Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I continue on a sombre note and wish to give voice to the brave Iranian women, men, girls and boys who are facing down a brutal regime in Iran. What better way to do this than to use their own words. These words, which I will read out shortly, were crowdsourced by 25‑year-old musician Shervin Hajipour who captured their essence and put them to music.

On release of the song, he was, of course, immediately jailed and tortured before being released again. He has gone silent, but the song has gone viral — not just in Iran but, in fact, globally.

I am fortunate enough to understand Persian, and every time I listen to this piece, I go weak in the knees. I am struck by how inclusive the words are, and how they are a musical cry for justice. So here goes.

The song is titled “Baraye” or “For.”

For dancing in the alleys

For breaking the taboo of kissing in public

For my sister, your sister, our sisters

For changing rusted minds

For the shame of poverty

For the longing for a normal life

For the dumpster diving children and their wishes

For getting rid of this planned economy

For this polluted air

For the dying Tehran’s landmark trees

For the Persian cheetah about to go extinct

For the unjustly banned street dogs

For the unstoppable tears

For the scene of repeating this moment

For the smiling faces

For students and their future

For this forced road to paradise

For the imprisoned elite students

For the neglected Afghan refugee kids

For all these “for”s that are beyond repetition

For all of these meaningless slogans

For the rubbles of the bribe-built buildings

For the feeling of peace

For the sun after these long nights

For anxiety and insomnia pills

For men, fatherland, prosperity

For the girl who wished to be a boy

For women, life, freedom

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to be able to rise today and pay tribute to Mr. Yoanis Menge and Mr. Ruben Komangapik. These gentlemen are the friends and business partners behind Reconseal Inuksiuti. As the clever portmanteau suggests, they have developed a new hunting project that aims to bring about reconciliation through understanding the importance and significance of the Inuit practice of hunting seals, while also bringing traditional country food to the Inuit in Ottawa and Montreal.

Mr. Menge is a photographer, and his black-and-white photographs of seal hunting are meant to challenge viewers to see the beauty in a tradition that brings a source of sustenance, clothing, income and spirituality to families throughout the North.

Mr. Komangapik is originally from Pond Inlet, although he now describes himself as a nomad.

In a CBC article that was published on October 30, Mr. Komangapik describes how this project advances reconciliation:

We’re just not talking, we’re actually doing the actions of reconciliation (between) the sealing industry, the animalist and all those people that (hunt) the seal the wrong way. They made a big, big rift between the South and the North seal hunters.

To avoid taking from Nunavut’s Inuit, who are among the most food-insecure Canadians in the entire country, this team has decided to hunt in the Magdalen Islands where there is a healthy seal population.

Colleagues, the fact is that Canada is home to over 400,000 grey seals which are the type being hunted. It is a true delight that these gentlemen can take a few of those seals and bring the meat back to the Inuit living in the South who, like Manitok Thompson of Ottawa, believe the meat “tastes like happiness.”

As an aside, I would say it’s a bonus that they’re helping to alleviate some of the huge pressures on fishing stocks caused by adult seals that consume up to 1,500 pounds of food each per annum. Given that there are approximately 8 million grey and harp seals in Canada, I’ll leave you to do the math.

I applaud Mr. Komangapik’s and Mr. Menge’s efforts to break down the stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding the Inuit seal hunt — all done without any government funding or support.

So qujannamiik for pushing for reconciliation in this way, and thank you for bringing nutritious, omega-3-rich country food to Ottawa and Montreal’s Inuit populations. Qujannamiik. Taima.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and the advance notice.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II was a significant and tragic event for all Canadians. Canada was represented by former prime ministers and the Governor General to pay respects to the monarch who oversaw almost half of our time as an independent country.

As reported in the media, colleagues, the price of hotels surged significantly ahead of the Queen’s funeral. Many hotels were sold out in London because of high demand. Availability was limited, given the unexpected nature of the event and the high demand for accommodations from the 500 heads of state and foreign dignitaries, their staff and official delegations.

The Canadian delegation, which totalled 56 individuals, was larger than the typical delegation due to the significance of representing Canada at this historic event. The official delegation stayed at one single hotel in London in order to effectively participate in official events at Canada House and state funeral events. All members of the official delegation stayed at the same hotel, including the Governor General, former prime minister Stephen Harper, former prime minister Paul Martin, former prime minister Kim Campbell and former prime minister Jean Chrétien, as well as their staff members.

Senator Gold: I do remember vinyl records, Senator Plett, and I remember the innovation of vinyl records where depending on where you dropped the needle, you could get a different ending.

Senator Plett: Why don’t I go get one for you?

Senator Plett: Not Trudeau.

Senator Plett: Not for you to make statements.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today with a broken heart and profound respect as I join millions of people in India, and worldwide, mourning the loss of Ela Bhatt — Elaben — our sister, a world leader, a lawyer, a cooperator, a trade unionist, a banker, a promoter of fair trade and the green economy, a CBC “Ideas” fan, a devoted Gandhian, a feminist, as well as a gentle, powerful and effective revolutionary, and the founder — 50 years ago — of SEWA, the over 2 million strong Self Employed Women’s Association of India.

Elaben passed away yesterday in Ahmedabad, India.

A founding member of The Elders, a group of world leaders initiated by Nelson Mandela to promote human rights and peace, Elaben was a woman of vision, wisdom and curiosity with an unwavering dedication to improving the world.

In today’s tribute to Ela Bhatt, the headline in the Hindustan Times read, “Ela Bhatt sparked a fire that ignited a global movement.” The article continues, “Out of nowhere, cart pullers, vegetable vendors and petty workers became an economic brigade with Ela’s leadership.”

Elaben founded SEWA Bank, India’s first women’s bank, and the Indian School of Microfinance for Women. She was a co-founder of Women’s World Banking. She was a member of the Indian Parliament and headed the National Commission for Women there. Ela Bhatt was a trustee of The Rockefeller Foundation.

In recognition of her work to improve the status of women and the working poor, Ela Bhatt was awarded the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development, the Global Fairness Initiative Award, the Ramon Magsaysay Award, the Right Livelihood Award and the Légion d’honneur from France, as well as numerous honorary degrees, including from Harvard, Yale and Nova Scotia’s St. Francis Xavier University.

Colleagues, I had the good fortune of knowing Elaben for more than 30 years. Our common work with women and microfinance brought us together. The Coady International Institute and SEWA remain strong partners to this day.

Honourable colleagues, I wish I could sit on Elaben’s porch swing one more time to discuss our beloved families, and her views on our world and the future. But I can’t, so I will conclude this tribute with a quote on peace from Ela Bhatt so that you can know her better:

Absence of war is not peace. Peace is what keeps war away, but it is more than that; peace disarms and renders war useless. Peace is a condition enjoyed by a fair and fertile society. Peace is about restoring balance in society; only then is it lasting peace.

Honourable colleagues, let’s honour Elaben by continuing her work for peace and justice. Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, yesterday during Question Period you said:

. . . in the interests of those who have other questions to ask, no doubt of insignificant importance compared to your question, I have nothing further to add to my answer.

Those comments, Senator Gold, are outrageous, and yet they directly reflect one of the core principles of this Trudeau government, which is contempt for the Canadian parliamentary process.

Our parliamentary system, Senator Gold, was built on the premise of a governing party and an opposition party. The opposition has a responsibility, and that is to keep the government in check. We do so by asking questions. Although your government claims to be more transparent and accountable, the reality is quite different, Senator Gold, and your non-answers to our questions make that point very clear.

Senator Gold, let me try this again, and I gave you notice of this question. I trust you will thank me for that, as you usually do when somebody gives you notice.

Who stayed in the infamous River Suite at the Corinthia hotel in London?

Hon. Leo Housakos: It’s fantastic that the government leader is drawing on past experiences. I will remind some of the new senators who have arrived here that in the pre-Trudeau Senate there used to be Liberal senators sitting in the opposition who would check the public accounts and hold our government to account daily. There are very few left. But you remember those days. Senator Mitchell was definitely part of that crew.

Now, government leader, let me tell you something else about those good old days. When a minister would go somewhere, like London, and spend $16 on a glass of orange juice, the opposition made sure they were held to account. Do you know what happened to that minister? A few days later, she lost her job. That’s what’s called accountability, and all of us should practise some of it.

Furthermore, I would also like to point out to your earlier answer. Somebody just checked the River Suite at the hotel that you claim was “price surged” during the Queen’s funeral, and as of a few days ago, it was still $6,000 a night. So that excuse doesn’t hold water.

It is time to shine more light on government and ensure that it remains focused on the people it is meant to serve. . . .

That’s a quote, government leader. That’s a quote that I’m not sure you recognize, senator, but it is a quote taken from Justin Trudeau’s Liberal platform in 2015.

Senator Gold, do you agree with the objective of shining more light on government? If so, how would you justify your government and your own stonewalling on answering a simple question about who stayed in a suite that cost $35,000? Once we find out who it is, explain to us why? There might be a legitimate explanation. I’d love to hear it. $35,000 for six nights. Who stayed in that suite and why? It’s a simple question, and it’s in the public accounts. Taxpayers need to know.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, it would be bad enough if this were a one-time lapse in judgment on the part of this Prime Minister, but it’s not. It’s a pattern. In the past seven years, Justin Trudeau has broken the law with his vacation on “billionaire islands,” has jetted back and forth across the country on the taxpayer dime to go surfing, bungee jumping and to hang out with celebrities. Now, the cherry on top: he stayed in a $7,000‑a‑night luxury suite with a private butler so he could ham it up at the piano bar with Gregory Charles, all on the taxpayers’ dime. Of course, at a funeral mourning the Queen.

Senator Gold, you don’t think that’s a question worth answering on behalf of the people who footed the bill? At the end of the day, you’re the government leader and a member of the Privy Council. But you are also our representative in this chamber. You sit on Privy Council for a reason: in order to provide us accountable answers to questions.

Quite frankly, it’s just not appropriate for weeks and days to not be able to answer on behalf of your role to this chamber and through this chamber to the taxpayers: Who stayed in that room? It’s not a complicated question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me answer the very end of your question first. The Senate has already played an important role in its study of UNDRIP and at least in some quarters — a majority of this Senate is certainly in support of UNDRIP moving forward. I think the Senate, through the Indigenous Peoples Committee, statements and inquiries can continue and should continue to shine a light on the progress that still needs to be made so that the government knows that parliamentarians are watching and holding them to account.

To your question, the government is working, as you’ve mentioned, in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis, to ensure the consistency of federal law, to develop the action plan to which you have referred and develop annual reports on progress critical to making sure that we don’t falter.

On this last item, I note that these reports are intended to be submitted or tabled in Parliament so that we have a role in overseeing it as well. I’m advised that early work has been concentrated on supporting the participation of Indigenous partners in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act implementation process, including support for Indigenous-led consultations in this regard. The collaborative work to close the socio-economic gaps — which we are aware of and are too great — to advance reconciliation and renew relationships remains a priority of this government.

I have been reassured that, as it was reiterated by the government on the fifteenth anniversary of UNDRIP, the action plan will be completed within the timeline.

Senator Klyne: I am reassured; thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, the immigration minister doesn’t lack compassion. He set that target for the well-being of Canadian society and the future of our economy.

As for the matter of housing challenges for Canadians or those moving to Canada, the government has taken a lot of measures to do its part to try to increase the construction of new housing units in partnership with the private sector, the provinces and the municipalities. That includes, among other things, a $4-billion investment in a fund for new housing, the Housing Accelerator Fund, in Budget 2022 to help municipalities speed up construction and build 100,000 new housing units.

Budget 2022 also provides for an investment of $1.5 billion to continue the Rapid Housing Initiative to create thousands of affordable housing units. There is also a $2.9-billion advance as part of the National Housing Co-Investment Fund to build and repair 22,000 housing units. Lastly, the budget also includes a $1.5-billion investment to promote and expand cooperative housing.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

I would like to thank Senator Yussuff, Senator Seidman, Senator Omidvar and Senator Simons for their previous speeches, which have increased our awareness and knowledge about dental care in Canada.

As many of you will know, I have been invested in the provision of dental care for 48 years of my life. Dental care is near and dear to my heart, and through my work I have given dentistry the worth that it deserves.

As it pertains to this bill, colleagues, I have concerns regarding the lack of adequate responses to questions raised by me and by other dental health professionals. I’m concerned about this short‑term approach when the effective prevention and management of most dental disease requires a long-term view. Moreover, we have provincial models of public health dentistry that provide care already. These clinics need to be better supported and funded to enable them to provide continuing additional care.

Most dental care systems are still structured around acute care service delivery, including emergency care such as pain relief. This traditional approach based on high-risk individual treatment is costly and research has proven its weak effectiveness.

Honourable senators, I have witnessed the children’s dental programs that existed in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the 1970s and 1980s. They were successful in completing school-based dental care on school-aged children, mainly in rural areas. The majority of children in the rural towns in Saskatchewan were eventually placed on maintenance, costing the government and taxpayers approximately $80 a year per student. Despite the success stories in these two provinces, the programs were phased out due to pressure from the provinces’ dental associations. Here, we can see the struggle between the public health model of dentistry and the business model. Which model will be encouraged to flourish in the proposal before us?

Colleagues, I further noticed in the bill that dental therapists are not included in the bill’s definition of “dental care services.” The dental therapists both federally and provincially trained in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are licensed health professionals who today provide the majority of services to children in dental offices. However, there are some federally trained dental therapists in Manitoba who are not recognized by the Manitoba Dental Association, or MDA. They continue to work on reserves without licences and without malpractice insurance, to their detriment. These federally trained therapists were trained through the dental faculty at the University of Toronto. I approached the MDA to question why the licensing of these two groups differed, but I did not receive an answer.

There are also Children’s Oral Health Initiative, or COHI, workers hired under a federal program who are trained at the community level but work without a diploma. They are allowed to provide treatment of fluoride application even though trained dental assistants are forbidden to do so through their provincial standard of care. It’s unimaginable that we have unrecognized, unlicensed providers without malpractice insurance permitted to work on children simply because these children live on-reserve. This is what we call geographic and systemic health racism.

As such, one big question lingers: Will this act be amended to include dental therapists, especially since they license and regulate their own profession in Saskatchewan and are looking at doing the same in Manitoba?

Honourable senators, one example of the fallout from decommissioning the children’s dental program was the closing down of the federal dental therapy school in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in 2011. The federal dental therapy school, supervised by dentists from U of T, was originally situated in Hay River, Northwest Territories. Yet, because the dental therapists had successfully completed treatment of all the citizens in the town, they had to move the school in Prince Albert. I understand that a new dental therapy school will be ready to start in La Ronge through the faculty of the University of Saskatchewan. I also understand that there are talks ongoing with different schools about dental hygienists who will be trained to be dental therapists.

This issue of a sustainable workforce continues with the other dental health professions. There are existing challenges with the recruitment and retention of oral health clinicians to provide care. When I was in Winnipeg, I asked dentists how they would be able to absorb the influx of children that this bill will result in, and who would be advising these children which offices would provide care. There are over 650 offices in Winnipeg but adequate infrastructure is not in place to handle this increased workload, which they are expected to absorb. I also do not know who would head such an initiative. Many dentists are already booking with their own patients months in advance. Will dentists be willing to displace some of their own patients for an interim program with unknown levels of bureaucratic involvement?

Colleagues, under the heading “Application” in section 8, it states that the application must include the name, address and telephone number of the dentist, denturist or dental hygienist — this is where dental therapists are missing — the applicant intends to have provide dental care services for the person for whom the application is made. The application also requires the month during which the services were provided, or when the applicant intends to have the services provided.

Based on what I have seen working in the field, I can say that very few dentists will provide care while expecting payment at a later date, despite what was said last night at the Finance Committee meeting. Furthermore, many First Nations are refused service due to an inability to prepay.

There are other situations at certain times where insurance companies will inadvertently send cheques to the patient instead of the provider, and then the provider has no recourse to payment when the patient doesn’t return the cheque to the office.

What happens if the applicant chooses to go to another provider — which is their right — or if they receive that cheque but don’t spend it on the intended care? This is a very profound possibility, as many of these individuals may have to decide if the money they receive is better spent on food or clothing so that their children can have basic living needs.

As we saw, the same situation occurred with the CERB where ineligible individuals sought the benefit because they needed it to meet basic needs. These are profound concerns to be addressed.

Honourable senators, I would like to speak to another successful dental program that is offered for children in Grades 2 to 6 at participating schools in the Winnipeg School Division, which has a high proportion of low-income households. This program is delivered by dental students in the college of dentistry at the University of Manitoba in concert with Variety, the children’s charity of Manitoba.

The third- and fourth-year dentistry students, who number 70, work with dental hygienists, dental assistants and supervising dentists to educate and screen children at school. Typically half of those screened require treatment. I was one of the instructors in the early 2000s, and I saw first-hand the extensive needs of children in these urban populations.

In their 2021-22 report, 17 schools were involved and 2,053 students were screened with 21% treated. Dental students administered 733 treatments, improving the lives of 199 children altogether.

Marsha Missyabit, the vice-principal of the Niji Mahkwa School stated:

This year, our school felt very supported by the dental outreach program. Students that attended the program were very comfortable and had pleasant things to say. Communication was effective and we were accommodated with respect. Thank you for all your support!

In 2019, Variety began supporting SMILE plus, a partnership between the University of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority that provides free dental care for children in kindergarten and Grade 1 at select schools. These are done through private donations.

Honourable senators, I call attention to these successful programs as they can be used as models for implementation. The universities themselves are great sites for public health model delivery of dental care.

Yet, colleagues, a large concern I have with Bill C-31 arises from discussions I have held with various groups and individuals who are concerned about the inadequate amount of $650. It was quoted these children only require $650 worth of treatment. This amount would allow for an exam, radiographs and only two to three restorations. If this is all they require, then truly these children do not need a lot of work, but I don’t believe this to be the case. These children will need full-mouth comprehensive care, especially for groups that have had very little to no access to oral care, as has been stated by some senators.

When I appeared as a witness at the House of Commons Health Committee back in 2003, the committee looked at the amount offered in the Non-Insured Health Benefits program. At the time, it was $800. The committee indicated that this was inadequate, and they were instrumental in raising that amount to $1,000, a number that was still indicated to be inadequate.

Many health professionals have acknowledged that dental care is out of reach for many, including all age groups across the country. Who is most at risk and what is going to be done to provide some equality and equity to these groups?

Many people don’t have appropriate and timely dental care for reasons stated by the college of dentistry at the University of Manitoba, which include accessibility, availability, accommodation, awareness and acceptability.

I have said this before: That span between the $70,000 and $30,000 income brackets is huge and has the possibility of negative implications for the $30,000-to-$40,000 income group. In this group, they lack resources like the internet, phones, child care, transportation and the skills to navigate the new, incoming bureaucratic system, which already limited access to care when I was delivering dental care 20 years ago. It still continues to limit access today.

To add to the bureaucracy, the Canada Revenue Agency will be yet another major obstacle, especially if they do not have direct deposit accounts or access to computers.

What I heard in yesterday’s speech is that for Canadians to be able to receive their benefit payments swiftly, they will receive an upfront payment. That alleviates some of the burden for those who cannot prepay.

However, how will we assist those parents who do not have bank accounts or financial literacy? How will the government further ensure that this group will be able to access dental benefits equally with the $70,000 income group, who will have more resources?

Honourable senators, I would like to state my serious discomfort with the rushed manner with which this critical bill has proceeded. Is this because there has been a threat to trigger an election if this bill is not passed by December, or that the Canada Revenue Agency wants it passed by November 18?

It needs to be said that working under duress is no way to start this public health dental program. Spending public funding is a responsibility that we must consider diligently, not hastily.

[Editor’s Note: Senator McCallum spoke in Cree.]

Thank you.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to begin third-reading debate of Bill C-5, which will make important changes to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[Translation]

I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their thoughtful and in-depth study over the course of nine meetings in five weeks. I also want to thank the support staff who made the committee’s work possible and the dozens of witnesses who appeared before and submitted briefs to the committee. Even though Bill C-5 is relatively short, it is very important, as evidenced by the level of interest of stakeholders and senators alike.

[English]

Its central objective is to bring us closer to having a criminal sentencing regime in which penalties are consistently well suited to the offender and the offence, rather than being a blunt instrument that lands with disproportionate force and frequency on Indigenous people, Black people and members of other marginalized communities.

The bill has three main elements.

First, it changes the way Canadian criminal law deals with simple drug possession, both by requiring police and prosecutors to prioritize alternatives to criminal charges and by having criminal records for drug possession automatically expire after two years.

Second, it removes restrictions imposed in 2007 and 2012 on the use of conditional sentence orders, which are non-custodial sentences that allow some offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to remain in their communities, subject to conditions like house arrest or mandatory counselling, to mention but two.

Third, the bill repeals a number of mandatory minimum penalties including for all drug-related offences, certain firearms offences, offences related to the importation of weapons like brass knuckles or pepper spray and one offence involving contraband tobacco.

These measures will not solve all the problems of our criminal justice system; colleagues, no single piece of legislation could. But as witness after witness testified at committee, Bill C-5 is a meaningful step in the right direction.

In fact, practising criminal lawyers, including a representative of the Canadian Bar Association, urged us at committee to adopt this bill as soon as possible because there actually are cases currently in the system where the resolution is being delayed in the hope that Bill C-5 will pass soon.

In my previous address to the chamber, I went into detail about the content of the bill — and I’d be happy to do so again in response to your questions — but I’m going to focus my remarks today on the testimony that we heard at committee about the three main parts of the bill.

First, on the subject of diversion for drug possession.

With regard to alternatives to criminal charges for drug possession, there was strong support at committee from The John Howard Society. Its Executive Director, Catherine Latimer, noted the similarity between this aspect of Bill C-5 and a comparable section of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which she said has been shown to “lead to fewer people coming into the criminal justice system for less serious offences.” According to Ms. Latimer, these provisions “allow for individuals with substance abuse issues to be referred to community programs where real assistance may be available.”

[Translation]

The John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation, which represents RCMP officers, all underscored the need to increase the resources available for treatment and diversion programs in Canada’s communities so that this section of Bill C-5 can reach its full potential. The committee report includes similar observations, which were suggested by Senator Dalphond and which I was pleased to support. As Senator Simons pointed out in the clause-by-clause study, and I quote: “We can’t divert people if there’s no place to send them.” The government agrees and that’s why it increased its support to send people to community justice centres, for example.

[English]

In his testimony, the minister gave the example of an agreement reached in British Columbia earlier this year between the federal government, the province and the BC First Nations Justice Council to support and expand Indigenous-led community justice programs. The government’s intention is to continue supporting these kinds of programs, in conjunction with provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners in British Columbia and across Canada.

The committee also heard from witnesses who argued that nothing short of full decriminalization of all drugs would constitute meaningful change. On this point, I would note that decriminalization of simple drug possession is going to happen in British Columbia early next year, due to an agreement between the province and the federal government. No doubt, we’re going to learn a lot from that experience, some of which may be applicable in other parts of the country or, in the future, at the federal level.

The key point is that this change in British Columbia has been preceded by extensive consultation, cooperation and planning, with the province fully on board. We’re not there right now in the rest of the country. But what we can do, immediately, is to direct police and prosecutors in every province and territory to avoid laying criminal charges for drug possession in most instances, and that’s what Bill C-5 proposes.

I know that some senators have raised concerns about the way police discretion is used, given the reality of systemic discrimination. Again, this is something that the committee emphasized through its observations. It’s a fair point, and that’s why the bill specifically envisions that records related to diversion, with personal identifiers removed, can be provided to researchers for the purpose of assessing and evaluating police use of discretion.

That work will be facilitated by the government’s recent investments in the collection of disaggregated data, particularly in the criminal justice space. The more we understand about how diversion options are used and whether diversion is happening more or less in certain parts of the country or with members of certain communities, the better equipped we will be to identify and address inequities.

Next, to conditional sentence orders.

With regard to the second part of the bill, which proposes to remove restrictions to conditional sentence orders, we heard enthusiastic testimony from a number of stakeholders. Criminal lawyer Michael Spratt gave this part of the bill “straight A’s.” Tony Paisana, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, told the committee that this part of Bill C-5 would be “one of the most important reforms in the criminal law over the past decade, if not the most important.”

According to a written brief from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, the enhanced access to conditional sentences enabled by Bill C-5 “will immediately begin” decreasing Indigenous women’s over-incarceration rates.

[Translation]

Conditional sentences have existed in Canadian criminal law since they were introduced in the 1990s by Allan Rock, the then Minister of Justice. For sentences of less than two years, when a judge determines that there’s no threat to public safety, offenders can serve their sentence in the community, under certain conditions. Doing so may result in better rehabilitative outcomes since the offender can maintain employment, family and community support ties.

This is particularly important in remote and northern communities, where the closest prison may be hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. It is all the more important when there are children involved who could end up in the care of child protection services if their parent goes to prison.

Raphael Tachie, president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, or CABL, pointed out that conditional sentences are essential tools for combatting recidivism as they can allow for offenders to maintain familial ties and employment and school commitments, while still being held accountable for their crime.

Colleagues, I’d like to take a moment to recognize the opinion expressed in committee, namely by Senator Boisvenu, that conditional sentences can enable dangerous offenders to stay at home or in their community. Honourable senators, I know that that opinion is based on a real concern for the safety of the community and particularly for victims of gender-based violence, and I thank Senator Boisvenu for raising this issue.

Like Senator Boisvenu and others, including Senator Dupuis, we reminded the committee that it’s important for women to have confidence in the criminal justice system so that they feel safe when they ask for help.

I also note that the Criminal Code only allows conditional sentences when there’s no safety risk. Bill C-5 doesn’t change that. What’s more, it’s important to keep in mind that many people who might benefit from broader access to conditional sentences are themselves victims of gender-based violence.

The Supreme Court of Canada is currently dealing with a case involving an Indigenous woman who helped her husband move drugs under duress, under threats to herself and her daughter. Under current legislation, that woman has to go to prison; she argued that the judge in this case should at least have the option to impose a conditional sentence and that’s exactly what Bill C-5 would allow.

[English]

Ultimately, colleagues, conditional sentences serve the interests of public safety. It is not a risk-free proposition to send people needlessly to prison. Cutting someone off from their family, friends, employment, education and social supports, and forcing their kids into foster care, can make homes and communities less stable, less safe and can perpetuate cycles of criminality.

Where it is possible and safe to hold people accountable for breaking the law without incarcerating them may not only be the more compassionate thing to do but the safer thing to do. That’s why this section of Bill C-5 is so important.

Finally, to the question of mandatory minimum penalties: As I said at the outset, the third part of the bill would repeal a number of mandatory minimum penalties, including all mandatory minimums for drug offences; certain offences involving non‑restricted firearms — essentially, hunting rifles; offences involving the trafficking of weapons other than firearms; and one offence related to contraband tobacco.

These types of provisions establish a minimum amount of prison time that sentencing judges must impose for a given offence. They restrict judges’ discretion, limiting their ability to take mitigating factors into consideration and to engage more meaningfully with sentencing guidelines, including the need to consider what are known as Gladue principles related to the particular circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Most witnesses strongly supported the repeal of these mandatory minimums. Janani Shanmuganathan of the South Asian Bar Association of Toronto called it “an important step.” Criminal lawyer Michael Spratt called it “a very positive step . . . .” Sarah Niman, speaking for the Native Women’s Association of Canada, said that the repeal of these mandatory minimums “. . . empowers trial judges to meaningfully engage Gladue principles . . . .”

In other words, there was very little disagreement about whether repealing these provisions would be a good thing. The consensus was that, yes, it’s a very good thing. The question that came up was: Why does Bill C-5 repeal these mandatory minimums but not others? And should the bill go even further and repeal more, or even all, mandatory minimum penalties, perhaps even including the one for murder?

Colleagues, Canadian criminal law currently contains around 70 mandatory minimum provisions. Bill C-5 would repeal 20 of them.

At committee, the minister’s explanation was that, according to government data, the 20 mandatory minimums repealed by Bill C-5 are amongst those that are used most often and that apply disproportionately to Indigenous, Black and other marginalized people. Indeed, according to statistics from Correctional Service Canada, from 2010 to 2020, of all admissions to federal custody where the most serious charge carried a mandatory minimum penalty, over half were for 1 of those 20 offences covered by this bill. That includes 11,630 people who received a mandatory minimum for a drug offence, and, amongst them, over 1,600 Indigenous people and over 1,000 Black people.

That’s just federal custody. Sentences of less than two years are served in provincial and territorial institutions, which incarcerate more people than federal prisons, often with higher rates of overrepresentation.

As we heard from University of Ottawa criminologist Cheryl Webster, reliable numbers about provincial and territorial sentences are less readily available. Late in our study, though, we did get an estimate from Statistics Canada that the repealed mandatory minimum penalties in Bill C-5 could affect an average of 9,123 cases across Canada every year.

Ultimately, this is another area where we could benefit greatly from better data, including better disaggregated data. Again, I’m hopeful that the government’s recent investments in this area will make an impact. But what is clear is this: The repeal of mandatory minimums proposed by Bill C-5 could help a lot of people.

Finally, one of the proposals made at committee was something that is often called a “safety valve” or “structured discretion.” Basically, it’s the idea that the law should allow a sentencing judge to deviate from the mandatory minimum in a particular case if the judge determines that imposing it would be somehow unjust.

A number of witnesses recommended this, and an amendment to this effect was considered at committee. As I said at committee, I largely share the values that underpin this idea, and I think it was very important that committee members gave it due consideration before ultimately deciding not to proceed with that amendment. We had a thoughtful discussion at committee, and valid points were made both for and against this notion.

The government opposes this proposal for two main reasons.

First, credible stakeholders, including the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, cautioned that this approach could have negative unintended consequences — namely, incentivizing the proliferation of mandatory minimums by shielding them from constitutional challenges.

Second, the government agreed with Raphael Tachie from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, who urged us to get Bill C-5 off the Order Paper and into real life as soon as possible. His advice to us was, “We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Colleagues, it certainly has been a long and challenging journey to get to this point — not just this past year and a half of Parliament dealing with Bill C-5 and its predecessor, Bill C-22, but the last decade, since many of the previous government’s so‑called “tough on crime” measures were first put in place. We’re so close to passing this bill and making a real difference in people’s lives. Better to bank the win than to toss politically challenging legislation back into the uncertainty of a minority House of Commons.

[Translation]

Again, I want to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for having seriously considered the content of this bill and making proposals to support its objectives, including by making formal observations in their report, and for having decided to move forward with Bill C-5 as is — not because it’s a panacea, but because it’s a significant step forward.

The time has come to take this important step.

[English]

In a letter to the committee, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association called Bill C-5 “an integral piece of legislation in justice reform” and urged us to “move Bill C-5 through the Senate as soon as possible.” In the view of the Canadian Bar Association, “It’s critical that this bill pass, and pass with haste.” The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers said, “. . . we encourage you to work expeditiously to pass this bill so we can start implementing on the ground.”

Even witnesses who wanted Bill C-5 to go much further acknowledged it capacity to make a difference. Emilie Coyle, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, called this legislation:

. . . a step toward the goal of seeking to reduce the crisis of structural racism, systemic discrimination and inequality in the justice system.

University of British Columbia law professor Debra Parkes said, “I absolutely agree that lives could be changed by this bill . . . .”

That is the critical point, colleagues. Those are real people who will be unnecessarily imprisoned or imprisoned for longer than is necessary if we don’t pass this legislation, and pass it soon.

By way of example, I’ll close with something we heard from Janani Shanmuganathan of the South Asian Bar Association of Toronto, whom I mentioned before. She notably argued one of the landmark cases related to mandatory minimums at the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. She told us about a client of hers, a 26-year-old man with an alcohol addiction but no criminal record who used a pellet gun from Canadian Tire to hold up a convenience store for $100 so he could buy some beer. He was caught and he confessed within hours.

Between the time of his arrest and the time of his sentencing, he turned his life around. He enrolled in university, started a meaningful relationship and not only began attending Alcoholics Anonymous but actually became an AA facilitator.

He arrives for sentencing. The sentencing judge expressed deep regret at having to impose a one-year mandatory minimum sentence, saying, “It’s heartbreaking to send this person to jail, but I have no choice.” According to Ms. Shanmuganathan, that unnecessary incarceration imposed significant psychological and financial consequences on her client. He suffered a mental breakdown while in jail.

That’s why she spoke passionately in favour of Bill C-5 at committee and urged us to pass it fast. She told our committee:

I have clients who are hanging on to this bill passing . . . . I have actual clients for whom this bill would change their lives.

Colleagues, the government is not proposing to pass Bill C-5 and then hang a “mission accomplished” banner on the criminal justice system. There remains a great deal of work to do to make our justice system more effective and more just. That will include legislation, investments and many other policy tools to address the underlying causes of criminality and the social alienation that plagues our society. But this bill, as it is, will do a lot of good. Colleagues, please, let’s turn it into law.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Kim Pate: Senator Gold, so many of us support the objectives of Bill C-5 to repeal mandatory minimums and decrease the overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black people and members of other marginalized communities in prisons.

Just this week, the Office of the Correctional Investigator released their 2021-22 report, confirming that Indigenous women continue to be the fastest-growing federal prison population and that they are now 50% of federal prison populations, two out of three of those classified as maximum security and 76% of those in structured intervention units, the supposed replacement for solitary confinement. Of the incarcerated Indigenous women, 86.2% are assessed as high-risk and high-need. The majority are incarcerated for violent offences and serve long sentences, largely as a result of their responses to violence first perpetrated against them.

The incarceration of Indigenous women most often results in their children being apprehended by the state, as you have indicated, which further contributes to cycles of institutionalization for Indigenous children, families and communities.

Could you please explain how this bill in its current form will not implicitly defeat its own objective by continuing exponential increases in incarceration of Black, Indigenous and racialized or otherwise marginalized people, especially Indigenous mothers?