Hon. Percy Mockler, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, has, in obedience to the order of reference of November 3, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

PERCY MOCKLER

Chair

Honourable senators, I want to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, as well as the sponsor of the bill, Senator Yussuff, for their work and their dedication.

I would also like to thank the outstanding staff, including the clerks, the analysts, the interpreters, the communications staff and our office staff, who worked very hard to support our work.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. No, that is not the case at all. As I said recently in response to another question, Minister Joly and the Government of Canada are in the process of preparing a new strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. It is no secret that relations between Canada and China have been difficult for some time now. Canada is working to maintain a good rapport with its allies in the region to counterbalance China’s claims and actions with respect to human rights and the other hostile acts perpetrated by that regime.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. As I said, the government is positioning itself in a world that is different from the one that existed in the time of Prime Minister Chrétien and the others you mentioned. China and its international aspirations are very different now, and the government understands that very well. I repeat that the Government of Canada is committed to defending our interests and the democratic interests of our allies around the world.

[English]

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Government leader, food bank usage in Canada is at an all-time high. Demand is especially strong among both domestic and international students amid soaring tuition fees and skyrocketing food and housing costs. Senator Gold, Canada’s international students are among some of the brightest talents in the world, and they are a key part of our country’s future. They contribute billions of dollars to the Canadian economy. It is shameful that many of them are having to turn to food banks to survive. When will your government get serious about the affordability challenges that are keeping our youth and our students from getting ahead?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, Canadians are very generous people. We are generous with our time, whether volunteering at a local food bank or a homeless shelter, baking cookies for our children’s or grandchildren’s local school or donating to the many charities and non-profits that do so many great things for our communities.

To recognize such acts of kindness, we honour those outstanding contributions of Canadians and people around the world today, as it is National Philanthropy Day. Philanthropy is the love of human kind, and that love can take many forms.

The charitable and non-profit sector in Canada is huge. According to Imagine Canada, the sector employs 2.4 million people, which is 1 in 10 Canadian workers; it contributes 8.3% of Canada’s GDP — an estimated $192 billion — and it sees 13 million volunteers give close to 2 billion hours a year.

Colleagues, as many of you know, Canada became the first country in the world to officially recognize National Philanthropy Day. Our former colleague the Honourable Senator Mercer successfully helped navigate legislation through Parliament to officially recognize the day in 2012. We are so very proud of that, because we should be proud of all of the efforts of the volunteers and sector employees who give of their hearts to help so many in need.

I am pleased to give my thanks today, and I encourage all honourable senators to join me in showing appreciation for those who give their time, their money and their care in support of others. Thank you.

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada is very awake, attentive and mindful of the threat that China poses and will continue to take the action that is necessary to protect Canadian interests.

Senator Plett: We aren’t questioning the intelligence people that we have in Canada. We’re questioning the lack of action of this Prime Minister, not the intelligence community.

Senator Gold, policy experts and intelligence officials have indeed been sounding the alarm on the threat of the CCP for years now. With all the information available to us, it is clear that they are getting increasingly aggressive, yet your government has not adjusted its approach accordingly. Rather, it sits by while our institutions come under threat.

Yesterday, we learned of Chinese espionage at Canada’s largest power utility. This certainly will not be the last incident we hear about. How many more espionage charges will need to be laid before Trudeau and his government wake up?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act sponsored by Senator McCallum.

This important legislation would require the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth to table a statement in Parliament on certain bills, outlining their potential effects on women and, particularly, on Indigenous women.

Senator McCallum commenced our debate with a powerful call for substantive equality for Indigenous women, considering the terrible discrimination and violence they have endured in our federation. Senator McPhedran recently added her support and insights to the discussion, and I hope we’ll hear additional debate — and I hope Bill S-218 will move to committee with a sense of urgency after having been introduced in November of 2021, and twice in the last Parliament.

Colleagues, why do we need this bill? Since 2019, following the passage of Bill C-51, federal law has required the Minister of Justice to provide a statement of Charter compliance for every government bill in Parliament. However, complying with Charter equality requirements is not necessarily the same as doing a good job of considering, and crafting, public policy that establishes equality and paves the way for all women.

As Senator McCallum told us, this is particularly the case for Indigenous women, where specific knowledge and understanding are often needed to think carefully about colonialism, discrimination, violence, risk from resource development, constitutional Aboriginal or treaty rights, and the inherent rights affirmed under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

In the face of many disadvantages incurred through injustice, this bill aims to help Indigenous women access the quality of life that so many others take for granted — so they can exercise, and enjoy, their individual and collective rights.

As I will discuss, the concept of GBA Plus is also broad enough to respond to contextual concerns of other groups of women who have faced disadvantage, such as other racialized groups. I trust the committee will attend to this point.

Specifically, Bill S-218 would establish a gender analysis reporting requirement for all government-initiated bills, as well as for any individually initiated House of Commons private member’s bill, Senate public bills or private bills that reach committee stage.

As Senator McCallum told us, she chose the trigger point because adoption at the second reading indicates that a non-government bill is meaningfully progressing through the legislature. In addition, this legislation requires a statement from the minister in response to amendments adopted in the chamber where the bill originated should the bill pass that chamber for the benefit of the second house. This feature of Bill S-218 is valuable to get the full picture.

Honourable senators, a legal requirement for publicly available gender-based analysis can enhance federal legislation’s value for women, including Indigenous women. In this way, Bill S-218 represents a natural progression of years of effort toward the federal government’s inclusion of gender-based analysis in formulating legislation, intersecting with reconciliation.

This is not a new issue. In 1995, the Government of Canada committed at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women to applying gender-based analysis to its policy decisions. Sadly, challenges linger. In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled a report outlining the uneven application of gender-based analysis by departments, resulting in the appointment of an expert panel on accountability mechanisms for gender equality. The panel’s 2005 report recommended establishing legislation to enforce the use of gender-based analysis, monitoring and reporting. With Bill S-218, we have an opportunity to fulfill the recommendation made 17 years ago.

In 2009, the Auditor General released a report on gender-based analysis indicating its application still varied significantly among departments. In 2015, the Auditor General noted ongoing barriers to Gender-based Analysis Plus, that is GBA Plus, including an absence of mandatory government requirements in relation to legislation. For persons who may be learning about this subject, the “Plus” in the term “GBA Plus” acknowledges that gender‑based analysis is not just about differences between genders. It must also consider intersection with aspects of identity such as ethnicity, religion, age, language, income or disability. In this way, the concept respects diversity and inclusivity.

Bill S-218’s emphasis on Indigenous women certainly does not exclude other groups of women where considerations of social context are relevant, such as for other racialized or marginalized groups. Again, a committee can examine these details.

In 2015 and 2017, mandate letters for the Minister of the Status of Women prioritized efforts to strengthen gender-based analysis. In 2017, a report of Women and Gender Equality Canada noted that the federal government made the application of GBA Plus mandatory for all memorandums to cabinet and Treasury Board submissions.

This is a positive step. However, the analysis is not made public. This lack of transparency is the first problem with the status quo that Bill S-218 would remedy through tabling requirements.

Bill S-218 would also address a second problem. As Senator McCallum said, “any future government can stop the practice at any time.” By enshrining the analysis and tabling requirements for women in law, the practice would become hard to discontinue, only possible through repeal with democratic scrutiny.

Bill S-218 would address a third problem with the status quo, being that GBA Plus may not be happening for non-government bills that have viable prospects of becoming law in Canada. Colleagues, we, of course, need to treat any potential legislative changes with due diligence, regardless of whether the initiator is the government or an individual parliamentarian. In fact, according to Senate Procedure in Practice, our distinction between government business and other business has only been in place since 1991, when changes to the Rules prioritized government items.

Currently, a few federal statutes, such as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Impact Assessment Act, do require gender-based analysis in their application. These examples demonstrate the value of statutory requirements, as does the shift to Charter compliance statements with Bill C-51 and other examples of reporting requirements to Parliament. However, federal legislative activity is still not subject to requirements to report on a given bill’s potential effects on women. By changing this, Bill S-218 will ensure that new laws benefit all women in Canada.

Recent proceedings in this place have confirmed that there is room for improvement. On debate on Bill C-30 — legislation that enhanced the GST credit — Senator Dupuis and Senator Bellemare noted government shortcomings around GBA Plus analysis. We learned that though a summary of GBA Plus is sometimes made available to senators by the government, as Senator Dupuis said:

This practice should be extended to all bills, and the summary of this analysis should be tabled before all Senate committees. This practice should be routine, not left to the whim of individual ministers.

Honourable senators, at a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on October 27 of this year, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, the Honourable Marci Ien, discussed the value of GBA Plus and the government’s commitment to this approach. Her determination is to be commended. However, Senator Patterson noted that a 2022 report of the Auditor General stated:

. . . only 39% of surveyed departments and agencies performed GBA Plus at this critical problem definition stage more than 60% of the time. This means that the majority of departments and agencies surveyed reported not applying GBA Plus in the initial design phase of policies, programs, and initiatives, thereby reducing the impact GBA Plus could have to address or avoid inequalities experienced by diverse groups of men, women, and gender-diverse people.

Senators, with Bill S-218, the federal government can build on progress to date on GBA Plus. As Senator McPhedran told us, it is important that GBA Plus take place in all sectors, including in areas such as fisheries, national defence and infrastructure. We should therefore move Bill S-218 to committee to consider the lasting change proposed by Senator McCallum.

Honourable senators, I will add a few words on why Indigenous women require dedicated policy attention, justifying the specific mention that Senator McCallum has suggested in Bill S-218. In my view, valid reasons include the historical context of colonialism, being the genesis of the high levels of discrimination and violence we see today, as well as distinct legal frameworks applying to Indigenous women through section 35 constitutional rights and UNDRIP.

From The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, released in 2019:

The violence the National Inquiry heard amounts to a race‑based genocide of Indigenous Peoples, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis, which especially targets women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. This genocide has been empowered by colonial structures evidenced notably by the Indian Act, the Sixties Scoop, residential schools and breaches of human and Indigenous rights, leading directly to the current increased rates of violence, death, and suicide in Indigenous populations.

Honourable senators, our work in this chamber has sought to address this situation, and there’s more work to do. For example, the famous six Indigenous women, including Senator Lovelace Nicholas and former Senator Dyck, have made extraordinary efforts to eliminate gender-based discrimination in Indian status registration. As the Indigenous Peoples Committee outlined in their June report entitled Make it stop!, and as Senator Lovelace Nicholas and Senator Francis wrote in Charlottetown’s The Guardian in July, the government is still not up to the principle of non-discrimination in status.

As a second example, Senator Boyer in the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has led efforts to end the ongoing practice of forced sterilization in this country. We know from the committee’s report last year that this practice disproportionately affects Indigenous women and other vulnerable and marginalized groups in Canada. This year, Senator Boyer introduced Bill S-250 to make this practice a specific offence under the Criminal Code.

Colleagues, the need for such a bill illustrates a terrible ongoing situation for Indigenous women in this country.

As a third example, we’re familiar with Senator Audette’s work as a Commissioner on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and their Calls for Justice. We are grateful for the work of the Indigenous Peoples Committee in helping to hold the government to account in answering those Calls through their June report, Not Enough: All Words and No Action on MMIWG.

I acknowledge the committee’s conclusion that their ongoing vigilance can help answer Calls for Justice 1.7, respecting a National Indigenous Human Rights Ombudsperson and Tribunal, and 1.10, respecting an independent annual reporting mechanism to Parliament.

Senators, in giving Indigenous women legislative focus through Bill S-218, we also acknowledge their distinct legal situation by virtue of section 35 constitutional rights, as well as UNDRIP, set for implementation by way of action plan. Articles 21 and 22 of UNDRIP provide that:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

As UNDRIP becomes federal law, this principle requires legislative attention, as proposed by Bill S-218.

To conclude, government, Parliament and Canadians must do more to approach public policy through a gender and reconciliation lens. We must do more to build a better society for all women, including Indigenous women. This legislation will help. Colleagues, I ask you to join me in supporting Bill S-218 for swift passage to committee. Thank you, hiy kitatamîhin.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, for Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). I would like to thank Senator Wallin for her passionate and vocal support of advance requests for medical assistance in dying; patient autonomy always has been and remains at the heart of her advocacy.

The objective of Bill S-248 is twofold. It amends the Criminal Code to permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written agreement to receive medical assistance in dying, or MAID, on a specified day if they lose capacity to consent prior to that day; and to permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving MAID if they lose capacity to consent, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

Some of you may wonder whether the introduction of Bill S-248 is premature, given that the new Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was established in March of 2022 and has only completed a portion of its mandate thus far. The committee tabled its first report entitled Medical Assistance in Dying and Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Condition: An Interim Report in June 2022. However, I will argue that this bill is not premature; on the contrary, our work is past due, and it is time for us to catch up.

I will bring your attention to three documents that can guide our work: the November 2015 Final Report of the Provincial‑Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, the February 2016 report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying entitled Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach and the 2018 report of The Expert Panel Working Group on Advance Requests for MAID assembled by the Council of Canadian Academies entitled The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying. We have the information that we need to act. Now we must have the courage to do so.

The first report for us to consider is that of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying. In February 2015, in their ruling in Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the absolute prohibition of MAID defied sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect an individual’s right to life, liberty and security. The court determined that it was the responsibility of Parliament and provincial legislators to establish a national legal and regulatory regime for MAID. As the court wrote, “Complex regulatory regimes are better created by Parliament than by the courts.”

The Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group was therefore formed to provide non-binding advice to provincial and territorial ministers of health and justice in 11 participating provinces and territories on a pan-Canadian approach to physician-assisted dying. The group’s members had professional expertise regarding relevant clinical, legal and ethical issues. The group issued their Final Report in November 2015 and made 43 recommendations in total.

Recommendations 12 and 13 concern the timing of completion of a patient declaration form for a request for MAID. The group considered four possibilities regarding the timing of a request and determined that physician-assisted dying should be permitted in the following three scenarios where:

a) the patient is competent at all times from the initial request to the moment of provision of assistance;

b) . . . the patient lost competence between the completion of the . . . form and the provision of assistance; or

c) . . . the patient lost competence between the completion of the . . . form and the onset of the enduring intolerable suffering.

The second report for us to consider is that of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. In December of 2015, both houses of Parliament established the special joint committee whose purpose was to review existing consultations and reports on assisted dying, consult with Canadians and relevant experts and make recommendations to the federal government for a national framework on MAID.

As one of the 5 senators and 11 MPs of this committee, I can speak to the seriousness with which we conducted our work. Over the course of five weeks in January and February 2016, our committee received over 100 submissions and heard thoughtful and valuable testimony from 61 witnesses who had rich knowledge and expertise in the fields of law, medicine and ethics.

As legislators, we were asked to propose a framework on MAID that both respected the autonomy and dignity of individuals who suffer from a grievous and irremediable medical condition and protected some of society’s most vulnerable individuals.

In February of 2016, the special joint committee tabled its report titled Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach, which made 21 recommendations, including eligibility requirements and procedural safeguards.

A few months later, in June of 2016, the federal government presented Bill C-14 — Canada’s first-ever legal framework for MAID — which reflected some but certainly not all the recommendations made by the special joint committee.

One noticeable omission from Bill C-14 was Recommendation 7, which stated:

That the permission to use advance requests for medical assistance in dying be allowed any time after one is diagnosed with a condition that is reasonably likely to cause loss of competence or after a diagnosis of a grievous or irremediable condition but before the suffering becomes intolerable.

During our hearings, Professor Jocelyn Downie of the Faculties of Law and Medicine at Dalhousie University suggested the following requirements for advance directives:

. . . at the time of the request, the patient must have a grievous and irremediable condition and be competent, and at the time of the provision of assistance, the patient must still have a grievous and irremediable condition and be experiencing intolerable suffering by the standards set by the patient at the time or prior to losing capacity.

Ms. Linda Jarrett, a member of the Disability Advisory Council at Dying With Dignity Canada, told us:

The members of our council believe that as with other major life-ending decisions, we should have the ability to make our decisions known now when we are competent and hopefully have them carried out later when possibly we will not be.

Honourable senators, I include these quotes from the report to further demonstrate that Senator Wallin’s proposal isn’t new; this recommendation was made to our special joint committee by many witnesses over six years ago. The report and witness testimony are easily available on the special joint committee’s website.

The third document we have access to is the report from the Expert Panel Working Group on Advance Requests for MAID.

Now, I might remind you, for those of you who were in this chamber when we debated Bill C-14, that bill mandated an independent review within two years of three outstanding and complex issues: one, MAID for mature minors; two, advance requests for MAID; and three, requests for MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. To fulfill the mandate of independent review, the Government of Canada requested that the Council of Canadian Academies, or CCA, assemble a multidisciplinary panel of 43 experts from Canada and abroad to study and address these three topics.

The overall panel was chaired by the Honourable Marie Deschamps, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and adjunct professor at McGill University and Université de Sherbrooke. The panel’s working group on advance requests was chaired by Associate Professor Jennifer Gibson, Sun Life Financial Chair in Bioethics and Director at the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics. It was composed of many well-known experts in the fields of bioethics, law, aging, relevant health care professions and Indigenous knowledge, including Dr. Alika Lafontaine, Professor Trudo Lemmens, Professor Emerita Dorothy Pringle and Dr. Samir Sinha.

In December of 2018, the CCA released three final reports of the expert panel. In the summary of their reports, the expert panel noted that:

Key drivers for creating an AR for MAID are the desire to have control over one’s end of life and the desire to avoid intolerable suffering. For people who wish to receive MAID, the knowledge that they could lose decision-making capacity and thus become ineligible for MAID is a source of fear.

They also observed that the primary risk involved with advance requests for MAID is that an individual may receive an assisted death against their wishes, but they asserted that several safeguards can be implemented to circumvent potential risks or vulnerabilities.

The Expert Panel Working Group on Advance Requests for MAID report entitled The State of Knowledge on Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying consists of five substantive chapters: “MAID in Canada: Historical and Current Considerations;” “Advance Requests for MAID: Context and Concepts;” “Issues and Uncertainties Surrounding Advance Requests for MAID: Three Scenarios;” “Evidence from Related Practices in Canada and Abroad;” and “Allowing or Prohibiting Advance Requests for MAID: Considerations.”

Although it was not within the scope of the expert panel or its working group to provide recommendations to government, the report does offer important insights, including potential safeguards for advance requests for MAID, and these include systems-level safeguards, legal safeguards, clinical process safeguards, support for health care practitioners and support for patients and families.

Honourable senators, these reports by the expert panel were meant to inform our understanding and guide our work as legislators, and they have yet to be subjected to a review by a parliamentary committee as originally intended in Bill C-14. Our work is long past due.

Today, the Criminal Code laws governing MAID establish two sets of safeguards: one for those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and one for those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Individuals who make a voluntary written request to receive MAID must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and they must also be mentally competent, free from external influences and be able to give informed consent.

If an individual’s death is reasonably foreseeable, they may be allowed to waive the requirement for final consent if, when they were assessed and approved to receive MAID, they possessed decision-making capacity.

Most notably, an individual must have a written arrangement with their practitioner in which the person gives consent in advance to receive MAID on their preferred date if they no longer have the capacity to consent on that date.

In essence, Bill S-248 extends what the law already permits. It will allow all individuals who suffer from a grievous and irremediable medical condition to waive the requirement for final consent and to receive MAID on a specified day or at the onset of the symptoms outlined in their written declaration.

Honourable colleagues, respected experts have been advising policy-makers since 2015 to allow for advance requests, but they have been ignored. If we continue to wait for government action, it may be years before we see any proposed legislative change. As a result, when Canadians are at their most vulnerable, they will experience unnecessary and undesired suffering, unable to exercise their personal autonomy and direct their end-of-life journey. We have at our disposal excellent evidence on how best to proceed. It’s time we consider it. I hope you will join me in voting to send this bill to committee. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, one of the central roles of our Senate is being a voice for the voiceless and representing the groups who lack meaningful representation in our political discourse. Bill S-251 fits well within this mission on three fronts. It simultaneously addresses, first, a long-standing concern within Canadian communities; second, a Call to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report; and third, it’s an important step towards fulfilling all international human rights commitments.

I’ll start by saying I strongly favour this bill and urge us to ensure it receives due consideration in committee, where the voices of Canadians — especially Canadian children — can be heard.

Colleagues, it is well past time to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. I want to commend our colleague Senator Kutcher for putting this bill forward because, colleagues, this bill has come before us in many iterations in the past decade. But the truth is that, as we all know, perseverance and persistence are always necessary for real change to happen. For this crucial issue, it is time for us to bring it back for renewed consideration in today’s context, recognizing again Canadians’ concerns, the need to definitively respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to fulfill our international commitments.

A few years ago, we hosted a virtual celebration for the Honourable Landon Pearson’s ninetieth birthday and during that discussion she said something I knew and you know, but she communicated it in a fresh and simple way when she said, “Parents don’t have rights. They have responsibilities. Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities.”

I’m strongly in support of helping parents care for their family well. In that regard, we must be sensitive to the role government should play, but interventions from public institutions are sometimes needed to protect children’s rights, and then they should be welcomed.

That’s why we have wealth transfers, for example, like the Canada Child Benefit; and important programs like the special benefits within Employment Insurance, because these play a role for public institutions in helping families thrive.

Parents are supposed to be the primary caretakers of their children, and have the responsibility to raise them so they go on to live healthy, meaningful and productive lives. In an ideal world, this would be what we observe in every family. But, as you and I know, sometimes reality does not play out like this. There are times when public institutions do need to step in. We often think of those moments as times when parents are unable or unwilling to live up to that responsibility. I would argue that we also need to look at them as times when children’s rights and their well-being need to be assured and upheld.

What are those rights? According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC, children have wide-ranging rights — just like adults — from freedom to use their language and freedom of religious thought, to protection from violence and abuse. Senator Kutcher quoted section 1 of Article 19 in his speech as sponsor, and I’ll read it again to remind you:

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Colleagues, Canada has an obligation to respect the UNCRC and to fully implement it. This is one of the many ways that we have failed to do so.

Section 43 effectively does the opposite by allowing children to experience forms of physical violence. We can no longer stand idly by. This bill is not about grabbing a child to help keep them out of harm’s way. Nor is it about lovingly restraining a child to put them in their car seat or to give them their bath. It is about removing corporal punishment as a legally accepted form of parental discipline when there is no evidence at all to prove its effectiveness.

I want to turn to comments from two experts: Dr. Daniella Bendo, Assistant Professor at King’s College University; and Cheyanne Ratnam, CEO of the Ontario Children’s Advancement Coalition, an organization that focuses on children in foster care. Dr. Bendo argues:

Section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code justifies the use of corrective force against children in Canada and states that corrective force is warranted if the force does not exceed what is considered “reasonable” under the circumstances. This colonial law is a violation of children’s protection rights and has been in the Criminal Code since 1892 although 63 countries globally have prohibited physical punishment in all contexts.

There exists a significant amount of academic research that demonstrates the negative effects of corporal punishment on children — including the harmful effects on young people’s behaviour, well-being and mental health, cognitive development, and relationships.

She goes on to say:

In fact, there is no research that shows there are positive effects or benefits of corporal punishment on children’s health or well-being; nor has there ever been research that highlights long-term benefits of physical punishment on children. Bill S-251 is central to Canadian children’s legal protection from harm and violence and signifies Canada’s human rights obligations to children.

For her part, Ms. Ratman stated:

Bill S-251 is imperative to protecting children from harm, and the system has the responsibility to develop adequate supports and resources to support the health and well-being of families. [Section 43 of the Criminal Code] is outdated and is counterintuitive. [It is] as a country to support a law that is rooted in whiteness, and which perpetuates the breakdown of families, entire communities, and facilitates the breakdown of culture and identity in instances of forced family breakdowns — such as the child welfare system and legal system. What families need is adequate, equitable, accessible and culturally appropriate supports and resources, including mental health supports, rooted in healing and growth for all members unique to their divergent needs. . .

The sum of the comments of both these accomplished women is that it is no longer morally tenable for Canada to sanction child violence and simultaneously take moral leadership on the world stage or seek reconciliation here at home — in fact, it never was. There is a defect in Canadian law, and it must be fixed.

It must be fixed, because there is no evidence to support corporal punishment as an effective way of shaping better behaviours in children, as noted by our colleague Senator Kutcher when he spoke about an article in The Lancet published in 2021 — an article that spoke about the analysis of 69 longitudinal studies and concluding something that we all know: spanking is harmful.

Yet, fixing this issue is only the beginning of the large work we need to do to support healthy families in this country. Corporal punishment, as sanctioned by the Criminal Code, is symptomatic of a larger issue.

In considering this issue, my first assumption is that most parents love their children and would do anything to care for and love them well. The ability for parents to do so is eroded by many daily challenges like the high cost of housing and groceries, low-paying jobs, pressures on their mental health brought on by generational trauma, and a whole host of other challenges you and I are very familiar with.

Many parents resort to corporal punishment because they don’t have the time, energy, capacity and understanding to sit and speak with their children, to gently teach them or use other methods of positive discipline. There simply isn’t time, and corporal punishment can be perceived as the way to stop unwanted behaviour now — in a time-efficient manner. I don’t think it’s because parents are bad people who hate their children. I think that often they just don’t have the time and understanding.

My second assumption is that children don’t need to be hit to learn. Anyone who has spent any amount of time observing a child would be surprised and amazed at their many abilities. They’re observant, curious and bright. They can learn and be taught. Our goal should be to enable parents, families and communities to work toward the moral and intellectual development of children from a very young age. Talking to them, teaching them, patiently reminding and encouraging them is the way parents can and should work toward children adopting appropriate behaviours. Using positive strategies to parent also shows these kids that words, when used patiently and deliberately, have the power to change hearts and minds in a more powerful and permanent way than physical intervention ever could, setting those children on the path to healthy adulthood.

I know many of us, even here in this chamber, have dealt with corporal punishment when we were kids. For some, it was something much worse than the occasional — but certainly still abusive — slap, pinch or twisted arm. If we’re honest, it’s not something we look back on fondly. It’s something we got through and endured and, for some, may be accepted as part of what made us the successful, powerful people that we are. But there was a silent effect: something that impacted us subconsciously, and something we could never put our finger on but we know is still there. A silent impact that, for many, remains a source of pain for their entire lives. It may well be that we are where we are despite that treatment, not because of it.

We must have never been spanked out of anger, and it may well have always satisfied that “reasonable” criteria laid out by the Supreme Court, but that did not make it okay, colleagues.

I don’t say this to make light of the situation many have gone through. I say this to cause us to reflect on whether or not corporal punishment is ever beneficial and to remind us that the effects on children are real and long-lasting. This is a deeply personal issue for many, and one that has rightly left deep scars, unresolved anger and open wounds.

Repealing section 43 alone will not be sufficient. Colleagues, meaningful steps to improve the well-being of families and children will be needed if we are to see the welfare of children improve, and if the rights of children are to be respected.

I will mention a few words on the experiences of other jurisdictions on the global stage. We know that many countries, including Sweden, Germany and New Zealand, have banned corporal punishment, and we can learn from their lived experiences. In these jurisdictions, the bans imposed worked. Those countries all report a significant drop in reports of corporal punishment. In Germany and Finland, that reduction was by nearly 50%. Also, these countries acknowledge the need for public education and for adequate family supports. They acknowledge the need to help parents and families figure out other ways to teach and discipline their kids.

I recognize the importance of these factors and would strongly recommend that our government here in Canada consider this and commits to making those investments when this bill becomes law.

Finally, the bans did not result in parents getting locked up for spanking their kids. In most countries, the response to corporal punishment was mostly referrals to social services that allowed families to get the right kinds of supports they needed. We will need to do much of the same here in Canada.

Colleagues, I end by saying it is our responsibility to repeal section 43. I’ll close by saying that I support this bill again wholeheartedly and look forward to further discussion on this bill in committee, with your help. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise tonight to speak to Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. I stand in strong support of Senator Ravalia’s bill and am personally grateful for his initiative.

Immediately prior to my appointment to the Senate, I was a director and incoming chair of the Kids Brain Health Network, which supported the mobilization of research related to autism, FASD and cerebral palsy. It was in this capacity that I first began to learn about the shocking realities associated with FASD and the isolation, risks, pain and trauma that it visits on so many children and their families.

My remarks today are focused primarily on four points: First, FASD is an equal opportunity problem, the consequences of which are made so much worse because of judgment and shame. Second, the current cost of inaction across the lifetime of a child born with FASD far exceeds every other intervention alternative. Third, early diagnosis and intervention are essential to reducing the lifetime costs. However, the vast majority of current evidence-based approaches and tools are unavailable to most families. Fourth, remote delivery options hold important promise and the opportunity for Canada to lead globally as we work to address the needs of children, families, educators and so many others affected by FASD. They are substantial indeed.

To my first point, FASD is an equal opportunity problem. In Canada, approximately 70% of women of child-bearing age drink, and 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. We know from various epidemiological studies that about 30% of pregnancies are alcohol-exposed to some degree, and most often during the first trimester, before the woman even knows she’s pregnant.

A recent University of California San Francisco study found that one third of women discover they are pregnant at six weeks or later. This rises to almost two thirds of younger women, and marginalized women are even more likely to discover pregnancy past seven weeks.

Simply, in committee, I think it will be important to understand the degree to which judgment and shame actually discourage versus encourage willingness to access early diagnosis and treatment for FASD in those places where it is actually even available.

Now to my second point, which is the high cost of inaction. There have been a few attempts to calculate the cost of FASD to the Canadian economy. A Centre for Addiction and Mental Health — CAMH — researcher, using a population prevalence of 1%, found that the direct annual costs of FASD in Canada are approximately $1.8 billion per year. However, again, epidemiological studies have demonstrated that the actual prevalence of FASD in Canada is closer to 4%, so the annual costs are therefore very likely closer to $6 billion or $7 billion per year.

However, these costs are not concentrated in the health care system, as I initially expected they would be when I first started to learn about FASD. The tragic irony is that, by far, the largest costs associated with FASD in Canada are incurred by the justice system. Youth with FASD are 19 times more likely to end up in prison than those without FASD. The total estimated cost of FASD to our criminal justice system is almost $4 billion per year. Think about it: We spend almost $4 billion per year on criminal justice interventions involving those suffering from FASD, and we spend it because of the brain injury that they acquired while still in the womb, and it was not diagnosed and interventions were not available.

When Bill S-253 is studied in committee, I hope time is invested in trying to identify the costs of inaction for families, schools and for these children, and all the costs that are incurred in our social service, health care, justice and correctional systems.

Finally, and most importantly, please consider the opportunity costs resulting from lives that cannot and will not be lived as a result of our inaction.

Now to my third point — early diagnosis and intervention. Current Canadian guidelines recommend either making a diagnosis or providing an “at risk” designation for infants as young as six months. However, the reality is that most diagnostic clinics will not even see a child who is younger than six years of age, and those children who happen to be referred for an assessment typically sit on wait-lists for over two years because of inadequate diagnostic capacity.

Children younger than six years benefit most from interventions that have been demonstrated to mitigate the long‑term consequences of prenatal alcohol exposure, yet, today, we are systematically closing this window of opportunity to virtually every child and every family.

Early identification enables early intervention. The Kids Brain Health Network championed and co-funded techniques that enabled FASD-diagnosed kids to be provided with effective supports at an early age so they could reach their full potential and achieve a far superior quality of life. A much brighter, safer and less-expensive future sits before these children and families if we choose to pursue it.

I hope that time will also be spent in committee to identify and find the ways to overcome the systemic barriers that are preventing effective and cost-efficient diagnostic and treatment approaches from becoming the standard of care across and throughout Canada.

Systemic barriers exist due to biases, limited resources and limited access to technology and connectivity, and they especially include the siloing that results from the fact that FASD is not the responsibility of any body or any group, either within or between levels of government. FASD is everyone else’s responsibility, so it’s no one’s responsibility.

Fourth, I want to speak about the importance of harnessing remote delivery support for educators, parents and kids. Various remote support systems and services already exist. The Strongest Families Institute is one example. Based in Nova Scotia, they deliver service remotely in Nova Scotia, and in several other provinces and territories. Services like this train paraprofessionals to provide remote programming coaching to families, helping them to deal with issues such as inattention, impulsivity, non-compliance and aggression at home or at school — issues that are very common with children with neurodevelopmental disabilities like Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, or FASD.

As an entrepreneur who led a company that delivered an effective, cost-efficient and evidence-based reading intervention, as an entrepreneur commercializing university-based research and as a volunteer with the Kids Brain Health Network, I have seen far too much life-improving knowledge never applied in practice. You have heard me say countless times that Canada has a phenomenal research engine, but we have yet to build the reliable transmission that will convert that research excellence into opportunities, jobs and prosperity.

In the case of neurodevelopmental disabilities, this means that kids, families and communities are suffering unnecessarily, and society is paying a much higher cost. Kids, parents and families desperately need cost-efficient access to effective, evidence‑based diagnostic and intervention tools across and throughout Canada.

As I conclude, I hope the committee in its review will be sensitive to the need that we do not unintentionally pit one underfunded, underserved disability group against another in a fight for all-too-scarce resources. As I say this, I’m thinking of Bill S-203, an act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, which passed third reading here in the spring and has now been introduced in the other place. It is a wonderful bill, but there is justifiably pent-up resentment about the limited attention and resources available to address the overwhelming needs of these families. This resentment is exacerbated when one disability is addressed in a way that actively excludes those dealing with other disabilities.

As a consequence, when Bill S-253 is considered at committee, I hope that opportunities might be identified to help build a more inclusive, pan-disability response for children and parents struggling with the effects of neurodevelopmental disabilities. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Coyle, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, we have much on the go. Today, as we begin to see the lights, the trees and the magic of the holiday season, we celebrate National Child Day and we push hard over the next very busy four weeks, I would first like to take one more opportunity to remember.

On November 4, 2022, here in the chamber, a week of remembrance began with a wonderful ceremony. The Speaker hosts and honours so many veterans in a special ceremony, and it is an honour that we are invited and are able to attend. How special it is that every senator has the privilege of sending a wreath to their community of choice. Like all of you, I give this careful thought each and every year.

Every year we learn more from the stories of Canadians — some stories are over a hundred years old; some stories are very recent. Last week, Mr. Peter Mansbridge — a name that may be very familiar to you — on his podcast “The Bridge,” slowed his usual work down and highlighted different stories throughout the week. Perhaps the most profound episode was on November 10, 2022, entitled, “Your Turn On Remembering,” which turned the focus to stories written and submitted by Canadians.

This year I learned about 20 Royal Canadian Air Force pilots from Saskatchewan in 1946, following World War II. I’m sure my Saskatchewan senator colleagues know this tragic story well.

The community was Estevan, Saskatchewan. Imagine: The war is over. You are home. Canada has leased planes from the United States, and now it is time to return them. Each plane was returned. The last plane, a C-47 cargo plane, was returned to North Dakota. Twenty pilots and one ground crew member were on their flight back home and crashed near the Estevan airport. They survived the war, trained pilots and were tragically killed shortly after the war. There is a beautiful memorial to remind us all of these brave men who died doing their work.

This year, Remembrance Day found me in the United States. I wanted to learn a little more about their veteran community, so I visited with some young men and women who have returned home from tours in the last five years or so. I learned about a not-for-profit program called Home Base. It provides programs to veterans and their families at no cost to treat PTSD, traumatic brain injury, anxiety and depression, while addressing wellness and social isolation. It reminded me of the volunteer services we have here in Canada and the hard work they do assisting those who return home, such as the Veterans Transition Network, Wounded Warriors Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion. We thank them for all they do for our returning soldiers.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, introduced in the House of Commons on November 4, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

2.in addition, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-32;

3.the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 5, 2022, and be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting;

4.the aforementioned committees be authorized to meet for the purposes of their study of the subject matter of all or particular elements of Bill C-32, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto; and

5.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to take any report tabled under point three into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-32.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the Fall Economic Statement 2022, tabled in the House of Commons on November 3, 2022, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on November 15, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, your government’s inaction on the issue of interference in Canada by the Communist government in China is putting Canadian democracy increasingly at risk.

According to reports by Global News, the Prime Minister was warned by Canadian intelligence officials in January of this year that China has been targeting Canada with a vast campaign of foreign interference. This included funding a clandestine network of at least 11 federal candidates who ran in the 2019 election and conducting research into Canadian MPs who were critical of China’s human rights abuses against the Uighur population in Xinjiang.

Leader, my question is simple: Why is your government not responding forcefully to the Communist regime’s interference in our democracy?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government recognizes that investing in research and supporting Canadian researchers is pivotal and vital to address the health issues facing Canadians, and the pandemic through which we are living has reminded us of the importance of having access to solid research evidence.

I note that Budget 2018 provided $354.7 million over five years and $90.1 million per year ongoing for the CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to increase its support for fundamental research. The government as well continues to invest in research that’s important to the health of Canadians. Budget 2022 announced $20 million to study long-term effects of COVID infections and wider impacts on health and health care systems, and $20 million as well to increase our knowledge of dementia and brain health that we funded over five years through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Budget 2022 additionally committed to funding important research areas including long-term impacts of COVID-19, to name a few. With these continued investments, the government demonstrates its commitment to supporting a vibrant, equitable and diverse research community to help address the health challenges of today and tomorrow.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Over the last years, as I’ve mentioned, the government has made historical investments toward research. I won’t repeat the figures that I gave before, but in Budget 2018 alone, the government committed nearly $4 billion over five years to support the next generation of Canadian researchers. It’s clearly an important priority for the government.

The government remains committed to strengthening Canadian researchers with resources and strengthened infrastructure and research networks.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have been collaborating for some time to advance and ensure respect for shared immigration priorities. The 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord defines the bilateral relationship between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Quebec, which is guided by the principle that immigration must help preserve Quebec’s demographic weight within Canada as well as its distinct identity. The agreement has provided Quebec with a lot of money, and that funding has gone up in recent years. Funding is not tied to the total number of new immigrants to Quebec in a given year. The amount of funding never goes down, and the amount established in one year becomes the baseline for the following year.

The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with the Government of Quebec to achieve the goal of bringing in as many immigrants as necessary to help our businesses thrive and ensure the vitality of French in Canada.