Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

He said: Esteemed colleagues, I rise today to start second reading of Bill S-4, whose title is a bit of a mouthful. It is called An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

As its long name suggests, this bill is connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed certain legal practices in the criminal justice system that were in need of modernization to avoid unnecessarily exposing stakeholders and other individuals to the virus. In addition, these changes would make the criminal justice system more efficient by taking advantage of available technologies. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

This bill is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Bill C-23, which was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2021, by the Honourable David Lametti, who was and still is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. That bill did not make it through the other place before Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election.

[English]

The content of Bill C-23 was the result of significant discussions among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. I understand that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has met several times since the beginning of the pandemic with his provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the impact the pandemic has had on the justice system and has taken careful note of their suggestions for possible legislative reform.

Similarly, Bill C-23 had been informed by the work of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, a committee co-chaired by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner, and the Minister of Justice.

The pandemic has been a challenge for all Canadian courts. This bill, if adopted, will provide certainty and clarity for courts and litigants, and it will standardize the availability of modernized procedures across the country.

[Translation]

It makes sense for the government to reintroduce this bill, which will provide greater flexibility in the administration of criminal justice and free up judges to hear more cases. This will help ensure that the timelines set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan are respected.

This time, the government is reintroducing its initiative in the Senate for several reasons. First, this is not a money bill. Second, the bill reflects a broad consensus among justice system stakeholders who see these changes as likely to improve and simplify the administration of criminal justice. Third, introducing the bill in the Senate will maximize the parliamentary system’s ability to study government bills.

In the case of this government bill, we will be acting not as a chamber of sober second thought, but as the instigating house, which can make amendments without seeking the consent of the House of Commons via message.

Nonetheless, we will have to undertake a careful study of the 37 pages describing the proposed amendments, as well as the 27 pages of explanatory notes. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the most appropriate venue for an in-depth study of these amendments, and I hope it will deal with the bill quickly.

For now, let me lay out the main provisions and explain what they would do.

(1500)

[English]

First, the bill seeks to clarify and expand the current remote appearance regime that explicitly allows accused persons to appear by video conference or audio conference.

Colleagues, you may remember that in Bill C-75, that we adopted in 2019, we added six new provisions in Part XXII.01 called Remote Attendance by Certain Persons.

The general principle outlined in section 715.21 is that “. . . a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so personally.” The use of “. . . audioconference or videoconference, in accordance with the rules of court . . .” is permitted in certain circumstances once certain requirements are met. It’s not a general access.

Bill C-75 added provisions found at other parts of the Criminal Code to facilitate the administration of justice, including the possibility of a remote appearance by the prosecutor or the lawyer acting for the accused at the appearance stage of the criminal proceedings where the accused is asked to enter a guilty or not guilty plea. There have been varied interpretations of these provisions and their scope.

The bill will clarify the ability of accused persons to appear by video conference during preliminary inquiry hearings and trials for summary and indictable offences, including when witness evidence is being heard, except where evidence is being taken before a jury. In other words, jury trials will have to be in person.

However, it is important to mention that these trials and preliminary inquiries will be held only by consent. The accused has to be agreeable to proceed that way, and where the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate, with regard to all the circumstances, including listed factors, such as the suitability of the location from where the accused person will appear and the right to a fair and public hearing.

The bill will also permit an accused to appear by audio conference when pleading guilty or receiving a sentence, but only if video conferencing is not available, with the accused’s consent, and where the court is satisfied that despite not being able to see the accused, judges and lawyers are able to assess the conditions for accepting a guilty plea.

The bill includes some important safeguards for accused persons appearing remotely, whether by audio conference or video conference and regardless of the stage of the criminal process. For example, if an accused person appearing remotely is represented by counsel, such person would need to be given the opportunity to speak with counsel privately.

Moreover, if an accused person is appearing remotely and is not represented by a lawyer, the court would need to ensure that such a person is able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions he or she makes are voluntary.

Second, the bill would also increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including permitting prospective jurors to participate by video conference, since the jury selection process often requires the physical presence of a large number of people at the courthouse or at another venue.

Bill S-4 will allow the remote participation of prospective jurors by video conference for the jury selection process but only under certain circumstances and with the consent of the parties and at the discretion of the court. This will provide courts with greater flexibility in allowing the jury selection process to take place in less-crowded locations.

In some provinces, sometimes 100 to 500 people are called for jury selection. That is a lot of people waiting in corridors and in large rooms, especially during a pandemic.

This will provide courts with greater flexibility in allowing the jury selection process to take place in a safer manner. It will ensure that a lack of access to technology does not hinder a person’s ability to participate in the process, and the option to appear in person will continue to be available where technology is not provided.

Bill S-4 will allow for the enhanced use of technology to draw the names of prospective jurors in the jury selection process. As you may know, the list is made up of 100 or more names and somebody has to draw by hand from the list one name at a time. That takes some time and involves some manipulation. So the bill will authorize the use of technology to draw names of prospective jurors in the jury selection process. It is a type of electronic bingo.

Currently, this part of jury selection is done manually. The bill will ensure electronic or automated technology is used to draw the cards at random. This is a change that should contribute to greater efficiency for jury trials across Canada. Incidentally, this was tried in British Columbia during the pandemic. They used an electronic device to randomly select the first 10 jurors to be called to the room in order to avoid people mingling.

Third, the bill will expand and update the existing telewarrant regime so that applications for a wider variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders can be made by telecommunication instead of a police liaison officer attending the office of a judge. When I say “attending the office of a judge,” it means attending in the corridor next to the office of the judge. The papers are presented to the judge, and they are returned signed, or not, by the judge.

Under the current telewarrant framework, the police can apply for a handful of search warrants and judicial authorizations to investigate only indictable offences where it is impracticable to appear personally to present the application to a specially designated justice or judge as the case may be. A parallel process also exists to obtain wiretap authorizations by telecommunication in very limited cases.

During the height of the pandemic, reduced in-person court operations have presented challenges to law enforcement officials in obtaining some search warrants and other judicial authorizations that cannot be applied for electronically.

The bill proposes to expand the telewarrant process to a wider range of search warrants and other judicial authorizations provided in the Criminal Code, such as tracking warrants and production orders. The amendments will also expand the availability of the telewarrant process by making it available in relation to any offence, not only an indictable offence.

This is a procedural change that I think will improve the situation and will unfortunately deprive, from time to time, a judge from having a brief conversation with a police officer.

This will not affect the legal threshold for obtaining a warrant. That will remain the same. The judge, from whom the authorization is sought, will have to ensure the legal threshold is complied with.

The bill will streamline the current telewarrant regime in a number of ways. First, it will permit applications to be presented by means of telecommunication, such as by email, without the need to show that it is impracticable for officers to appear personally before a justice. These changes will result in a more efficient use of police time and court resources while respecting social distancing guidelines when applicable.

The bill will maintain provisions that allow police to make oral applications when needed, but only in cases where a justice or a judge is satisfied that it is impracticable for the officer to present their application in written form via telecommunication. That could be the case for a very urgent application.

(1510)

Furthermore, the bill would remove the limitations on who can access the telewarrant process and who can issue telewarrants. The new process will be available to any law enforcement entity — and not only to a peace officer — who may apply for such an authorization and any level of court that may issue such an authorization, order or warrant.

Four, the bill proposes to introduce some flexibility in the process of fingerprinting including when it could be done if it were not done at the first opportunity.

During the pandemic, officers have faced situations where obtaining fingerprints of people charged with committing a criminal offence in a timely way was causing some difficulties and even health risks for those involved. There will be, for example, that person who is charged and refuses to go to the police station so as not to be exposed to other people or just the danger of being too close to the police officers who do the fingerprinting.

The need to have fingerprints collected at the time of arrest has placed both law enforcement officials and accused persons at unnecessary risk on occasions. The ability of police to obtain fingerprints has been disrupted during the pandemic due to physical distancing requirements, which has led to significant operational challenges. It’s difficult to hold the thumb of somebody else and still be at a meter of distance.

Bill S-4 would allow fingerprinting of accused persons to occur at the bail stage or at later stages of the criminal justice process where previous attempts at fingerprinting were not possible due to exceptional circumstances, such as the risks posed by COVID-19. But I want to be clear. This bill would not change the rules in terms of who may be subject to identification procedures such as fingerprinting. It would simply allow for fingerprinting to occur at a later date without the police force losing the ability to collect the fingerprints.

[Translation]

Fifth, the bill contains a series of amendments that empower the courts to manage certain administrative and other matters more effectively.

The Criminal Code currently permits courts to adopt case management rules when accused persons are represented by counsel. However, when the accused is unrepresented, all administrative matters covered by rules of court must be dealt with in the courtroom before a judge, as is done for accused persons who are represented by counsel. In some cases, these matters could be dealt with by an officer of the court. Unfortunately, this judicial time is not being used effectively.

This bill proposes to expand the courts’ ability to make these rules for unrepresented accused persons and to ensure they are enforced, allowing court personnel to deal, out of court, with administrative matters for those cases as well.

Sixth, certain amendments would harmonize the rules that apply to the execution and seized property reporting stages for all search warrants, whether they are sought in person or by electronic means.

Under the current system, a report must be prepared when a seizure takes place. The report is sent to different people depending on whether it is prepared under a regular warrant or a telewarrant. In addition, the system does not make it easy to locate a copy of the report for the person subject to the seizure. The bill would harmonize the process at this level, which would increase access to information on the execution of search warrants and the property seized during a search.

Finally, the bill also includes technical amendments arising mainly from the passage of Bill C-75 in 2019, as well as related amendments to other federal acts. It would seem that when we passed Bill C-75, certain changes to the numbering of sections and related administrative changes were not made. Let us correct this.

I invite you to read the bill at the time of day when you are most alert, because that will help. To all my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I will say this: We will soon be meeting to examine the pages of amendments with the assistance of representatives of the Department of Justice, who will be able to clarify the meaning of the provisions.

In the meantime, I would be happy to respond to your questions and comments. Feel free to contact my office if you require further information.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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.

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.