Hon. Percy E. Downe moved second reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the sponsor of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Canadians have been waiting for this important piece of legislation to fight against money laundering and overseas tax evasion. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor this bill.

If passed by Parliament, this bill will create a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry. I welcome this legislation and I am not alone in this.

James Cohen of Transparency International Canada stated:

There was a lot of aggressive language on anti-money laundering in Budget 2023. We’re thankfully seeing the tough talk backed up with increasingly bold proposals that now need to be implemented and financed. Canada’s finally getting on the right track it seems.

A spokesperson for Canadians for Tax Fairness regarded this bill as an important first step and stated:

Tax dodging and money laundering cost the public billions every year. A publicly accessible registry will significantly improve tax compliance and enforcement for all levels of government.

The government has proposed this legislation because a lack of corporate ownership transparency is impairing Canada’s ability to combat serious financial crimes like fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. It also limits our nation’s capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions through effective tracing and freezing of financial assets. Finally, it is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace and eroding confidence that our tax system treats everyone equally.

Canada’s inability to quickly and quietly identify a company’s beneficial owner, that is the natural person who controls the corporation or company, delays justice and enforcement of laws in our country.

Honourable senators may be interested to know that according to FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, roughly 70% of all money laundering cases in Canada involve the misuse of corporate legal entities, both to channel foreign proceeds of crime into or through Canada as well as to launder domestically generated proceeds. This is consistent with one of the findings of the final report of the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, drug cartels and foreign criminals have long used corporate vehicles to hide the ownership and control. A public beneficial ownership registry would complement the existing tools of law enforcement. Such registries and the transparency they foster further serve as a deterrent to criminals, foreign and domestic.

In my work in overseas tax evasion, I was always impressed by the Australian experience, which I mentioned in this chamber before. After starting Project Wickenby, a broad-based government effort to fight overseas tax evasion and recover money owed to the Australian people, the authorities discovered that international money transfers to known tax havens declined dramatically once people were charged and sent to jail. Charging, convicting and jailing Australian tax evaders and money launderers curbed their desire to conduct such activities.

To that end, this legislation will have penalties for wilful non‑compliance that are some of the most severe in the world: up to $100,000 fines for corporations, up to $1 million of personal fines for directors and officers and up to five years in prison for those who knowingly provide or allow or permit false or misleading information to be filed.

Colleagues, the need for this type of registry has been well established by now, notably by public consultation held by the Government of Canada and the Financial Action Task Force, the G20 body that sets international standards in these matters.

Incidentally, this was the same task force that in a 2016 report raised significant concerns about the state of beneficial ownership transparency in Canada.

In recent years, Transparency International — the global organization, not the Canadian chapter — has given Canada progressively lower scores in its yearly international Corruption Perceptions Index due in no small part to delays in implementing beneficial ownership transparency. Naturally, the same organization is greatly encouraged by the measures proposed in the bill before us, such recognition being a testimony to the leadership of Minister Champagne on this file. This long-delayed and much-needed action in Canada has finally arrived with this legislation.

Beneficial ownership registries are nothing new, and have existed in the United Kingdom and in a growing number of countries since 2016. They have proven a useful tool in helping law enforcement, journalists and civil society detect and deter the misuse of corporations for illicit financial activity. A beneficial ownership registry will also serve tax authorities here and abroad. They will be able to use the information to track and fight tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The Panama Papers as well as other mass leaks have shown that criminals look for places with weak beneficial ownership transparency and then try to hide their personal ownership and income. The longer the chain of entities between the income and the beneficial owners, the harder the truth is to determine.

We should not underestimate the significant burden that tax evasion and avoidance place on the Canadian economy. In 2019, for example, the U.S. State Department designated Canada as a major money-laundering country. Volume II of the U.S. State Department’s report from March 2022, entitled International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, says that they estimated that between CAD 50 billion and CAD 120 billion is laundered every year in Canada. That, colleagues, is roughly 5% of our GDP. Think about that: 5% of our GDP is consisting of money laundering. That was further documented when the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada’s 2020 report, using an estimate from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, concluded that money laundering represents between 2% and 5% of GDP in Canada, and they pegged the money laundering at between CAD 45 billion and CAD 113 billion.

Senators, we have a major problem that this bill will help to address. Making beneficial ownership information publicly available supports good governance and trust. All businesses can check who they are doing business with by reviewing the entities of potential suppliers and customers, thereby protecting themselves against crooks.

Honourable senators, at this time, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few additional features of the bill that, I believe, reflect the significant amount of thought that has gone into designing an effective regime. Obviously, our Senate committee will conduct its own study of this bill in greater detail, but here are a few of the highlights.

Bill C-42 is the product of significant consultation. In 2020 and again in 2022, officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Finance Canada conducted public consultations on options and met with key stakeholders, including law enforcement, businesses, transparency organizations, professional associations and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The text of Bill C-42 represents a careful balance of the views of all the stakeholders. It also reflects lessons learned from registries already in place in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. Here in Canada, the federal government is providing leadership under Minister Champagne and is working closely with the provinces and territories given that corporation registration is a joint responsibility.

This federal bill, if passed, will cover roughly 15% of corporations in Canada, and with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, we will have 100% coverage. Colleagues, the Province of Quebec led the way with its Bill 78, passed in June of 2021, making it the first province in Canada with legislation to institute a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. They were soon followed by British Columbia. I want to congratulate these governments on their leadership and urge other provinces to now join the fight.

Another feature of this bill I want to highlight relates to the protection of the privacy of Canadians. Upon entry into force, Bill C-42 will require corporations to collect more information from their beneficial owners, including name, citizenship, date of birth and address, and to send this, along with other information in their registry of individuals with significant control, to Corporations Canada. They would be required to do this annually and within 15 days of any changes recorded in their registry. This new information is necessary to enable law enforcement to effectively identify beneficial owners and to align with international partners.

At the same time, only a portion of the information collected by Corporations Canada will be made available to the public: the name; the address for service if it has been provided to the corporation or the residential address if an address for service has not been provided to the corporation; the date the individual gained or ceased to have significant control; and a description of the nature of that control.

The proposed legislation collects and discloses only that information that is both necessary and proportional to meet the objectives of the registry. The most sensitive personal information will only be made available to law enforcement and other authorized entities. This design is intentionally privacy-conscious, and a Charter Statement released by the Department of Justice Canada finds Bill C-42 to be fully compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honourable senators, Bill C-42 also provides for a two-track exemption regime to protect certain at-risk individuals and further ensure the bill is Charter compliant. The first track will be an automatic exemption from publication for individuals who are less than 18 years old. The second track will be an exemption under application if the director of Corporations Canada is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that their safety and security are at risk. It is important to note that in all these cases, law enforcement will still have access to the information and that Corporations Canada’s website will have to make its exemption decisions public. At the same time, the core set of information publicly disclosed will be of great benefit to shareholders, creditors and other business partners of the corporations, like reporting entities, foreign law enforcement and tax authorities as well as non-governmental organizations, journalists and members of the public.

Honourable colleagues, a second notable set of features of Bill C-42 is the measure put in place to deter non-compliance. The effectiveness of the registry will indeed be heavily dependent on the data it contains. Bill C-42 puts in place the building blocks of a comprehensive and progressive compliance program — including the administrative action and criminal sanctions that I outlined earlier — to deter bad behaviour and encourage compliance by all corporations.

On the administrative front, corporations that fail to provide their beneficial ownership information to Corporations Canada may notably be prevented from obtaining a certificate of compliance, a document that is often required to support a loan request or to enter into contract with a potential supplier or buyer. If a corporation remains in non-compliance, it could be dissolved, meaning the end of the legal existence of the corporation.

Honourable senators, I would also like to highlight another key feature that provides individuals, employees and journalists the opportunity to report suspected wrongdoings directly to the director of Corporations Canada. I am referring to the whistle-blower protection provision. For example, the director of Corporations Canada will not be authorized to disclose to the public information submitted to it by a whistle-blower, and the bill amends section 2 of the Access to Information Act to prevent the release of information submitted that could identify any individuals.

Altogether, these measures should serve to enhance the accuracy and integrity of the information in the registry and deter intentional misreporting, or false or misleading information.

Colleagues, I have talked a lot about efforts put in place to increase transparency and hold criminals to account, but this should not have us lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of Canadian businesses are law-abiding and vital contributors to the well-being of our country. Bill C-42 is very mindful of this consideration and works to ease the administrative cost of the new obligations. More specifically, Bill C-42 will enable online-only intake forms and align reporting timelines with pre-existing filing requirements for corporations, such as annual reports and reporting changes of directors. Additional steps will be taken, including a progressive onboarding of corporations based on their original creation date, as well as significant proactive education and outreach efforts.

Colleagues, I would now like to turn to the topic of the interoperability of the registry. This is a key concern for stakeholders and will be an important component of the success of a national approach to corporate transparency. Interoperability has many dimensions, but the general plan is for the federal registry to be aligned with domestic and international registries so that provinces are enticed to join a pan-Canadian registry.

Honourable senators, the government has publicly committed to adopting the Beneficial Ownership Data Standard, which is an internationally accepted open standard that provides a consistent way to use, collect, exchange and establish beneficial ownership information and control of companies. Canada’s use of this standard will ensure that our registry can communicate with and speak the same technical language as beneficial ownership registries around the world, as well as with our provincial and federal authorities.

Provincial and territorial finance ministers have agreed in principle to pursue legislative amendments to their respective corporate statutes to require corporations to hold up-to-date information on beneficial ownership. This bill is step two.

The efforts to harmonize federal, territorial and provincial beneficial ownership regimes are ongoing. On June 5 of this year, Minister Champagne and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland sent a joint letter to their respective provincial and territorial ministerial counterparts asking them to join their federal efforts to create a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry and were seeking specifically to understand each area’s particular needs and any supports required to facilitate their participation in a national system.

Honourable senators, the lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impairing Canada’s ability to combat serious financial crimes like fraud, money laundering and overseas tax evasion. It also limits our capacity to enforce domestic and international sanctions and to effectively trace and freeze financial assets. The lack of beneficial ownership transparency is impacting the trust of Canadians and foreign investors in our marketplace. Simply put, we must put an end to Canada’s reputation as a most attractive country to launder money. With our stable government and banking system, we have become an international hot spot for criminals — and foreign money that has been obtained by drug cartels, corrupt dictators and the Mob.

The registry proposed by Bill C-42 would be a significant step forward in those regards. It would be of great benefit to law enforcement, and in building and reinforcing trust in the Canadian marketplace.

Finally, colleagues, Canada is taking action. For those reasons, I hope you will join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, honourable senators.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moodie, there are seven seconds left. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Moodie: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, this item is at day 15, and I’m not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time. Thank you.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would the senator take a question?

[English]

Senator M. Deacon: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Denise Batters: Would Senator Deacon take a question?

Senator M. Deacon: Certainly.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): This motion is at day 15. I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Dasko, calling the attention of the Senate to the role of leaders’ debates in enhancing democracy by engaging and informing voters.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: We always hear that a leaders’ debate before an election is good for democracy.

I do not think that this has ever been proven, however. These last few years, we have often heard the opposite: that leaders’ debates are hard to watch and can discourage or even demoralize voters.

The impact of leaders’ debates on voters’ choices has been a subject of debate among political scientists and experts for a long time, essentially because the actual impact of these debates is very difficult to quantify.

André Blais, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Montreal, believes that leaders’ debates give voters a unique opportunity to compare each leader’s unfiltered position on a handful of topics. He also notes that they have a tendency to favour leaders of smaller parties by allowing voters to get to know them better.

According to Christian Bourque, vice-president of the Leger polling firm, and Allison Harell, political science professor at UQAM, leaders’ debates rarely change voters’ minds; rather, they reinforce their convictions.

Mr. Bourque also notes that half of those surveyed about the debates did not even watch them and relied on media coverage.

Professor Peter Loewen from the University of Toronto argues that the importance of these debates is overstated, even though, in his view, they often are the most informative event in the whole campaign.

However, more critical observers counter that debates primarily serve the interests of political parties and television broadcasters, while ignoring voters’ wishes.

The political parties insist on selecting topics, schedules and formats that work to their advantage and let them get their talking points across without any unpleasant surprises.

The media tries to spotlight their own journalists and put on a good show, sometimes by asking pointed questions or taking a confrontational approach.

The audience doesn’t always see itself reflected in the outcome, which usually resembles a frenzy of partisan squabbling focused on issues of limited interest outside a small media and political bubble.

In any case, neither elections nor debates seem capable of slowing the spread of public disillusionment. We are witnessing a disturbing loss of public trust in democratic institutions. In the 1980s, voter turnout was a little over 70%; 40 years on, it dropped 10 points to 62.6% in the last federal election. The downward trend is unmistakable.

In my 25 years in journalism, I have analyzed, covered and fact-checked candidates during electoral debates.

I have noticed that exchanges are increasingly formatted and that party leaders spend days preparing ready-made answers that avoid the pitfalls of spontaneity. They stick to the script that their strategists believe will go viral and win them votes.

In fact, televised debates aren’t so much about presenting and explaining policy proposals as they are about evaluating politicians’ performance under pressure. Rants, gaffes and attacks make headlines. It is definitely infotainment, where substance and reflection are an afterthought.

[English]

There were attempts to bring the debates closer to citizens by adding an audience and letting a few voters ask their questions directly. But the result is a bit artificial. Everything is scripted and timed, and we are far from actual participation, where voters would have a real role to play.

Whatever one thinks, leaders’ debates have been part of Canadian political tradition since 1968. However, a crisis arose in 2015 when, for the first time, the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, refused to participate in the English debate. This came as a shock in English Canada, but not so much in Quebec, where the Conservative leader agreed to participate in two debates in French.

This is where the idea of a commission was born. It was appointed by the Trudeau government with the explicit aim of preventing a repeat of the 2015 scenario, when English-speaking Canadians were deprived of a significant debate.

The part-time commissioner, appointed by the Prime Minister and supported by a small team, has only had two elections, in 2019 and 2021, to demonstrate the usefulness of the commission. So far, however, their results are not encouraging.

In the fall of 2021, members of the English media broadcasting group decided on the format: one moderator, four journalists and a few citizens filmed at home. According to several observers, however, the debate was a disaster: too many questions, not enough time to answer, too few direct exchanges between leaders, a moderator who was too rigid on time and, as a bonus, a poorly worded and accusatory question targeting Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, suggesting that Quebec Bills 21 and 96 were fundamentally racist — a question so explosive that, according to Christian Bourque, it undoubtedly helped to save the Bloc campaign.

On the French-speaking side, the debate was more successful, but with six journalists and five candidates, there were a lot of people on the stage, which limited the debates.

Under its 2021 mandate, the commission was required to give final approval to the format of the leaders’ debate. But, in the end, the commission did not get involved at all, allegedly due to lack of time. What the commission did most visibly and most successfully was to ensure translation of the debate into 16 languages.

In its report, the commission itself concluded that:

There is widespread agreement that the 2021 debates did not deliver as well as they should have on informing voters about parties’ policies.

[Translation]

Despite this fiasco and the expanded consultations, the Leaders’ Debates Commission concluded that it should be made permanent, rather than have renewable terms, and that it should have expanded powers, including the final choice of moderator. The appointment of the commissioner should also be approved by the parties and the House to avoid any appearance of partiality.

For his part, Professor André Blais believes that party leaders wouldn’t dare refuse to take part in a debate if the request came from an institutional commission.

The fact is that the media don’t always differentiate between their own visibility, their star journalists’ profile and the public interest in order to organize a debate that is as useful as possible for voters. That is why proponents of a permanent commission feel that neutral, independent experts would be in a better position than journalists to establish the rules and the format of the debate.

Personally, I’m not at all convinced that maintaining this commission is the best solution to the many ills afflicting our debates. This is not the path that most other countries have chosen. I’m also concerned that an administrative commission is not agile enough, considering that organizing debates in the midst of an election campaign demands rapid action and quick decision making.

Even if Canada opts for a permanent commission, the media will always be the broadcasters and will therefore always have a say in the structure of the event. If we add one more actor to the mix, we could end up with a slower, more complex decision‑making process.

There is still healthy competition among media outlets, and that creates the right conditions for a variety of formats without any intervention on the part of a government institution.

In Quebec, TVA decided in 2015 to organize its own leaders’ debate with a simpler format: a single host and up to four leaders, who stand face to face so they can each debate with all the others.

Lastly, we should keep in mind that the televised debates are just one among many campaign activities. Interviews with individual leaders and a wide variety of potential platforms and formats contribute to the dissemination of useful information. Television viewership among 18- to 34-year-olds is down 50%, but they account for more than one third of podcast audiences.

For all of these reasons, I don’t think that it would be useful to make the Leaders’ Debates Commission permanent.

The obvious question is what value these debates have for the health of Canadian democracy, particularly when we consider that, right now, they are designed more to promote the interests of political parties and the media than those of voters.

That being said, even if we assume these debates do have some value, there is no evidence to show that the commission has played an essential role to date. On the contrary, the debates in which the commission was involved were no less criticized than previous editions.

I personally think that media outlets are capable of making arrangements among themselves or on their own to propose debates and experiment with formats. The involvement of a public commission could overcomplicate a process that should be agile and efficient.

I will close by saying that the very real flaws in the electoral debates may diminish as platforms innovate and proliferate. The rigid, scripted and theatrical format of the debates could be complemented by intimate interviews on podcasts, informal discussions on other platforms, and meetings organized or moderated by civil society stakeholders.

In short, we must hope that Canadian democracy is served not by reinvented electoral debates overseen by a public commission, but by the many formats and discussions made possible by new platforms, where, ideally, the public will find its place. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, today I rise to address the inquiry initiated by Senator Woo, which holds a dual purpose: First, it calls for the celebration of the invaluable contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country. Second, it prompts us to reflect upon the prejudice, exclusion and discrimination that Canadians of Asian descent have faced and continue to face. While we celebrate the remarkable contributions of Chinese Canadians, we cannot ignore the historical reality nor the narratives that continue today.

Although there has been substantial progress, there is much left to do. We must use this time not only to celebrate but also to reflect and to act. Chinese Canadians have left an indelible mark on the tapestry of our nation’s history. They have been instrumental in the growth and development of Canada, with their contributions reaching every sector of our society from labour to entrepreneurship, culture to academia, sports to politics.

It may be new information to some that Chinese peoples were part of the 1788 Captain John Meares’ expedition that landed in Nuu-chah-nulth territory to establish the first year-round non‑Indigenous settlement in what is now British Columbia, a full 79 years before Canada was established and 83 years before British Columbia joined Canada.

Deplorably, anti-Chinese rhetoric became part of a racist political ideology that in 1871 helped to deprive non-Whites of the right to vote, including Chinese and “Native Indians.” This was accompanied by many other forms of racial discrimination against Chinese Canadians that included forced segregation — in life as well as in death. For example, burial records of the Ross Bay Cemetery in Victoria indicate that Chinese persons were buried in a special block, set apart for the burials of “Aborigines and Mongolians.” The first Chinese person interred there was listed as “Chinaman No. 1,” the second as “Chinaman No. 2” and so on.

Driven by this racist political ideology, the federal government implemented the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885. This legislation imposed a $50 fee, called the “head tax,” on each Chinese person entering Canada. Only six classes of people were exempt: diplomats, clergymen, merchants, students, tourists and men of science. The intention of the head tax was to discourage Chinese persons from coming to Canada.

In 1901, the tax was increased to $100, and in 1903 it was increased again to $500, the equivalent of two years of wages for a labourer. Despite the heavy tax, Chinese migrants continued to come. According to the Government of British Columbia website, no other immigrant group in British Columbian history has suffered such formally sanctioned mistreatment of its members on entering Canada over such an extended period. During the period of the head tax between 1885 and 1923, over 97,000 Chinese immigrants still came to Canada seeking a better life, helping to build British Columbian and Canadian society.

Perhaps well known to many Canadians was the exploitation of Chinese labourers in the building of the western sections of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1880s. Two thirds of these railway workers were Chinese Canadians brought in by ship from China and California, working mostly in the most dangerous terrain. They were paid $1 a day and had to pay for their own food and gear. White workers were paid $1.50 to $2.50 per day and did not pay for provisions. It was the Chinese workers who were given the most dangerous construction tasks. Hundreds died from accidents, illness and malnutrition.

Their contribution is immortalized in Canadian folk music. Our balladeer Gordon Lightfoot, in his classic “Canadian Railroad Trilogy,” sang:

We are the navvies who work upon the railway

Swinging our hammers in the bright blazing sun

Living on stew and drinking bad whiskey

Bending our back til the long days are done

While the railroad could not have been built without them, all the Chinese-Canadian workers were cleared out of the final celebration scene so that iconic photograph — we’ve all seen it — of the ceremonial last spike could be taken. It was as if they had never existed.

It was within this historical racist perspective that the Government of Canada, on July 1, 1923, introduced a new Chinese Immigration Act, commonly known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, to stop Chinese immigration to Canada. This persisted for almost a quarter of a century.

It was finally repealed in 1947 after Chinese Canadians distinguished themselves by fighting and dying for Canada in World War II. Dying, by the way, to protect the way of life in a country that had denied them a life based on human rights.

Senator Woo has clearly and eloquently reminded us about some of the speeches made by our predecessors supporting this legislation in this chamber.

These sentiments, voiced by our historic colleagues, mark a dark moment in our history, and should make all of us vow, “never again.”

We must acknowledge this painful legacy and learn from it, ensuring that such injustice is never repeated, not to anyone.

Regrettably, despite progress, contemporary forms of prejudice and exclusion still persist. Canadians of Asian descent continue to encounter discrimination, bias and systemic barriers that hinder their full integration and equitable participation in our society. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to confront these challenges head-on and to work toward a more inclusive and just Canada.

To do so, Canadians must prioritize education and a broadening of our common historical awareness. By teaching the contributions and histories of diverse communities — including Chinese Canadians — we can help foster empathy, understanding and respect for all Canadians, among all Canadians. Our schools must be places where the richness of our entire heritage is celebrated, where stereotypes are dismantled and where future generations can learn about the many important things that we all have in common.

As legislators, we have an opportunity to strengthen our laws, policies and institutions to move toward eradication of discrimination in all its forms.

In our own chamber, it is by recognizing and dealing with our unconscious biases, promoting diversity in our leadership positions and creating respectful and inclusive spaces that we can help build a Canada where who you love, where you came from, what colour your skin is or any other factor that can be used to deny full and unfettered participation in our society is deemed to be irrelevant.

Let us make sure that we, in this chamber, demonstrate the welcome, compassion and respect for each other that all those living in every corner of this country deserve.

Honourable senators, the inquiry put forth by Senator Woo serves as a poignant reminder of the invaluable contributions made by Chinese Canadians throughout our history. It also calls on us to confront the persistent prejudices faced by Canadians of Asian descent, mindful of the historical context marked by the adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act a century ago. Let us unite in celebration, remembrance and a shared commitment to building a Canada where diversity is cherished, equality is upheld and every individual can thrive.

Colleagues, Canada was built by hands of many colours, and our anthem is sung by voices of many tongues. We are the richer for all of these.

Thank you, honourable senators, for your attention. May we pledge to work together to create a more inclusive and equitable Canada free from prejudice and exclusion as we honour the contributions of all Canadians, past and present, and may we pledge to do that here in this chamber. Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Will Senator Miville-Dechêne accept a question?

[Translation]

Hon. Frances Lankin, pursuant to notice of June 20, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the impact of subsection 268(3) of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1997, including but not limited to:

(a)the reasons why there have been no prosecutions under this provision since its enactment 25 years ago; and

(b)the extent to which female genital mutilation is currently occurring in Canada and to Canadian girls taken abroad for such procedures;

That the committee make recommendations, as appropriate, to ensure the Criminal Code provision has its intended impact of ending such crimes being perpetrated against girls in Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

She said: Honourable senators, I move that further debate be adjourned for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Lankin, debate adjourned.)

(At 5:47 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List