Download as PDF
Text size:

68 Elizabeth II , A.D. 2019, Canada

1st Session, 42nd Parliament

Issue 307 (Unrevised)

Thursday, June 20, 2019
1:30 p.m.

The Honourable GEORGE J. FUREY, Speaker


The Members convened were:

The Honourable Senators

AndersonAndreychukAtaullahjanBattersBellemareBernardBlack (Alberta)Black (Ontario)BoehmBoisvenuBonifaceBoveyBoyerBussonCampbellCarignanChristmasCordyCormierCoyleDagenaisDalphondDaskoDawsonDayDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDowneDoyleDuncanDupuisDyckEatonForestForest-NiesingFrancisFrumFureyGagnéGalvezGoldGreeneGriffinHarderHartlingHousakosJoyalKlyneKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLovelace NicholasMacDonaldManningMarshallMartinMarwahMassicotteMcCallumMcCoyMcInnisMcIntyreMcPhedranMégieMercerMitchellMiville-DechêneMocklerMoncionMoodieMunsonNeufeldNgoOhOmidvarPatePattersonPetitclercPlettPoirierPratteRavaliaRichardsRinguetteSaint-GermainSeidmanSimonsSinclairSmithStewart OlsenTannasTkachukVernerWallinWellsWhiteWoo

The Members in attendance to business were:

The Honourable Senators

AndersonAndreychukAtaullahjanBattersBellemareBernardBlack (Alberta)Black (Ontario)BoehmBoisvenuBonifaceBoveyBoyerBussonCampbellCarignanChristmasCordyCormierCoyleDagenaisDalphondDaskoDawsonDayDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDowneDoyleDuncanDupuisDyckEatonForestForest-NiesingFrancisFrumFureyGagnéGalvezGoldGreeneGriffinHarderHartlingHousakosJoyalKlyneKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLovelace NicholasMacDonaldManningMarshallMartinMarwahMassicotteMcCallumMcCoyMcInnisMcIntyreMcPhedranMégieMercerMitchellMiville-DechêneMocklerMoncionMoodieMunsonNeufeldNgoOhOmidvarPatePattersonPetitclercPlettPoirierPratteRavaliaRichardsRinguetteSaint-GermainSeidmanSimonsSinclairSmithStewart OlsenTannasTkachukVernerWallinWellsWhiteWoo

The first list records senators present in the Senate Chamber during the course of the sitting.

An asterisk in the second list indicates a senator who, while not present during the sitting, was in attendance to business, as defined in subsections 8(2) and (3) of the Senators Attendance Policy.

PRAYERS

The Senate observed a minute of silence in memory of Mr. Mark Warawa, M.P., whose death occured earlier today.

Senators’ Statements

Some Honourable Senators made statements.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Tabling of Documents

The Honourable Senator Furey tabled the following:

Report of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled Election Proposal Costing Baseline, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, sbs. 79.2(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3151.

The 2018-19 Report on the Activities of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 79.22.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3152.

o o o

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Furey tabled the following:

Report of the Parliamentary Delegation of the Senate, led by the Speaker of the Senate, that travelled to the Republic of Korea from November 11 to 14, 2018.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3153.

Report of the Parliamentary Delegation of the Senate, led by the Speaker of the Senate, that travelled to the Arab Republic of Egypt and Republic of Turkey from May 19 to 24, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3154.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., tabled the following:

Government Response to the seventeenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights entitled An Ocean of Misery: The Rohingya Refugee Crisis. —Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3155.

(Pursuant to rule 12-24(4), the report and the response were deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.)

o o o

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., tabled the following:

Progress report on priorities identified in the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples entitled The subject matter of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3156.

Canada Account Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 150(1).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3157.

Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees

The Honourable Senator Mockler, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, tabled the forty-third report (interim) of the committee, entitled First Interim Report on Defence Procurement - Summary of Evidence.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3158S.

The Honourable Senator Mockler moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Griffin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the eighteenth report of the committee (Budget—study on how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets—power to hire staff and to travel).

(The report is printed as an appendix at pages 5135-5142 (available in print format PDF).)

(The HTML version of the report is available on the committee website.)

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Griffin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, that the report be adopted.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Housakos, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, tabled the eleventh report (interim) of the committee, entitled Parliamentary Privilege: Then and Now.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3159S.

The Honourable Senator Housakos moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Mercer, Chair of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, informed the Senate that, pursuant to the orders adopted by the Senate on January 30, 2018, and June 11, 2019, the committee deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 20, 2019, its first report entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3150S.

The Honourable Senator Mercer moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration two days hence.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Andreychuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, tabled the twenty-seventh report (interim) of the committee, entitled Safety and Security for Global Affairs Canada Employees and Canadians Abroad.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3160S.

The Honourable Senator Andreychuk moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills

A message was brought from the House of Commons with Bill C-98, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.

The bill was read the first time.

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Black (Alberta), that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading two days hence.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

A message was brought from the House of Commons with Bill C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, to which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.

The bill was read the first time.

Ordered, That the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading later this day.

Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations

The Honourable Senator Downe tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) respecting its participation at the 18th Winter Meeting of the OSCE PA, held in Vienna, Austria, on February 21 and 22, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3161.

o o o

The Honourable Senator MacDonald tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) respecting its participation at the Presidential Election Observation Mission of the OSCE PA, held in Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 31, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3162.

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) respecting its participation at the Second round of the Presidential Election Observation Mission of the OSCE PA, held in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 21, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3163.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Mercer tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Working Group on Programmes (EXCO), held in London, United Kingdom, January 24 and 25, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3164.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Dawson tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Delegation of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the Bureau Meeting and the 44th Ordinary Session of the APF, held in Quebec City, Quebec, from July 5 to 10, 2018.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3165.

o o o

The Honourable Senator Galvez tabled the following:

Report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting its bilateral visit to Brazil, held in Brasilia and São Paulo, Brazil, from April 23 to 26, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3166.

Notices of Motions

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Griffin moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, November 29, 2018, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets be extended from June 28, 2019, to July 31, 2019.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Question Period

The Senate proceeded to Question Period.

Delayed Answers

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., tabled the following:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 20, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Seidman, concerning the advertising of vaping products.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3167S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 20, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, concerning New Brunswick—infrastructure projects.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3168S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 21, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Bovey, concerning copyright policy.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3169S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 4, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Smith, concerning the judicial selection process.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3170S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 9, 2019 by the Honourable Senator McIntyre, concerning the use of drones in the delivery of illicit drugs or contraband material to prisons (Correctional Service of Canada).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3171S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 9, 2019 by the Honourable Senator McIntyre, concerning the use of drones in the delivery of illicit drugs or contraband material to prisons (Transport Canada).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3172S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 11, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Poirier, concerning the official languages in education program.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3173S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 1, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning assistance for victims of flooding.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3174S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 2, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Mockler, concerning support for regional newspapers.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3175S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 8, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Poirier, concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—francophone cadets.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3176S.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 28, 2019 by the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario), concerning amateur athlete trusts.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3177S.

Orders of the Day

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

A message was brought from the House of Commons in the following words:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(b), 13 and 14 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“3.Clause 239, pages 90 and 91:

(a)on page 90, replace lines 2 and 3 with the following:

“dictable offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence listed in section 469, the justice”;

(b)on page 90, replace lines 18 and 19 with the following:

“able by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an”;

(c)on page 90, replace line 44 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d)on page 91, replace lines 20 and 21 with the following:

“offence listed in section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice shall endorse on the informa-”;”;

proposes that amendment 4 be amended to read as follows:

“4.Clause 240, pages 92 and 93

(a)on page 92, replace line 11 with the following:

“14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence mentioned”;

(b)on page 92, replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

“offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an offence mentioned in section”;

(c)on page 92, replace line 41 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d)on page 93, replace line 20 with the following:

“is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice or”;”;

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendments 3 and 4, the following amendment be added:

“1.Clause 238, page 89: replace line 33 with the following:

“fence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment is be-”;”;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended by replacing the words “an intimate partner — and, in particular, a partner” with the words “a person” and by replacing the words “on the basis of sex or is an Aboriginal person” with the words “because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 made by the Senate because the Bill already provides flexibility to the provinces and territories with respect to agent representation while also recognizing regional diversity in respect of how legal representation is regulated across Canada, and because the amendment could have unintended repercussions for the provinces and territories; and, the Government continues to work with the provinces and territories to support the effective implementation of these reforms;

proposes that amendment 12(a) in the English version be amended by replacing the words “apply in Bill C-45” with the words “apply if Bill C-45”.

 ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, that the message be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

A message was brought from the House of Commons in the following words:

Thursday, June 20, 2019

ORDERED,— That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 4(a) and 5(b) made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(c.1) the Service considers alternatives to custody in a penitentiary, including the alternatives referred to in sections 29 and 81;

(c.2) the Service ensures the effective delivery of programs to offenders, including correctional, educational, vocational training and volunteer programs, with a view to improving access to alternatives to custody in a penitentiary and to promoting rehabilitation;”;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(2.01) In order to ensure that the plan can be developed in a manner that takes any mental health needs of the offender into consideration, the institutional head shall, as soon as practicable after the day on which the offender is received but not later than the 30th day after that day, refer the offender’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the offender.”;

proposes that amendment 4(b)(i) be replaced by the following amendment:

“1.Clause 10, page 7: replace lines 25 to 28 with the following:

“(2) The Service shall ensure that the measures include

(a) a referral of the inmate’s case, within 24 hours after the inmate’s transfer into the structured intervention unit, to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the inmate; and

(b) a visit to the inmate at least once every day by a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service.”; ”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 4(b)(ii) because it may not support the professional autonomy and clinical independence of healthcare professionals and does not take into account the inmate’s willingness to be transferred to a hospital or the hospital’s capacity to treat the inmate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because it would result in a significant addition to the workload of provincial superior courts, and because further assessments and consultations with the provinces would be required to determine the probable legislative, operational and financial implications at federal and provincial levels, including amendments to the Judges Act and provincial legislation and the appointment of additional judges;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:

“6.Clause 14, page 16:

(a)replace line 7 with the following:

“48 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a staff member of the same sex as the inmate may”;

(b)add the following after line 15:

“(2) A body scan search of the inmate shall be conducted instead of the strip search if

(a) the body scan search is authorized under section 48.1; and

(b) a prescribed body scanner in proper working order is in the area where the strip search would be conducted.”;”;

proposes that amendment 7(a) be amended by replacing the text of the French version of the amendment with the following:

“c) l’identité et la culture autochtones du délinquant, notamment son passé familial et son historique d’adoption.”;

proposes that amendment 7(b) be amended to read as follows:

“(b)replace lines 32 and 33 with the following:

“ing the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous offender unless those factors could decrease the level of risk.”;”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because extending the concept of healing lodges designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, and because it would impede the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada, which is responsible for the care and custody of inmates pursuant to section 5 of the Act, to be part of decisions to transfer inmates to healing lodges;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because extending the concept of community release designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 because allowing offenders’ sentences to be shortened due to the conduct of correctional staff, particularly given the existence of other remedies, is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, including with provincial partners, victims’ representatives, stakeholder groups and other actors in the criminal justice system;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because five years is an appropriate amount of time to allow for robust and meaningful assessment of the new provisions following full implementation.

 ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, that the message be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

A message was brought from the House of Commons in the following words:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, the House:

agrees with amendments 4(a), 7(a), 9, 11(a), 12, 13 and 14 made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because Bill C-91 provides for regulations and agreements or arrangements that take into account unique circumstances and needs;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because Bill C-91 would already apply to organizations such as friendship centres and other community-based organizations; moreover, highlighting specific types of organizations might signal that those types of organizations would be favoured over others, which is not the intention of the defined term;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the Office and the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages are neither agents of the Crown nor federal institutions and would therefore not be subject to commitments of the Government of Canada;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 4(b)(i) and 6 because the obligations they provide for are inconsistent with the constitutional principles that govern the allocation of public funds;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5 because the proposed text would be contrary to what was heard during the Government’s engagement with Indigenous languages practitioners, experts, academics, Elders, youth, and community members, who all expressed great reluctance to attempt to define specific rights in a manner that could be perceived as limiting their scope;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 4(b)(ii), 7(b) and 8 because they would be contrary to the intent of Bill C-91 in this regard, which is to facilitate cooperation with Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous entities and provincial and territorial governments while respecting all powers and jurisdictions of partners to best achieve the objectives of the proposed Act;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 as amendment 9 already addresses the matter;

proposes that amendment 11(b) be amended, in the French version, by replacing the words “l’exercice de son mandat” with the words “l’accomplissement de sa mission”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 15 because mechanisms already exist under the proposed Act to review the Act and its administration and operation, which includes identifying any measures to report on all Indigenous languages equally.

 ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, that the message be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

A message was brought from the House of Commons in the following words:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(a), 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:

“6. New Clause 15.1, page 9: Add the following after line 15:

“15.1 In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, unless immediate apprehension is consistent with the best interests of the child, before apprehending a child who resides with one of the child’s parents or another adult member of the child’s family, the service provider must demonstrate that he or she made reasonable efforts to have the child continue to reside with that person.”; ”;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(b), 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 because they are not consistent with the main objectives of the Bill, which are to affirm the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and to set out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children.

 ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, that the message be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Government Business

Bills – Third Reading

Third reading of Bill C-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., that the bill be read for a third time.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

The bill was then read the third time and passed.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.

Bills – Second Reading

Second reading of Bill C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

The Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., that the bill be read the second time.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

The bill was then read the second time.

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., that the bill be read for a third time.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.

The bill was then read the third time and passed.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.

Bills – Messages from the House of Commons

Consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, the House:

agrees with amendments 4(a), 7(a), 9, 11(a), 12, 13 and 14 made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because Bill C-91 provides for regulations and agreements or arrangements that take into account unique circumstances and needs;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because Bill C-91 would already apply to organizations such as friendship centres and other community-based organizations; moreover, highlighting specific types of organizations might signal that those types of organizations would be favoured over others, which is not the intention of the defined term;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because the Office and the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages are neither agents of the Crown nor federal institutions and would therefore not be subject to commitments of the Government of Canada;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 4(b)(i) and 6 because the obligations they provide for are inconsistent with the constitutional principles that govern the allocation of public funds;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5 because the proposed text would be contrary to what was heard during the Government’s engagement with Indigenous languages practitioners, experts, academics, Elders, youth, and community members, who all expressed great reluctance to attempt to define specific rights in a manner that could be perceived as limiting their scope;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 4(b)(ii), 7(b) and 8 because they would be contrary to the intent of Bill C-91 in this regard, which is to facilitate cooperation with Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous entities and provincial and territorial governments while respecting all powers and jurisdictions of partners to best achieve the objectives of the proposed Act;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 as amendment 9 already addresses the matter;

proposes that amendment 11(b) be amended, in the French version, by replacing the words “l’exercice de son mandat” with the words “l’accomplissement de sa mission”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 15 because mechanisms already exist under the proposed Act to review the Act and its administration and operation, which includes identifying any measures to report on all Indigenous languages equally.

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare:

That, in relation to Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to its amendment 11(b); and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

o o o

Consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(a), 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:

“6. New Clause 15.1, page 9: Add the following after line 15:

“15.1 In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, unless immediate apprehension is consistent with the best interests of the child, before apprehending a child who resides with one of the child’s parents or another adult member of the child’s family, the service provider must demonstrate that he or she made reasonable efforts to have the child continue to reside with that person.”; ”;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(b), 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 because they are not consistent with the main objectives of the Bill, which are to affirm the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and to set out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children.

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck:

That, in relation to Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to its amendment 6; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.

o o o

Consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

ORDERED,— That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(b), 13 and 14 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“3.Clause 239, pages 90 and 91:

(a)on page 90, replace lines 2 and 3 with the following:

“dictable offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence listed in section 469, the justice”;

(b)on page 90, replace lines 18 and 19 with the following:

“able by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an”;

(c)on page 90, replace line 44 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d)on page 91, replace lines 20 and 21 with the following:

“offence listed in section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice shall endorse on the informa-”;”;

proposes that amendment 4 be amended to read as follows:

“4.Clause 240, pages 92 and 93

(a)on page 92, replace line 11 with the following:

“14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence mentioned”;

(b)on page 92, replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

“offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an offence mentioned in section”;

(c)on page 92, replace line 41 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d)on page 93, replace line 20 with the following:

“is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice or”;”;

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendments 3 and 4, the following amendment be added:

“1.Clause 238, page 89: replace line 33 with the following:

“fence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment is be-”;”;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended by replacing the words “an intimate partner — and, in particular, a partner” with the words “a person” and by replacing the words “on the basis of sex or is an Aboriginal person” with the words “because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 made by the Senate because the Bill already provides flexibility to the provinces and territories with respect to agent representation while also recognizing regional diversity in respect of how legal representation is regulated across Canada, and because the amendment could have unintended repercussions for the provinces and territories; and, the Government continues to work with the provinces and territories to support the effective implementation of these reforms;

proposes that amendment 12(a) in the English version be amended by replacing the words “apply in Bill C-45” with the words “apply if Bill C-45”.

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C.:

That, in relation to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments;

(b)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons in consequence of Senate amendments 3 and 4; and

(c)do not insist on its amendment 10, to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.

o o o

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare:

That, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons to its amendment 2; and

(b)agree to the amendment made by the House of Commons in consequence of Senate amendment 1; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

AndersonBellemareBernardBoehmBonifaceBoveyBoyerChristmasCordyCormierCoyleDalphondDaskoDawsonDayDeanDuncanDupuisDyckForestForest-NiesingFrancisFureyGagnéGalvezGoldHarderHartlingJoyalKutcherLankinLovelace NicholasMarwahMcCallumMcPhedranMégieMitchellMiville-DechêneMoncionMoodieOmidvarPatePetitclercPratteRavaliaRinguetteSaint-GermainSinclairWoo—49

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

AndreychukAtaullahjanBattersBlack (Alberta)Black (Ontario)BoisvenuBussonCampbellCarignanDagenaisDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DowneDoyleEatonFrumGreeneGriffinHousakosLaBoucane-BensonMacDonaldManningMarshallMartinMassicotteMcCoyMcInnisMcIntyreMocklerNeufeldNgoOhPattersonPlettPoirierRichardsSeidmanSimonsSmithStewart OlsenTannasTkachukVernerWallinWellsWhite—46

ABSTENTION

The Honourable Senator

Klyne—1

o o o

Consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act:

Thursday, June 20, 2019

ORDERED,— That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 4(a) and 5(b) made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(c.1) the Service considers alternatives to custody in a penitentiary, including the alternatives referred to in sections 29 and 81;

(c.2) the Service ensures the effective delivery of programs to offenders, including correctional, educational, vocational training and volunteer programs, with a view to improving access to alternatives to custody in a penitentiary and to promoting rehabilitation;”;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(2.01) In order to ensure that the plan can be developed in a manner that takes any mental health needs of the offender into consideration, the institutional head shall, as soon as practicable after the day on which the offender is received but not later than the 30th day after that day, refer the offender’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the offender.”;

proposes that amendment 4(b)(i) be replaced by the following amendment:

“1.Clause 10, page 7: replace lines 25 to 28 with the following:

“(2) The Service shall ensure that the measures include

(a) a referral of the inmate’s case, within 24 hours after the inmate’s transfer into the structured intervention unit, to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the inmate; and

(b) a visit to the inmate at least once every day by a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service.”; ”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 4(b)(ii) because it may not support the professional autonomy and clinical independence of healthcare professionals and does not take into account the inmate’s willingness to be transferred to a hospital or the hospital’s capacity to treat the inmate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because it would result in a significant addition to the workload of provincial superior courts, and because further assessments and consultations with the provinces would be required to determine the probable legislative, operational and financial implications at federal and provincial levels, including amendments to the Judges Act and provincial legislation and the appointment of additional judges;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:

“6.Clause 14, page 16:

(a)replace line 7 with the following:

“48 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a staff member of the same sex as the inmate may”;

(b)add the following after line 15:

“(2) A body scan search of the inmate shall be conducted instead of the strip search if

(a) the body scan search is authorized under section 48.1; and

(b) a prescribed body scanner in proper working order is in the area where the strip search would be conducted.”;”;

proposes that amendment 7(a) be amended by replacing the text of the French version of the amendment with the following:

“c) l’identité et la culture autochtones du délinquant, notamment son passé familial et son historique d’adoption.”;

proposes that amendment 7(b) be amended to read as follows:

“(b)replace lines 32 and 33 with the following:

“ing the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous offender unless those factors could decrease the level of risk.”;”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because extending the concept of healing lodges designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, and because it would impede the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada, which is responsible for the care and custody of inmates pursuant to section 5 of the Act, to be part of decisions to transfer inmates to healing lodges;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because extending the concept of community release designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 because allowing offenders’ sentences to be shortened due to the conduct of correctional staff, particularly given the existence of other remedies, is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, including with provincial partners, victims’ representatives, stakeholder groups and other actors in the criminal justice system;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because five years is an appropriate amount of time to allow for robust and meaningful assessment of the new provisions following full implementation.

The Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare:

That, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

AtaullahjanBellemareBlack (Alberta)BoehmBonifaceBoveyBussonCordyDalphondDaskoDawsonDayDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DuncanDupuisDyckEatonForestFrancisFrumFureyGagnéGoldHarderHartlingHousakosKlyneKutcherLankinLovelace NicholasMacDonaldMarshallMartinMarwahMégieMitchellMocklerMoncionMunsonNeufeldOhOmidvarPattersonPlettPoirierRavaliaRinguetteSaint-GermainSmithStewart OlsenTannasTkachukVernerWellsWoo—56

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

AndersonBernardBlack (Ontario)BoyerCampbellCarignanChristmasCormierCoyleDeanForest-NiesingGreeneGriffinJoyalMassicotteMcCallumMcCoyMcPhedranMiville-DechêneMoodieNgoPatePetitclercPratteSinclairWallin—26

ABSTENTIONS

The Honourable Senators

BoisvenuGalvezLaBoucane-BensonRichardsSeidmanSimons—6

SPEAKER'S RULING

Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by Senator Marshall on June 17, 2019. The matter was the object of further consideration on June 19, 2019.

The question of privilege concerned the alleged release of certain emails from Senator Marshall’s Senate account following a request for information by the Senate Ethics Officer. If access was provided, this occurred without Senator Marshall’s consent, and without her being formally advised. Senator Marshall indicated that she had been cooperating with the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer as part of an inquiry, but learned through informal communications that her emails had been accessed. She found this fact deeply concerning, and emphasized that senators must be aware of this risk.

When the Senate considered this point on June 19, both Senators Housakos and Downe were disturbed by the fact that a senator’s emails can be accessed without any type of warning or chance to cooperate. At the very least, they indicated, colleagues must be aware of this fact when considering how they use this tool. Senator Marwah also urged senators to reflect on this event, and, if appropriate, to work to amend the governance instruments that may have led to this situation.

Senator Andreychuk, the chair of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, also intervened on June 19. She provided an explanation of the operation of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and its interaction with the Senate Administrative Rules in this case. The Senate Ethics Officer is under an obligation to conduct an inquiry promptly and in confidence. This helps to protect all those involved. Senators and all other persons involved in an inquiry are obliged to cooperate with the Senate Ethics Officer, and are also bound to respect confidentiality. Senator McPhedran then noted the importance of such confidentiality provisions to ensure a fair and unimpeded investigation.

Honourable senators will know that the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators gives the Senate Ethics Officer broad powers to seek information needed to conduct confidential inquiries. In accordance with the provisions of the Code, the Senate Ethics Officer only receives access to emails in the context of an inquiry. Confidentiality is necessary to maintain the integrity of the process and to protect those involved in the inquiry.

This case suggests that all senators may not be sufficiently aware of the ethics regime created by the Senate. The broad nature of the Senate Ethics Officer’s powers to access information without warning is an issue upon which senators may want to reflect. We have an obligation to better understand the regime that we have established and how it operates. The Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators will no doubt take this matter into consideration when recommending future changes to the Code. This regime is, however, the framework within which we currently operate.

Under rule 2-1(2) the Speaker’s authority in relation to the Code is limited to matters incorporated into the Rules. So, while I must be cautious, I do feel that I can emphasize that the obligations of both cooperation and confidentiality flow from decisions made by the Senate itself. They are, therefore, the result of the Senate exercising its control over internal affairs.

As noted in the ruling of March 22, 2018, the rights of individual senators are “subject to the Rules, procedures and practices [of the Senate], which are expressions of the Senate’s own parliamentary privileges, both to manage its internal affairs and to control its proceedings”. I should also remind colleagues that parliamentary privilege does not protect all electronic communications by a senator. Each communication must be assessed to determine if it is directly linked to a parliamentary proceeding. In this case, it is not currently possible to determine whether access was actually given to emails that might be subject to privilege.

Rule 13-2(1) sets out four criteria that a question of privilege must meet. The fourth criterion is that a matter “be raised to seek a genuine remedy that the Senate has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available”. When a request for access to emails is received from the Senate Ethics Officer, it is, under the Senate Administrative Rules, referred to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which will then deal with releasing the information. It therefore seems that there is another reasonable parliamentary avenue through which concerns about these events can be raised and additional details sought, that is by raising the issue with the Internal Economy Committee and its steering committee. I do, of course, note the obligation of all senators, including those on the Internal Economy Committee, to respect the blanket confidentiality of inquiries under the Code.

As such, the requirements for a case of privilege have not, at this time, been met, and a case of privilege cannot be established. Let me be clear, given the unusual combination of circumstances in this situation, if it does later become clear that privileged information was improperly released, Senator Marshall would not be prevented from raising the issue as a new question of privilege.

Before concluding, there are a number of related issues that I must address. In raising her concerns, Senator Marshall has brought to light how the interaction of various core governance and ethics instruments may lead to access to information that colleagues might normally expect to be private. We should reflect on whether this is desirable, and what, if any, adjustments to our governance and ethics regime may be appropriate.

This said, however, I must note that I am deeply troubled about how these events came to Senator Marshall’s attention. She told the Senate that she learned of them “through the grapevine”. The Code imposes a strict obligation of blanket confidentiality, which was obviously not respected. I must also note again for senators that any matters considered in camera must respect the obligations of confidentiality that flow from this process. Senators, their staff and employees of the administration must take these obligations seriously. They reflect decisions of the Senate and should always guide us in our actions.

Finally, without evidence to the contrary, we should never call into question the integrity and diligence of those who assist us with our work. This restraint is particularly important in the case of the Senate Ethics Officer. It is unhelpful to criticize him for fulfilling his duties under the Code, which we as senators have adopted to govern his work. If, as a Senate, we have concerns with the operation of the Code, which we ourselves have established, then these issues should be openly debated and resolved here, in the Senate Chamber.

Government Business

Bills – Messages from the House of Commons

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Senate amendments, including amendments made in consequence of Senate amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons has disagreed; and

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

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted on the following vote:

YEAS

The Honourable Senators

AndersonBellemareBernardBoehmBonifaceBoveyBoyerBussonCampbellCordyCormierCoyleDalphondDaskoDawsonDayDeacon (Nova Scotia)Deacon (Ontario)DeanDuncanDupuisDyckForestForest-NiesingFrancisFureyGagnéGalvezGoldGriffinHarderHartlingJoyalKlyneKutcherLaBoucane-BensonLankinLovelace NicholasMarwahMassicotteMcCallumMcPhedranMégieMitchellMiville-DechêneMoncionMoodieMunsonOmidvarPatePetitclercPratteRinguetteSaint-GermainSimonsSinclairWoo—57

NAYS

The Honourable Senators

AndreychukAtaullahjanBattersBlack (Alberta)Black (Ontario)BoisvenuCarignanDagenaisDoyleEatonFrumGreeneHousakosMacDonaldManningMarshallMartinMcCoyMcInnisMcIntyreMocklerNeufeldNgoOhPattersonPlettPoirierRavaliaRichardsSeidmanSmithStewart OlsenTannasTkachukVernerWallinWhite—37

ABSTENTION

The Honourable Senator

Downe—1

Bills – Third Reading

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boehm, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the third reading of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

Debate.

o o o

With leave of the Senate,

The Honourable Senator Eaton tabled the following:

Speech on Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, at third reading.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3178S.

o o o

The Senate resumed debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boehm, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the third reading of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted, on division.

The bill was then read the third time and passed.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, without amendment.


Ordered, That Order No. 282 under GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, Motions, be brought forward.

The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 17, 2019, at 2 p.m.

In amendment, the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:

1.inserting the following immediately after the word “That,”:

“when the Senate sits on Friday, June 21, 2019, it sit at 1:30 p.m., and solely for the purposes of Royal Assent; and

That,”; and

2.replacing the words “next adjourns after the adoption of this motion” by the words “adjourns on Friday, June 21, 2019”.

The question being put on the motion in amendment, it was adopted.

The Senate resumed debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That, when the Senate sits on Friday, June 21, 2019, it sit at 1:30 p.m., and solely for the purposes of Royal Assent; and

That, when the Senate adjourns on Friday, June 21, 2019, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 17, 2019, at 2 p.m.

The question being put on the motion, as amended, it was adopted.


The Honourable Senator Bellemare moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

(Accordingly, at 11:03 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.)

DOCUMENTS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE PURSUANT TO RULE 14-1(7)

Reports of the Office of Infrastructure of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, pursuant to the Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 and P-21, sbs. 72(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3148.

2019-22 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, pursuant to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, S.C. 2008, c. 33, sbs. 7(2).—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3149.

First report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 20, 2019, pursuant to the orders adopted by the Senate on January 30, 2018 and June 11, 2019.—Sessional Paper No. 1/42-3150S.

Changes in Membership of Committees Pursuant to Rule 12-5

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

The Honourable Senator McIntyre replaced the Honourable Senator McInnis (June 20, 2019).

The Honourable Senator McInnis replaced the Honourable Senator McIntyre (June 20, 2019).

The Honourable Senator Dasko replaced the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C. (June 20, 2019).

The Honourable Senator Gold replaced the Honourable Senator Pate (June 20, 2019).