Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, we also know that international cooperation on climate is of paramount importance. In fact, without more, better and sustained global collaboration on climate, we’re at serious risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree Paris Agreement target.

Senator Gold, in today’s ever-more-fractured geopolitical world, could you tell us if and how Canada plans to be more proactive on climate diplomacy?

Hon. Mary Coyle: I have a question for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, yesterday, before the Climate Ambition Summit at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, Steven Guilbeault, tweeted that “Canada is among the ‘movers and doers’ in the battle against climate change.”

To me, this tweet implies that Canada is playing a significant leadership role in the fight against climate change.

Senator Gold, could you update this chamber on any important announcements made at the Climate Ambition Summit in relation to accelerating the efforts to reach Canada’s own net-zero commitments, as well as anything new and significant in terms of support from Canada and other historic polluters for the Global South in achieving their net-zero goals?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I wasn’t going to ask a question, but because of the question raised by Senator McCallum I’m happy, frankly, to have this discussion we’re having here right now, both about the process and the need for a robust debate on this important bill and a really thorough study.

Senator McCallum raised an issue that sparked in my mind this question and so much of this is based on reverse onus. This is a deviation from how we normally operate in our justice system in Canada. I am concerned about different groups being disproportionately disadvantaged, as they always have been, but even more so — possibly — under this legislation if the onus is on the person to prove that they deserve bail. That can sometimes be an advantage to someone who has the money and resources to hire good legal talent to help them. Because we haven’t had a thorough study yet — hopefully we will — I’m just curious whether the government has looked at this issue of advantage to those with resources in a situation of reverse onus and what the implications of that would be.