Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(On motion of Senator Cormier, for Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the adoption of the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on November 15, 2022.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. The bill’s goals are to better protect wildlife in captivity, enhance public safety and support conservation. Today, following the debate format popularized by my friend and colleague Senator Cotter, I will address three points.

First, the relationship between federal and provincial jurisdictions with regard to wild animals in captivity; second, the quality of life of captive elephants in Canada; and third, the standards for designating zoos and other animal care organizations under the bill.

Before exploring these points, I acknowledge that the welfare of captive animals is a concern for many Canadians, including senators. Indeed, many of us share our lives with domesticated animals such as dogs and cats. Frankly, I am a dog-loving person, and I am always joyed by the greetings that our goldendoodle Mazie gives me when I return home, whether I have been away for three hours, three days or three weeks. I also note that my friend and colleague Senator Ravalia is an adopted uncle to Mazie, and I enjoy receiving photos of Mak, Senator Wells’ beautiful poodle.

As a young boy, I spent many summers living and working on a farm. Like some farm-raised senators here, I came away from that experience with wonderment about our relationships with those amazing creatures: cows, chickens, horses, pigs and others. However, my memories of shovelling out manure in the pigpens are, I must admit, not amongst the highlights of my childhood.

But wild animals in captivity are, to mix metaphors, a different kettle of fish. The relationship between humans and wild animals in captivity is complex and evolving.

In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, rulers and aristocrats kept private collections of wild animals, primarily to demonstrate owners’ power and status. The larger and more exotic the collection, the more powerful the owner. The word “menagerie” captures this reality. And such traditions echo today. Michael Jackson and Pablo Escobar, for example, kept extensive menageries on their estates.

Zoos with animals for public viewing are a more recent development. In the Western world, the first modern zoo opened in Paris in 1793. This was fundamentally a political act. The private menageries of the king and queen and various aristocrats were put on public display at the Ménagerie, the zoo of the Jardin des Plantes, a tangible evidence of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. But also a nod to providing entertainment for the populace.

Today’s credible zoos have evolved into settings that promote education, and some have a strong commitment to scientific research and conservation. Enclosures in many cases have been developed to more closely approximate natural habitats. The cramped tiger cage with its perpetually pacing cat and the monkey showing signs of boredom, anxiety and stress are, hopefully, much less common today.

Yet, this evolution has not yet concluded, and as our knowledge about wild animals improves, compassionate people will continue to find better ways to cohabit this planet with other species.

That’s why this bill is important. It’s a significant next step demonstrating Canada’s international leadership in creating a better life for wild animals in captivity. If passed, this bill will create a transparent and accessible legal standard for animal care organizations that meet five criteria: the highest standard of animal care, whistle-blower protection, no use of animals in circus-style shows, responsible acquisition of animals and additional government standards based on expert consultation.

We know from World Animal Protection Canada reports and numerous news stories that we need to do more to protect the well-being of wild animals in captivity, with a sense of urgency. Legislation is necessary to shepherd this work along, and this is why we should move the bill forward to committee as soon as possible.

I’m hopeful that study will commence early in the new year, and I look forward to hearing from Dr. Jane Goodall and other experts, including leading Canadian zoos and animal welfare organizations.

Now, the first of the three topics that I mentioned — the relationship between federal and provincial jurisdiction with regard to wild animals in captivity. This is a matter that Senator Plett has previously and appropriately raised with concern that much legislation relating to animal protection is in the provincial sphere. Others have informed me that there is also federal jurisdiction in this domain.

Now, in addition to our rural boyhoods, I believe Senator Plett and I share the distinction that neither of us is a legal expert. That said, I would like to make some observations on jurisdiction, but please, as I do so, keep in mind that although we physicians can hold a high and perhaps misguided regard for our expertise in various areas of life, such as international finance, foreign affairs, quantum mechanics or how to bake sourdough bread, I venture into this part of my speech with some trepidation. I note also that the committee can hear from experts on legal aspects of the bill.

Bill S-241 proposes animal welfare restrictions on the international and interprovincial transport of live wild animals from affected species by amending the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. As I understand it, trade across these boundaries is an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction under its trade and commerce power. For an example of animal welfare restrictions in federal trade laws, I refer us to section 23.2 of the Fisheries Act, restricting the import and export of live whales and dolphins, which was enacted in 2019.

Bill S-241 also exercises federal jurisdiction over criminal animal cruelty and public safety under federal criminal power.

Since 2019, section 445.2 of the Criminal Code has contained captivity-related offences with respect to whales and dolphins, prohibiting unlicensed breeding, as well as performance for entertainment purposes. This section protects these creatures’ physical health, psychological well-being and dignity from cruel or degrading treatment.

With this bill, Parliament would expand those captivity offences to provide additional protection for wild species, while allowing licences for justifiable purposes subject to potential conditions. Bill S-241 does not create new criminal offences, but modifies existing ones. Because many of the added species are dangerous, the bill also protects public safety.

Provincial jurisdiction on wild animals in captivity coexists via provinces’ property and civil rights power. Provincial legislation covers negligent treatment and patchwork regional ownership restrictions. However, all captive animals have long been subject to federal criminal animal cruelty restrictions on their treatment. In other words, as I understand it, the subject of captive wild animals is an area of both federal and provincial jurisdiction.

The bill’s preamble states that the subject of captive wild animals has what is known constitutionally as a double aspect of shared jurisdiction. I understand that the bill allows some dual licencing for that reason, following the same legal model as the whale and dolphin laws.

A committee can hear more, but we have not heard any arguments on debate that the federal trade or criminal jurisdiction is invalid. With Bill S-241, the question is not whether Parliament can help protect wild animals in captivity, the question is whether it should. In my opinion, the answer is that it must.

My second issue is the quality of life of captive elephants. Undeniably, the best place for elephants is in the wild or, if in captivity, in large outdoor spaces in a warm climate. They are highly intelligent, socially complex and physically wide-ranging. Elephants frequently experience physical suffering and psychological distress in captivity, exhibiting problems such as abnormal and repetitive behaviours, higher infant mortality and reduced life span.

In fact, according to a 2019 article in The New York Times Magazine, for every elephant born in captivity in North America, two have died. This same article describes the psychiatric disorder seen in captive elephants, one, frankly, I had not known about until I began to research the issue. It’s zoochosis, a form of mental illness that develops in animals held captive in zoos. It often manifests as unnatural, stereotypic behaviours that include rocking or swaying, pacing, self-mutilation and more. The article takes this further, stating:

One of the more disturbing manifestations of zoo-elephant psychosis is the high incidence of stillbirths and reproductive disorders among pregnant mothers. Even when births are successful, there are often instances not only of infant mortality but also of calf rejection and infanticide, something almost never witnessed in thousands of studies of wild elephant herds. . . .

In addition, we need to consider another reality for captive elephants in Canada: our cold weather. All four Canadian locations with elephants keep them indoors in the winter. These conditions are far removed from those that support their innate social, physical and psychological needs. According to the Born Free Foundation, the unnatural size of these enclosures and the conditions within them amplify the adverse psychological and behavioural impacts of captivity, and lead to other health problems including foot ulcers and obesity.

Honourable senators, toxic environments damage the physical and mental health of elephants just as they do for humans. In June, over 20 elephant scientists and other experts, including global leaders in their field, endorsed Bill S-241’s proposed phase-out of elephant captivity in Canada. In a letter sent to senators, they described elephants’ extensive health problems in captivity and the constraints on their needs, including keeping them indoors in the winter and the practice of chaining captive elephants.

Senators have received correspondence from many different organizations regarding the issues of the health and well-being of captive elephants. The committee will need to carefully consider all the evidence while, I trust, prioritizing the health and well‑being of these magnificent creatures.

Now to my third point. The executive director of Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, has communicated to senators his desire for members of his organization to be deemed as animal care organizations under Bill S-241. For such a designation, the legislation requires organizations to administer “the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care” as well as meeting other criteria, such as refraining from performance for entertainment.

I have spoken to Senator Klyne about this issue as well as doing my own research on zoo accreditation. I also note that Senator Plett has recently, and appropriately, raised the issue of zoo accreditation with Senator Dean and Senator Sorensen in this chamber. I have learned that some consultations with stakeholders have indicated that the Canadian members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA, uphold higher standards and practices than those who only hold accreditation from a different organization — CAZA. Others have seen this issue from a different lens.

In my discussions with Senator Klyne, I have learned that he is open to an amendment that would provide for automatic designations of any Canadian zoos meeting AZA standards within the first number of years, as well as an independent review of CAZA standards and practices. Perhaps this is an important issue to be considered by committee.

Whatever the outcome regarding accreditation, this issue requires the in-depth analysis that only committee study can provide.

To conclude, in my view, the Jane Goodall act is a credit to the Senate and to Canada, showing that we can lead the way in protecting wild animals. I add my voice to those of the many colleagues here eager to move to our second reading and committee study of the bill. Thank you. Wela’lioq.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that important question, Senator Plett.

I understand that the legislation is not focused on closing zoos. You’re absolutely correct about that. You may want to make an amendment to it — thinking about it.

It is, however, focused on the protection of animals held in captivity and ensuring their well-being.

First of all, the bill will phase-out harmful practices. Second, it will encourage responsible relocations of animals. They won’t die in place. There are opportunities for responsible relocations. In my understanding, some zoos have already identified that they would be willing to take these relocations. Therefore, it’s an important consideration, but I think it’s one that zoos have thought about in preparation for this. It’s a good point that you make.

The bill also provides a mechanism of enforcement that will, over time, protect animals. I think that’s a good thing, and I think you would agree with me that’s a good thing as well.

Senator Plett: Senator Kutcher, Charles Gray is the superintendent of elephants at African Lion Safari. He has worked hands-on with elephants since 1982, has been the elephant manager at Africa Lion Safari since 1987. Charlie is a founding board member of the Elephant Managers Association, and he is a founding and current board member of the International Elephant Foundation. He has served on the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Taxon Advisory Group for the Asian elephant species survival program from 1988 to 2019. He is a world-renowned elephant expert.

Mr. Gray told us, Senator Kutcher, that, contrary to what you have said and other so-called experts would have us believe, the elephants under their care and their love thrive in all four seasons. This is partly because most of the herd of Asian elephants were born and raised in Canada. They’ve never been to Asia. They are very acclimatized to our winters. In fact, Mr. Gray says their elephants actually prefer the cold to the heat partly because there are no bugs. They also love to run and play in the snow, to break the ice on the lake and go swimming. They have large, heated enclosures — they are not in cages — where they can come and go as they please. They have doors that they open themselves as they come in and out of the cold.

Now, have you spoken to any of these caregivers? I have visited more zoos in the last two years than I have been to in my life. These facilities are huge. These elephants are no longer being ridden, although certainly what they would experience in their home countries would include being ridden. They are used to haul stuff, to carry stuff, to drag stuff. Yet here they are being treated cruelly by not having to do any of that? They are living not in enclosures but in a wildlife environment —

Senator Gagné: What is your question?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Thank you for that question, Senator Sorensen.

Many of you in the room may know that I have a deep passion for the tourism industry — it was my life for about 25 years.

As I noted, the pandemic was terrible, and no industry was hit harder than the tourism sector. We were there to help industry, employers and employees through the terrible pandemic to get back on their feet. I know the incredible work that Destination Canada is doing to showcase our provinces and the country, and the incredible products that we have, especially Indigenous products. I was in British Columbia last week; I went through Vancouver, and met with the president of Indigenous Tourism BC. The work they are doing is phenomenal.

You’re right; Canada has what the world wants. We all now have to work hard to get the industry back on its feet.

In my home province, at Gros Morne National Park, which I know you visited this past summer, tourism was up 30% this year. Now we all have to do our part and work together on accessibility, marketing and product development, as well as getting workers and immigration working to help workers into the tourism sector, especially in rural Canada.

I can tell you the world wants what Canada has, and I cannot wait to welcome the world to our country.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, on behalf of my colleagues in the Canadian Senators Group, I welcome Senator Margo Greenwood to the Senate. Senator Greenwood is described as an internationally recognized and highly respected Indigenous scholar of Cree ancestry.

It was lovely to see you take your oath in Cree today.

She is a researcher and an author with over 30 years of experience examining the health and well-being of Indigenous communities, families and, as has been said, especially children, with over 130 publications. Senator Greenwood is a leader in her field and has chaired many research institutes in Canada. The Senate and all Canadians will benefit from her analytical skills and her input into public policy.

Senator Greenwood, in addition to your academic credentials as a distinguished professor, you have something else to contribute. In an interview you gave to Windspeaker.com, you spoke about changing what you called “lived realities”:

The ability to dream is so fundamentally important, because we can, in our own ways, see a different reality. To be able to dream is to be able to hope.

“Change requires the ability to dream with the courage to act,” you said. I believe that this can apply to all of us. I hope that with your interventions in this place, you will help us all to dream better and to have the courage to act.

Senator Greenwood, welcome to the Senate. My colleagues and I look forward to working with you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I wish to take this opportunity to shine a light on the humanitarian success story known as the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, which has rendered the world a better place since its establishment. The Aurora Humanitarian Initiative finds its roots in Armenian history and carries out its mission on behalf of the survivors of the Armenian genocide and in gratitude to their saviours.

The philanthropic vision of three great Armenians carries on this example of connecting a community of humanitarians from across the globe looking to serve the most destitute. At the core of the Aurora initiative lies a very simple but often forgotten principle — gratitude or, as they call it, gratitude in action. Through their work, they seek to recognize and support those who put themselves at risk to save the lives of those who are suffering as a result of violent conflicts, atrocities, crimes or other human rights violations.

To do this, they have established the Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity, which every year awards $1 million to an exceptional humanitarian in recognition of their work and as an opportunity for them to carry the cycle of gratitude and giving forward.

Since it was launched, the Aurora Prize has changed the lives of over 1.1 million people around the world affected by war, conflict, displacement or persecution. I want to recognize this year’s Aurora Prize laureate Ms. Jamila Afghani, who is here with us today. Jamila has dedicated over 25 years of her life in defence of human rights and in the fight for access to education for women in Afghanistan.

I would also like to recognize Mr. Levon Afeyan, Honorary Consul of the Republic of Armenia in Quebec and board member of the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, whose devotion to the Armenian community in Montreal and around the globe has inspired many of their accomplishments.

I share the honour with my Senate colleagues in welcoming this truly remarkable person, Ms. Jamila Afghani, in the company of the Ambassador of Armenia to Canada, and to highlight the incredible work that they carry out every day to extend a helping hand to those who need it the most. They are deserving of that and so much more. Congratulations and thank you for being here.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, minister.

Minister, part of your mandate is to accelerate the delivery of broadband service across Canada to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed internet. Yet I must note that this is another area in which your Liberal-NDP government has promised a lot of funding, but for which tangible results remain obscure. According to the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, over 50% of rural households still do not have access to high-speed internet.

Minister, how much longer will these households need to wait?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Thank you.

I would first like to acknowledge the new senator in the room, and welcome her to her seat. It is a pleasure to be working with you, Senator Greenwood. Welcome to the Red Chamber. It is also my pleasure to be here today.

With regard to your question, since 2015 we have supported projects that will bring improved connectivity to over 1.7 million people. In 2014, when we formed government, only 79% of Canadians were connected to affordable, reliable internet. Today, over 93% are connected. We have made $7.6 billion available to improve connectivity across the country.

I have made a promise to connect 98% of Canada by 2026. We are well under way to do that, and we will have the rest of the country connected by 2030.

Senator Plett: Minister, I’m aware that your government made another funding announcement in November — this time of $475 million for rural high-speed internet access. That does not negate what I mentioned earlier: Aside from your promises, the fact remains that over 50% of rural households are still without reliable internet access, despite billions of dollars being announced for funding.

Can you tell us specifically what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure this funding is implemented for the benefit of those communities, aside from just throwing more money at the problem?

You might have noted that, over the last few years, since we started the Universal Broadband Fund, we have had many programs out there: We have Connect to Innovate, and funding available through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I’m very proud that we have also signed six memoranda of understanding with Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. That has proven to work exceptionally well, because it is actually getting out, working with the provinces and getting communities connected.

A third of the money of the Rapid Response Stream, one of the components of the Universal Broadband Fund, went to Indigenous communities. Another third of the Rapid Response Stream went to small internet-service providers, or ISPs, that were focused in rural and remote communities. The final third went to the larger ISPs.

It is a daunting task, but I can say that we have put more of a concerted effort into connecting Canada than any other previous governments combined, and we are getting it done.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Minister, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Minister, on November 22, your government announced its intention to impose an expensive carbon tax on the people of Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and our mutual home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In Atlantic Canada, more than 300,000 homes’ sole option for heating is oil. Our premier in Newfoundland and Labrador wanted a carbon tax exemption on home heating fuels. He said that a carbon tax would place “undue economic burdens on the people of this province,” and he indicated the impacts it would have, especially on the elderly, rural and low-income residents who rely on burning oil to heat their homes. The increased cost of this tax, on average, means an extra $900 per year per household by 2030.

As minister, you have a responsibility to pursue and advance initiatives that recognize the unique realities and challenges faced by our communities. As a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador, how can you justify supporting these measures that will hurt our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Welcome, minister.

Canada’s unparalleled natural beauty and pristine wildlife make us a top destination for visitors from around the world — which I saw first-hand when I worked in the tourism and hospitality industry in Banff, and as I have travelled throughout our nation, including to your fantastic province of Newfoundland and Labrador this past summer.

Ecotourism and outdoor experiences generate revenues and create jobs in many rural and remote communities across the country, including Indigenous communities that use authentic experiences as a vehicle for cultural revitalization. Many of the communities that rely upon income from tourists struggled mightily throughout the pandemic, and are working hard to recover.

Could you expand on how the government is supporting tourism development in rural and remote communities?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Thank you, senator. Trust me, I get it. I used to say, when I first came to Ottawa, you could fit six Prince Edward Islands in my riding, and then I realized that people didn’t have a clue how big Prince Edward Island is. Now I say that my riding is bigger than Switzerland. I have over 200 communities, and 5 of those are accessible by boat only. Of course, our island of Newfoundland is only accessible by ferry service.

Since I have been minister, I have done over 70 round tables — with people from coast to coast to coast — focused on many things. One of them was on rural transit. We had a deep discussion of how things have changed since the pandemic. Yes, you are correct: Transit was an issue in rural Canada long before the pandemic, but I think that the pandemic has ripped off the Band-Aid because we’re now seeing more and more people wanting to move to rural areas.

I have regular discussions with my colleagues Minister Alghabra for Transport and Minister LeBlanc for Infrastructure and Communities. We work with the provinces and territories on how we can create a rural transit plan for the country. Mr. LeBlanc has a Rural Transit Solutions Fund that he announced last year, and the applications are being reviewed now.

But we have to make sure that it works for all rural Canadians — not just those closer to a large centre.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: A pleasure to see you, minister, and thank you for being here today.

My question today is regarding health in general and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, which is a diagnostic term used to describe the broad spectrum of presentations and disabilities resulting from exposure to alcohol in utero.

There are little or no FASD multidisciplinary diagnostic teams in rural regions of Canada. Families often have difficulty accessing their services, and, because of the lack of clinics available and the distance rural residents have to travel, it is often a huge burden to them.

As outlined in Canada’s Rural Economic Development Strategy, since 2015 the federal government has made investments in rural communities, including efforts to improve connectivity through affordable high-speed internet and enhanced infrastructure to improve education and health facilities.

Would you please speak to what measures are being taken to improve access to health diagnostic clinics in general but, in particular, for support for individuals with FASD and other more complex health issues?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Thank you, Senator Ravalia. Earlier I alluded to the round tables I have done. Trust me, I have done quite a few on rural health care. It is interesting how people say it is not just money that will fix the problem. We need to encourage people, be it doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, specialists or mental health specialists, to get into rural communities. Everyone says that we need a hub system because you cannot have one person go to a remote area — look, it will be burnout in no time. We have to work with the provinces and territories to get the hub system in these rural parts of the country.

The digital equation that we are delivering on high-speed broadband to the rural communities is going to help to a certain extent. But there is no better than face-to-face access to health care.

On your specific issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, we have a raging problem throughout Canada, and it is in rural Canada with alcohol and substance abuse.

I know my colleague was in the room here, Minister Bennett. I know that she is focused on what we can do with mental health and addictions, and I will work with her every step of the way and I’ll be watching what you do on this important file as well, senator.

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Senator Black, that is an amazing question and it follows on your colleague’s question as well.

It is interesting, too. One of the round tables that I have done was with the agricultural sector, and they brought that specific thing up. It has been challenging times. They have seen floods, and they have seen droughts. Interestingly, with the hurricane that hit in my riding, mental health supports were needed there at that time to get people through the shock of seeing 100-foot waves. The province did a great job of transporting people from major centres to the rural centres. But that was an awakening, too, that this needs to be addressed in rural Canada. Sadly, often it takes a disaster or catastrophe for us to work on these issues. I talk regularly with Minister Bennett on how we address this.

I had a great chat when I was in rural Manitoba earlier this year. I sat down with a group of kids whose specialty in their high school and their post-secondary school is how we address the rural issues of mental care.

It is on my radar, sir. I will continue to work with Minister Bennett and keep you posted as to our progress and support you in any way I can.

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: That is a wonderful question. It is dear to my heart, senator, because it would be in the northern part of my riding and connected to mainland Canada.

This conversation has been going on for many years in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What is interesting is that technologies have changed over the years. My counterpart and friend Minister O’Regan was in Norway a few months ago and visited a subsea tunnel that was built at a quarter of the price that was estimated 20 years ago. So the prices are coming down.

On your question about the costs of this, as Newfoundland and Labrador MPs, we’ve had reach-out from people in the business sector, asking, “Would the Canada Infrastructure Bank please do a request for interest, because we are interested in doing this?”

I think that that is the best way to do it. It will not be money from the provincial government. It will be a loan, as you know, from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. But there is interest from the private sector to get this done. They see it as looking after our oceans with the whales issue. We are looking at how we get the transit, we’re doing transborder traffic and we’re doing traffic of goods and services from all over the world.

I think you are going to see this fixed link come, and it will be a public-private partnership and it will be through business driving this. At the end of the day, senator, if business is not supporting this, it cannot be a wish of the federal government. It has to be business supporting it, and they are telling us that this is what they need to see the movement of goods from Europe, especially now with the Northwest Passage opening up.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Minister, thank you for being with us today. I would like to pursue the mental health issue, if I might.

The University of Guelph recently released a study indicating that the mental health of Canadian farmers is worse than it was five years ago and worse than that of the general population in every way. Stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion and suicide ideation are all higher among farmers than the national average and highest among women farmers.

Your mandate letter from the Prime Minister states:

Support the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to explore pathways to increase the accessibility of mental health services in rural areas.

Minister, might you tell us about your government’s plan to improve the mental health of our farmers and, specifically, any concrete actions taken since your appointment as minister?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings, P.C., M.P., Minister of Rural Economic Development: Senator Plett, thank you for the question.

This is important to my riding as well. I have 87 volunteer fire departments in my riding. I have one paid fire department, so I hear from volunteer fire departments all the time.

I’ll get the exact number for you, but I can tell you that as Minister LeBlanc is developing his new infrastructure program to work with provinces and territories and municipalities, we were talking just about how we can make sure that these small projects that mean so much in small, rural communities — maybe it’s $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000, which would be nothing to Ottawa, but we know how important it is in these small communities.

I have a commitment from Minister LeBlanc that we will look at how small communities can avail themselves of these funds if they want to use them for a fire hall, if they want to use them for connectivity or if they want to use them for a community centre. We know that small funds that get out into rural Canada will have a difference on rural lives.

I will get you the exact number on what has happened in fire halls. I supported my friend MP Kody Blois on that as well.