Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today as opposition critic to speak to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I recognize and thank my colleague Senator Cotter, the sponsor of this bill, for his important work. I look forward to our ongoing collaboration to ensure this is an efficient and effective process.

The disability community is mostly united on the importance of this legislation, and I fully understand the urgency with which we must proceed.

The history of supports for people with disabilities in Canada, especially at the federal level, is relatively short. In an essay entitled “Disability in Canada: An Historical Perspective,” Dr. Aldred Neufeldt, Emeritus Professor of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at the University of Calgary, notes that in the first decades of the 1900s, Quebec, and then Ontario, established workmen’s compensation laws, but it was war, he writes, that prompted government to develop rehabilitation services. After the Second World War, returning war veterans insisted “ . . . on their rights to be treated as citizens with continuing contributions to make . . . .” Thus, workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances emerged as two of the earliest forms of compensation for Canadians with certain kinds of disablement.

In his book, Struggling for Social Citizenship: Disabled Canadians, Income Security, and Prime Ministerial Eras, Dr. Michael Prince, the Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria, observes that, although workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances were established as distinct programs, most subsequent disability programs, including original benefits for blind persons, the Canada Pension Plan disability benefit, social assistance and employment insurance, are parts of broader policy frameworks. As Dr. Prince argues, “These diverse access points and separate program designs result in a mottled social citizenship for disabled people.”

Indeed, our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in its 2018 study of the Disability Tax Credit and the Registered Disability Savings Plan, heard from many witnesses regarding the complexity of applying for disability support programs. Witnesses urged us to simplify and clarify processes for federal supports. In our report, we recommended:

That the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development work closely with other orders of government to harmonize the application processes for disability supports programs.

Our report also recommended that both ministers “. . . develop a basic income or guaranteed income for people with severe disabilities. . . .”

An earlier report entitled In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, released in 2009, again by the Social Affairs Committee and their Subcommittee on Cities, describes how the source or level of income of someone with a disability depends on when and how one becomes disabled and whether private or public insurance payments were available to an individual upon disablement.

The report warns:

The complexity of current programs and their interactions can leave too many people . . . without adequate incomes, and even without any income, as they are bounced from one “system” to another.

This lack of continuity in eligibility for disability income supports only piles on even more uncertainty in the lives of Canadians.

The 2009 report also recommends the development and implementation of a basic income for people with severe disabilities, though the basic income considered at the Subcommittee on Cities was meant to replace provincial social assistance income, which would have resulted in substantial savings to the provinces. In his testimony to that committee, Dr. Prince noted that this model would have taken half a million Canadians off provincial social assistance, which would have then allowed the provinces to reallocate funds into personal supports, education, inclusive schools, inclusive parks and recreation, family supports and public transit.

That is not what is being proposed in Bill C-22. As Minister Qualtrough noted in her second reading speech in the other place, this new benefit will be an income supplement, not an income replacement, and it is not intended to replace existing provincial or territorial supports. When it becomes available, the Canada disability benefit should provide additional monthly income for people with disabilities. It is worth noting, however, that this type of program will not lessen the financial demands on the provinces. A different approach could have otherwise allowed for more investment in services for people with disabilities.

Historically, Canada’s supports for people with disabilities have differed from those in the United States and most European countries because, in our federation, the provinces bear the prime responsibility for health, education and social services. According to the OECD, Canada lags behind on public spending on incapacity — that is, spending due to sickness, disability and occupational injury.

Of the G7 countries, we come in seventh on public spending on incapacity as a percentage of total gross domestic product. We spend, in Canada, just three quarters of 1% of our GDP. The U.S. spends 1%, and Japan about the same. Our European peers spend much more. France spends 1.7% of GDP; Italy, 1.8%; the United Kingdom, 1.9%; and Germany, 2.25%.

We have a moral obligation to do more. The preamble of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

. . . the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people . . . .

For too long, people with disabilities in this country have not enjoyed freedom from want, and the effects have been devastating.

According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017, which is the most recent survey data we have, one in five Canadians over the age of 15 had one or more disability. The likelihood of having a disability increases with age: 13% of those aged 15 to 24 years had a disability compared to 47% of those 75 years and older. Disability’s correlation with poverty is strong, as we’ve heard from all our speakers: Of Canadians aged 25 to 64 years, 28% of those with more severe disabilities live in poverty compared to 10% of their counterparts without disabilities.

Dr. Deborah Stienstra, the Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work at the University of Guelph, notes that people with disabilities face barriers to education; barriers to employment; high costs, including those associated with necessary disability-related supports and barriers to systems of transportation, telecommunication and health care. She says:

Each of these sets of barriers, in addition to stigmatizing attitudes about disability, limit the opportunities for full citizenship and participation for people with disabilities, and can result in a life with poverty and exclusion.

Bill C-22 comes to us as amended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities — HUMA — in the other place. Bill C-22 is meagre on details — what is often referred to as “framework” legislation. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor-in-Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. As MPs noted at second reading, Bill C-22, as it was first introduced, was more of a promise to act than a real proposal. Thanks to the nine amendments made at HUMA, the bill is somewhat improved.

The first amendment adds a definition of “disability” to the bill, the same as found in the Accessible Canada Act.

The second amendment requires the federal government to make public all federal and provincial-territorial agreements with respect to the Canada disability benefit.

The third amendment requires that the benefit be indexed to inflation.

The fourth amendment requires that the application for the benefit be barrier-free.

The fifth amendment requires that the Governor-in-Council, when setting the amount of the benefit, take into consideration the official poverty line.

The sixth amendment requires the minister to table a report in the House of Commons on the engagement and collaboration with the disability community in the development of regulations within six months of coming into force, and to table another report on the progress made in the regulatory process within one year.

The seventh amendment requires the minister to provide persons with disabilities the opportunity to collaborate on the development and design of the regulations.

The eighth amendment tightens the timelines for parliamentary reviews of the legislation from three years after coming into force and every five years thereafter to one and three years after coming into force and then every five years after. The ninth amendment set the coming-into-force date to no later than one year after Royal Assent.

The House of Commons human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee has done excellent work. As our Senate committee studies the bill, it will be our job to review that work and to hear testimony from experts and stakeholders to ensure that no flaws have been inadvertently introduced and that there are no important omissions in the bill.

This might be just the right time to remind my honourable colleagues of a similar situation we found ourselves in just three-and-a-half years ago with another piece of legislation vitally important to the disability community — Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Everyone was fully united behind that legislation, and there was similar pressure for us to get that bill passed without amendments.

While virtually all of the testimony we heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology called on us to pass the bill with a degree of urgency, there was concern expressed from some members of the disability community about certain omissions. Our committee believed that we could focus on a few clear amendments that would add value to C-81 without endangering its passage. While the reflected desire for this legislation was strong, the desire to improve it was even stronger. The Senate — all of you, senators — agreed, and we passed the amended bill at third reading, and the House concurred with all our amendments. It is important to remember the essence of these amendments because it highlights the value of true sober second thought.

One, timelines. Bill C-81 had no definitive timeline for Canada to become a fully accessible country. Without timelines, there would be no accountability, progress could not be measured and standards might never be developed and enacted by law. Therefore, we added the recommended deadline of 2040 to be the definable date in place for full implementation of accessibility requirements. Related to this, we made an amendment to ensure that accessibility measures would not be delayed or postponed as an unintended consequence, but enacted as soon as possible.

Two, the next amendment we made was recognition of particular sign languages to be named in the bill as the languages of people who are deaf. This would ensure that deaf persons would not be forgotten and have equal access to information, communication, employment, government services, transportation and other federally regulated sectors. Honourable senators, these are not insignificant additions to a good bill.

Returning to the here and now — Bill C-22 — there are several issues that will be helpful to review at committee. First, the ninth amendment to the bill, which changed the coming-into-force date, merits sober second thought. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance published a response to the amendments on their website in which they argue:

As amended by HUMA, Section 14 specifies no specific date for the bill to come into effect. Section 5(2) of the federal Interpretation Act fills the void by making the bill come into force immediately upon Royal Assent.

I am not a legislative legal expert, but I did consult with one who agreed that this change may indeed be problematic. We should give due attention to this clause and amend it if it is in the interest of Canadians to do so.

Second, the committee should examine the existing disability support programs in this country and how they might interact with this new benefit. Jennifer Robson, associate professor and director of the political management program at Carleton University, told The Hill Times in September 2022 that existing support programs at the provincial and federal level each have a different definition of disability, different benefit levels and different rules regarding other income. She described the existing programs as “a Swiss cheese space” for the new benefit to fit into.

We must ensure that application for provincial and federal benefits isn’t prohibitively bureaucratic so that people with disabilities will not fall through the cracks. There should be a well-defined monitoring and complaint process for appeals of refusals, reductions in benefits and clawbacks, perhaps a tribunal or an advocate. One of the complaints we heard at the Senate social affairs committee about the disability tax credit process was that the Canada Revenue Agency was tasked with the complaint and investigation process, and it was unsatisfactory and exceedingly slow.

Third, the committee should consider the value that the benefit be determined on the basis of the net income of the applicant, not the income of the person’s household. Louise Bourgeois, president of the Mouvement personne d’abord de Sainte-Thérèse, told the House committee:

People living with intellectual disabilities are among the poorest in our society. They are also at greater risk of experiencing economic violence. It will be important that the amount given to individuals does not depend on their spouse’s income. It should be calculated and given to the person individually. After all, the bill is about strengthening people’s financial security.

StatCan data also show that people with disabilities are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than people without disabilities. In an analysis of 2018 data, Laura Savage from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada noted:

Having a disability may increase some women’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence. For example, women with disabilities may experience an increased risk of isolation or an increased reliance on an intimate partner.

This reliance is often economic.

When Green Party MP Mike Morrice moved an amendment at the House committee to address this concern, a department official pointed out that most federal benefits are built on family income. Can the Canadian disability benefit, in particular, enhance the financial security of the individual in order to make financial independence more possible? An amendment could help address that vulnerability.

Related to this is another important issue around the adequacy of the disability benefit and whether there should be clear definition that the benefit itself must be above the poverty level. The amount of the benefit is not specified in the bill as it stands and is left to Governor-in-Council and the regulations. The challenge was addressed in Senator Pate’s question to Senator Cotter last week. Discussed in the other place, it was ruled out of order. Our committee hearings should explore the adequacy issue. There are many detailed international comparisons available. Most European countries have a disability benefit. Switzerland, Norway and Denmark provide the most substantial monthly disability allowances, and Norway offers disability allowances as a universal right in contrast to many other countries that only offer benefits to those in the labour market.

Although the House of Commons committee passed many helpful amendments and really put some meat on the bones of this framework legislation, this bill, nonetheless, leaves so much to the regulations. The Governor-in-Council — that is, the Governor General acting on the advice of cabinet — is tasked to create the regulations for the very essence of the substance: eligibility criteria; the amount of the benefit; the payment periods; the application process; reviews or reconsiderations of decisions; appeals; retroactive payments; applications made on behalf of persons incapable of managing their own affairs; the application of the act when an applicant or beneficiary dies; and the identification of debts.

Colleagues, we must all reflect on the deference shown to cabinet that is so profuse in this bill. It restricts our debate in Parliament, and also opens the door to future changes — not by legislation, but by orders of the Governor-in-Council. And, while it is critically important that the government intends to fully consult the disability community with regard to the substance and implementation of this legislation, it remains a concern how few of the specifics of this process, along with the timelines, are actually delineated in this piece of legislation.

In closing, I support the principles of Bill C-22, but I lament that what we have is only a very bare framework. The government could have — and should have — done better. Now, honourable senators, let’s do our work and get this bill to committee. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Seidman: Yes, of course.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, happy Valentine’s Day.

I rise today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people to speak at second reading to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing what is promised to be a generational game changer, the Canada disability benefit.

Honourable colleagues, I would like to start my remarks today with the story of kin — a story about my kin.

When I was 10, my mother, Betty, was pregnant. There were six of us, and were we ever excited. We three girls all wanted a little sister, and my three brothers were rooting for a little brother. On Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in 1965, our little brother John Patterson was born, and in the end what mattered was that our family had an adorable new baby. I felt like mom had the baby just for me. I was over the moon. Johnny was so sweet and so much fun. I played with him and “took care” of him all the time. I just loved him to bits, and I still do.

My brother Johnny was a very likeable and active child. He was smart, funny, athletic and outgoing. Johnny completed high school and went on to study in a number of fields — broadcasting, recreation and later computers. He worked in the hospitality industry, including stints in Banff; worked in child care; got involved in radio, theatre and improv.

Along the way, when I had already moved out of the house and started my own family, my dear youngest brother developed chronic and serious health difficulties, mental health conditions, commencing at the age of 14. These took years to diagnose and treat, and of course, those were very turbulent and often painful times for Johnny as he tried to finish school, work, pay the bills, have good relationships and make a life in the ways that we all want to do. It was all just so much harder and at times impossible for Johnny because of his health.

Like many Canadians, Johnny has bipolar disorder and severe anxiety. In his case, these conditions are very debilitating. Today, Johnny’s full-time job, quite frankly, is being healthy, and I can tell you he works very diligently at that. He volunteers in the community, visits our almost 96-year-old mom, swims to stay physically well and works to keep up relationships with a close circle of friends and family. Johnny is a kind and good person who was dealt a hand that included a really tough disability.

Increasingly unable to work at paid employment — it sure is hard to keep a job when you can’t sleep at night and are experiencing other severe symptoms of anxiety and depression — Johnny was initially refused eligibility for the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP, but was eventually approved after being hospitalized in 2001. ODSP pays $1,230 per month for a single person like Johnny. In my province of Nova Scotia, he would be expected to live on $950. While it is good that he receives some modest income support, Johnny says that the financial stress of being on disability is hard on his mental health.

Colleagues, it’s stressful not having enough money for even the basic necessities of life. Ending the financial insecurity of people like my brother Johnny — my kin and yours — and reducing poverty, which is disproportionately high among disabled Canadians, is what Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit are all about.

It is also about restoring people’s dignity. My brother would tell you that the stigma around mental health is hard to shake. Johnny still feels shame and guilt thinking that somehow his situation is his fault.

Honourable senators, the Canada disability benefit will provide much-needed material support to people like Johnny, and it could also send an important signal to them that our society understands, respects and values people living with disabilities.

Senator Cotter, the sponsor of Bill C-22, eloquently and comprehensively introduced us to the essential content of this important bill in his speech at second reading last Thursday.

Bill C-22 is a framework legislation that establishes the Canada disability benefit. It’s aimed at low-income, working-age persons with all types of disabilities. It’s the cornerstone of Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan and its highest priority.

According to the legislation, most of the benefit’s design elements will be established through regulations, and those will be developed in collaboration with people living with disabilities. As the slogan rightly states, “nihil de nobis, sine nobis” — nothing about us without us. Nothing about disabled Canadians without disabled Canadians at the table.

Colleagues, when studying this legislation, I was interested in how this new benefit was connected to related policies and initiatives such as guaranteed livable basic income, medical assistance in dying and the new national health care deal. During my first year in this chamber, I joined the All-Party Anti-Poverty Caucus led by our former colleague senator Art Eggleton. We studied a number of poverty-reduction measures, including the now-cancelled Ontario Basic Income Pilot.

Asked at one of our meetings whether the government would consider playing a role in establishing a guaranteed livable basic income for Canadians, Minister Duclos, then Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, was very clear that the government intended to focus its poverty-reduction efforts on targeted groups of the population — children, through the Canada Child Benefit, and vulnerable seniors through the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

We know that the Canada disability benefit is modelled on the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. The maximum GIS payment for single pensioners at the moment is $1,026. We don’t yet know what the CDB amount will be.

Honourable senators, when I spoke on Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying legislation, I cited a letter from disability advocates that stated:

. . . there is a real risk that those without adequate support networks of friends and family, in older age, living in poverty or who might be further marginalized by their racialized, indigenous, gender identity or other status, will be more vulnerable to being induced to access MAiD.

Those fears were widely held.

Colleagues, a number of disability advocates have indicated that the Canada disability benefit, if well designed and appropriately resourced, could be an important response to those fears about MAID.

The third related matter is the new health care deal currently being negotiated between the federal government and the territories and provinces. Sister Elizabeth Davis, co-chair of the Newfoundland team that produced that province’s Health Accord plan, told the CBC that new funding proposed by the federal government would allow the implementation of half of that province’s Health Accord plan. But without finding ways to address the other half, the plan won’t succeed.

The other half, which addresses the social determinants of health, is perhaps more important and needs even more attention. One of the findings of the Newfoundland Health Accord is that social, economic and environmental factors play a role in 60% of health outcomes, while the actual health care system accounts for 25%, and a person’s genetic makeup, the final 15%. Sister Davis says poverty reduction is crucial — again, an obvious link to the Canada disability benefit.

Colleagues, the case for a disability benefit for Canadians in need is both clear and compelling. We know that 22% of our population consists of persons with disabilities; in my province of Nova Scotia, it’s 30%. Forty percent of us have family members with disabilities. You’ve heard about my brother Johnny. We know that 41% of people living in poverty in Canada are disabled, with 10% of seniors with disabilities living in poverty, and that disabled people make up over 50% of people facing food insecurity in Canada.

Vancouver’s The Province headline on February 9 last week declared that a disability diagnosis is “a prescription for poverty.” Colleagues, that is a shared national shame.

The Disability Without Poverty organization’s submission on Bill C-22 provides even more detail on poverty experienced by persons living with disabilities. They point out how poverty among their members has deepened during the COVID pandemic and how the impacts of inflation and the housing crisis have disproportionately impacted disabled Canadians.

Colleagues, the preamble of the Poverty Reduction Act states that “Canada aspires to be a world leader in the eradication of poverty,” and the act establishes the ambitious poverty reduction target of 50% below the level of poverty in 2015 by 2030.

Colleagues, with this national aspiration clearly spelled out and the obvious case for creating a much-needed financial benefit for disabled Canadians, we have been asked by people in the disabilities community to now do our part to ensure that Bill C-22 moves to Royal Assent with haste. People living with disabilities need financial relief, and they need it now.

Bill C-22 was passed unanimously in the House after a detailed study and with amendments. Our job is not to unduly hold up the bill, while at the same time, we need to work efficiently to fulfill our responsibility to ensure that we have legislation that enables the creation of a robust Canada disability benefit which will have the intended outcomes of significantly reducing poverty and supporting the financial security of persons with disabilities — one which clearly responds to what people living with disabilities are asking for.

They’re asking the federal government to prevent clawbacks of benefits by provinces and territories, prevent clawbacks by private disability insurance companies and ensure that the coming into force and the money actually flowing to beneficiaries happen within the year — we need strict deadlines for every step of the development and implementation process.

They are also asking the federal government to ensure benefit amounts are adequate to actually take people above the official poverty line; have eligibility criteria which are clear, fair and developed in consultation with persons with disabilities; develop a two-track process for determining eligibility so that people eligible for provincial and territorial benefits do not have to prove again that they have a disability and live in poverty; ensure the working-age target group doesn’t leave out disabled seniors — I’m a senior, and I’m still working — ensure there is proactive outreach to all persons who could be eligible. The most vulnerable don’t always file taxes, as we heard Senator Forest mention, and some may not even have social insurance numbers; they need to be reached out to.

Further, the government is asked to ensure the right to appeal refusal exists — and that there’s a tribunal for that — and that mechanisms for complaints are in place; and to include the most critical details in the bill itself, rather than leaving so many details to the regulations.

This is what many are asking us. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance calls Bill C-22 a well‑intentioned but weak bill. They say we still don’t know how much the benefit will be, who will be eligible for it or when the government will start paying it. Some others are expressing greater trust in the government and the promised co-development process.

Honourable senators, my brother Johnny was 55 when the promise to create the Canada disability benefit was made in the September 2020 Speech from the Throne. In four months, he will turn 58, already almost three years since that promise. Honourable senators, let’s move this transformational bill to committee so our colleagues can investigate whether and how it can best deliver in a timely manner on its important promises of financial security, poverty reduction and dignity — promises to my brother Johnny and to other Canadians living with disabilities. Honourable senators, let’s ensure this promised generational change starts now.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Will you take a question, honourable senator?

Senator Dupuis: As part of its study of the bill, as you suggested, don’t you think the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs should also consider the aspect of human rights in relation to persons with disabilities?

In other words, people say they think it’s too bad and that we have a moral obligation to lift people out of poverty; however, there is also a body of legislation that says that we don’t have the right to discriminate on the grounds of a disability.

In that sense, don’t you think that the committee should also look at the issue from the point of view of the discrimination persons with disabilities suffer in the workforce, in order to see how this new benefit might help address this discrimination? It isn’t just a moral obligation. There is a clear legal obligation in our system that seeks to ensure that people who want to have a job can do so, including if they have a disability.

[English]

Senator Bellemare: I listened to you carefully, and I read the bill and the amendments that were made.

Upon reading the bill, it seems possible that a benefit for persons with disabilities that seeks to reduce poverty could be subject to an agreement with the provinces. Would you approve of the possibility of providing a type of assistance that is different from one province to the next, and do you believe that it could be a possibility under this bill?

[English]

Senator Seidman: Thank you, senator. This reminds me of the conversation we had about dental benefits — where we talked about the fact that it is a complex picture because every province has different benefits and qualifications in order to receive those benefits.

The federal government has promised that they will engage with the provinces on an individual level. We don’t know yet what exactly that engagement will consist of.

When Senator Cotter spoke last week — as the sponsor — he spoke about this very clearly. He, with his experience, has offered to help the federal government in their engagement with the provinces. One has some hope that this is going to happen.

Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc. Indeed, we have some experience studying this issue at the Social Affairs Committee.

I am well aware that, in fact, there are voices within the disability community who would like us to say that working age might go to age 70, as opposed to age 65. There is discussion about this. As I said, this is something the committee should look at.

There are examples. As I mentioned in my speech, Norway does have a universal benefit, unlike most countries. Most countries have a benefit for working-age people. Again, this is something for the committee to look at.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Simons, would you agree to take a question?

Senator Seidman: Thank you, senator. Indeed, this issue has come up very often. We heard clearly that the federal government intends to negotiate with the provinces.

There are many different types of insurance plans, and, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a real concern that it’s a kind of a mosaic, and how we’re going to be sure that people don’t have clawbacks is going to be a challenge. Again, that’s why I did mention in my speech that we might consider some kind of a tribunal or advocate where people can bring their complaints, their appeals, whatever it may be, that it isn’t just a government bureaucrat who is receiving these complaints, that there is some way that people will be heard and heard quickly, so that it’s not one, two or three years, as we heard with the Disability Tax Credit. There was a huge problem for people to be heard and receive what they were entitled to.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-232. I would like to start by commending the sponsor, Senator Boniface, for the hard work that went into crafting the bill, and I would like to note it was first read in this chamber on December 7, 2021.

It’s time to reframe the problem. For decades, there has been a futile debate about whether self-destructive drug use is a criminal problem or a medical problem. I hope that it can now be clear that it is neither — it’s a political problem. This is from Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada: A Brief Review and Commentary by Diane Riley, PhD, that was prepared for our late and great friend the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin.

I believe it is important for us to understand the life of an addict. First of all, you have to raise the cash. You’re a sex trade worker. You’re breaking into cars. You’re breaking into houses. You’re strong-arming other people, including addicts, but you put the cash together. Then you have to score. You have to go out and find your seller. You have to scramble through the streets and through the alleys to try and find that one person who will sell the drugs to you. This is not the movies. This is not where everybody is shiny and clean. They’re dirty. They’re smelly. The seller you’re buying from is an addict. That person has no idea what’s in the drugs that he or she is selling to you. And, finally, you get to shoot. You go to an alley, a single room, a washroom. Sometimes you suck up water from puddles into your syringe because that’s the fastest way to get that into your arm.

There’s no messing around here. Once you have the drug, you want to use it immediately. If not, you may get stopped by the police or robbed by other addicts for your fix.

To be clear, in my experience, it is rare for a street police officer to arrest a user. But they’re obligated by law to seize the drugs that that user has, and for the addict, this just restarts the process.

This is not recreational drug use. This is not smoking a joint on Saturday night at the nightclub. This is not having a drink with your friends. It’s an addiction.

Addicts are People of Sand. They have no connections with their roots and no connections with the past or future . . . they live in the moment, in the now . . . they need structure and comprehensive total assistance . . . until we deal with the emotions, everything else is short-term.

This is the opening statement from John Vincent Cain, my predecessor as Chief Coroner for the Province of British Columbia. He was tasked to report on illicit narcotic overdose deaths in British Columbia, and the report was released in September of 1994.

It is quite literally a road map on how to deal with overdose deaths. I quote specifically recommendation 61:

I therefore RECOMMEND THAT the Ministry of Attorney General:

61. Enter into discussions with the federal Ministers of Justice and Health on the propriety and feasibility of decriminalizing the possession and use of specified substances by people shown to be addicted to those specifying substances;

Thirty years/Where’d they go?/Thirty years/I don’t know — to paraphrase a song by Bob Seger.

Decriminalization is not some recent concept. Thirty years ago, when B.C. went from 39 deaths in 1983 to 331 deaths in 1993, the task force was set up.

I was the Vancouver coroner during those years. In 1993, I thought nothing worse could possibly happen, but it did.

In 2001, decriminalization was implemented in Portugal. All reports demonstrate positive results. I recognize that Portugal and their health care system and justice system are way different from ours, but all reports from Portugal are positive. All reports show deaths dropping, the number of people going before the courts decreasing rapidly and the number of people in prison going down.

Finally, British Columbia decriminalized drugs via a health care exemption starting January 31. We don’t know how that will go, but we at least are out there trying.

In all the other provinces and territories, existing laws about illegal drugs apply. Is it a great stretch that this law should apply across the nation? I suggest not, but we all know we’re in the unique position of having 13 separate, independent, individual health care authorities in Canada, each responsible independently, again, of how health care is applied.

While addiction is a national emergency, many provinces have neither the ability nor the will to step into this political morass. It is incumbent upon the federal, provincial and territorial governments to overcome this constitutional issue in favour of life.

The benefits of decriminalization: For this, I give my thanks to the Canadian Healthcare Network and, in particular, Alissa Greer and Caitlin Shane for their report on decriminalizing drug use. It changes the way we think about drugs. It moves from a legal framework to a recognition that addiction is a health and social issue.

This idea, in some people’s minds — somebody wakes up some morning and says, “You know what? I think I’ll shoot up some heroin. That seems like a good idea. And you know what? I think that I’ll quit school, and I’ll leave my house, and I’ll go into the depths of our cities and towns and lead a life of abject poverty, disease and, in many cases, mental illness.”

I know thousands of people who are addicted. Not a single one has ever said, “Damn, that was a decision that I made, and I wouldn’t change it.” Not one.

How will this decriminalization affect us? For starters, it will save us a ton of money because we spend so much money on police, courts, prisons, our social workers and our clinics, and everyone is overworked.

I had supper a couple months ago at Firehall #3. Their T-shirt says, “This isn’t hell, but we can see it from here.” It’s right in the Downtown Eastside. I had supper with these men and women, and we never finished supper because the bells kept going off and they kept calling out. One of them said to me, “I saved the same person five times, and you know what? I’m losing my humanity.”

Decriminalization in Portugal has reduced the demands on and the costs to the system — health care, emergency rooms. When we opened the one supervised injection site in Vancouver, I was stupid: I should have opened 20 of them when I had the chance. When we opened it, visits to St. Paul’s Hospital emergency ward dropped dramatically because we were dealing with them on the site — bruises, infections, you name it. But we had nurses there, and they could deal with them, and they weren’t having to go to the emergency room. That money can be spent in so many other ways — health care clinics, more doctors, more treatment, more care.

Decriminalization positively impacts people’s lives. The vast majority of the addicted are mentally ill, poor, homeless, racialized, abused — you name it, and it’s happened to these people, over and over again.

Fewer criminal records means that at some point the addict will not be stigmatized with a criminal record for what is a health issue and may be able to get a job. Decriminalization, with an understanding of the good Samaritan law that we passed here, will reduce the fears that many still have about calling emergency services in an overdose situation. Decriminalization is harm reduction.

There’s a fear that drug use will increase if decriminalization comes into effect. I go back to what I said earlier: “This seems like a good idea, why don’t I just go down and crank a little bit of heroin.” This is not supported by evidence, and in fact, in most instances, the drug use has decreased. Decriminalization is not a silver bullet, and in fact, as I learned from the supervised injection site, there is no silver bullet when it comes to addiction.

If we choose not to move in this direction, what is the result? Think of these cities: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory; Orangeville, Ontario; Port Moody, British Columbia; Saint-Constant, Quebec; Cochrane, Alberta; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; Yellowknife; two thirds of the population of Nunavut; Dieppe, New Brunswick; Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Brandon, Manitoba; and Summerside and Stratford, in Prince Edward Island. You may ask: What do these Canadian cities have in common? Nothing, except their population.

Imagine, if you will, that any one of these cities disappears — gone, no more. Each city relates approximately to the number of people who have died between January 2016 and June 2022 from opioid toxicity.

People respond to numbers, so here are a few more: In 2016 there were eight deaths per day in Canada. In 2018, there were 12 deaths per day in Canada. From January to June 2022, there were 20 deaths per day — virtually one every hour, every day, every week, every month — 32,632 people gone. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunties, uncles, friends — gone right here in this country that we love and we’re so proud of.

Passing this bill won’t stop addiction. Passing this bill will stop the criminal effects of addiction. Passing this bill will send a message to the other place that we will not let this issue die. I urge you to find it in your hearts to move this bill forward with the urgency it demands.

Finally, honourable senators, this will be my last speech in this most amazing of places. I requested no tributes, and I will not speak other than now. I will miss this place, the friends I’ve made, the experiences I’ve had and the feeling this place makes a difference. I leave the Senate knowing that more than ever it has a role in the governing of Canada, that this place constructs bills, examines and amends bills that make Canada a better place. This is and will be the chamber of sober second thought. God speed to all of you. Thank you.

Senator Pate: Thank you for the years and years of work that you put into this. Thank you for inspiring Da Vinci’s Inquest, which brought it home to many people in ways they might not otherwise have known about. And thank you for all the work I know you’ll continue to do. I suspect my time is up, so I want to ask: Why is this your last speech?

Hon. Kim Pate: Senator Campbell, would you take a question?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading in support of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). It would make mandatory health warning labels on alcoholic beverages which are sold in Canada.

I’m speaking to you today from the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg peoples.

I want to first begin by thanking Senator Brazeau for introducing this very important bill to this chamber.

Honourable senators, it has been scientifically proven that a link exists between consuming alcoholic beverages and certain types of cancers. As Senator Brazeau has stated in his speech, these include cancer of the mouth and throat, vocal cords, esophagus, breast, liver and colon.

As Senator Brazeau also highlighted, only one in four Canadians are even aware that there is a connection between consuming alcoholic beverages and the risk of cancer. The majority of Canadians are also unaware that the World Health Organization classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen.

In letters of support for this bill from organizations such as the Cobequid Community Health Board, the Yarmouth Community Health Board, the Lunenburg County Community Health Board and the Digby and Area Community Health Board, all from my province of Nova Scotia, they make it clear that the measures in this bill are in line with current health recommendations grounded in scientific, evidence-based findings:

Bill S-254 aligns with the recent call for warning labels that formed part of the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction’s proposed new Canadian Guidance on Alcohol and Health that Health Canada: “require, through regulation, the mandatory labelling of all alcoholic beverages to list the number of standard drinks in a container, the Guidance on Alcohol and Health, health warnings and nutrition information.” This recommendation comes from leading scientific experts in the field and is supported by an Evidence-based Recommendations for Labelling Alcohol Products in Canada written by Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation (CAPE) Project researchers, who have been leaders in the alcohol policy field for over 10 years.

The Eastern Shore Community Health Board members in Nova Scotia echo these concerns in their support for this legislation stating that they feel:

. . . it is imperative for people to know and understand the risks they are taking when choosing to consume alcohol. Not only is alcohol a health risk for cancer but we see the outcomes of alcohol addiction in our communities in the form of family violence, mental health issues and other chronic diseases. Warning labels are just the start of a series of public policies required to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in our communities and create healthier environments for families.

Honourable senators, the goal of this bill is not to take away Canadians’ right to purchase these products, or restrict access to these products, as I feel opponents of this bill may claim. The intent is to provide the consumer with clear and accurate and, quite frankly, important information to make an informed choice when deciding to consume these types of products.

When we hear that only one in four Canadians even know that there is a risk of cancer from consuming alcoholic beverages over time, I think the proof is there that these types of labels are necessary and well overdue.

Honourable senators, some may ask if warning labels are even effective; will they make enough of a difference, or will they just be an unnecessary disruption to Canada’s alcoholic beverage industry?

We can look at tobacco as an example. I will quote from a relevant study. In 2006, International Tobacco Control conducted a four-country survey to assess the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking:

The aim of the current study was to use nationally representative samples of adult smokers from the United States (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada (CAN), and Australia . . . to examine variations in smokers’ knowledge about tobacco risks and the impact of package warnings.

At the time:

Smokers in the four countries exhibited significant gaps in their knowledge of the risks of smoking. Smokers who noticed the warnings were significantly more likely to endorse health risks, including lung cancer and heart disease. In each instance where labelling policies differed between countries, smokers living in countries with government mandated warnings reported greater health knowledge.

For example, in Canada, where package warnings include information about a specific health risk, “smokers were 2.68 . . . times more likely to agree” that smoking causes that health risk compared to smokers from the other three countries.

The survey concluded that health warnings that are “graphic, larger and more comprehensive in content are more effective in communicating the health risks of smoking.”

We see that health warning labels are effective in educating the consumer of the risks. But the question now is, does that knowledge lead to change in behaviour, in this case, a decrease in consumption?

If we look at Canada in 2000, the smoking rate was roughly 28% of Canadians above the age of 15 who smoked on a regular basis. The latest statistic on the prevalence of smoking in Canada put that number under 12% today.

Of course, the decline in smoking prevalence in Canada cannot be attributed solely to mandated graphic health warning labels on tobacco packages. There were, as you know, many forms of advertising that spoke of the harms of smoking. Health warning labels are just one of the many tools to help curb consumer behaviour. It has been shown that, when used together with other policies and measures, it is a very effective strategy.

In the case of alcohol consumption, the evidence shows that the more alcohol consumed, the greater risk of certain cancers. Canadians need to be aware of that; however, we know that it is not in the financial interest of alcohol beverage producers to voluntarily add warning labels to their products.

The aim of warning labels is to reduce consumption, which would decrease demand for their products; this is why, as Senator Brazeau has said in his speech, “it becomes the basic responsibility of Parliament to step in.”

Honourable senators, again, I wish to thank Senator Brazeau for introducing this bill here in the Senate. I fully support the intent of this legislation. It has been shown that health warning labels on other products have had a positive impact on consumer behaviours. Why should alcoholic beverages be exempt from this same scrutiny? It is time they are brought in line with other products that can be harmful.

Honourable senators, I am hopeful that we can send Bill S-254 to committee in a timely manner for further study and for consideration. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to speak on this report, which deals with the Senate’s budget for the financial year 2023-24.

In summary, the anticipated budget is estimated at $126.7 million, which is $4.9 million or 4% over the 2022-23 budget.

The process of arriving at the budget is based on the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. The subcommittee is comprised of myself as chair; Senator Marshall as deputy chair; and Senators Bovey, Moodie and Tannas. I thank them for the substantial time and effort they spent on reviewing the estimates.

The members of the subcommittee met with the Senate Administration Executive Committee and most of the directors on many occasions. Detailed presentations were made by the directorates to the subcommittee. The members had the opportunity to discuss and question funding, staffing and expense requirements during this process.

Throughout its consideration of the 2023-24 Main Estimates, the committee took into consideration not only the changes in the Senate, but also the effects of the new economic and operational realities resulting from two years of the pandemic that has had a significant impact on the Senate’s operation. The committee was also very mindful of the Canadian economic environment and the importance of balancing operational needs with proper stewardship of public funds.

Moving to the detail of the expenditures, I would remind senators that there are two parts to the budget: statutory funding and voted funding. The statutory portion deals with money allocated by legislation. This includes senators’ basic and additional allowances, pensions, senators’ travel and living expenses, telecommunications and employee benefit plans. Any shortfalls in these categories at the end of the year are covered by the Treasury Board. Conversely, surpluses are automatically returned to the Treasury Board as they cannot be reallocated. The second part of the budget is the voted budget, which is for the workings of the Senate. They cover senators’ office budgets and Senate Administration.

Moving to the numbers, the total amount of the statutory budget is $38.1 million, an increase of $800,000, or 2.2%, from last year. The main reason for the increase is the senators’ travel budget, which is increasing by $418,000 to reflect the recent increase in travel costs. The other increase is the contribution to the employee benefit plan, which rose by $391,000 due to the increase of 0.2% of the Treasury Board rate from 15% to 15.2%.

Moving to the second part of the voted budget, this portion is $88.6 million, an increase of $4.1 million or 4.8%. The major components of the voted budget growth are the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, which increased by $201,000 to cover the cost of the 47th annual session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the 31st annual session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly. There was an increase of $100,000 for the diversity, equity and inclusion program and additional funding of $2.5 million to maintain and renew the IT infrastructure and technologies, for new resources to support human resources activities and for services and funding for the East Block and the Senate of Canada building’s cafeteria.

[Translation]

The new requests for funding approved by the Internal Economy Committee over the course of the year represent $1.1 million, mainly because of economic increases for the Senate Executive Group and the Middle Management Group for two additional resources for the new enhanced security measure for senators and staff, which the Parliamentary Security Department will be responsible for, and for two additional resources for the Committees Directorate.

An amount of $146,00 was included mainly to cover position reclassifications. The following two budget transfers were approved. The first is a reallocation of $179,000 from the Senate committees budget to the Senate Administration to cover the salaries of two resources to support witnesses who appear virtually. The second is a reallocation of $178,000 from the Audit and Oversight Committee’s budget to the Senate Administration to cover the salary of a new chief audit executive.

Initiatives requiring one-time funding will be self-funded up to $924,000, particularly for strategic planning of human resources for the employment participation study and the review of compensation, maintenance and the ongoing renewal of the Senate network, and the renewal of two resources to support the renewal of the network and the redesign of many processes.

As a result of the decision made by the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on December 15, there is a temporary hiring freeze, which means that the employee threshold is 441.2 full‑time equivalents. A review of operational efficiency is currently being conducted by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. This committee is responsible for evaluating the expenditures and performance of the Senate Administration in key areas in order to identify opportunities for savings and for the streamlining of services. It should be noted that any proposed amendment will be presented and have to be approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Before concluding, I want to once again thank the members of the subcommittee, staff of the Senate Administration and members of the Executive Committee. They all considered the budget in a thoughtful and prudent manner.

At this point, I’d also like to provide some clarification respecting certain recent newspaper articles on the financial situation of the Senate. This information was confusing and painted an inaccurate picture of the Senate’s real expenditures.

[English]

Actual expenses and budgets are often used to explain the cost of operating the Senate. Colleagues, there is a difference between “budget” and “actual expenses.” The budget is the overall amount allocated for the functioning of the Senate during a year, whereas the expenses are the amount that is actually spent. Here are the figures for both budget and expenses.

If you remember, in the newspapers, we had comparison from 2015-16. The budget at that time was $88.8 million. The 2023-24 budget is $126.7 million. The increase in the budget between 2023-24 and 2015-16 is $37.9 million, or 42.6%, representing an annual budget increase of 5.3%. If you compare the actual expenses — so I’m talking about expenses now, not about the budget — they were $74.6 million in 2015-16 and $96.4 million for the year 2021-22. That represents an increase of $21.8 million, or 4.9% a year over six years.

The budget for the upcoming fiscal year of 2023-24 totals $126.7 million. This represents an increase of $4.9 million, or 4%, over the fiscal year from 2022-23. So we’re back to talking about budgets.

The annual average budget increase for the past three years is approximately $3.7 million per year, or 3.1%. The 2023-24 budget is based on the principles of maintaining high quality services to senators and some management of public funds in the context of the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery. It includes inflation, economic salary increases, increase in costs, investments in technology and new initiatives.

Some of the new initiatives are actually required by law. The Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act and the Accessible Canada Act require the Senate to implement new programs with deadlines predefined by the regulation, including pay equity, accessibility and harassment prevention.

In addition to these regulatory requirements, the Senate is working to implement initiatives on diversity and inclusion, recruitment and audit and oversight. As a reminder, the Senate has actual expenses. In the last six years, all surplus amounts were returned to the government’s central funds.

My last remark will be on the amount of work done by staff just to keep this institution running. We have 18 permanent committees, 7 subcommittees and 4 joint committees. We have three Senate sittings a week and we have four groups and caucuses that meet on a weekly basis. Every time there is a committee meeting, there are at least 20 to 25 people who are involved. If you were to add up all of these committee meetings and the work done during the week, there is a lot of staff who are at our service in the Senate. I will say that the service we receive from our staff is excellent, and I have no complaints whatsoever. On this note, colleagues, I rest my case.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the inquiry instigated by our colleague Senator Donna Dasko, calling the attention of the Senate to the role of leaders’ debates in enhancing democracy by engaging and informing voters.

My friends, I am passionate on the subject of debates because I am a debater, and I mean that most literally. It would probably not shock most of you here to learn that I was an eager member of my high school debate club. Indeed, back in my Grade 11 glory days at Ross Sheppard Composite High School, my partner Esther Winestock and I won the Alberta provincial debate championships and thus the chance to attend the high school national debate championship in Montreal.

I have the fondest memories of that Montreal tournament, not just because I was ranked fifth in the country but because it was at this glorious festival of nerds that I was finally asked to dance my first-ever slow dance — not because I was the belle of the ball, but because an older boy, a member of the Ontario team, took pity on my wallflower status and kindly asked me to dance to “Stairway to Heaven,” the slow dance of our era. That boy’s name was David Lametti. He is now the Minister of Justice; I’m now a senator, and I suspect it’s fair to say that our high school debating experiences have stood us in good stead, even if our dancing abilities have not.

Debating sharpens the wits. It teaches you to think on your feet, to engage in the respectful clash of ideas, to listen, analyze and rebut in real time. In high school competition, you have to research and argue both sides of every issue. You thus cultivate the capacity to appreciate that no one side has a monopoly on good ideas. You develop respect, even for those with whom you may have an intellectual disagreement, because you’ve learned — indeed, you’ve trained — to view things from the opposite point of view.

Debate also did wonders for my social life, and not just in high school. I went on to be a member of the University of Alberta Debate Society, where my partner Jason Lucien and I won the McGoun Cup, the western Canadian university debate championship. Jason remains one of my dearest friends.

But it was also at the University of Alberta debate club that I met my Valentine, my husband, 40 years ago this coming fall. You might say he and I have been debating together ever since. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we raised a debater. Our daughter — poor child — could hardly escape her fate. Call it nature, call it nurture, she was genetically engineered and raised for debate competition. And oh, she was very good. She attended the junior high national debate championships twice and ended up ranked the third-best debater of her age in the country, surpassing my own standing.

When she started high school, however, she rebelled. And oh, how she rebelled. I don’t want to shock you, but I must tell you: She traded in her debate podium for the stage and became captain of her high school improv team instead. She insisted that somehow improv was more fun. Goodness knows why. Still, now that she’s an articling student defending her legal clients, she’s finding her debate chops are coming in very handy.

I wasn’t just a debater or a proud debate mom, which is like being a hockey mom with less skate lacing and more rebuttal prep. I also spent decades volunteering my time as a debate judge and coach, writing how-to guides for the Alberta Debate and Speech Association, teaching and coaching junior high, high school and university debaters on the basic skills and the finer points of cross-examination and parliamentary-style debate.

So when I tell you that our current format for federal leaders’ debates doesn’t work, I’m not just speaking as a current senator, nor as a long-time political journalist. I’m speaking as a debate aficionado. I know good debate when I see and hear it, and the way we structure our federal election events simply isn’t conducive to good debate, no matter who’s on the stage. There is no clear, clean clash of ideas. There are few opportunities for direct engagement at all. There’s an overreliance on pre-memorized talking points and canned answers, so we don’t always have much chance to see candidates thinking on their feet and grappling with opposing points of view.

Part of the problem, of course, is our increasingly multi-party system. A conventional debate works best when you have two opponents at a time, and those days are long gone. When you have four or five or six rival leaders onstage shouting each other down, squeezing each other out, it’s hard to come up with a format that allows for one-on-one argument and refutation.

But then — and I say this with all due respect to the various journalists involved — we don’t really have a debate at all. We have questions posed by journalists — sometimes good questions, and sometimes not. Then things degenerate into a sort of competitive press conference to the death, where the rival leaders fight to give the best sound-bite answer, even if that response has precious little to do with the question they were asked.

Then, as soon as the debate is over, each leader’s partisans take to social media to trumpet the victory of their candidate, and the pundits immediately begin their instant analysis. By the next morning, millions of Canadians who never watched the debate in the first place are convinced that they know who won.

Why do we attach so much importance to leaders’ debates in the first place? After all, I think we in this chamber know that oratorical skills, while very handy, aren’t actually the litmus test for a great leader or a great prime minister. You can be a fine, witty, charismatic public speaker and be a disaster at public policy creation or caucus management. Rhetorical flourish doesn’t make you a good economist nor a sound military strategist nor an expert in jurisprudence. Yet we demand that our leaders engage in these ritualistic public speaking duels. Why?

Perhaps we can blame, or credit, the Greeks and the Romans, on whom we base so much of our modern democracy. In the Athenian Agora or the Roman Senate, rhetorical skills were deemed a mark of intellect, of leadership ability, and seen as a path to political power, whether they were deployed to convince an elite audience or to inspire a mob.

Long after the Acropolis had crumbled and Rome had fallen, the myth and romance of the ancient world informed and inspired the English aristocracy, who, over centuries, modelled their parliamentary notions on classical ideals. Which is why, even today, in the multicultural, pragmatic Canada of the 21st century, we expect our leaders, our prime ministers, to follow in the models of Aristotle and Pericles, Cicero and Caesar, to show off their prowess as orators and win verbal sparring matches. We ask them simultaneously to entertain us and to prove their worth, yet it is undeniable that in our age of television, live streaming and social media, a good debate performance matters, politically speaking, when it comes to shaping public opinion.

Back in 2011, Alison Redford was vying for the leadership of Alberta’s Progressive Conservative Party. Redford’s mother died the night before the televised debate amongst the leadership contenders. Some expected her to pull out. Instead, she showed up at the studio and so impressed the TV audience that she ended up overtaking the three male frontrunners and becoming Alberta’s first female premier.

It must be said, a lot of Albertans waited a long time to see the same qualities that Premier Redford displayed that night play out in real life, but there is no doubt that the grit, the composure and compassion voters saw helped propel Redford to victory.

In Alberta’s 2015 election, it was Rachel Notley’s fierce and funny performance in the leaders’ debate that fuelled her landslide victory. Although you could also say that the debating failures of Conservative leader Jim Prentice and Wildrose leader Brian Jean did a lot to make Notley Alberta’s first NDP premier.

I remember my father — a blessed memory — a good Red Tory, calling me up, disgruntled, the morning after the debate. “It wasn’t fair,” he grumbled. “Why not?” I asked. “She was just so charming,” fumed my father. “She was impossible to beat.” My dad wasn’t the only one to think that. The night of that debate, Alberta’s current premier, Danielle Smith, was working as a TV pundit, providing live debate analysis. “I’m in a room full of business conservatives,” she said that night. “Feedback so far is the men look grim and Rachel looks great.”

When I think back on that historic 2015 Alberta leaders’ debate, I remember it not just for its outcome, but for its structure. The debate had four participants, but the format allowed them to face off one-on-one, which allowed for some genuine clashes of ideas and personalities. It was a debate that changed people’s minds, not just because of Jim Prentice’s infamous “math is difficult” gaffe, but because people had the chance to scrutinize Prentice, Jean and Notley side by side — to compare and contrast — and to see who seemed the smartest, the most intellectually agile and the most sincere. Despite all the superficialities and frustrations of our TV debate culture, I still believe that political debates can have a real place in showing us a candidate’s grace under pressure, their quick-wittedness and their ability to connect with people.

However, if we want these TV debates to continue, and to provide meaningful context, we need to have a long, hard discussion about their format, their structure and their ultimate purpose. We need a debate model that really allows for a clash of ideas — one that forces leaders to defend their platforms and their principles. And we need to make sure the leaders do that work, not the journalists.

We need to hear the candidates in candid, unrehearsed conversation with each other — thrusting and parrying. We also need tough, strong moderators who will keep people to time, crack down on bullying and generally enforce the rules of fair debate. We don’t want to sit through long, boring prepared sermons — nor do we want a shouting-match free-for-all. No; what we want is debate that is, at least, as good as it was at my daughter’s junior high school. That shouldn’t be too much to ask, nor too much to expect.

My thanks to my friend Senator Dasko for launching this inquiry, and for allowing me this little chance to reminisce.

Be it resolved, then, that this house believes in the power of political debate, and in the necessity of finding a way to make it work for the 21st century.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

[Translation]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry on climate. I will focus on the impact of climate change on human health, and how health care systems could respond.

To begin, let us acknowledge the leadership and hard work that Senator Coyle has demonstrated in creating and advancing Senators for Climate Solutions.

Climate change is not only a threat to our global environment and economy, but it is also an existential threat to human health and our health care systems. In 2009, the medical journal The Lancet identified climate change as the most significant global health threat of the 21st century. These impacts are both direct and indirect. In terms of direct impacts, frequent extreme weather events, such as floods, hurricanes, heat waves and wildfires, impact both health and our ability to provide health care. Various water-borne diseases occur in flooded areas, and access to timely, critical care becomes extremely difficult due to damages to infrastructure, such as roads and bridges. Wildfires disrupt access to acute care sites, while concurrently increasing demand for care due to their impact on respiratory conditions. We are all aware of the impact of hurricanes on health care infrastructure, and how heat waves lead to increased deaths.

Perhaps less appreciated, however, is the indirect impact of climate change on the geographical spread of disease, or the emergence of new diseases — especially infectious diseases. For example, in my home province, there has been an increase in tick-borne infections that can lead to Lyme disease. This is due to an increase in the numbers and longevity of blacklegged ticks as a result of warmer winters. Their biting spreads the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, the cause of Lyme disease, resulting in increased numbers of people who have contracted the disease. According to the Canadian Public Health Association, this outcome — of indirect climate change impacts on human health — is driven by numerous complex changes in the pathways of disease transmission that are sensitive to climate changes. For example, the West Nile virus arrived in Ontario in 2013, and has since spread across that province.

I want us to be aware — now — of some of the nasty tick‑borne and mosquito-borne illnesses that seem to be spreading into Canada due to our changing climate. They have impressive names, such as human granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis and La Crosse encephalitis. Trust me; none of us wants to have a severe case of any of these diseases, even if we could pronounce their names. Their impacts are most severely felt in populations that are already at risk of poor health, and face barriers to appropriate affordable housing, food security and quality health care. The impact of climate change will make those inequalities worse. Addressing this issue requires dealing with the social determinants of health, as well as undertaking actions needed to protect health care settings from severe weather events, such as moving them away from flood plains.

We need to be ready. There are two key areas where preparation within our health systems is needed now: These are treatment readiness and risks to health infrastructure.

The first area is treatment readiness. As we all remember, when COVID-19 arrived, we were not prepared. We had insufficient stockpiles of personal protective equipment; we had insufficient surge capacity in our emergency rooms and intensive care units; our surveillance, reporting and tracking systems were inadequate; we lacked national coordination in our response; and much more. This must not happen again. We need a coordinated national disease surveillance capacity with single-point national accountability. This includes a national health database that can provide real-time information to guide policy decisions, and help direct resources and interventions where and when they are needed.

We also need to be able to rapidly provide treatments that we expect may be required. For example, to treat many various tick‑vector bacterium diseases, effective antibiotic treatments are available; there are medications such as doxycycline, clindamycin and azithromycin. They are not exotic drugs; they are commonly used medications.

But as we have learned, we can’t expect that just because they are commonly used that they will be there when they are needed. We are now experiencing challenges obtaining other types of common medications, such as paediatric fever and pain medication. I recently went to Shoppers Drug Mart stores all over Ottawa to try to find specific medications for sinus congestion and found only empty shelves. We can’t let ourselves get into the same situation again.

In conjunction with this is the preparation of our health care providers. I know there are a number of excellent physicians in this chamber. I do wonder, however, how many of us, if faced with a person who presented with persistent and severe malaise, sweats, headaches, nausea and fatigue, would consider a diagnosis of babesiosis? If our basic workup identified the presence of a hemolytic anemia, which is a condition where red blood cells are being destroyed, we would certainly look at all possible causes, but we might not think of asking for a microscopic parasite analysis or ordering a babesia IFA antibody test.

To be clear, this is not pandemic preparation I am talking about. We might indeed experience pandemic disease outbreaks due to climate change, but we might more likely see a gradual increase in various types of infectious diseases. They will slowly sneak up on us unless we are keeping a close eye out.

In September 2020, The Lancet published “A pledge for planetary health to unite health professionals in the Anthropocene,” which proposed an interprofessional planetary health pledge. The pledge adds protecting planetary health to the fundamental commitments health practitioners make when they enter their profession.

Recognizing that, the Canadian Medical Association’s 2020 strategic plan mentions environmental well-being. The Canadian Federation of Medical Students, through its Health and Environment Adaptive Response Task Force, has been working on developing educational materials that could be embedded in medical curricula.

While much more needs to be done, initiatives across all of Canada’s medical schools are under way, and I am pleased to say that the Faculty of Medicine at Dalhousie University is one of the early leaders in this work.

I have great faith in our infectious disease colleagues. I know they are up to this challenge. I would also like to acknowledge and thank our colleague Senator Osler for her exemplary national work on this file.

I am hopeful that this necessary work will be done well and expeditiously.

The second is the risks to health infrastructure. Health infrastructure is something that many of us, especially in large urban areas, take for granted. The hospital? Yes, just down the road. Ambulance station? There is one about 15 minutes away. Drug store? There is one in the Rideau Centre.

Health care settings are subject to extreme weather events that can damage or destroy anything from roads, making it difficult to access a hospital in an emergency, to damage to ports and, thus, to the smooth functioning of the medical products supply chains. This reality raises the uncomfortable possibility that when this critical infrastructure is most needed, it can be unavailable.

Let’s take the issue of floods, for example. In a study of the impacts of floods on health infrastructure, it was noted that health care facilities faced both diminished capacity and increased demands. Regarding the recent floods in Bangladesh, UNICEF noted that:

The flooding damaged water points and sanitation facilities increasing risk of waterborne diseases . . . . Access to healthcare and nutrition services was reduced due to the damage of 90 per cent of health care facilities.

Closer to home, during the recent British Columbia floods, numerous patients had to be evacuated from hospitals and long‑term care facilities, and access to acute-care settings in flood‑ravaged areas became problematic.

A recent flood mapping exercise of Canadian health care centres at risk of flooding concluded:

There are a surprising number of facilities at risk of flooding in most provinces and territories. Manitoba and Yukon have the largest percentage at risk of flooding. . . . Yukon’s high percentage of facilities in the floodplain and small total number of facilities illustrate how weather-related disasters driven by climate change could disrupt and damage important health infrastructure when it is most needed.

So, in the face of our climate change reality, what is to be done? Thankfully, many things. We can consider opportunities for action in two complementary categories: developing environmentally sustainable health care facilities and creating climate-resilient health care facilities.

Health care systems account for about 4% of total global carbon emissions, and health care facilities can act to substantially reduce their carbon footprint. At COP 27, the World Economic Forum produced an article entitled “Here’s how healthcare can reduce its carbon footprint,” which addresses this important issue. For example, hospitals have the highest energy intensity of all publicly funded buildings and emit 2.5 times more greenhouse gases than commercial buildings. Therefore, switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy can have a major impact.

Other innovative solutions can also help.

Another direction is shifting outpatient care away from hospitals into more energy-efficient community settings and by increasing the use of high-quality virtual care with less environmental impact, such as home-based health monitoring systems and telehealth care. A secondary gain will be the avoidance of travel from home to hospital, thus decreasing the carbon footprint of transportation.

Health care facilities also need to become more climate resilient. In this domain, some good initiatives are under way. I will briefly touch upon a few of them here.

The World Health Organization has created the WHO Guidance for Climate Resilient and Environmentally Sustainable Health Care Facilities. More recently, the WHO report, Measuring the Climate Resilience of Health Systems, has provided substantial guidance on how to mitigate climate-change impacts on human health and health care.

Our federal government has created the Climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments: Workbook for the Canadian health sector. This is designed to help health care facilities evaluate and then address their climate-change preparedness.

The Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care, in partnership with the Province of Nova Scotia, has created The Health Care Facility Climate Change Resiliency Toolkit that can be used by health care settings to assist them in their climate preparedness work.

As we can see, honourable senators, much work is being done, but much more is needed.

Canada’s health systems, collectively, have the third-largest per capita carbon footprint in the world. Our health care systems were responsible for about 5% of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions prior to the pandemic. Per-capita GHG emissions in our health sector actually increased from 2018 to 2019.

In 2021, Canada committed to the WHO COP 26 Health Program initiative directions, which include building climate‑resilient health systems, developing low-carbon sustainable health systems, adaptation research for health, the inclusion of health priorities in nationally determined contributions and raising the voices of health professionals as advocates for stronger ambition on climate change. To those, I would add this: ensuring that our Indigenous, Inuit and Métis communities are fully integrated into the creation, development, deployment and evaluation of all the work that needs to be done.

We need a cohesive national initiative to set directions, coordinate efforts across jurisdictions and support legislation and implementation of sustainable changes to health systems. That will require collaboration amongst federal-provincial-territorial partners; input from Canadian expertise, such as Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec, our universities and granting agencies; and international expertise, such as the WHO and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Adaptation Strategy currently under way is an ideal place to address this need. We must not let this adaptation strategy get stranded on the rocks of inactivity.

This is a tall order — an existential challenge — but it is our challenge. As we Canadians have shown time and time again in our history, we are up to any challenge. Wela’lioq, thank you.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of the collaborative efforts in raising our awareness of the challenges facing our global environment. My remarks today will briefly focus on the marine sector and share some of the progressive efforts of that sector to improve its environmental performance generally and specifically here in Canada.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the leadership of our colleagues Senators Coyle and Kutcher, who have provided such by bringing together Senators for Climate Solutions. They have organized discussions and presentations by international and national experts working to inform the public and governments of the serious climate change challenges facing our planet, and as one of our presenters so poignantly noted, “it is not just about saving our planet; it is in fact about saving humanity.”

I thank Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their leadership in that area that is so important for all of us as global efforts need to contribute to work that will build on and find solutions to slow down, and hopefully some day reverse, climate change and its devastating effects.

Marine transportation has always been a backbone for moving people and cargo locally, nationally and indeed globally. There is no denying its impact on our global economy. Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen serious disruptions in global supply chains resulting in shortages of essential goods and rapidly increasing prices. Indeed, this situation was and is driven largely by high consumer demand, and this in turn has resulted in historic cost for marine shipping. After all, globally, approximately 90% of everyday goods from food products, electronics, automobiles, clothing, energy products, furniture — you name it — is mainly moved by vessels.

In the Canadian context, over 80% of our everyday goods pass through our ports. Our 17 Canadian port authorities handle 340 million tons of cargo every year, maintain over 200,000 jobs and contribute a direct economic impact of $36 billion.

With the huge volume of vessels moving around the globe and the continuous operation of ports — all essential activities supplying goods to our world community — there’s no doubt that we need to advance ways of reducing their environmental impact. So, too, is taking a global approach in finding solutions to reduce the environmental impacts of this shipping activity.

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization, more commonly referred to as the IMO, is the focal point for working with its 175 member states in dealing with all matters tied to shipping. It has four pillars of focus, one of which deals with the prevention and, indeed, the reduction of pollution from ships.

Over the decades, numerous standards and regulations have been collaboratively developed by this organization, dealing with numerous topics such as increasing strict regulations concerning ships’ discharge, rules governing the handling of ships’ water ballast to reduce the risk of invasive species being introduced to domestic waters, requirements for the types of paint ships may use — that may sound strange, but ships use a lot of paint — eliminating things like lead and so many other initiatives that are aimed at reducing ships’ environmental impacts.

But perhaps one of the more important initiatives has been the establishment of Emission Control Areas, which are areas that have been designated in different regions of the world where ships must burn fuels that are required to dramatically reduce emissions such as sulphur, nitrous oxide and others.

In our case, together with the United States, our Emission Control Area creates a 200-mile-wide boundary that requires vessels to burn much cleaner fuels while operating offshore and coming into our waters. This ensures that vessels operating in our coastal waters and ports have significantly reduced emissions, delivering important benefits to large segments of our population as well as to our marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Canada itself has also provided leadership in this important area of reducing pollution and greening of operations at sea and in ports.

In 2007, various players in the marine industry in Canada formed Green Marine, the leading environmental certification program for North America’s maritime industry. It’s a voluntary initiative that helps its participants to improve their environmental performance beyond regulations. Green Marine targets key environmental issues related to air, water, soil quality and community relations. It’s an inclusive, rigorous and transparent initiative that brings together several types of participants: ship owners, ports, terminal operators, shipyards and the seaway corporations based in Canada and the United States.

To obtain Green Marine certification, participants must complete a progressively rigorous process that has clear, measurable results that are audited by industry experts every two years to ensure results are maintained while encouraging continuous improvement. The membership also encompasses associations, supporters and partners that each, in their own way, support participants in their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint.

From its humble beginnings that focused on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, Green Marine now brings together hundreds of members from across North America with different backgrounds that all share the same objective: to improve the maritime industry’s environmental performance through concrete and measurable actions.

Its influence has reached across the Atlantic Ocean to France, where Green Marine Europe was formed in 2020. It operates on the same proven model created right here in Canada. Most recently, a large ferry operator in Australia has become a member of Green Marine, clearly demonstrating its value, its work and its leadership in addressing marine-related activities at sea and in port, and how steps can be taken to reduce environmental impacts. I applaud the great work of Green Marine and the leadership it provides on that global stage.

As a long-serving CEO of one of Canada’s busiest ports, Port Saint John, New Brunswick, I would be remiss if I did not speak briefly of our Canadian port authorities and how climate change can affect them and our economy. I would also like to mention some of the initiatives they have introduced and continue to implement.

Ports are part of Canada’s critical infrastructure, connecting land to water and subsequently connecting interior roads and rail links that are particularly vulnerable to climate change-related weather, erosion, fire, flooding, rising water levels and other events.

A couple of examples demonstrate the reality and the risk potential of these climate change-related factors. All of us can recall the fires and floods that affected our West Coast ports, notably Vancouver. Those events cost our economy billions of dollars and significantly disrupted our supply chains. Our West Coast ports are not alone, as our central and eastern ports have also experienced various weather events that have disrupted operations and compromised supply chain efficiencies.

Our ports also face other significant climate change risks, such as in the Tantramar marsh area that connects New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That area is protected from flooding by a series of very old dikes that will fail as weather events continuously promote erosion and rising sea waters, which will, in the short-to-medium term, exceed the limits of protection offered by the dikes.

Failure of these dikes is not an option as the Port of Halifax, Canadian National Railway and the Trans-Canada Highway — all critical components of Canada’s supply chain — cross the marsh and would be inoperable. Certainly, such a failure would have disastrous effects on local communities such as Sackville, New Brunswick, and Amherst, Nova Scotia, as well as many others. That flooding would have a devastating impact on local, provincial as well as our national economies.

Our ports have also been taking action to reduce and mitigate their own impact on climate change, while taking action to protect the environment and port ecosystems. All Canadian port authorities are members and active participants in Green Marine, and I’m pleased to say that they have been very successful in advancing through the various levels of the program.

Ports are committed to improving their performance and hold themselves to account, not only for the ongoing greening of their operations, but also to being responsible partners with their local communities. The development of port environmental policies is another aspect of this, as well as environmental audits and reports that make themselves accountable to the public. The creation of green programs — such as reduced rates for shipping companies that operate vessels accredited with their own green programs that guide reduced emissions from their operations — is another way of promoting ports’ activities in this area.

Ports are creating port-public and Indigenous partnerships to ensure concerns and inputs help guide port projects in an environmentally sustainable manner. Ports are also providing vessels that are capable of “plugging into” shore power facilities, thereby allowing the vessel to shut down fuel-burning generators and engines while in port. Ports are also providing the protection and creation of fish habitat. They are working with local experts, universities, colleges, Indigenous groups and environmental groups in creating monitoring and protection programs from marine mammals and other species, and there are so many other initiatives.

Finally, I want to mention initiatives that Port Saint John has undertaken. It will see them source 100% of power for all cruise terminals, corporate offices and port-owned terminals from the soon-to-be-commissioned nearby Burchill Wind Project, drastically reducing the port’s carbon footprint. This fits into the new Port Saint John decarbonization and sustainability plan, which is being developed in partnership with stakeholders, including a post-secondary pitch competition all about decarbonizing the port ecosystem with New Brunswick students.

In closing, I hope my presentation underscores that today there is a renewed interest and a sense of urgency to push further and faster to build a green economy that includes an environmentally sustainable marine sector. I hope that I painted a picture that clearly shows that Canada is indeed a world leader in the marine sector, as it is in other sectors in advancing climate change solutions.

Thank you for listening, and again, I want to thank Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their leadership. Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, 100 years ago, in this chamber, senators voted to adopt the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923. This piece of legislation is better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, because it effectively prohibited the entry of ethnic Chinese to Canada for 24 years. I am launching an inquiry to call attention to this stain on our institution and to the profound hurt that it caused the Chinese Canadian community. I invite all senators to contribute to the inquiry, which has two other parts to it — the celebration of contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to the country, and a reflection on contemporary forms of prejudice and exclusion faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

On June 23, Senator Oh and I will be hosting an event in the Senate of Canada with Action Chinese Canadians Together to remember the Chinese Exclusion Act and to pledge an end to all forms of exclusion of Chinese and other Asian Canadians. We have invited the Government of Canada to announce on that day the commissioning of a centenary plaque that we hope will find a permanent home in the Parliament of Canada. The ignominy of Chinese exclusion began here in Parliament, and it is here in Parliament that the ignominy should be undone.

I feel a special responsibility for remembering the hundredth anniversary, because I’m a senator from the province that was most ardently in favour of Chinese exclusion. Odious speeches in favour of the act were made in this chamber, and they were made by my predecessors — senators representing British Columbia.

As the first Chinese Canadian senator from B.C., I have a special duty to disavow their legacy and to remind my fellow British Columbians of a dark past. Here is a sample of the ignorance and prejudice that was uttered in our chamber. On the question of whether wives of Chinese already in Canada should be exempted from the act, one B.C. senator said:

If you are going to open the door and allow wives to come in, you might as well give British Columbia to the Chinese. We have enough Orientals in our Province now. When I say that there are 2,000 business licenses taken out in the city of Vancouver alone by Orientals, you will realize that. The Chinese have gone into every business that you can name, and I think there are even one or two lawyers.

And this is from another of my B.C. predecessors:

. . . out of a population of less than half a million we have 30,000 Chinese. . . . They are of no use to us; we will never assimilate them, we will never make Canadians out of them. You might far better introduce men more nearly akin to the race to which we belong. The mind of the Chinaman is absolutely different from the mind of the ordinary white mind. You cannot in any possible way find out just how the Chinese mind works. It is very true that in a way the Chinese are good citizens. They make good domestic servants and faithful workers, but they will never help us to build up a Canada of which we will be proud.

Some of you may be thinking that the Canadian government has already come to terms with the Chinese Exclusion Act with the issuance of an apology by former prime minister Stephen Harper in 2006. In fact, that apology was for the head tax, and it glossed over the Chinese Exclusion Act, which the former Prime Minister simply expressed sorrow over. The lesser emphasis placed on the Exclusion Act is, I think, due to a misunderstanding about the significance of that legislation.

The Exclusion Act is often thought of as a kind of victimless crime in the sense that we will never know the names of the Chinese excluded from Canada because they did not even have the chance to try to enter the country. It is unlike the head tax, which affected real people who had certificates to prove they had paid this unjust levy, and for which a small number received compensation following the 2006 apology.

The idea of a victimless crime, however, is a misreading of history, because there were, in fact, many victims. They were the Chinese Canadians already in the country who were subjected to humiliation because of a law that essentially said that people of their sort were not welcome in a place that they had already inhabited for decades. The fact that the act came into effect on Dominion Day added insult to injury. For that reason, many Chinese Canadians at the time took to calling July 1 “Humiliation Day.”

The humiliation went beyond the fact that their kith and kin were not allowed in the country. The act also required that every Chinese person already in Canada had to register within 12 months of its coming into force. Failure to do so could result in a fine, jail, or both. Even after registration, Chinese Canadians faced ongoing harassment from enforcement officers who questioned the veracity of the information provided by registrants.

The practical effect of the Exclusion Act in Canada, therefore, is that it was a “registry of unwanted foreigners.” Do you wonder why so many Chinese Canadians today are wary of efforts to again register those who are already in the country but who are deemed to have the wrong connections or backgrounds? Look no further than the dark history of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In fact, the Chinese community at the time had a different name for this bill. It was called the “Cruelty Act.”

On July 1, 2023, the Chinese Canadian Museum in Vancouver will officially open its doors with an exhibition entitled, “The Paper Trail,” which will be about the impact of the “Cruelty Act” on Chinese Canadians. One of the exhibits will be the lyrics of a song written 100 years ago lamenting the “Cruelty Act.” It was, in fact, the winning entry in a contest organized by the community to raise awareness and mobilize action. Here are the opening lines, loosely translated from the original Taishan dialect.

The First of July is just ahead,

Our hearts are filled with mortal dread.

Because of a law that ignites a fire,

That will sever compatriots caught in its ire.

I would sing this song for you, but the music is lost — and you don’t want to hear me sing anyway. We have therefore commissioned a young Chinese Canadian composer to write a fresh score for the lyrics, and our goal is for the song to be sung in this chamber on June 23.

Apart from the fact that this institution made the act possible, I hardly need remind honourable senators that our building is a former railway station and part of the railway line that Chinese labourers were brought into this country to build, under the most difficult of circumstances. A solemn ceremony here in this very building would provide a measure of, well, cleansing.

There’s much more to be said about the “Cruelty Act” and its long-term impact on Chinese Canadians and Canadian society, but I must move on to the rest of my inquiry, the second part of which is to celebrate the accomplishments of Chinese Canadians since the repeal of the act in 1947. That was also the year when Chinese and South Asians were given the right to vote in a federal election, made possible in part by the hundreds of Chinese who volunteered to fight for Canada in the Second World War, even though they were not recognized as citizens.

This aspect of the inquiry is, in some ways, the easy part because it’s so obvious that Chinese and other Asian Canadians have achieved great success in many fields and have contributed richly to Canada. But it is also the most difficult part because I cannot possibly do justice to the multitudes of Chinese Canadians who deserve to be recognized. Perhaps I can leave the job of naming some of these individuals to those of you who will speak to this inquiry and who might want to single out some members of your community for recognition.

What I will do instead is to point out that, in spite of all their accomplishments, Chinese Canadians are severely under-represented in positions of leadership across Canada’s mainstream institutions, including the federal civil service, the courts, public and corporate boards, arts, university and hospital administration and, not least, Parliament and the ranks of cabinet ministers.

For example, a 2019 study of the largest organizations in eight major sectors in the GTA — the Greater Toronto Area — found that Chinese Canadians who represent 11% of the population in the region account for only 2% of leadership positions. The representation of Chinese Canadian women in these positions is even lower — at just 1%.

This is a bit of a puzzle because Chinese Canadians are not generally lumped in with other equity-seeking groups, and there’s a general assumption that the community is doing just fine on most economic and social indicators. I think the answer to this puzzle lies in the community itself, as well as outside of it.

Many Chinese immigrant families prioritize diligence and keeping their heads down, rather than seeking to challenge the establishment and assuming leadership roles. A common saying among Chinese immigrant families is, “We are guests in this country,” which is, in a sense, a sentiment of humility and respect but also one that was cultivated by a history of discrimination and exclusion.

Chinese Canadians are no longer guests in this country, regardless of when they arrived. They should neither think of themselves as guests nor be treated as such. No one has the right to tell us to go back to the country we came from — not even the former chief of staff to the Prime Minister who said that to me because he did not like my views.

That brings me to the third part of the inquiry: Seventy-five years after the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, there are still forms of exclusion in Canadian society. We know that to be true for Indigenous people and racialized groups across the country. In matters of systemic discrimination, allyship among Indigenous and visible minority groups is vital, even if the histories and needs of different communities are not the same.

Chinese Canadians face at least three kinds of modern exclusion. The first is old-fashioned racism, not unlike the sort that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act 100 years ago. This is the impulse behind many of the unprovoked attacks on Asian Canadians in recent years. The number of unreconstructed racists is probably small, but they are aided and abetted by seemingly respectable folks who nevertheless feed racial animus by insinuating generalizations about Chinese people in Canada and the ills that they are alleged to have brought to society — for example, money laundering, unaffordable housing and the epidemic of opioid deaths.

The second form of exclusion is a function of long-held stereotypes about Chinese Canadians and what they are good for or good at. Yes, the Chinese are super at math and engineering. They make great doctors and lawyers. They are amazing musicians and generally good citizens. But are they suitable for leadership positions? I have already said that this is a problem that Chinese Canadians must confront in terms of their self-perception and personal aspirations, but it is also an issue for our establishment institutions to reflect on.

The third exclusion is the most insidious because it is an exclusion that seeks to divide the Chinese community into those who are acceptable and those who are not. An acceptable Chinese Canadian is one who conforms to a certain view of the world, disavows affiliations with individuals and groups that are blackballed for political reasons, and publicly voices opposition to what has been deemed as the all-encompassing menace that is the People’s Republic of China. Not conforming to these canons is seen as suspicious at best or, more ominously, as a litmus test of disloyalty and malfeasance against Canada.

This is the kind of exclusion that celebrates Chinese Canadians if they vote the right way in an election but who are deemed to have been swayed by sinister forces if they didn’t.

It is the kind of exclusion that questions the motives of Chinese community groups who bought PPE — personal protective equipment — in large quantities to send to China during the early days of COVID, and then questions them again when they brought large quantities of PPE from China to distribute in Canada when we were experiencing a spike in infections.

It is the kind of exclusion that assumes every workplace infraction in the technology sector is an instance of espionage, that frames collaborations between Canadian and Chinese scientists as intrinsically suspect and that calls on Chinese Canadian researchers to turn their backs on long-standing partnerships in the mainland.

Each of these exclusions has a justification that one can be sympathetic to, but the sum of these attitudes and actions is stigmatization, demoralization and alienation — just like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 100 years ago.

I know the Chinese community is not homogeneous and that Chinese Canadians occupy views on all parts of the political spectrum, as well as on a variety of geopolitical issues. That is a strength of the community that should be celebrated. We must not, however — and here I am speaking to Chinese Canadians — allow this diversity to be used as a form of internal segregation, not least by members of the community itself. I hope the one hundredth anniversary is an opportunity for Chinese Canadians of all stripes to reflect on the collective experience of their forebears during the period of the Chinese Exclusion Act and to work together to prevent modern forms of exclusion from dividing the community.

As for this chamber, I hope the inquiry is a reminder of how wrong the Parliament of Canada was 100 years ago and how easy it was to get it so wrong. There were no recorded votes against the bill and, by all accounts, public opinion was massively in favour of it. Once it became accepted wisdom that Chinese people were a threat to Canada, passing this and other laws to counter the threat became only too easy. Let’s make sure history does not repeat itself.

Honourable colleagues, I hope you will consider speaking to this inquiry, and I look forward to your interventions. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Omidvar, debate adjourned.)