is what struck me the most about her, in addition to her highly cultured mind. On more than one occasion, the Queen expressed her affinity for la Francophonie and her love and respect for the French language, which she spoke fluently and often.

[English]

In 1951, before her coronation, the then-princess came to Canada for the first of many times. Actually, she came to Canada 22 times for an official visit. She was accompanied by her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. The couple landed in Montreal and immediately boarded a train that stopped at Anse au Foulon in Quebec City, a place at the heart of Canada’s discovery with a rich history, notably for the use of the coves supplying Great Britain with wood. According to media reports, the princess took the time to enjoy a maple and walnut ice cream, drizzled with maple syrup on the way. Not yet being a queen, she could afford herself more liberty.

A symbol of stability, she lived through the times and crises unperturbed. Since the death of her father, George VI, in 1952 — the year after she came to Quebec City — when she was only 25 years old, Queen Elizabeth II embodied a continuity, a foundation in time that moves too fast, which was somewhat reassuring in the face of the countless upheavals we lived through over the years.

In this very chamber, her presence has always been embodied by the mace that has witnessed Canadian parliamentary history since before Confederation, and continued to be a symbol of her presence in every single one of our sittings. The current mace survived three fires in Montreal, as well as the 1916 fire that destroyed Parliament’s original Centre Block building. It is one of the most important symbols that we inherited from the Westminster system, and it has stood her ground and endured through time and trials, which, to me, has always been a beautiful metaphor for the Queen.

In the same vein, I can’t help but remember a conversation I had with the Usher of the Black Rod, Mr. J. Greg Peters, who informed me about the gracious gift the Queen made to the Senate of Canada on the one hundred and fiftieth birthday of the Confederation where she offered a royal restoration of the Senate mace performed at Windsor Castle by the most renowned experts in the world.

Queen Elizabeth’s accession to the throne also coincided with the most welcome end of the colonial period of the British Empire, and she succeeded in navigating this transition from the 19th century colonialism to democracy and the modern state of the world as we know it today.

More importantly, she did so with grace and goodwill.

The Queen will be fondly remembered as an extraordinary public figure and an outstanding woman with a wealth of experience, intelligence and culture, who always maintained her role with resilience and the inner strength to carry out her duties while observing the most important one: her duty of reserve.

You can tell by the outpouring of tributes and grief at her passing that as a human being, she was as loved as she was respected throughout the Commonwealth countries and beyond.

[Translation]

The dignity demonstrated by the Queen throughout her reign is undoubtedly a source of inspiration for all parliamentarians, especially us, the members of the Senate, the chamber of sober second thought. We will remember her as a woman who symbolized exemplary selflessness, constancy, capability and soft power. May we, in her memory, remember that we are here to serve an ideal that is greater than ourselves. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to share with you my observations about Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication).

The context in which we must examine this bill forces me to grapple with two very different sentiments that I find difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, I am very frustrated at having so little time to analyze this bill. On the other hand, I am aware that maintaining the status quo has serious repercussions for victims, given the Supreme Court decision of May 13. I realize that action must be taken now, and I believe that Bill C-28 is an adequate response to this urgent need, although, in an ideal world, the bill would have benefited from more in-depth study.

Colleagues, we must assess the ramifications of not acting now to fill this legal void, as was suggested by the Supreme Court. I would like to quote from R. v. Brown, which reads:

While s. 33.1 [of the Criminal Code] is unconstitutional, there may well have been other paths for Parliament to achieve its legitimate aims connected to combatting extreme intoxicated violence. . . . And it was not impermissible for Parliament to enact legislation seeking to hold an extremely intoxicated person accountable for a violent crime when they chose to create the risk of harm by ingesting intoxicants.

I want to emphasize “. . . when they chose to create the risk of harm . . . . ”

[English]

Now let me address why Bill C-28 is the correct response and will, indeed, close the gap in the law created by the Supreme Court decision R. v. Brown. As a reminder, in its decision, the court struck down section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. In doing so, it ruled that preventing the use of extreme intoxication as a defence for violent crimes was unconstitutional and in violation of sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

As a response, the government chose to re-enact and amend section 33.1. This amendment proposed in Bill C-28 would ensure — as I believe is the right thing to do — that someone who voluntarily consumes intoxicants such as illegal drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs, and does so in a criminally negligent manner and, as a result of an extreme state of intoxication, violently attacks others, this person could be held criminally responsible for those violent acts.

This change is similar in spirit to the previous version of section 33.1, but with an emphasis on the concept of negligence. This is very important: an emphasis on the concept of negligence.

As Minister Lametti pointed out to us here in this chamber on Tuesday:

. . . individuals would not be held criminally liable where the risk of violent loss of control was not foreseeable, or, where it was foreseen, where reasonable efforts were made to avoid that kind of harm.

This exemption is only valid in very rare cases. It will be up to the courts to determine the degree of negligence of an individual. In this context, criminal negligence is defined as not taking sufficient care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk of losing control and acting violently.

In my opinion, this is a good solution to the issue the Supreme Court decision has asked us to fix. The changes proposed by Bill C-28 are essential for public safety, particularly for the most vulnerable people in our society and, indeed, for everyone, because nobody is immune to falling victim to a violent assault. I would also add that it is needed for confidence in our justice system.

As presented to us today, the bill has the support of a majority of the stakeholders consulted before its conception, including groups for the defence and promotion of women like the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, or LEAF. In a statement published on June 17, Pam Hrick, Executive Director and General Counsel of LEAF, stated that Bill C-28 was, “. . . a thoughtful, nuanced and constitutional response” to the Supreme Court decision.

I think that I have made it clear that I support the adoption of this bill, and my support is consistent with my speech. I recognize the duty the government had to act quickly in order to close the gap in our law.

However, going back to the frustration I expressed earlier, I believe we need to find a balance between the necessity to adopt this time-sensitive government legislation now and the relevance of addressing the concerns raised by numerous senators during the Committee of the Whole and in their overall study of this bill ever since it was presented to us.

That is the balance that we need to find now between the necessity to adopt this time-sensitive legislation and then a further study of the relevance of the concerns raised by numerous senators and other stakeholders during the Committee of the Whole and in the media.

Colleagues, those concerns are valid. Even without the situation we find ourselves in, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should initiate a study. It is a question of public interest and general interest, and I have the utmost confidence in the strong legal minds who sit on that committee.

As such, it is essential for the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to be empowered to examine and report back on some strategic aspects of this bill, as we have done with the adoption of Motion No. 53.

We realize the distinction between the urgency of adopting this bill and the broader scope of this issue linked to intoxication. That is why the leaders of all the caucuses and groups, including me as facilitator, have made sure to put forward a non‑prescriptive motion that leaves a wide margin for action by the committee.

Now, after a careful study by both the Senate and the other place, the government will be requested to provide a complete and detailed response within 120 calendar days. Acting in such a manner is the right decision to make. It is the only means that immediately addressed the legal issue that Bill C-28 aims to fill while also giving the opportunity for the Senate to study and report on the broader issue of self-induced intoxication, including self-induced extreme intoxication in the context of criminal law.

We must also think that Bill C-28 could be used as a stopgap for this period between the adoption of the bill and a review from Parliament. That trial period could be useful in identifying the practical problems that could come up with the bill in its current form while not letting down the people most susceptible to violent assaults.

[Translation]

In closing, I think it would be irresponsible of us not to pass this bill today. We have a duty to act and to act now, in this case. That way we can ensure that the legislation properly protects our fellow citizens while closing a loophole for individuals who have committed violent crimes while intoxicated because of their own negligence. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator McCallum. It is a key question, and I share your concern.

We all have to be very conscious that we need to act on many fronts. We need to take many actions for preventing violence against women, against racialized people and also against LGBT communities.

The consequence of not acting is that we will perpetuate this loophole in the law, given the Supreme Court decision, and then we will allow for perpetrators — those who would be in a position to commit violence or who have committed violence while they were under the influence of a substance — to still not be tried in a way that they would be considered responsible for the fact that they assaulted people when they were under the influence of a substance and they had voluntarily made the decision to use the substance.

So not acting will be protecting perpetrators rather than protecting their victims. That is why it is so important to fill this gap.

Once again, I stand by you, Senator McCallum, that we need to do more in order to prevent more violence against women, and against targeted and vulnerable people. Also, we need to act on the social front and to have more support after those violent acts have been perpetrated for the victims so they can heal in the best possible way.

Thank you again for your question.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: This evening, it is the fifth year that I am pleased to see at this pre-eminent moment that we are first and foremost an institution of human beings, of people who have much in common, indeed much more than we may let on during our debates.

This evening, it is time to thank people. First, I wish to thank the Speaker of the Senate, the Honourable Senator George Furey, who shoulders heavy responsibilities with great dignity and an infallible democratic spirit. Personally, I appreciate your wisdom and excellent guidance when pointing out our misinterpretation of the Senate’s rules and practices, no matter our seniority or place in this chamber. I also want to thank Senator Ringuette, our Speaker pro tempore, who conducts herself with respect for the same values of dignity, justice and fairness.

I also wish to congratulate senators of all groups and caucuses who distinguished themselves during this parliamentary session by receiving honours and accolades from institutions, organizations, civil society groups and even, in some cases, institutions outside Canada. Congratulations to each and every one of you. Your expertise and dedication make you a credit to the Senate.

Like the Speaker, the Speaker pro tempore and all senators, you discreetly challenge us to ensure that our personal conduct does not tarnish the institution or the work we do every day.

I am so appreciative of my colleagues, the leaders of all of the other groups, and the Government Representative, Senator Gold, and his team. Thank you, Marc.

I also thank the illustrious Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Plett. Thank you, Don. I want to thank and congratulate all of them. What Senator Plett said is true. Quite often, with good will and honesty, we’ve been able to find solutions. It’s teamwork, I think, and as they say, opposites attract. It’s interesting to see it from this perspective.

I also want to thank the other woman among the group of Senate leaders, Jane Cordy, who is always open and willing to work together. Jane, I truly appreciate you. I also want to thank Scott Tannas. I’ve found the way for him. I’m not sure if he’s gotten lost, but I’ve found my way. I also enjoyed our conversations and the fact that we often have different opinions but we always want to be effective and work in the best interests of the Senate.

[English]

At the end of the day — literally — I’m proud to say that all of us have operated in a way that has allowed the Senate to fulfill its duties in a responsible manner. Despite having to adapt to the challenges of many of us working remotely, hybrid sittings and hybrid committee meetings — which included but were not limited to forgetting to press the “mute” button and being reminded too often to switch channels before speaking — I still believe we delivered a solid performance.

For that, we must also thank the employees of the Senate Administration that have supported us in these challenging times. I will not repeat because my colleagues did it before me, and I’m conscious that we are at the end of the day, but I wish to convey a truly heartfelt thanks to everyone who makes our work in committees and in Parliament possible.

Even if Don highlighted this, a special word in this special time for the Parliamentary Protective Service. With the current cynicism of our political discourse, you have risen up to the task of tackling threats to our parliamentarians and our democratic institutions. Your service is essential not only to us but also to Canadian democracy.

While I believe that we have been up to the task in this period of uncertainty, we always need to strive for the best, as Canadians expect us to do. We must prioritize and always keep in mind the added value we can bring to the work of the other place.

As such, many challenges still lie ahead. I will keep some suspense for the fall. This page is with regard to the many challenges, so in September, I will be back with those.

In the meantime, I wish that we leave today in a positive spirit, with hopes of a return to more normality when we come back in September but also with a duty to remember the Canadians who suffered and are suffering from this pandemic and the colleagues we lost along the way.

Colleagues, myself and all the members of the Independent Senators Group — especially my colleagues in the facilitation team, Senators Dean and Petitclerc and Senator Duncan in the bright Whitehorse, Yukon, today — wish you all a restful summer with your families and friends. Come back in good shape. Challenges await us. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question.

First, I want to reframe your assertion that a majority of legal advisers and groups would be very concerned about the inability of the Crown prosecutor to act in a way that would be efficient, and that there is too much burden on their shoulders. I disagree with that, and I could certainly turn to, including in this chamber, legal people who will see or tell you the opposite.

But my main concern is that if we are not responsible in acting now in order to fix this gap in the law, the perpetrators will not be convicted. That is a very serious issue with a very serious impact. So my view is that the best way to protect the victims in the short term is to act now and to vote for this bill.

Furthermore, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s mandate is not only with regard to this bill; it is with regard to the broader question of the criminal justice system — intoxication, the extreme intoxication and what could be done. What could be done is not only in the judicial field, the courts and the law; it’s the whole system of consistent and complementary measures that would provide for the victims to be better protected and for there to be more prevention. Unfortunately, further to their victimization, there would need to be more healing and services — notably, social, psychological and medical services — available and timely to help them heal.

That is my view.

Once again, for now, what we have to discuss is this bill. Will it fix an issue that is timely? My answer is yes.