Senator Dalphond: Yes, of course, with trepidation given that the question is from the bill’s sponsor.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today in support of adopting the principle of Bill S-11, which is entitled A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

A bill with such a long title was bound to contain at least a few hundred clauses, 642 to be exact, making it a 224-page bill, not counting the additional 161 pages of explanatory notes.

On a more serious note, I want to congratulate Senator Clement, the bill’s sponsor, who highlighted the bill’s objectives and also held our colleagues’ attention with much appreciated quips during her presentation.

As she pointed out, this is the fourth such bill, which incorporates the results of a meticulous review of another set of federal statutes that was completed in 2017. A total of 52 statutes were reviewed, adding to the other 90 statutes that were reviewed for the first three harmonization acts.

The work done to date is impressive and reflects the federal government’s commitment to delivering on its responsibility to draft the legislation brought before the Parliament of Canada. As you know, under the Constitution Act, 1867, federal legislation must be drafted in French and English in order to be understood by most Canadian citizens. In short, it is a matter of access to justice, to reflect this country’s linguistic duality.

On this point, I think it is important to remind you that the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution Act, 1867, officially exists for the most part in English only. In fact, so far, only seven sections in total, namely sections 1, 29, 51, 90Q.1, 90Q.2, 92A and 93A, have been adopted in English and French and have the force of law in both languages. In other words, practically every section of this country’s fundamental constitutional law has official value in English only.

This is a terrible situation in a country that calls itself officially bilingual, and it persists despite the promise that was made to the francophones of this country in 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated. Despite section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, this promise still has not been kept 40 years later, and the current government is refusing to lift a finger to finally honour it.

When the Official Languages Act is modernized, we will have to ensure that it contains provisions that will force the government to stop ignoring its constitutional obligation to give the country a bilingual Constitution so that francophones finally have access to a version of the country’s most important law in their own language.

Similarly, I encourage Indigenous people to once again become proficient in their traditional languages, and I urge the Government of Canada to ensure that our most important laws are made available in those languages. Again, it is a matter of equal access.

To reflect the reality of our country, it is not enough to just have laws in both official languages. We need to go further, as Senator Dupuis so eloquently reminded us while laying out the historical context last week. We need laws that respect the fact that, in Quebec, as was the case in Lower Canada before Confederation, private law stems from a system based not on the British common law, but on a civil law whose origins date back to the Coutume de Paris, French customary law. That was followed in 1866 by the coming into force of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, which itself was derived from the French civil code that was adopted in 1804 following the French Revolution led by Emperor Napoleon. After falling from power and being exiled to Saint Helena, Bonaparte allegedly commented:

My real glory is not to have won forty battles, for Waterloo’s defeat will destroy the memory of as many victories. But what nothing will destroy, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.

(1520)

He was right, because the revolutionary civil code, later called the Napoleonic Code, is the source of private law in most of Europe. For Quebec, the passage of the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1865 reflected a desire to ensure that Quebec private law would continue to be connected to the Napoleonic Code, even as Confederation loomed.

Since 1978, in order to take into account Quebec’s unique legal system, federal bills and regulations have been drafted by a team of two drafters consisting of an anglophone jurist, who is an expert in common law, and a francophone jurist, usually a civil law specialist. The final product of this codrafting process reflects the two Canadian legal systems.

In 1991, after decades of discussion and drafting, the National Assembly of Quebec adopted a new civil code, which replaced the Civil Code of Lower Canada as of January 1, 1994. The Civil Code of Quebec uses a structure and principles that originated in revolutionary France, but adapts them to the new reality, particularly in terms of trade.

This code is so modern that it has inspired many civil lawyers in other countries. It even served as a model for the civil codes of Argentina and Romania and inspired new chapters in the existing civil codes of Belgium, France and the Czech Republic.

When Quebec adopted a new civil code, that forced the federal government to update its statutes in 1993 and harmonize them with the new code.

I also want to point out that, after the 1995 referendum, Prime Minister Chrétien tabled a motion in the House of Commons in which he proposed that “the House recognize that Quebec’s distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition.”

Later that same year, the Department of Justice Canada adopted the policy on legislative bijuralism, the goal of which is to provide Canadians with federal legislative texts that reflect, in each linguistic version, the legal system in use in their province.

Since then, we have had not only bilingual laws, but bijural laws, laws that use concepts from both of Canada’s legal systems. As Minister of Justice Anne McLellan said when the first harmonization act was passed in 2001:

Federal laws are uniform in the sense that they apply a single rule throughout Canada. They are also harmonized in that federal statutes, in relation to matters of property and civil rights, respect the particularities of the civil law or common law as it applies in a given jurisdiction.

In other words, federal laws do not seek to ensure uniformity in every detail across the country, but rather harmonization with the private law that applies in the relevant province.

The result is federal legislation that actually has four dimensions: an English version applicable in the provinces that practise common law; a French version applicable in those same provinces but drafted using French-language common law terminology, which is an innovation that did not exist anywhere else in the world; a version using civil law concepts specific to Quebec; and a fourth version using English-language civil law terminology, applicable in Quebec.

The implementation of this important policy resulted in the passage of Harmonization Act, No. 1, in 2001. That legislation affected nearly 50 statutes and, importantly, added two sections to the Interpretation Act, sections 8.1 and 8.2, which affirm bijuralism as an interpretive principle for all federal statutes.

Commenting on the bijuralism that underpins the drafting of federal laws, my friend, the Honourable Jacques Dufresne, a recently retired judge, wrote the following in the unanimous 2014 Quebec Court of Appeal ruling in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (Ville de) c. Lavigne:

The drafting technique used by the legislator to harmonize . . . with both Quebec’s civil law and the common law, which consists of rendering in different terms the rule of law applicable to each system of law, is a powerful indicator that applicable legal concepts can have nuances or distinctions that may even be significant.

[English]

Colleagues, there is more than what meets the eye with this bill. Beyond the long list of laws that are amended in a very technical way, the bill acknowledges one of the distinctive features of Quebec: its Civil Code and civil law tradition. It also shows that our federation is able to respect this distinction.

As said by Senator Joyal in 2004, while he was speaking to a previous harmonization bill:

Essentially, that is in keeping with the philosophy of this country, that is, we maintain our identity while we move forward together.

This is also the reason why there are, by law, three judges from Quebec sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada, and the need for a chief justice and a deputy chief justice of a different legal tradition at the helm of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court.

In conclusion, colleagues, I invite you to adopt this bill in principle in order to reaffirm the importance of the bijural nature of Canada. It could then be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for careful review of its contents, including the technical aspects.

Thank you, Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Senator Dalphond: Once more, I am learning something from you. All the famous people come from Saskatchewan, obviously. The proof is made on a daily basis here.

Paul-André Crépeau was a great jurist who left us too early in his life. He left a legacy not only in his books, but he also founded at McGill University the Centre for Private and Comparative Law, which I think is one of the leading institutions. It was once led by Justice Kasirer, who is now at the Supreme Court.

I think Mr. Crépeau’s contribution and legacy are important. If he were looking at us today, debating in the Senate about the bijural nature of Canada, I think he would be proud of us — proud of a question from somebody from Saskatchewan and proud to see that ideas coming from Saskatchewanians are the ideas being adopted in Quebec and are the ideas that govern federal legislation nowadays. I think it is quite an achievement, and he would be proud of us.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples (Subject matter of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022), tabled in the Senate on December 6, 2022.

Senator Dalphond: If the Senate agrees.

Senator Dalphond: Bijuralism is a rather Quebec-specific concept. When I was in university, we did not have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms yet, but we had a lot of discussions about bijuralism and the need to harmonize federal laws with Quebec’s civil law. My professor, André Morel, wrote many articles on the subject.

When the federal harmonization policy was adopted in 1991 or 1993, but before bilingual drafting was introduced, a separate civil law unit was created at the Department of Justice. I believe that happened in 1991. It was a good sign. A deputy minister for civil law was appointed. I believe it was Justice Anne-Marie Trahan. When the bijuralism policy was announced in 1995, it was welcomed in Quebec. I attended many law faculty lectures, and I must confess that I own the three-volume collection published by the Department of Justice on lexicology, history and bijuralism.

Not enough people realize what Canada contributes. As a bijural federation, it is something of a rarity internationally. Our contribution, not only to common law in French and civil law in English, but to bijuralism at the same time, is entirely unique, in my opinion. In that sense, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, I think we can be proud. We are participating in two of the world’s great legal traditions, which is also fantastic. I hope that answers your question.

(1530)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at 15 days, but I am 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.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Thank you very much, Senator Simons, for your very interesting speech and history lesson. You suggested that we wait for the situation in Quebec to be addressed, but maybe what we could do is include a clause at the end of Senator Patterson’s bill stating that the constitutional amendment proposed in the bill would take effect only when Quebec adopts a similar motion for senators from Quebec. This way, we could get the system set up, and as soon as the Government of Quebec says yes, we could make the change.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Esteemed colleagues, I am pleased to speak at second reading of Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act. This bill would make various amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which came into force on March 31, 2000. Those who were here at the time will remember it.

First, I congratulate the government and in particular Minister Guilbeault, who, at the invitation of the Government Representative in the Senate, chose to introduce this important bill in the Senate. I also commend Senator Kutcher for agreeing to sponsor the bill.

As I mentioned in my speech on Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts with respect to the COVID-19 response and other measures, when the government chooses to begin the legislative process in the Senate, we are called on to play a slightly different role than usual, that is, to carefully review a bill that has received the support of a majority in the House of Commons.

The fact is that we can make legislative amendments in keeping with the government’s intent and in cooperation with the minister responsible.

(1500)

Bill S-5 proposes adding to the preamble of the Canada Environmental Protection Act the recognition that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment.

As a Quebec senator, I am pleased to see this principle recognized. In Quebec, the right to a healthy environment is recognized by the Environment Quality Act, which makes citizens the key concern and focus of all important decisions, including the protection of the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the noise around us.

[English]

Bill S-5 will enhance the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, an important statute that has already been used to ban plastic microbeads in toiletries, to prohibit asbestos and to prevent the use of dangerous chemicals in baby bottles.

As drafted, Bill S-5 also presents the Senate with an opportunity to strengthen the legislation regarding toxicity testing on animals. This is a cruel practice that we should look to minimize and hopefully eliminate in our society. Indeed, during the 2021 election, the Liberal Party pledged to phase out chemical testing on animals by 2035.

However, Bill S-5 falls a bit short on that promise. As a matter of fact, it contains only a reference in the preamble, which is proposed to be added to CEPA. It reads as follows:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the . . . importance of promoting the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to reduce, refine or replace the use of vertebrate animals . . .

However, Bill S-5, as I mentioned, does not contain any specific provisions to achieve that goal.

On March 3, in this chamber, I asked Minister Guilbeault whether the government was open to including in the bill specific provisions regarding animal toxicity testing. I was delighted to hear this response from the minister:

As a legislator, I’m always open to making my bills better, and I would invite you or any member of the Senate to come forward with proposals to improve and strengthen the bill as it moves forward.

. . . I welcome your proposals to improve the bill . . . .

Today, I’m pleased to report that four Canadian animal welfare organizations are working cooperatively to help us develop amendments to Bill S-5 regarding chemical testing on animals. They are Animal Justice, the Canadian Society for Humane Science, Humane Canada and Humane Society International/Canada.

I commend to you their policy expertise, including relevant scientific backgrounds, and suggest that representatives of these animal welfare organizations be invited to participate in the committee’s study.

From these groups, I have learned that toxicity testing is the most harmful and painful use of animals in scientific research. Toxicity tests impacted approximately 90,000 animals in 2019 alone. Moreover, such tests fall into the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s Category E tests. This is the most severe category of harm that animals can experience. Category E tests cause death, severe pain and extreme distress, and may include procedures such as inflicting burns or trauma on unsedated animals and forcing ingestion or topical application of deadly substances.

Personally, I was shocked to learn of the scale of this testing in Canada. I was also surprised to learn of the range of species involved in Category E testing. That includes guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and other small mammals, pigs, sheep, beavers, chickens, turkeys, hummingbirds and many species of marine and freshwater fish.

Despite all this suffering, it is noteworthy that animal testing is often a poor predictor of human outcomes, and alternatives are increasingly available. According to Dr. Elisabeth Ormandy, Executive Director of the Canadian Society for Humane Science:

Non-animal testing methods are becoming increasingly available, and are often more reliable, as well as more time- and cost-effective. . . .

The methods include in vitro testing of human cells, computer models, open source data and bioinformatic methods.

In this context, south of the border, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has committed to reducing its request for, and funding of, mammal studies by 30% by 2025 — two years from now — and to ending the use of chemical testing on mammals by 2035. In Europe, the Netherlands has committed to phasing out most types of animal testing by 2025, and the European Union has developed strong legal tools to reduce and replace the use of animals in toxicity testing.

Canada can take guidance from these examples in implementing the governing party’s undertaking to phase out toxicity testing on animals by 2035. The Senate now has the opportunity to help to achieve this goal.

Changes to strengthen the bill could include, for example, the following five ideas: a statutory recognition of the principle that toxicity testing on animals should be a last resort in considering scientific alternatives; a legally mandated strategic plan to reduce and replace testing on animals for chemical safety assessments under CEPA towards 2035; legally mandated reporting tools on progress, such as required annual reporting to Parliament by the minister; consideration as to whether Bill S-5’s language should cover all animals, not just vertebrate animals, and in the context of any potential harmful testing, such a change could recognize evolving scientific knowledge about creatures like the amazing octopus, as profiled in the Academy Award-winning Netflix documentary My Octopus Teacher; and finally, the committee could consider establishing an enforcement mechanism in the legislation with a coming into force of 2035, such as a prohibition on toxicity testing with a requirement for ministerial authorization for exceptional cases after that target date. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency plans that any mammal studies beyond 2035 would require approval on a case‑by‑case basis.

It will be very helpful to have the input of government on the best approach to achieve the shared goal of a 2035 phase-out as well as incremental progress in the meantime. Collaboration with the government can serve senators well in providing — in this case — not sober second thought, but rather more proactive policy contributions to Bill S-5 with no need for amendments to go back and forth between both chambers.

[Translation]

With Bill S-5, we have the opportunity to put an end to the terrible suffering inflicted on tens of thousands of animals each year in Canada and to become a society that is more humane and respectful of the other living beings around us that complete our ecosystem.

As I said before, some categories of animals that are used for testing product toxicity are also pets for children and even adults. This has to stop.

In 2015, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed Bill 54, An Act to improve the legal situation of animals, which took effect on December 5, 2015.

(1510)

That legislation, based on provisions that already exist in Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia and France, changes the legal status of pets from “things,” or property, to “sentient beings.” Accordingly, it states that owners must ensure that animals are cared for based on their biological needs, including exercise — which is good for us, too.

Right here in the Senate, over the past few years, bills that have put an end to animal abuse have been passed into law. I am thinking of the legislation to end the captivity of whales and dolphins, sponsored by Senator Sinclair and, before him, Senator Moore.

I also want to acknowledge the work done by Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, whose Bill S-214 called for a ban on the use of animals for testing cosmetic products. This initiative was included in the Liberal Party’s platform during the last election campaign, and the government has promised to implement it by amending the Food and Drugs Act shortly.

One of the bills currently being studied by this chamber, sponsored by Senator Klyne and entitled the Jane Goodall act, proposes measures to protect wild animals in captivity and ensure their conservation and welfare.

The fact is that, as scientific knowledge about animals increases, the circle of empathy towards them widens. In that regard, the Senate has played, and I hope will continue to play, an important role in enhancing respect for the species around us and in recognizing that, in the ecosystem that sustains us, they deserve our respect, as First Nations peoples understood long before us.

In conclusion, I invite all senators to pass Bill S-5 at second reading as soon as possible so that it can be referred to committee for further study, including consideration of proposed amendments, particularly with respect to animal testing. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: What do you think of the government bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons last week, Bill C-5, which deals with similar issues? Don’t you think we should start focusing on the government bill and try to study it now to see how it is a better response to the issues we have here and a response that has a better chance to make it to the end of the process?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would you take a question, Senator Dean?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the bill introduced by Senator Carignan, Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General). I gather that the motivation behind it is the importance of maintaining solid ties between francophone Canada and our federal symbols.

From the outset, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation, as noted by the Right Honourable Mary Simon in the introduction to the Speech from the Throne:

This land acknowledgement is not a symbolic declaration. It is our true history.

[English]

Canada’s first Indigenous Governor General’s words remind us of this truth, helping guide us forward together, towards reconciliation. Fundamental to this path is a greater understanding of the First Peoples who thrived in these lands before colonists from Europe arrived, as well as a greater understanding of the events that followed.

In her speech, Her Excellency stated:

Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.

Embracing and reflecting the diversity of the peoples of Canada in our federal institutions can be a challenge with our complex history and evolving reality. Language requirements for appointments in high positions may easily become a delicate subject.

[Translation]

Need I point out that section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that English and French are the official languages of Canada? This statement is important to millions of Canadians, not just francophones. It is also true that French is still under constant threat and pressure in Canada, even within Quebec. Francophones in Canada know there have been various attempts to assimilate them ever since Lord Durham’s report came out in 1839. They want to protect and promote their language, their culture and their identity in Canada, and rightfully so.

[English]

Like most Canadians, I also acknowledge Canada’s terrible history of trying to assimilate Indigenous peoples, including suppression of Indigenous languages. As a francophone, I recognize the urgency and need to support the protection and revitalization of Indigenous languages.

In 2019, Parliament’s passage of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, provided some meaningful action, and the Senate should work to ensure that this new law is successful.

Indeed, section 22 of the Charter makes clear that having two official languages does not derogate from Indigenous language rights. Former Senator Joyal highlighted this point in advocating for the use of Inuktitut in the Senate, a language with interpretation available here with prior notice since 2008. Today, I am glad to have Inuktitut spoken at Rideau Hall.

(1530)

By appointing for the first time an Indigenous person as Governor General of Canada, acting on the recommendation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Queen Elizabeth II recognized the historical place of our own First Peoples in the history of this country. This appointment is in perfect continuity with other significant gestures made since 1952.

As some of you may remember — but not that many — on February 1, 1952, then-prime minister Louis St. Laurent announced that King George VI had approved his recommendation to appoint Vincent Massey of Toronto as the first Canadian-born Governor General. It was a landmark first step to Canadianize the office. Nobody would accept today the appointment of a British aristocrat to hold the office.

It was Massey’s intent as Governor General to work to unite Canada’s diverse cultures. He travelled extensively across the country and delivered speeches promoting bilingualism, some 20 years before the official policy.

[Translation]

In 1959, the appointment of Georges Vanier as the first francophone Canadian Governor General on the recommendation of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker marked another milestone. The first thing he did was add French text to the plaque at the entrance to Rideau Hall. During his tenure, Vanier made much of cooperation between francophone and anglophone Canadians. In one of his last speeches, he said, and I quote:

The road of unity is the road of love: love of one’s country and faith in its future will give new direction and purpose to our lives, lift us above our domestic quarrels, and unite us in dedication to the common good.

Another landmark moment was the 1984 appointment of Jeanne Sauvé, a Saskatchewan-born francophone, on the recommendation of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. She was the first woman to serve as Governor General. In an effort to further Canadianize the office, she asked to be greeted with O Canada rather than the royal anthem.

[English]

In 1999, the appointment of Adrienne Clarkson — born in Hong Kong in 1939 before her family took refuge in Canada in 1942 — was a recognition of Canada’s diversity and a powerful signal to new Canadians that they can achieve the highest position in their new country.

This message was reiterated in 2005 by the appointment of Michaëlle Jean, born in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, who was 11 when her family fled a dictatorial regime to settle in Montreal. Moreover, for the first time, a woman serving as Governor General was succeeded by another woman.

The appointment in July 2021 of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon, born and raised in Nunavik, the Arctic part of Quebec, is another such historic milestone.

For the first time, the position of Governor General is now held by a person from among the Indigenous peoples who have inhabited the lands of this country from time immemorial. I truly support this appointment and hope that it will help to break some of the many barriers imposed on the First Peoples of this country.

I now come to Bill S-220. Its objective, as I understand it, is to restrain the discretion of a prime minister in recommending future holders of the office. In my view, this should be done in a way that is respectful of all the milestones accomplished since 1952.

In other words, I understand the objective of the bill to be that the selection process of future nominees to this office should aim at finding people who are knowledgeable about Canada’s history and cultures, committed to truth and reconciliation, respectful of the inherent equality and dignity of all people and peoples and committed to uplifting our two official languages as well as Indigenous languages. This objective, as so defined, I support.

Incidentally, this objective when so defined reflects the values of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is now a key part of the Canadian fabric.

Let me now comment on some aspects of this bill before committee study, preferably at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Translation]

First, Senator Carignan proposes to achieve this objective by amending the Language Skills Act. However, I wonder if that is the right legislative vehicle. As you know, this law concerns what we call the “officers of Parliament,” who are appointed by the House of Commons and the Senate, such as the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Lobbying and others.

That is not the case for the Governor General, who is appointed by the sovereign upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. In fact, we are dealing here with one of the last true royal prerogatives, concerning duties that are clearly distinct from those of all other officers of Parliament. To achieve the objective I described earlier, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to amend the Governor General’s Act?

By the way, I would express the same reservations if a bill proposed to amend the Language Skills Act to include Supreme Court justices. In my opinion, that objective would have to be achieved by amending the Supreme Court Act.

Second, the bill focuses solely on the language skills of candidates for the position of Governor General. Although that is an extremely important aspect, as I said earlier, I believe that the Prime Minister should consider people who can also demonstrate, through their past experience and undertakings, that they support all the elements that I described or have ties to them, including Indigenous peoples and reconciliation.

Third, I believe that the committee responsible for studying this bill should verify the constitutional validity of a law that would significantly restrain the Prime Minister’s discretionary power, which is an important element in the process for having the Governor General appointed by the sovereign. I suggest that the committee hear from legal experts on this issue.

[English]

In conclusion, colleagues, I support the idea of delineating the discretionary power of a prime minister in connection with the appointment of a governor general in a way that builds on all the milestones that I have referred to, with an inclusive and forward-looking spirit. However, I have reservations about the means proposed to achieve it. Thank you, nakurmiik.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

(1540)