Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Once again, Senator Gold, my question is on minority rights. They are so important, not only in Quebec, but across Canada. Today, I want to address Bill 21 which infringes on the civil liberties of Quebecers. Many religious and ethnic communities in Quebec continue to feel their rights have been eroded. As you know, the law is currently being challenged before the provincial courts.

Last December, in an answer to a question from Senator Omidvar, you said:

. . . The Government of Canada remains committed to following the litigation closely and will take whatever decisions are deemed appropriate at the appropriate time.

Senator Gold, some might argue the appropriate time was a long time ago. When will the government take a strong stand on this bill and start defending the rights of minorities in our province? What is your definition of the appropriate time?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, as we approach Canada Day and the end of the parliamentary session, I want to take the opportunity to say a few words about our great country.

As Canadians, we are blessed to live in one of the freest and safest nations on Earth. We have much to be proud of and grateful for. As a beacon of hope, democracy, opportunity and liberty, Canada has attracted millions of people from around the world, who came here to make this country their home. Every year, hundreds of thousands of newcomers are welcome with open arms to join our growing Canadian family and way of life.

This Canadian way of life is one that is rooted in a distinct set of values: prosperity, security, hard work, opportunity, free enterprise, human rights, community and compassion, to just name a few. But the most foundational principle of this great country is, without a doubt, freedom, for without freedom, none of the other things I just mentioned would be possible.

The last few years have been difficult for everyone. Faced with challenging times brought on by a pandemic, Canadians have been divided, isolated and often pushed to the limit. Governments have repeatedly tried to restrict our freedom, yet I believe the adversity we have faced will only strengthen our resilience and make us an even better country. In spite of governments’ best efforts to divide us and turn us against each other, I believe Canadians will emerge more united than ever — with one another, their families, their friends and fellow Canadians.

Our governments have also tried to use the pandemic as a means of getting rid of proper accountability and diminishing the role of parliamentary oversight. That needs to end. The hybrid Parliament needs to end. Canadians expect us to ensure proper parliamentary oversight, which is our role and our duty to them.

As Canadians, we must never forget that the freedoms we enjoy every day cannot be taken for granted nor are they free; our freedoms came at a very costly price, paid for by men and women far braver than any of us, who sacrificed themselves in the fight against tyranny so that future generations could be free. It now falls upon us to guard that freedom and protect it for those who will follow us.

Canada is a great country worth celebrating, and it is my hope that we will do just that, not just this upcoming Canada Day but every day. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I’m flattered and honoured to be in this position despite what some of my colleagues have said about the government that I represent.

But I’m neither the sponsor of the bill nor an expert, nor indeed even a member of the committee, even though I participated ex officio.

Senator Galvez, respectfully, I think that the question was asked — or should have been asked, if it wasn’t — to the officials in the course of the protracted and extensive study on the bill. I’m afraid I’m not in a position to answer that question in this setting.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, on May 20, after nearly a year of study, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour released her report on the external review into sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian military. Her report consisted of 48 recommendations.

As you mentioned in this chamber to a question from Senator Coyle, Minister Anand committed to implementing 17 of those recommendations immediately.

My question concerns recommendation number 5 — which is not one of those 17 — which states that Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces and they should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Senator Gold, could you let us know what is the hesitation to committing to this recommendation?

A similar recommendation came out of a previous 2015 study of sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian military. I’m just wondering what are the barriers for the transfer of the cases to civilian investigation and prosecution?

Hon. Stan Kutcher moved third reading of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill S-5, the “Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act,” which modernizes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA.

I would first like to acknowledge the work done by the members in this chamber of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources as we studied this bill. A huge thank you is also owed to our staff: the clerk, analysts of the committee and all those whose support has brought us to this point.

I would also like to especially thank Senator Arnot, who kindly gave up his space on the Energy Committee for me, as sponsor of the bill, to participate. I congratulate him on having his first amendment to a piece of federal legislation accepted by the committee. It will not be his last, I’m sure.

When Minister Guilbeault, in his opening remarks at committee, invited the Senate to study and seek ways to improve this bill, senators took this to heart. You all heard about the number of amendments that were proposed to this bill from Senator Massicotte. We all discovered that modernizing an act as complex as CEPA is not an easy task.

As Senator Massicotte noted yesterday, the committee made a number of amendments to the bill. It also refused some amendments after vigorous debate and thoughtful deliberation. In my opinion, in these decisions around which amendments to accept and which to refuse, the committee exercised its due diligence — moving ahead on those areas it had comfort with and not moving ahead on areas that gave it discomfort.

Over the past two months, the committee heard from numerous witnesses representing many and diverse perspectives. I acknowledge the interest and valuable input of all those who took the time to testify, to provide briefs and to reach out to discuss the many issues that arose during our committee work. The engagement of civil society and industry in our study of this bill illustrates the importance and value of our democratic process.

I am proud to support this bill as it has been amended, and I urge all senators to vote to adopt it and send it to the other place for their consideration.

CEPA is one of Canada’s core environmental laws. It protects the health of our people and our environment, largely by enabling federal action on a wide range of pollution sources.

Much has changed since its last significant update in 1999. The proposed amendments to CEPA, if passed, will strengthen the protection of Canadians and our environment, and will provide Canadians with an environmental protection law that confronts 21st-century issues with 21st-century science.

This bill proposes a number of changes to achieve this goal, which can be summarized in two major themes. First, Bill S-5 recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment, as provided under the act.

To ensure that the right to a healthy environment is meaningful in the context of CEPA, this recognition is paired with a duty of the government to monitor and protect that right. How that will be operationalized will be elucidated in an implementation framework to be developed in collaboration with Canadians within two years of Royal Assent of this bill. That will explain how the right will be considered in the administration of the act.

With amendments that were made in committee, that implementation framework will, among other things, elaborate on principles such as environmental justice, which includes avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; intergenerational equity, which means meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs; and non-regression, which means not rolling back environmental protection and continuously improving the health of the environment and of all Canadians. It was clear from the thoughtful discussions in committee that senators were keen to ensure that this right would be meaningful and the guidance on developing the implementation framework clear.

I think the bill reflects those considerations.

Second, this bill proposes to modernize Canada’s approach to chemicals management. It requires a new plan of chemicals-management priorities to give Canadians a predictable, multi‑year, integrated plan for the assessment of substances, as well as the activities and initiatives that support substances management. That includes, but is not limited to, information gathering, risk management, risk communications, research and monitoring. It also adds a mechanism for the public to request the assessment of a substance.

The bill sets out a workable regime for substances of the highest risk, which include persistent and bio-accumulative substances, as well as certain carcinogens, mutagens and substances that are toxic to reproduction. The bill requires that, when considering how to manage such substances, priority be given to prohibiting them.

The bill also reorients the act to additional considerations based on emerging concerns of Canadians and the growth of a robust and yet-developing scientific understanding of the impacts of cumulative effects of substances. It also extends its acknowledgement of the necessity to identify and protect vulnerable populations, and, as a result of the committee’s discussion, vulnerable environments.

The bill also now includes several provisions to avoid regrettable substitution. That means taking a substance which could be quite toxic to human health and putting it into commerce. The most important of these remains the watch list, which will give an early warning to industry of substances that, for example, are hazardous and may be determined to be CEPA‑toxic if exposure to them or their uses change.

The bill further eliminates duplication between acts and departments, and, if passed and if appropriate regulations are adopted, would remove the requirement to notify, assess and manage new drugs under two separate acts as is currently the case. For example, the Food and Drugs Act for the safety, efficacy and quality of a drug; and, concurrently, CEPA for the environmental risks of the drug’s ingredients. This would provide a more efficient and effective approach to assessing and managing the risks of drugs in Canada.

Finally, the bill increases transparency with changes to the confidential business information regime and now includes substantive requirements to accelerate efforts to replace, reduce and refine animal testing.

As someone who is familiar with the issues regarding the use of animals in health-related research, I am particularly pleased that the Senate amendments to this bill have moved the yardsticks toward the goal of eliminating animal testing of substances as soon as is scientifically possible.

As I mentioned previously, there was vigorous and thoughtful input from civil society and from industry during the committee’s study of this bill. We heard from over 35 witnesses and received numerous written submissions covering a wide swath of issues, items of concern and suggestions for changes. The committee heard from Indigenous organizations, industry organizations, non-governmental organizations, academic experts and individual Canadians, all of whom shared their opinions on the bill and CEPA reform in general.

We heard commentary on a variety of topics, including animal welfare, increasing transparency, public access to information and the assessment and management of toxic substances, among others.

We heard pleas for increased transparency and easier access to information provided under CEPA, confidential business information and modifications to the online CEPA Registry to make it more user-friendly.

We had calls for increased specificity in the risk assessment and risk management processes. We heard about some of the many long-standing hardships faced by Indigenous peoples in relation to pollution and the need take to heart the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as our constitutional duties and to ensure that the implementation of CEPA would be guided by these.

We heard about the need to “put the health of people and the environment first” and to ensure that vulnerable people and vulnerable environments would be top of mind, not bottom of the pile.

The committee adopted several amendments related to these topics. I will highlight three recurring themes in our discussions and address some of the adopted amendments that address those.

To begin, several amendments were made to better incorporate Indigenous rights and perspectives. Indigenous knowledge was explicitly recognized alongside current and emerging science.

The committee also addressed consultation and reporting requirements. New requirements were added to provide greater notice of actions and decisions under the act, and emphasis was added on the need for a searchable, electronic registry.

The committee added additional protections for vertebrate animals by including substantive provisions to the bill that go beyond the aspirational statement in its preamble and that reordered the three Rs — reduce, replace and refine — to reflect that the first priority is to replace entirely the use of vertebrate animals in toxicity testing. If that is yet not possible, then their use should be reduced and refined. That means attending to their welfare when used for testing.

Among other changes along this theme, the committee also adopted an amendment to require that the plan of chemicals management priorities include specific activities or initiatives to promote the development and implementation of alternative testing methods that do not involve the use of vertebrate animals. This will encourage the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances and is consistent with actions being taken by international partners such as the United States and the EU.

The committee also made a number of observations that I personally hope will drive the government to improve its ability to deliver on what this bill now demands.

Bill S-5 amendments have noted, for example, in section 44 that:

The Ministers shall conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the Government of Canada in protecting the right to a healthy environment. . . .

Another amendment replaces paragraph 45(a) with a new passage that requires the Minister of Health to “conduct research and studies, including biomonitoring surveys, relating to the role of substances in illnesses or in health problems.”

Unfortunately, honourable senators, as we heard from witness testimony, the government is not at this time able to provide the essential, robust and comprehensive biomonitoring, biobanking, ongoing longitudinal cohort studies and toxicogenomic analyses that are necessary to support what this bill promotes. Additionally, the committee learned that existing biomonitoring activities do not currently include an appropriate representation of Indigenous peoples. Both of these issues will need to be resolved, as without a robust and fulsome scientific capability in all the areas that I have mentioned, the promises that this bill makes for improved health for people and the environment will not be met.

Many Canadians will be watching to see how rapidly this need for enhancing our capacity to do this essential scientific work will develop and what funding and expectations for the development of this scientific capacity the other place can put into the bill to further promote this necessity.

I am proud to support this bill and urge all senators to vote to adopt it and to send it to the other place for consideration. This modernization of CEPA will be an important step for the Government of Canada toward the continued protection of people’s health and the environment, and I trust it will not be the last.

Many parts of CEPA were not modified as they were not within the scope of this bill, but we hope that in the not-too-distant future, as alluded to by Minister Guilbeault’s testimony before our committee, we will soon have a chance to address other parts of the act and continue to improve CEPA.

I look forward to following the debates on Bill S-5 in the other place, and I hope the revised and improved version of Bill S-5 which is before the Senate today will be adopted here and moved forward as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you. Could you expand on biomonitoring as it applies to Indigenous people and when you think it will come to fruition? In other words, what are the areas we have gone over that will be excluded because this cannot be done at this time?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that excellent question. Biomonitoring, which means looking at the accumulation of substances in the human body — you can look at that through blood work or your nails, hair, tissue and other things — is an essential component of being able to determine how substances impact human health, not just at one point in time but over longer periods of time.

We need the capacity to do that kind of biomonitoring work in the general population, but also very importantly in vulnerable populations. With respect to people who are living in environments in which toxicity is known to be potentially greater, biomonitoring tells us what we need to know in terms of the impact of environment on human health. Canada currently does some biomonitoring but not enough. We heard from witnesses that the biomonitoring has to be much more robust. Many more people need to be involved. It has to reflect the variety of Canadians, of the Canadian population. It cannot just be given to one group. All Canadian groups have to be involved in the biomonitoring so we can see what differential effects the environment can have on different groups.

We also heard testimony that Indigenous peoples are not included in the routine biomonitoring, and certainly not as included as they should be in terms of large enough numbers for us to get a good understanding of what’s happening to Indigenous peoples.

Because we can’t put money into this bill in the Senate, we strongly urge through our observations that these scientific necessities be improved dramatically within Canada and that the other place address those in this bill. Thank you very much, Senator McCallum, for that question.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. As you may know, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was adopted in 1999 and has not seen any significant modernization since. Twenty‑three years is too long of a wait to update our protection regime in a fast-changing world. More than 28,000 chemicals are registered for use today, and more than 600 new chemicals are introduced every year in Canada, which is more than triple than in the U.S.

I encourage you to vote in support of Bill S-5 as amended in committee and want to use this opportunity to explain how and why CEPA affects all of us, and why it is important that we frequently study and review this act.

CEPA provides the framework for how, why and when chemical substances are assessed for toxicity, and whether and how they need to be regulated. Bill S-5 seeks to strengthen this assessment and regulation-making framework.

[Translation]

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development studied this bill in 2017 and made 87 recommendations. Just a few of these recommendations were taken into account in Bill S-5, most notably the consideration of vulnerable populations. A number of the recommendations from the committee and from experts have not yet been included, such as the requirement of justification for confidentiality requests, risk assessment, climate change, pesticide management, radioactive substances, electromagnetic radiation and genetically modified organisms.

A number of senators tried to fill these gaps by proposing amendments during the committee’s study. I want to thank Senators Miville-Dechêne, McCallum, Patterson and Arnot for their thoughtful proposals. I also want to thank Senator Kutcher, the sponsor of the bill, for agreeing to take on the difficult task of sponsoring such a large and highly technical bill.

Yesterday, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources shared some statistics about our work and our overall findings. I won’t repeat everything that he shared, but I do want to emphasize that 64 amendments were presented, 34 of which were adopted. I’m pleased that my colleagues supported 14 of my amendments, many of which had to do with the reduction of assessments and the number of tests on vertebrate animals.

[English]

Under CEPA, the government is tasked with assessing substances and categorizing them depending on their toxicity. The Government of Canada assesses approximately 600 new substances in the Canadian market each year. Yet, with all these substances and thousands of new products imported to Canada annually, the government has not given itself sufficient resources to undertake adequate testing. If you heard my question earlier to Senator Gold, we don’t know if the government is overly reliant on industry to provide the scientific basis for assessments, if university labs will play a bigger role in this testing or if government officials rely on literature reviews.

This ambiguity is problematic. A literature review, however useful in getting a broad picture, might not include testing in the right conditions to determine if a substance is toxic in the environment, if it might lead to long-term chronic effects in humans or if there are equivalent substances that are less toxic, for example. While these assessments are the responsibility of the minister by law, the government relies on data from experiments that are overwhelmingly designed, performed, analyzed and disclosed by industry for the purpose of sales. This overreliance on industry-provided data should warrant an additional layer of precaution, not less.

CEPA references the precautionary principle several times, an approach that emphasizes caution when addressing substances for which extensive scientific knowledge is lacking. This is a wise approach when dealing with substances that have the potential to destroy ecosystems or cause lasting health impacts on human health. Unfortunately, our environmental protection regime is more grounded in risk management than precaution.

In fact, Bill S-5 changes the CEPA preamble by removing an acknowledgement that we “. . . need to virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. . . .”

This was in the initial CEPA. Today, we would rather focus on “the need to control and manage pollutants.” This is neither a precautionary approach nor prevention. It sends the wrong signal, by suggesting that there is no need to eliminate pollutants — only to manage and control them.

When it comes to prevention, we heard from the government that only 25 substances from the list of toxic substances have pollution prevention plan requirements. They went on to suggest that this should not be concerning because not all uses of substances create a risk. We must point out that highest risk and acceptable risk are not defined in Bill S-5. Without these boundaries, risk management may lead to situations where it is acceptable that citizens are exposed to different levels of dangers, which creates more inequalities. This issue is avoided when the focus is put on prevention.

I appreciate that the government proposed an amendment brought forward by Senator Kutcher in committee to extend the priority of pollution prevention actions to both parts of the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1, rather than just part 2. The committee also adopted Senator Miville-Dechêne’s amendment giving authority to the government — should they need it — to require pollution prevention plans from any manufacturer of toxic substances. Prevention is a cornerstone of adequate environmental protection, and these amendments make Bill S-5 stronger.

[Translation]

The bill also introduces a tool that I think will be good for the environmental protection framework, and that is a list of potentially toxic substances. This list sends a clear signal to industry that a substance may become toxic if it is used differently or if more of it enters the environment. It also indicates that further regulatory action may be taken if necessary. It acts as a warning system, one that is not limited to substances tied to a new activity. Although some industry witnesses were opposed to it, I believe it will benefit industry by helping them avoid substances that they would otherwise have to replace eventually.

[English]

With great expectations from citizens, Bill S-5 introduces in its preamble the right to a healthy environment. Sadly, Canadians won’t benefit from this right in its due form when the bill passes. At this stage, the bill only instructs the minister to develop and implement a plan to set out the exact nature of this right within two years of coming into force.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. I want to acknowledge my brothers and sisters of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation.

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

This is for you; this is your voice. Thank you to James and Anna for all their work, spirit and energy in working alongside me.

I would like to begin by registering my concern on the continuous assault of the water and lands surrounding vulnerable populations and vulnerable environments. The assault that I speak of largely occurs at the hands of resource-extractive companies. This unrelenting pressure and demand on our natural resources comes from various industries, including oil and gas, whose activities result in tailings ponds and orphan wells and whose hydraulic fracturing on both land and water comes with its own list of environmental concerns; hydro, which has had devastating effects on the quality and calibre of water, the health of the people and species who live in and rely on that water and the surrounding lands that are flooded or eroded with the changing water levels, affecting cultural and spiritual practices; forestry, which discharges effluent that has adverse impacts on surrounding land and waterways; agriculture, due to both herbicides and pesticides making their way into water sources as well as the effluent sewage and related runoff from farms; and mining, whose tailings and effluent are often discharged into the river system.

The vulnerable populations who are disproportionately affected therein, colleagues, are First Nations. Many nations and reserves are located on or in proximity to resource extraction sites. They experience many burdens that are largely unknown and unseen to Canadians who live in cities and in rural settings isolated from the multiple devastations that occur.

Honourable senators, the Assembly of First Nations’ brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, under the heading “Right to a Healthy Environment Requires a Remedy,” states:

First Nations experience environmental racism throughout the country, resulting in disproportionate exposure to toxic substances and hazardous activities. Children living in communities or on reserve are disproportionately impacted by unregulated chemicals (e.g., the lack of regulation on use of pesticides and herbicides on and around reserves).

The Assembly of First Nations continues:

As noted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Hazardous Substances and Wastes, “[t]he invisible violence inflicted by toxics is an insidious burden disproportionately borne by Indigenous [P]eoples in Canada.”

The rapporteur states that the rights to health, safe water and food, adequate housing, safe and healthy working conditions and others implicated by toxins do not appear to be directly actionable under Canadian law.

Colleagues, CEPA, 1999 has been in effect for 20 years; yet, where is the protection for First Nations promised by this legislation? There was much discussion on the concept of “balancing” in the Energy Committee’s study of Bill S-5. Was the protection against toxins “balanced” with other factors like employment and economic considerations, factors that then took precedence over the lives and lands of First Nations?

Has this misaligned “balancing” led to vulnerable populations and environments? The term “vulnerable environment” was defined for the Energy Committee by Mr. John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada. He stated:

. . . the concept of cumulative effects is becoming better understood in the scientific community, and so an environment could be considered vulnerable, for example, if it has been subjected to multiple stresses over a period of time and a new stress, a new emission or pollution that might not have a large effect somewhere else might have a significant effect in an area that has already been subject to multiple stressors over time.

Honourable senators, I would like to raise the case of Tataskweyak Cree Nation, a community in northern Manitoba. Their stressors include the cumulative impacts of residential school and intergenerational trauma; dispossession of lands, culture, livelihood and spirituality and their impact on food security and health; endangered sturgeon population; the devastation of hydro impacts including unsafe drinking water; effluent discharge from mining in Thompson, Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake, including tailings; and being a water basin for interprovincial and international drainage that flows into Split Lake — the water that is sacred to them.

Now, Tataskweyak Cree Nation has found that new toxins, resulting from the presence of blue-green algae, have added to the myriad of stressors already burdening their waterways. This compounding of issues is a prime example of the term “vulnerable environment.”

Colleagues, as we balance economic concerns against health and environmental concerns, we must understand the concept of poverty. Poverty is not simply the lack of income or economy. It is the lack of ability to achieve minimally satisfying living conditions. It is the devolution of one’s ancestral home territory into a hazardous environmental wasteland — as we see occurring with Tataskweyak Cree Nation and many communities.

People continue to remain disempowered due, in large part, to the regulatory gaps within federal and provincial jurisdictions. Poverty cannot be removed mainly in terms of economic growth; social changes are required. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to identify and remove these barriers to change.

Honourable senators, while CEPA endeavours to protect all aspects of the environment, I will largely focus on issues related to water and environment, as First Nations have been fighting for clean water in their own homeland of Canada and on their reserves for the past 100 years.

Generations of youth have never experienced clean water, having lived their entire lives under a boil-water advisory. The physical, mental, spiritual and emotional burden that this causes cannot continue to be ignored by parliamentarians. These kinds of assaults on the basic needs and human rights of human beings, as well as on those of Mother Earth, are unconscionable.

The issue of blue-green algae raised by Tataskweyak Cree Nation, or TCN, was highlighted in a brief provided to the Energy Committee by TCN’s Chief Doreen Spence, who wrote:

We are particularly concerned about the presence of the blue-green algae toxins in our Lake and drinking water supply which is why we are asking for this amendment.

In an accompanying brief, Mr. Ian Halket, TCN’s project director and a hydrologist, states:

Our lake receives the wash loads from watersheds as far away as the Rocky Mountains in Alberta, southern Minnesota, and North Dakota, as well as, the wash from Winnipeg and English River in Northern Ontario. . . . Our Lake sits at the bottom of watersheds that [drain from the above]. By the time these waters reach our Lake, the plant-available nitrogen has been used up and blue-green algae dominate.

Mr. Halket continues:

When the natural balance [of nitrogen to phosphorus] gets out of hand (low nitrogen and high phosphorus) blue-green algae start to dominate the algae community in the lake. Blue-green algae release toxins, some of which are the most toxic substances we encounter in the environment, even if you include industrial pollutants. With the advent of big agriculture, wastewater treatment plants and industrial and mining releases of effluents, the natural balance of plant-available nitrogen to phosphorus is being altered, swinging it towards the thresholds that encourage the growth of blue-green algae and increasing concentrations of cyanotoxins in lake water.

He continues:

Blue-green algae toxins . . . can result in serious illness. . . . In 2020, Health Canada confirmed that more severe symptoms include liver and kidney, nerve and muscle damage.

On this point, Chief Spence wrote:

People in our community have health complaints ranging from gastrointestinal upsets and skin rashes to disease of the liver, kidneys and nervous system, symptoms that parallel effects of exposure to blue-green algae toxins. Ours is not the only northern reserve that is experiencing these health symptoms.

Although some have tried to argue that blue-green algae are naturally occurring, it has been well established that human activity and intervention have been the main culprit in the spread and propagation of this serious matter that has brought with it dire health consequences for the surrounding communities.

As such, honourable senators, the onus is on us to embrace this opportunity and ensure that toxins from blue-green algae are addressed under Bill S-5.

As the proliferation of these toxins is largely attributable to human activity, it goes to follow that this issue would logically fall under section 46 of the CEPA legislation, which deals with “activities.”

For context, colleagues, I would like to quote Mr. John Moffet, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, where he defines “activities” within the bill. He says section 46:

. . . covers authority to gather information on a range of pollutant-related issues and covers all of the various authorities in the act: toxic substances, nutrients, intergovernmental water and air pollution, et cetera.

He goes on to say:

What we are trying to do by adding (k.1) is to go beyond information on substances and gather information about activities themselves that may, when the activity is carried out, create pollution. Then we can have better information to devise risk management approaches focused on preventing pollution as opposed to just identifying it and managing it once it occurs.

And further:

. . . the idea of (k.1) is to focus on activities related to pollution, and by that I meant activities that contribute to the kind of pollution that releases substances that are harmful to the environment or human health.

Colleagues, as Mr. Moffet has stated, this section has been specifically created to gather information on a range of pollutant-related issues, including toxic substances. I would like to point out that the Energy Committee’s report on Bill S-5, adopted yesterday, added hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds to this section already, establishing an important precedent.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill S-5, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in subclause 9(3) (as amended by the decision of the Senate on June 21, 2022), on page 5, by adding the following and repositioning and renumbering accordingly if required:

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, the government’s goals for Bill C-5 are laudable. I repeat, they’re laudable goals, and I support them. Regrettably, Bill C-5 will not significantly reduce the number of federally imprisoned Black or Indigenous people, most especially not Indigenous women.

In the 1999 Gladue decision, the Supreme Court declared the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prisons a national crisis. At the time, Indigenous people represented 10.6% of the country’s federal prison population. Today, that percentage has risen to 32%. Even worse, Indigenous women now make up half of all women in federal prisons, and 1 in 10 federally sentenced women are Black.

In 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau tasked the Minister of Justice with decreasing the number of Indigenous people in prison and repealing mandatory minimum penalties in accordance with the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, which directed:

. . . the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences. . . .

This and reconciliation remain within the mandate of the Minister of Justice. Bill C-5 will not meet these goals and falls far short of the TRC Call to Action 32 and the subsequent Calls for Justice 5.14 and 5.21 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Mandatory minimum sentences are a primary contributor to Indigenous and Black overrepresentation in prisons. As the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry brought into stark relief, Indigenous women do not receive just, fair or equitable treatment under the law. This is Canada’s legacy. The TRC and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry traced Canada’s history of abuse and mistreatment of Indigenous peoples from the ongoing effects of colonialism, including the legacy of residential schools, which reveals itself in the current realities of mass incarceration.

Clearly, urgent action is needed to address this crisis. Bill C-5 will remove mandatory minimum penalties for some drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. But most mandatory minimums will remain on the books, including the mandatory life sentence for murder. By removing only some mandatory minimum penalties, we are effectively sanctioning continued injustice in Canada.

Retaining the vast majority of mandatory minimum penalties is said to be justified on deterrence grounds. This logic often resonates with people because of a view that long, mandatory sentences will prevent people from committing crimes. If this were true, punishment would not have been abandoned in virtually every other sphere, from parenting to educating. More to the point, if it were true, then we should expect that the United States — the leader in the proliferation of mandatory minimum penalties — would be the safest, most crime-free country in the world.

Yet the deterrent effect of mandatory minimum penalties has been debunked as a myth. The government’s own research reveals that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter and are less effective than proportionate sentences reached through the exercise of broad judicial discretion. I want to thank Senator Cotter for outlining what exactly that means.

In 1952, the Royal Commission on the Revision of the Criminal Code concluded that all mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished. For at least seven decades, experts, commissions of inquiry, judges, community-based advocacy groups and reconciliation commissions have advocated for the repeal of mandatory minimums.

Instead, in this bill, we see the repeal of a select few mandatory minimum penalties. It will barely put a dent in the overincarceration of Indigenous and Black people, not only because it will apply to so few offences but also because mandatory minimum sentences add jet fuel to discrimination and discriminatory law enforcement and prosecutorial practices, magnifying the impact by preventing sentencing judges from addressing the context of offences and the ways in which the criminal legal system replicates and deepens discrimination.

Mandatory minimum sentences coupled with biased police response, investigation and charging practices create miscarriages of justice. For vulnerable populations, interactions with the police are often intimidating and traumatizing. Experiences of force and abuse from authorities begin at a young age for many Indigenous women, often in times when they need support and protection, and that abuse can continue into adulthood.

When police are called but disbelieve Indigenous women, not only are Indigenous women further traumatized, but too many are left to protect themselves. If they have used any force reactively — even defensively — they are likely to find themselves criminalized and imprisoned.

Too often, colonial attitudes held by members of the legal system regard Indigenous women as more blameworthy than others and deserving of harsh punishment by the justice system. This has been labelled as hyper-responsibilization and is a phenomenon experienced by many, particularly the 12 women recently profiled in our report.

As was also noted in The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Canadian legal system:

 . . . criminalizes acts that are a direct result of survival for many Indigenous women. This repeats patterns of colonialism because it places the blame and responsibility on Indigenous women and their choices, and ignores the systemic injustices that they experience. . . .

— and which directly contribute to the behaviour for which they are criminalized.

Mandatory minimum penalties shackle judges, forcing them to impose sentences of incarceration that do not appropriately reflect the context, circumstances or legal blameworthiness of the accused or the abuse they may have experienced within the law enforcement process.

Mandatory minimums break with Canada’s historical trust of our judiciary that granted them discretion in sentencing. Before the fervour for mandatory minimum sentencing started sweeping across our criminal laws in 1995, judges were entrusted to develop individualized sentences that balanced the gravity of the offence against the culpability and circumstances of the accused. When the Criminal Code was first enacted in 1892, it contained six mandatory minimum penalties. Until 1995, the number of mandatory minimums remained constant at around 10.

Now there are more than 70 offences carrying mandatory minimum penalties — this in spite of the fact that judicial discretion in sentencing is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians. In 2017, in a report commissioned by the Department of Justice, 9 out of 10 Canadians wanted the government to consider giving judges the flexibility to not impose mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill does not respond adequately to the judicial decisions that have found mandatory minimum penalties in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One glaring omission is the failure to deal with the mandatory minimums regarding parole ineligibility for murder, which is particularly important for reducing the overincarceration of Indigenous women. The sentence of mandatory life, in combination with parole ineligibility for at least 10 years for second-degree murder, and 25 for first-degree murder, was the trade-off for the abolition of the death penalty.

Even then, a key component of the parole ineligibility period was a provision allowing for a special judicial review and a five‑step process to which a person may seek access after they have served 15 years of a life sentence. The provision was colloquially referred to as a “faint hope clause” of the Criminal Code.

The significance of the faint hope clause was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 when the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence was challenged. The Supreme Court at that time rejected the challenge and upheld the mandatory sentence on the basis that the faint hope clause preserved the constitutionality of the life sentence for murder.

In 2011, the Conservative government repealed the faint hope clause, thereby further limiting opportunities for parole and rendering the mandatory minimum unconstitutional.

Moving forward, we must consider that last year, on the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a speech saying that:

Today, we . . . recognize the harms, injustices and intergenerational trauma that Indigenous peoples have faced — and continue to face — because of the residential school system, systemic racism, and the discrimination that persists in our society.

Colleagues, it’s time for us to do our job. Let’s help the government along this path by making Bill C-5 fit for purpose.

Meegwetch, thank you.

[Translation]

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Brian Francis on April 5, 2022)

The Government of Canada has supported the sector through the $28 million Surplus Potato Management Response plan. Business risk management programs such as AgriInsurance, AgriStability, and AgriInvest also remain available to potato producers to manage business risks. A producer with an AgriInvest account may also draw upon funds to support a transition to other crops.

As an additional tool to enhance compliance restrictions and reduce the risk of spreading potato wart, Prince Edward Island producers who are required to dispose of their seed potatoes may be eligible for compensation under the Potato Wart Compensation Regulations if they meet the eligibility criteria provided in the regulations. A grower can submit their compensation application once disposal of potatoes is verified.

Details on the compensation application process for seed potato growers were shared at a meeting held by the Government of Canada on April 22, 2022. The Government of Canada is scheduled to meet with P.E.I. growers on June 16, 2022, to further discuss this topic.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Stan Kutcher on April 26, 2022)

The federal health portfolio, in collaboration with various partners, is addressing the issue of post-COVID-19 conditions through investments in research and surveillance, sharing of the latest scientific evidence and the development of information and guidelines to support affected health professionals and Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is collaborating with paediatricians across Canada and with the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), who works closely with various countries through the International Network of Paediatric Surveillance Units on a surveillance study of post-COVID-19 conditions. PHAC is also collaborating with the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to share evidence and preferred practices, and with impacted Canadians to inform the development of evidence-based guidelines and tools. Through Budget 2022, PHAC committed approximately $17 million in the development of these tools for health professionals and citizens. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has invested over $410 million to fund targeted short- and long-term research studies on post-COVID-19 conditions that span biomedical, clinical, health systems and services and population health topics.

Additionally, the federal government will be part of discussions regarding international cooperation in addressing this issue at the G7 Science Ministers meeting in June 2022.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Mary Coyle on May 10, 2022)

Infrastructure Canada (INFC) is committed to continuous improvement of all of its infrastructure programs and tools, including the Climate Lens.

INFC is developing a detailed action plan for implementation of its responses to the recommendations in the commissioner’s report. INFC is continuing to improve the Climate Lens by integrating climate considerations directly into project applications, enhancing its review process of climate outcomes, and developing user-friendly guidance for applicants, including sector-specific guidance.

These actions will start as soon as this summer, with the publication of sector-specific guidance and documentation of the internal review process in more detail.

As new programs are developed, INFC will continue to integrate clear requirements to provide information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and resilience outcomes in the program application process.

The commissioner’s report highlighted some very positive progress that has been made under the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) Program. This includes the integration of clear requirements to provide information on GHG emissions and resilience outcomes, and the requirement to use a standardized tool to estimate energy savings and GHG emissions reductions.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, before we rise for the summer, and our work in the regions begins, I want to update you on several initiatives from over the past year. They are exciting and empowering. One provides Inuit art and artists with new opportunities. Another will give Canada’s Black artists new exposure to audiences and profile at home and abroad.

Yesterday, on Indigenous Peoples Day, the Inuit Art Foundation and the Canada Council for the Arts made a groundbreaking announcement. Together, after years of Inuit artists’ lacking equal access to the funding opportunities of southern artists, a much-needed, national, Inuit-specific, multidisciplinary granting pilot program has been developed in the spirit of self-determination.

Launching next winter, 2022-23, it will support the Inuit Art Foundation’s work with Inuit communities throughout Inuit Nunangat and in the south. Distributing over $100,000 in its first year, it will assist Inuit artists in every aspect of their careers, self-expression and self-determination across disciplines. It will increase access to and awareness of artists’ work in both private and public milieus. It will give greater access to art markets at home and abroad. The project also offers capacity-building opportunities for Inuit program officers and assessment juries. Inuit community feedback will ensure artists’ needs will be met. Inuit art was Canada’s face abroad for years. I am delighted it will be again.

Simon Brault, Director and CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts, said:

. . . Inuit artists, we intend to enable the pursuit of sustainable careers in arts and culture and to contribute to capacity building within communities across Canada.

Another major initiative grew from the work of Canada’s Black content steering committee for Canada’s participation in the Pan African Heritage Museum, opening in Ghana next year. A newly formed collective, Canadian Black Artists United, is launching its inaugural event at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg this Sunday.

Artist Yisa Akinbolaji, whose work was in the Senate’s first Honouring Canada’s Black Artists presentation, is their inspiration. I am honoured to be their guest speaker. The leadership of Black artists from across this country who work in all disciplines and with whom I have been working closely these past several years has been stellar. Canada’s contributions to the virtual and actual exhibitions of the Pan African Heritage Museum will be exciting, honest, challenging and innovative, as they look to the past, present and future.

Colleagues, I thank all involved in both these initiatives for their dedication, tenacity and vision as they ensure these empowering steps to more equitable and sustainable careers.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you all for the messages so full of sympathy and human warmth that I have received since yesterday.

[Translation]

Tomorrow night, June 23, marks 20 years since my daughter Julie was abducted while walking to her car after celebrating her promotion to manager at a Sherbrooke company. She was held captive, raped and murdered by a repeat offender. Her body was found 10 days later in a ditch outside the city.

Twenty years ago, this tragedy forever scarred an entire community. Since then, I have dedicated my life to victims of crime, to their families, and to defending their hard-won rights. This tragedy was the reason I was appointed to the upper chamber.

I have always believed that parents do not choose their children, but that children choose their parents. From the first night she disappeared, I knew deep down that Julie was gone. I knew she would never come back, and I believe that she was steering my life towards something other than a quiet retirement, as I used to say at home.

Julie would be 47 years old today. She would probably be an accomplished wife and mother. I often imagine what my life would have been like if I had not lost my daughters, but I can’t imagine my life without the mission that their tragic and untimely departures instilled in me, that is, a need to reach out to families who have had a loved one brutally stolen from them.

Julie taught me so much, in life and in death. She possessed strength of character and never looked back despite facing the kind of tremendous challenges that can prevent us from putting our lives, our dreams and ourselves back together. Her strength inspires me to keep working for victims involved in our justice system and to support victims’ families. I am driven by hope and by love for life itself. We can offer them serenity only if we are not inhabited by anger, rage and a desire to take revenge on the offender.

Julie, my dear child, you left us 20 years ago, but it still feels like yesterday. To me, your face has not changed. Your strength of character and your love of life are always with me. Our father-daughter conversations in the backyard over an after-dinner glass of wine are forever etched in my memory.

Julie, I am proud of what we have accomplished for victims by creating the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues, supporting families and making changes to justice systems. We adopted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to give victims rights and a voice.

With these few words, I want to say a big thank you for being part of my life and the lives of your family and your many friends, although our time together was far too short. Thank you on behalf of the families I have supported after they experienced their own tragedies. There are so many such families that I have lost count.

I have another 20 months of work ahead of me in the Senate, and I still have things I want to accomplish with my honourable colleagues. Our commitment to do more to protect women who are victims of domestic violence will be a full-time endeavour. So many women are in need of help, protection and support. Together, we will do our best to support them and save lives.

Julie, thank you for joining me on this mission, our mission, and for guiding me towards the victims and their families to ensure that their voices are heard, as well as yours, so they are never forgotten. I am proud of you and your sister Isabelle, and I always will be. Julie, 20 years have passed since you left this earth, but time has no meaning for a father, and you will always be my little darling.

Thank you for everything, my dear. I love you.

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I am proud to share a musical initiative from my home community in Greater Moncton, New Brunswick, called “The Gathering Chant.” It honours National Indigenous History Month in Canada, as well as the Mi’kmaq people who have lived in New Brunswick and the Atlantic region since time immemorial.

I learned about “The Gathering Chant” from a friend of mine, singer-songwriter Michel Goguen, who performs under the name Open Strum. Michel supports various causes by writing and performing music that he gives freely to charities, who then distribute the songs to donors and volunteers. This time, he teamed up with Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources, a non-profit organization based in Nova Scotia that unites traditional Mi’kmaq knowledge with science and applies this lens to conservation and environmental stewardship initiatives. The funds raised for the institute will go toward supporting their summer youth program called Nikani Awtiken.

“The Gathering Chant” is actually a traditional song in Mi’kmaq culture about getting together as a community. In the spirit of the song, Michel teamed up with Hubert Francis from the Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick, who is a well‑known singer-song writer. In 2019, Hubert received the prestigious East Coast Music Awards’ lifetime achievement award.

In the spirit of community, Michel and Hubert gathered a truly international choir of 73 people from 22 different countries across the world to perform for the recording. Colleagues, I was delighted to be one of those 73 singers who contributed to “The Gathering Chant.” We sang in the Mi’kmaq language, which was a new challenge for most of us.

We all learned so much, and so, too, will the youth who participate in the Nikani Awtiken program. This annual eight-day summer camp is an opportunity for Mi’kmaq youth to learn about their relationship with and responsibility toward the natural world and to develop skills based on traditional Mi’kmaq knowledge that will foster a closer relationship with their culture and the land. They will grow into a generation of Mi’kmaq youth empowered with leadership and environmental stewardship skills deeply informed by Indigenous knowledge.

I can’t think of a better way to celebrate Indigenous History Month than through the sharing of music, culture and language. “The Gathering Chant” brought so many people together, and I hope that it will inspire those who listen to it. It was released on June 21, on National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada. Thanks to those who made it possible, especially Michel and Hubert. Wela’lioq.

Senator Plett: Of course, leader, we are all aware of the denials that are coming fast and furious over there, and people are being thrown under the bus as fast as they can.

Senator Gold, you might not like our questions, but there is no excuse for the lack of information you are providing, and this is no information on this important issue. The types of answers the government gives makes a mockery of accountability.

This is the testimony, leader, of Lia Scanlan, communications director for the Nova Scotia RCMP:

The commissioner releases a body count that we (Communications) don’t even have. She went out and did that. It was all political pressure.

Leader, she continues, “That is 100% Minister Blair and the Prime Minister.”

Again, these are not my words but Lia Scanlan’s, “And we have a Commissioner that does not push back.”

Leader, why did the Prime Minister and Minister Blair talk to the commissioner about releasing information on the number of victims during an active police investigation?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

The government has been very clear from the outset that it does not support Bill 21, notwithstanding that Bill 21 appears to be within the jurisdiction of the province. It does not support it because of its infringement on fundamental rights. The government has been clear about that. The Prime Minister has been clear about that from the outset.

Indeed, the Prime Minister was the first to even discuss the possibility of intervening in court cases when leaders in all other parties were reluctant to say a word.

More recently, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will intervene. In that regard, Senator Loffreda, I think the government can stand proudly on its record for defending minority rights in this country and doing its part within its jurisdiction and within the division of labour between our institutions to stand up for Canadians’ rights.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable colleagues, as we prepare to return to our home regions to be with our families and friends, I want to share a few thoughts with you on our national celebrations, which bring us together and give us an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the diversity of our Canadian culture.

Yesterday, we celebrated National Indigenous Peoples Day. In a few days, we will be celebrating the national holiday of Quebec and the Canadian francophonie, and then we will have Canada Day on July 1.

I would like to add an important holiday to that list, National Acadian Day, which is August 15. It is a day to recognize, affirm and celebrate the place that the Acadian people occupy in our country, while reminding everyone of the role this francophone nation has played in shaping Canada and its international diplomacy.

The president of the Société nationale de l’Acadie, an organization that represents the Acadian people on the national and international stages, noted the following in a brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, and I quote:

The international success of the Acadian people shows the way forward for the renewal of cultural diplomacy policy in Canada. . . .

Cultural diplomacy has been central to the Acadian national project for a century and a half. It is by forging links with the francophonie, including Quebec, France and the international Francophonie, that we have asserted ourselves as a people within the Canadian federation. . . .

In fact, with its Acadian World Congresses, its partnerships with Louisiana, Quebec, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Belgium, its membership in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, or OIF, the creation of SPAASI, the strategy for the promotion of Acadian artists on the international stage, and the creation of OMIA, the office for international mobility in Acadia, the Société nationale de l’Acadie is an active and effective leader in Canada’s civil and cultural diplomacy.

According to her December 2021 mandate letter, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has the following responsibility, and I quote:

Celebrate Canada’s unique francophone cultures through the promotion of the French language across our diplomatic missions and in our work to transform the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

The Acadian people and the Société nationale de l’Acadie are essential partners in this important mission. I fervently hope that the Government of Canada will fully recognize the monumental work being done in this regard by the Acadian people.

In closing, dear colleagues, I want to wish each and every one of you a peaceful and relaxing summer. I hope that, when the bells ring out for the Grand Tintamarre on August 15 and Acadians peacefully take to the streets to celebrate their existence and their contribution to the world, when men, women and children from all walks of life, all genders and all identities merrily bang on pots and pans and play improvised instruments to show that they belong to this proud people, the whole country will vibrate with joy. I hope you will all take part and that your hearts will be filled with gratitude for this people, who have been helping to build our magnificent country since 1604, a country where, despite what some may say, we are free to be ourselves, no matter our identity, background or origins. Thank you.