Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The Government of Canada is committed to defending the sovereignty of Canada, and the Arctic in particular. It is aware of the issues you raised, and is working to provide the necessary physical assets and collateral support to ensure that our sovereignty is not compromised.

Senator Plett: You repeated what I said, leader. I asked you a question. When? What? You say they’re committed. I read that they’re committed. I read what they promised to do. Leader, we need answers in this chamber, not a repeat of our questions.

I have other written questions, leader, on the Order Paper that your government has not answered about the state of Canada’s defence and Coast Guard readiness. For example, what is the cost estimate to build two polar icebreakers? When will the construction of medium icebreakers begin? Why has the plan to upgrade our search and rescue helicopters been reportedly put on hold? When will the used Australian fighter jets the Trudeau government purchased in 2018 be fully operational?

Leader, why are there no answers other than that the government is committed? Is it the plan of the Trudeau government to continually delay making decisions instead of actually doing anything and then just telling us they’re committed?

Senator Gold: The answer to your question is no. The questions you raise are important and legitimate. They have been transmitted to the government. This chamber should know that our office works hard to impress upon the government the importance of timely answers for the benefit of senators and, frankly, for the benefit of my office, which stands before you representing the government, and we will continue to do so. I hope you can get your answers in a timely fashion. We are doing our best to make sure that happens.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

First, I would like to acknowledge that it is Senator Griffin’s last week in the Senate. I want to thank her very much for her work on behalf of all Canadians, and particularly citizens of the Maritimes. Thank you, Senator Griffin.

[Translation]

Senator Gold, since this is Francophonie Month and today will be remembered as the day Bill C-13 to modernize the Official Languages Act was introduced in the other place, I am pleased to announce the results of a recent public opinion survey. It was conducted last fall by Environics Research for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and found that more than 87% of Canadians support official languages. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, noted that the poll numbers should, and I quote, “help leaders draft the next Action Plan for Official Languages.”

It goes without saying that the Action Plan for Official Languages that will be expiring in 2023 is a key positive measure for enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

My question is the following, Senator Gold. When does the government plan to start drafting the next action plan for official languages? How does it intend to consult official language minority communities and take their needs into consideration during the drafting process?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising this question.

As you mentioned, the current Action Plan for Official Languages is in effect until 2023. I am told that the government will be launching consultations on the next action plan shortly and that details should be announced in the coming months.

Senator Cormier: Senator Gold, according to the 2018‑23 Action Plan for Official Languages, the government has committed $2.5 million over five years to initiatives led by partners such as the City of Ottawa. We know that municipalities, especially those in a minority situation, have a crucial role to play in supporting the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

Senator Gold, given that municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction, how will the federal government support their invaluable contribution to the development and vitality of linguistic communities? Will it be through a provision in the new version of the act, targeted measures in the next action plan for official languages, or some other means?

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I know we are all dismayed by the situation in Ukraine. Russia’s actions by its brutal dictator are unacceptable, and we must continue to support the people of Ukraine in every way we can.

Senator Gold, Operation UNIFIER is the Canadian Armed Forces mission to support the training of security forces in Ukraine. We send a group of about 200 forces members to Ukraine every six months with the ability to deploy up to 400 members. According to National Defence, since 2015 Canadian troops have conducted more than 600 courses, training nearly 33,000 Ukrainian military and security personnel. On January 26, the minister announced additional funding of $340 million for immediate support for Ukraine and for the extension and expansion of Operation UNIFIER. However, the troops were pulled out and are now in Poland, given the current security situation in Ukraine.

Will the government leader tell us when our forces will be redeployed to Ukraine to train additional, much-needed Ukrainian forces to fight against Russia’s illegal war?

Senator Seidman: To some extent, I think you’re right that we are concerned about the ability of the federal government to procure the tests — that is to get the tests from the manufacturers — and then distribute them to the provinces. However, it is clear that they do have a website — and I’m just looking now so I can be really clear — that specifies the number of rapid antigen tests that have been distributed to their final point-of-care settings and administered to patients. The unfortunate part is that aspect of their website hasn’t been updated since December 31.

There is clearly a way they have to track the final arrival of these tests at point-of-care settings in the provinces. If they do, they can be transparent and accountable for that.

[Translation]

Hon. Stan Kutcher moved second 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.

He said: Honourable senators, before I speak, I just want to raise my voice to acknowledge our colleague Senator Griffin for her robust contribution here in the Senate and to personally thank her for her gracious and kind welcome when I showed up as a rookie at the Agriculture Committee.

You made me love agriculture, and I look forward to playing a round with you on the golf course this summer.

Honourable senators, I rise today as the sponsor 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. That is quite a mouthful, so from now on I will just refer to it as Bill S-5.

It is one of the steps that the government is taking to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. It is the first such amendment to that Act since 1999. Now, much has changed since 1999. Our scientific understanding of environmental risks to health has advanced. Sources, magnitude and types of pollution have also changed dramatically. And our understanding of what we need to do to better protect our environment, as we continue to modernize our economy while enhancing the health of all Canadians, has improved during these last twenty-three years.

Just to put this time scale into context. The top hit song in 1999 was “Believe” by Cher, and the top movie was “American Beauty.” Internationally, sadly, the war in Kosovo started, and the euro was launched. In Canada, Nunavut became a territory, and Beverley McLachlin became the first female justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. On August 11 of that year, the Honourable George Furey was appointed to the Senate of Canada.

CEPA is an important part of Canada’s environment legislative framework, and the Government of Canada relies on it to frame many of the environmental and health protection programs administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada. It also provides the legislative and regulatory basis for the domestic implementation of Canada’s obligations under various international environmental agreements, such as the Stockholm Convention, the Minamata Convention and the London Convention. Under these agreements, Canada has joined international commitments to, amongst other things, reduce persistent organic pollutants and mercury.

Personally, I think that this bill is a good step forward. It is timely and necessary. It moves the yardsticks in the right direction. It is in the interests of all Canadians that we have a healthy environment and that our environment does not harm our health. In order to realize this, we must move forward to strengthen CEPA.

We can facilitate this process by moving Bill S-5 through the Senate. Our chamber is renowned for its committee work, and by moving this bill to committee as soon as possible, we will be able to give deep and critical consideration to the important issues it addresses.

I will share with you why I think improving CEPA is important and thus why this bill is important, not only for the health of Canadians and that of our communities now, but also for the health of our environment and into the future.

Many of you will remember some of the global horrific stories of environmental damage that put human health at risk. I was only five years old when Minamata disease was first reported. It was a terrible disfiguring, painful and deadly disease, affecting the central and peripheral nervous systems. It was caused by methylmercury which was released in industrial wastewater from a chemical factory into Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea. This highly toxic chemical bioaccumulated and was biomagnified in both shellfish and finned fish, which when eaten resulted in the mercury poisoning that was Minamata disease. The legacy of this chemical poisoning — while it led to significant improvements in environmental protection in Japan and alerted the world to the inter-relationship of the environment and health — is not a story that charts a positive legacy in the relationship between polluter, regulator and victim. Quite the opposite — the conflicts amongst those affected, the polluters and governments, continue still.

Unfortunately, Canada was not immune from a similar mercury poisoning event. In our situation, however, it was intertwined with a blatant disregard for Indigenous peoples, the environments in which they live and their right to health. I am sure that everyone in this chamber is familiar with the Grassy Narrows tragedy. Sadly, its long shadow on the health and mental health of the Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation continues today, decades after the Reed Paper mill in Dryden, Ontario, dumped about 9,000 kilograms of mercury into the English and Wabigoon rivers.

Both of these tragic events may have either been prevented or appropriately remedied if a rights-based environmental approach had been in place. Such an approach is identified in the preamble of Bill S-5. Clause 2(1) reads: “. . . the Government of Canada recognizes that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under this Act . . . .”

Honourable senators, this will be the first time that this right will be recognized in a federal statute in Canada.

This step forward aligns Canada with the United Nations member states’ recognition of the importance of a rights-based approach to the environment. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Environment declared that people have a fundamental right to “an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges parties to take into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution when promoting the right to health. In October 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution recognizing that access to a healthy and sustainable environment is a universal right and invited the UN General Assembly to consider this matter.

Bill S-5 demands that an implementation framework, informed by this right, be developed within two years of its coming into force.

This will be done in consultation with Canadians and will elaborate on principles of environmental justice and non‑regression, as well as balancing this right with relevant factors such as social, economic, health and scientific factors. It also improves transparency by stipulating that the minister must publish the framework and annually report on its implementation.

Furthermore, there will be a requirement to conduct research studies or monitoring activities to support the government in protecting that right. This provision would support work that is already in progress but needs to be enhanced, such as biomonitoring. It would also need to be supported by increasing national capacity for toxicogenomics research.

Bill S-5 addresses both substantive and procedural rights in several aspects, including clean water, clean air and the like.

It also improves public access to environmental decision making and enshrines the Government of Canada’s duty to protect this right.

The bill underscores the government’s commitment to implementing UNDRIP and additionally recognizes the importance of ensuring vulnerable populations are included in assessments of actual or potential toxicity of substances and products, and in the minimizing of risks of exposure to toxic substances and the cumulative effects of toxic substances. It also stipulates that cumulative exposure and exposure to other substances that have the potential to cause cumulative effects need to be considered in risk assessment and risk management wherever possible.

I find these directives to be forward-looking, for they recognize the importance of understanding subgroup differences within populations in susceptibility to substances and do not just focus, as currently, on amount of exposure defined as a whole‑of‑population standard.

This modernizes CEPA in keeping with the emerging science in this area. Previously, risk assessment was applied to protect the general population. Now this is expanded to protect the needs of vulnerable populations and, as well, to add the impact of cumulative exposure to a combination of substances that can create risk because of this combination.

I know it sounds complicated — and it is — but basically it means that it’s not just one substance that you can look at but multiple substances acting together in cumulation over time. It’s a huge step.

This improvement is in keeping with the emerging scientific discipline of toxicogenomics defined as “the study of the relationship between the structure and activity of the genome (the cellular component of genes) and the adverse biological effects of exogenous agents.” Simply put, the science is evolving to be able to better identify toxic impacts of substances in populations. Some groups may be at greater risk for negative impacts of substances than other groups. Combinations of substances may create toxic impacts not found in each substance separately, and cumulative effects are important to understanding toxicity. Bill S-5 not only recognizes this but also supports the scientific work needed to address this reality. This is new thinking about the health impacts of the environment, and as a physician, scientist and concerned citizen, I appreciate this approach.

Through its amendments, Bill S-5 supports the need for improving biomonitoring activities that will help identify environmentally derived health risks in vulnerable populations. As some colleagues in this chamber know, Canada conducts a human biomonitoring component in the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Over the last decade, this activity has measured some 250 different chemicals in about 35,000 people. This work will now need to be enhanced, increasing the sample size, over-sampling in vulnerable sub-populations and increasing the number, size, duration, scope and breadth of longitudinal studies such as the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals Study currently underway. For Bill S-5 to deliver on its promise of environmental justice, the research needed to support our ability to identify who is most at risk, when and where, will need to be enhanced. Simply put, we can’t move a better wagon without having the horses needed to pull it.

The second set of amendments proposed in this bill relates to improving the management of substances and products in Canada.

Chemicals make up every part of our lives — we’re a bunch of chemicals ourselves. They are both essential for life and potentially damaging to all living things. We know that it is necessary for us to identify those substances that create risk to our health and our environment, and to manage that risk appropriately, effectively and transparently.

Canadians increasingly expect that our governments will act to protect our health and the health of our environment, regardless if we live in an urban area, a rural location or a remote community. Industry also requires a clear, stable and predictable regulatory environment to be able to produce what we need in a manner consistent with those goals.

And that is what Bill S-5 aims to deliver.

For example, let’s consider the work previously done on lead exposure and its negative health impacts and how that was mitigated. Plumbism, the technical name for lead poisoning, can arise from exposure to lead in many different products, such as paint, gasoline, ammunition, foods or in different environments, such as soil, air, water or dust. It is the cumulative impact of exposure that counts, and a sub-population is more at risk for negative health impacts — young children. The actions that have limited the prevalence of this disease have included bans on the use of lead in many different products, as well as environmental monitoring and workplace occupational health and safety measures. This is an example of science, civil society, industry and government working together to address a significant environmental health risk.

But our challenges are now much more complex than simply single substances such as lead. One increasing concern that I have as a physician is about the multiplex environmental and health risks that emerge when substances that we know have cumulative effects may interact with similar substances and affect specific populations: for example, endocrine disruptors. Some of these include bisphenol A, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls. These substances can interfere with endocrine systems, cause tumours, birth defects and other disorders. They are found in small amounts in many everyday products, including some plastic bottles, metal liners in food cans, detergents, foods, cosmetics and pesticides. While their interactions and cumulative impacts are becoming known, substantial work remains to be done to understand their impacts on human endocrine and reproductive systems, their environmental persistence and their potential risk to human health. I, for one, was pleased to see that Bill S-5 has specifically identified this class of substances as a focus for action.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, provides the legislative framework for risk assessment and management with the Chemicals Management Plan, which was launched in 2006. It has achieved some significant results. For example, Canada was the first country in the world to take action to limit exposure to bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2010. Mercury emissions into air and water have decreased by about two thirds. Yet, much more needs to be done.

Three parliamentary reviews, including the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources tabled on March 4, 2008, identified a number of areas where improvements to CEPA were needed to provide Canadians with better environmental and health protection.

In 2006, about 4,300 substances already in Canadian commerce were identified as needing risk assessment and, more recently, about 1,200 substances were newly added. Additionally, some substances previously assessed may need re-evaluation because of new uses, new scientific information or greater exposures than were the case at the time of the original evaluation. Bill S-5 is responding to that need. It will create a new plan of chemical management priorities to give Canadians a predictable, multi-year, integrated plan for the assessment of substances as well as the activities that support substances management, such as information gathering, risk management, risk communication, research and monitoring.

It will also implement a new and improved regime that will prioritize the prohibition of activities in relation to toxic substances of the highest risk. It will enhance previous criteria for toxicity. The previous criteria used persistence and bioaccumulation. It will also add carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity. These are really important areas.

However, I understand that it can currently take up to three years from the time a substance is deemed to be highly toxic to when a decision is made about whether it should be prohibited or restricted. To me, that sounds like a very long time during which environmental and health risks can continue. Bill S-5 currently does not address this issue. Perhaps it should.

In developing and implementing this new plan, the government will welcome public participation and consider the risk situation of vulnerable populations, including issues of exposure and susceptibility, as well as the cumulative and interactive characteristics of substances. As such, Bill S-5 can provide greater protection for Indigenous peoples, racialized communities and populations physically located in areas of greatest environmental health risk.

However, I would like to once again underscore that these necessary improvements require a substantially greater investment in, and an improvement of, Canada’s biomonitoring and toxicogenomics research capacity. In order to be able to better use science and the technology that supports it, we must make the necessary investments in infrastructure and the skilled human resources that we need to do the science. We must both improve our national capabilities and enhance our international collaborations to do so. We can’t build a better house without providing it with a solid foundation.

Bill S-5 also creates a watch list that will identify substances or products of potential concern so that consumers will be better informed and industry may use that watch list to choose better substances than the ones they were planning to use. This should nudge innovation towards the creation, manufacture and use of greener and safer substances. An additional positive approach to protecting the environment and human health is where Bill S-5 adds “product” to substance. Not only will substances that are detrimental to human health be covered in the amended CEPA, but products that emit or discharge those substances will also be regulated. This is another step forward.

Bill S-5 also adds greater transparency to risk assessment and management of substances and products. The first plan of chemical management priorities must be published within two years from the date of Royal Assent. In addition to welcoming public input during the creation of the plan, Bill S-5 legislates that any person may request that a substance be assessed to determine whether it is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, and it provides a timeline of 90 days during which the request shall be considered. The person who filed the request will be informed as to how their request will be dealt with and why. This is a positive step.

Bill S-5 also amends the Food and Drugs Act to ensure that the regulatory framework under the FDA considers environment as well as health risks — for example, if a therapeutic product may present a serious risk to the environment — thus reducing duplication, since new drug submissions are currently assessed under both the FDA and CEPA. The Minister of Health will be authorized to act, using one or more of a number of remedies such as product recall, sending the product to a place and labelling or packaging changes. Additionally, CEPA will be amended to require holders of therapeutic products to inform the minister of any serious risks to the environment that they become aware of, regardless of where or from whom that information was received. Together these amendments will improve the environmental scrutiny of therapeutic products and help create a more streamlined regulatory approach for drug assessment in Canada, as well as improve coordination across government in substance risk assessment.

Overall, honourable senators, I find this bill to be a good step forward. In the areas it addresses, it has improved CEPA considerably. However, there may be some tweaks that could be made to further improve it, and I have already mentioned a number that came to my mind in this speech. I am sure that others will want to consider additional items. According to communications from the Government of Canada, the government is open to strengthening certain parts of the bill via amendments during the parliamentary process. Thus, I am hopeful that this bill will be sent without delay to committee where additional, thoughtful consideration of its many complexities can be conducted, and that this good step forward can be potentially improved upon. Thank you, wela’lioq and d’akuju.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the second reading of Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures relating to COVID-19, and specifically the financial implications of the bill. This bill is requesting $2.5 billion in relation to COVID tests. It also provides the Minister of Health with authority to transfer COVID tests and related instruments to the provinces and territories and to bodies and persons in Canada.

Bill C-10 was introduced in the House of Commons on January 31, and received first reading in the Senate on February 21. Honourable senators may recall that during Question Period on February 9 in this chamber, I had asked the Minister of Health why this Bill C-10 did not provide any information on how the money will be spent. The bill is a mere eight lines and does not provide any details on how the $2.5 billion will be spent and does not impose any accountability requirements.

The issue of transparency and accountability of the $2.5 billion was also raised in the House of Commons on February 14 during Committee of the Whole. At that time, the Minister of Health committed to providing a report every six months on the dollar amount spent, the number of tests acquired and their use in the following months. As stated by the Minister, he said that “. . . this will be a way of ensuring that there is significant and necessary accountability on the part of the government . . . .”

If the minister were truly interested in accountability, this commitment should have been included in the bill.

Honourable senators may recall that I have previously indicated that requests by government for money cannot be considered in isolation of one bill. And this is also true of Bill C-10. The government’s December 17 fiscal update also proposed to provide $1.7 billion for the procurement of rapid test kits. So in addition to the $2.5 billion being requested in this Bill C-10, another $1.7 billion is being requested in Bill C-8, which is presently before the House of Commons. Specifically, Part 6 of Bill C-8 is requesting $1.7 billion, “in relation to . . . (COVID-19) tests.”

Supplementary Estimates (C) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 19 and will be studied by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Supplementary Estimates (C) for the Department of Health discloses a third funding request of $3.2 billion for rapid tests, and another funding request by the Public Health Agency of Canada for $750 million — also for rapid tests. So that is $4 billion being requested in Supplementary Estimates (C).

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on Supplementary Estimates (C). He said that the proposed spending of $4 billion in Supplementary Estimates (C) is a duplication of spending being sought through Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. So why is the government requesting money for the same initiative twice? This is very concerning. If Parliament approves the same funding twice, there will be $4 billion available to the government to be spent on some other project. Government can simply transfer the funding to other operating expenses and spend it on other projects.

In closing, I will summarize my financial concerns about Bill C-10. First, the bill does not provide sufficient information on how the money will be spent. Second, there is no accountability mechanism included in the legislation. While the minister did indicate verbally in the other place that he would provide an accountability report, there is no commitment in the bill itself. Third, the same $2.5 billion in Bill C-10 and the same $1.7 billion in Bill C-8 are being requested in Supplementary Estimates (C). Why is there a duplicate funding request in Supplementary Estimates (C)?

Honourable senators, these issues should be addressed by this chamber before Bill C-10 is approved. Thank you.

Senator Tannas: Yes, for the reasons I just said, that’s a great question. Whatever we do here, particularly if we pass this motion, I’m convinced that we will be asked to pass the same motion from Manitoba and from Alberta. We will have, I think, morally foreclosed our ability to look critically at those requests when we’ve waved the first one through. So I think it’s equally important that we have a look at this.

Let me just say that I think we need to do it — I’m going to join the chorus. We need to do it quickly. This is not a stalling tactic. I think we need to do our homework quickly and efficiently and get to the bottom of it and have the facts presented to senators, continue our good debate and then make a decision. Thank you.

Senator Simons: I was blaming myself for not knowing about this lawsuit against Alberta. Just today, I have gone through the archives of the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal, and I can find no story that was done by either of Alberta’s leading newspapers about CPR’s suit against Alberta. We have checked with the library at the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, and they have no record of this.

What do you say to the people of Alberta who have just found out that CPR sued us for this much money back when Ed Stelmach was premier?

Senator Gold: Senator Tannas, you know I don’t dispute the authority of this chamber to review and study any matter that comes before us, but, in this case, when our concurrence is necessary for Saskatchewan to amend its own laws, and since nearly 400 — I believe the number is 399 — elected officials both in Saskatchewan and here in Ottawa have already approved the motion, are you not concerned that having the committee review the motion — and the time that it will take, especially as we approach a break week — might send the wrong message to Saskatchewan? After all, this is an example of cooperative federalism at its best. I wonder if we could have your thoughts on that.

Senator Tannas: I feel lucky that I don’t have to answer for the Government of Alberta.

This has been a really interesting piece of news. I didn’t realize that this existed — that there was a perpetual tax break for Canadian Pacific as it relates to the operation of their railroad in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were not provinces at the time the deal was struck. I think that’s why they were stuck with this.

So I can’t say why it hasn’t been more of a news story. It was news to me, and I thought it was interesting news.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Will the senator take a question?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable Senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, An Act respecting certain measures related to COVID-19.

The objective of Bill C-10 is twofold. It authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to COVID-19 tests. This amount is in addition to the $1.7 billion that was announced in the 2021 Economic and Fiscal Update, which is currently provided for in Bill C-8. This means that the total sum of money to be spent on the procurement of COVID-19 tests adds up to $4.2 billion.

Bill C-10 also authorizes the Minister of Health to transfer the COVID-19 tests to the provinces and territories and other establishments.

Diagnostic testing remains a critical tool in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It enables early detection and isolation of infectious individuals, which helps to prevent the spread of the virus. It allows Canadians to take measures to not only protect themselves, but also those around them.

There are two types of diagnostic tests that are commonly used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2: molecular and antigen tests. There are clear differences between the two tests, and each serves its own unique purpose.

First, the polymerase chain reaction test is commonly referred to as a PCR test. This molecular test uses a specimen collected from an individual’s upper respiratory system to detect the presence of specific genetic material belonging to the virus. PCR technology is highly sensitive and specific. It is for this reason that a PCR test is often referred to as the gold standard for diagnosis.

However, the prompt analysis of a PCR test result depends on several factors: efficient transportation, laboratory capacity, complex equipment and highly skilled and trained personnel.

In addition, due to its high sensitivity to virus fragments of genetic material, PCR tests often continue to provide positive test results for weeks or months, even when an individual is no longer infectious. The use of PCR tests is neither always effective nor practical.

The second is the rapid antigen test, which uses a sample collected from a nasal swab to detect the presence of viral particles known as antigens. The value of the rapid antigen test is that it tells you if you are infectious with the virus now — on the day it is taken. A key feature of this test is its ability to produce a rapid result, often within 15 minutes.

The additional appeal of a rapid antigen test is in its practicality: they are more affordable than PCR tests and they use less health care resources because they can be self-administered at any preferred location.

At the onset of the pandemic, many health experts advocated for the use of rapid antigen tests in a variety of community settings, including long-term care homes, hospitals and classrooms.

In an opinion piece published in TIME magazine on November 17, 2020, Harvard epidemiologist and physician Dr. Michael Mina urged recognition of the fact that rapid antigen testing is an important tool, a tool that could lead us out of the pandemic. He wrote:

The point is to use these tests frequently so people are likely to know their status early, before they transmit to others. It is frequency and speed to get results, and not absolute sensitivity of the test that should take center stage in a public health screening program to stop outbreaks.

A question that is frequently asked is whether rapid antigen tests are effective.

From August to December 2020, the U.K. COVID-19 Lateral Flow Oversight Team analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of 64 antigen tests. Results from their experiment, which were published in May of 2021, showed that antigen tests “. . . have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals.”

Data collected from seven of the most popular and reliable antigen tests showed that the likelihood that an infectious individual tests positive ranged from 96% to 99%, with one of the tests at 94%. The probability of a false positive result was less than 1%.

Even more importantly, the probability that an infectious person gets a false negative result ranges from 1% to 4%, with one — and only one — of the tests at 6%.

It is evident that rapid antigen tests are an effective and important public health tool which, used early and frequently, are highly reliable in detecting individuals who are infectious at the time the test is taken.

However, nearly two years into the pandemic, the understanding of the use and value of rapid antigen tests has been minimal. Their rollout across Canada, in comparison to other nations, has been slow. Their value as a public health screening tool to lower the risk of community outbreaks has not been adequately utilized.

Honourable senators, over the course of this pandemic I have repeatedly and persistently raised the issue of rapid antigen testing in this chamber, particularly during Question Period. At the beginning of October 2020, I inquired about the distribution process of rapid antigen tests across Canada. Just a few weeks later, I asked about the numbers of rapid antigen tests that had been allotted to long-term care settings.

As Canadians continue to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to rapid antigen tests remains limited. Canadians have been forced to scout various locations in search of test kits. Many have waited in long lines from dawn to dusk, only to be turned away empty-handed.

Some provinces have creative and effective distribution mechanisms in place. Rapid antigen tests can be readily found in a number of locations, such as public libraries, family resource centres, grocery stores, gas stations and COVID-19 testing sites; whereas, in other provinces, rapid antigen tests have been scarce and difficult — if not impossible — to find.

While the distribution and deployment of rapid antigen tests do fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, this does not absolve the federal government of their responsibility to show leadership on this matter. The shortage of rapid antigen tests across Canada is a direct result of the federal government’s reluctance to approve them at the beginning of the pandemic. It demonstrates a lack of communication about their importance and value.

It is important to note that these challenges are not new. The federal government has struggled to communicate clearly and effectively on matters concerning public health for years.

In June of 2010, former Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq asked the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to review and report on Canada’s response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. At the time, I was a member of this committee and had the opportunity to participate in this study.

Over the course of 10 meetings, my Senate colleagues and I heard witness testimony from representatives of the federal government, several provincial and territorial governments, and representatives of health care professions, First Nations and Inuit organizations and the research community.

In December of 2010, our committee tabled a report entitled Canada’s Response to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, which summarized our findings and provided 17 recommendations to strengthen Canada’s future pandemic preparedness plan. Our committee heard considerable testimony that expressed concern about the lack of effective and clear communication and messaging.

The report found that:

Despite the fact that communications was handled much better than it was during SARS and that our CPHO was complimented on his performance by many witnesses, communications and messaging were the most frequently criticized issues during the study. This issue is vast and includes the federal government’s communication and messaging to the Canadian public, their communication with the P/T governments, their role, if any, in the messaging available to Canadians via different media, and the responsibility for two-way communications, whether possible or helpful.

The report also highlighted the distinct roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in public health.

While there was an indication that the federal government took a leadership role in several areas such as disease surveillance, antiviral and vaccine programs, infection prevention measures, collection of clinical care guidelines, public health communication, research and laboratory testing during the H1N1 pandemic, some witnesses stated that:

. . . the federal government should have been more emphatic about its leadership role. That is, some front-line workers felt that the shared responsibility for public health should come under explicit federal leadership.

Witnesses proposed different mechanisms by which a uniform national approach could be achieved. These ranged from:

. . . further nurturing the current approach of consulting with provinces and territories, to establishing mutual agreements among the jurisdictions, to harmonizing legislation between the provinces and territories, to utilizing the peace, order, and good government head of power granted under the Constitution.

To that end, it was agreed, “. . . the goal of a pandemic response should be to have a uniform national response.”

Honourable senators, I recognize and fully support the need to increase the supply of rapid antigen tests in Canada. However, an initial analysis of Bill C-10 leaves me with a number of concerns.

The first concern pertains to the language used in Bill C-10. The bill states that the authorized payments of up to $2.5 billion are in relation to the COVID-19 tests. The bill, however, does not specify the type of COVID-19 tests that will be purchased.

Yet, in a news release recently published on January 31, 2022, the federal government explained that Bill C-10 authorizes Health Canada, “. . . to purchase and distribute across the country up to $2.5 billion worth of COVID-19 rapid tests.”

The difference in the language used in Bill C-10 and the federal government’s news release creates confusion and leads me to ask why Bill C-10 omits the specification of the type of COVID-19 tests that will be purchased.

The second concern pertains to the equitable distribution of COVID-19 tests across the provinces and territories. According to the federal government’s Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, as of November 26, 2021, Canada has purchased 95 million rapid antigen tests and distributed 86 million of them to provinces, territories and Indigenous communities.

At the beginning of January of this year, the federal government promised an additional delivery of 140 million rapid antigen tests to the provinces and territories. However, a number of provinces have reported that they have not yet received the full amount of rapid antigen tests allocated for January.

According to an article published by the Toronto Star on February 9, 2022, a spokesperson for the Ontario Minister of Health said:

. . . the province has received 36.4 million rapid antigen tests from Ottawa, and expects the remaining 17.93 million tests to be delivered this month.

In fact, on February 9, 2022, the Government of Ontario announced that they, themselves, procured 44 million rapid tests to be distributed to Ontarians over the course of eight weeks. Each week Ontario will distribute 5.5 million tests to participating grocery and pharmacy locations. Every household will be eligible to receive one box, containing five rapid tests, per visit.

Moreover, the Government of Quebec reported that they have received 24.2 million tests in January, noting that they are waiting for an additional shipment of 5.8 million tests. In lieu of the absent tests, the Government of Quebec has taken the initiative and ordered 100 million tests on their own.

Honourable colleagues, it is evident that we cannot continue to spend money on the procurement of rapid antigen tests without clear leadership and a plan to ensure their equitable distribution across the provinces and territories.

According to the federal government’s website on COVID-19 testing, as of February 18, 2022, a total of 327 million COVID-19 rapid tests have been shipped to Canada. Of this number, a total of 296 million tests have been shipped to the provinces and territories. However, data specifying the number of rapid antigen tests that have been distributed to their final point‑of‑care settings and administered to patients is not clear. As the website indicates, this data has not been updated since December 31, 2021, and much of it remains missing.

Given the lack of data shared by the provinces and territories, how can we be sure that the total number of rapid antigen tests that have been distributed to the provinces and territories have reached their final destinations?

It is important to note that there is no provision in Bill C-10 for parliamentary oversight. Indeed, the Minister of Health has made a commitment in the other place to provide a report to Parliament every six months on the procurement, distribution and use of rapid antigen tests. However, this commitment was merely a verbal one; there is no guarantee that these reports will be published.

The federal government’s press release from January 31, 2022, stated that the funding authorized by Bill C-10 would allow the government to:

 . . . put in place critical contracts in a highly competitive global market, to purchase sufficient quantities of rapid tests to meet the continued demand across the country.

According to the federal government’s website on Canada’s procurement of COVID-19 rapid tests, Canada has established agreements with 16 suppliers of rapid tests. In an attempt to learn how many of these rapid antigen tests are manufactured by Canadian companies, I found incomplete and confusing data. As best as I could decipher, of the 16 approved rapid tests, fewer than half are manufactured by Canadian companies. The rest are foreign-made.

This leads me to ask: Can we not produce these tests at home? And why are we not supporting critical innovation and investment in Canadian companies?

There is a striking pattern in the way that the federal government has chosen to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. I will remind my colleagues that at the outset of the pandemic, the federal government failed to secure domestic production and supply of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The federal government’s neglect of Canadian-led industries and reliance on foreign-made medical supplies such as vaccines and rapid antigen tests has undermined our ability to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has become evident that the discrepancy in the availability of rapid antigen tests across Canada necessitates urgent leadership from the federal government.

Perhaps it is time for the federal government to reshape their strategy and find new and creative ways to distribute rapid antigen tests to Canadians. As an example, Canada can look to the United States, whose new government website allows every American household to order up to four free rapid antigen COVID tests to be delivered by the United States Postal Service.

Honourable senators, it is imperative that we continue to invest in tools that will allow us to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many may question the need for rapid antigen tests at this phase of the pandemic. I remind my colleagues that the value in these tests lies in their ability to detect the virus at the peak of infectiousness of an individual. They have great importance as a public health screening device to prevent community spread.

With time, the COVID-19 virus will inevitably transition from a pandemic state to an endemic one. We will continue to find that the power of rapid antigen tests as a public health tool is in their effectiveness to manage community and workplace outbreaks by identifying cases at the time they are infectious. Ultimately, this will ensure our safe return to a new “normal” way of life. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Would the senator take a question, please?

Senator Patterson: I’m weary of important bills being rushed through the Senate by government fiat, no matter their merits. You’ve just described the important role that a committee can play — and has played — in dealing with an issue like this, and you’ve thoughtfully expressed some concerns.

I know you’re the critic, but could you tell me what is the anticipated time frame for committee study and consideration of this bill? And do you agree that the committee should have adequate time to do its job properly?