Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for the question. It is the position of this government that conversion therapy is a cruel and degrading practice causing serious physical and mental effects on those who undergo it. It can go so far as inducing suicide. With the passage of Bill C-4, the practice is now a criminal offence and the new offence extends to persons that advertise conversion therapy practices, services or treatments whether in print material or, indeed, electronically.

While the Minister of Justice, as you know, does not have the authority to initiate criminal investigations as this is an inclusive power of the province, the federal government stands with LGBTQ2S Canadians and all who are opposed to any form of so‑called conversion therapy.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The law has only been in force for a very short while, as you mentioned, senator. I will have to make inquiries as to what processes may be in place to monitor its implementation.

Senator Coyle: Senator Gold, could you tell us then what the federal government is doing to monitor the effectiveness of this new law?

Hon. Gwen Boniface moved second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, the mechanics and much rationale for this bill were previously described in my remarks to Bill S-229, the current bill’s predecessor. Please regard my remarks today as an extension or second chapter of that speech.

I think it is most appropriate to begin second reading of Bill S-232, the Health-Centred Approach to Substance Use Act, from where I left off with Bill S-229: with the headlines. I will restrict these headlines to only the beginning of 2022.

“Saskatchewan sees record high overdose deaths in 2021;” “I watched the opioid crisis from the front lines. I’m glad I’m leaving;” “Paramedics in B.C. responded to nearly 100 overdoses a day in 2021;” ”Half of people who died from opioids in 2020 sought health care in the month before;” “Yukon declares substance use health emergency after 4 deaths in 1st week of January;” “Sudbury area continues to deal with an increase in opioid overdoses and deaths;” And finally, just from today: “Three drug overdoses reported within an hour in Mississauga.”

Senators, this issue isn’t going away. Since I last spoke on this in May, the numbers of overdoses and deaths we are seeing in this country are getting higher. We have seen some progress. There was some movement in party platforms during the election: the NDP has long called for decriminalization; Conservatives pledged funding for a thousand residential drug treatment beds and promised to treat the opioid epidemic as a health issue; the governing Liberals have promised a comprehensive strategy addressing problematic substance use, which is akin to what can be found in Bill S-232.

This strategy can also be found in the new portfolio of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions mandate letter, though there is no mention of decriminalization. Addictions generally were only mentioned in passing in the Speech from the Throne, which is worrisome. Though progress is being made, these are, in my estimation, baby steps rather than the much-needed strident steps.

Bill S-232 contains two notable advancements from Bill S-229: the inclusion of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in the consultation process, and a reference to the unanimous recommendation to decriminalize personal possession of substances from the Expert Task Force on Substance Use.

As a reminder, Bill S-232 does namely two things. It mandates conversations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories and other stakeholders so that the federal government can report to Parliament with a national strategy as to how best tackle the epidemic of substance use. The second thing it does is remove the criminal sanctions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession, also known as decriminalization.

It is important to remember this: The way the bill is drafted, decriminalization comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council. If this bill receives Royal Assent, decriminalization will not suddenly become the law of the land. As stated in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police report of 2020:

It will be key in a Canadian context that treatment facilities are established and operational ahead of decriminalization and have the capacity to take in individuals diverted through police contact.

It would be prudent to ensure that the national strategy is completed and reported to Parliament before decriminalization takes place. The supports need to be in place first, then decriminalization can happen. Bold actions need to be taken. Honourable colleagues, this is about saving lives. I would submit that most every senator in this chamber has been affected by addiction, be it a family member, a friend or a colleague. If not, you know someone who has.

Colleagues, there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization. I want to be very clear on this point. They must not be used interchangeably. Legalization is the removal of all penalties for possession and personal use of substances, which are replaced by a regulated government regime to access and use said substances. Decriminalization removes only the criminal penalties for possession and use, but other administrative penalties may still apply. With decriminalization, all other substance-related criminal penalties, such as drug trafficking, would still be fully enforced under the criminal law.

Polling out of the Angus Reid Institute released in February 2021 shows that support for decriminalization is trending upward. Across the provinces, there is 59% support for such a proposal. The majority in all provinces except Saskatchewan and New Brunswick were supportive of these measures, but even those two provinces were close to 50% in favour. Interestingly, the results also show that those 55 years or older were likely to support a tough approach, while those 18 to 34 were more supportive of decriminalizing all illegal drugs and least likely to support the tough approach.

This discrepancy is easily explained. In 1966 — 55 years ago — the popularization of the War on Drugs approach of the Nixon era picked up steam beginning in the 1970s.

Over time, “the war on drugs” approach has been dying out; it has been labelled a failure and that a new approach is needed. That is what our younger generation is picking up on instead.

The rising support from the younger generation means that decriminalization will eventually become public policy. The purpose of Bill S-232 is to ensure that necessary steps are in place before decriminalization occurs. A strategy, with the full collaboration of provinces and territories, would ensure a smooth process with significant supports in place to address this epidemic.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged publicly that experts on these issues have been calling for decriminalization and that the government is looking at “where to do that, if to do that, and how to do that in partnership with the provinces” and also that:

It’s not going to be the federal government doing something without making sure that there are the supports on the ground in municipalities [and] in the provinces.

A national strategy outlining a consultative process with provinces is what is before you today, colleagues.

It is prudent that the Prime Minister mentioned municipalities. Municipalities are creatures of the province, and more often than not, it’s the municipalities bearing the brunt of the current epidemic. It’s the community perspective that is shining light on these issues.

When you picture a substance-use disorder, do you think about Toronto or the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver? What if I told you that some of the highest per capita numbers for drug-toxicity deaths take place in my health unit of Simcoe Muskoka — yes, honourable colleagues, beautiful and serene Muskoka — or that Timmins, Sudbury and Dryden, Ontario, are experiencing the worst numbers of opioid overdoses and deaths they have ever seen? Those are the types of communities now being affected by the rampant abuse of fentanyl and the more potent carfentanil. This is no longer just a big-city problem.

Data collected by the Chief Coroner of Ontario show a rising number of opioid-related deaths in northern Ontario. Public Health Sudbury & Districts reported 105 deaths in 2020. Algoma Public Health, which includes Thunder Bay, totalled 53 opioid-related deaths, up from 17 in 2019. Data from last May suggest that:

Sudbury’s per capita deaths by opioid is the highest in Ontario, with over 50 per 100,000, with North Bay, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie close to, or over 40 deaths per 100,000.

Christian Provenzano, the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie was quoted in a CBC article saying:

The reality of my community and many communities in northern Ontario, is that the health care infrastructure does not exist and is not being invested in by our other levels of government.

He continued by saying:

We can’t continue to rely on the health care infrastructure that addressed mental health and addiction issues five years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago.

In Timmins, the 2019 death rate from opioids was second to Sudbury at almost 47 per 100,000, four times the Ontario average and twice as high as the City of Vancouver. Long-term emergency room doctor at the Timmins hospital Dr. Chris Loreto had this to say about services to treat people with substance use:

We didn’t have a formalized way of treating people with substance abuse. We termed them ’addicts,’ and we just sort of said there were no resources available for their treatment.

So we just sort of babysat them, gave them something for their anxieties, and then sent them on their way.

Unfortunately, a lack of treatment options is commonplace in Ontario’s north for those in need of help. As of January 2020, there wasn’t a single detox bed at the Timmins hospital. Fortunately, there are now two beds, thanks to persuasion of Dr. Louisa Marion-Bellemare. She and her colleague Dr. Julie Samson started a treatment strategy in Timmins involving active engagement in the community, with outreach workers offering services to people who use drugs. The doctors will pick up and drive them to the hospital to administer Sublocade, a treatment to control the intense cravings experienced by opioid users. Sublocade is a monthly injection that delivers extended release of buprenorphine, which reduces withdrawal symptoms without causing euphoria or sleepiness. The normal protocol is a daily, non-injectable dose of buprenorphine for a week or more and then start them on the injectables, but patients would not wait the week and would drop out of the program. Beginning with the injectable Sublocade is a first in Canada and has helped 130 patients in one year.

Even Dryden, Ontario’s smallest city, isn’t immune. With a population of only 8,000, Dryden’s homeless population reached almost 70 in 2018. There is no homeless shelter, no safe consumption site, no detox centre and no permanent cooling and warming spaces. Police Chief Doug Palson said that people were in the streets at all hours, whether it’s 30 degrees in the summer or -30 degrees in the winter. Since no residential treatment centre exists in Dryden, any treatment referral for someone wanting help means travelling hundreds of kilometres away, the closest place being in Thunder Bay or Winnipeg. This presents barriers to access, including transportation, long wait lists and severing the support network somebody may have in the community.

In the past five years, calls for emergency medical services have increased 25%, and there has been a 60% increase in mental-health and addiction-related calls. Dryden had one third of all overdoses reported in the Kenora District last year, despite having only one tenth of the region’s population.

Chief Palson admits that:

The majority of these issues are not crime issues. . . . They’re not even something that police should be directly involved in, unless there’s a safety issue.

In Dryden, the police are the only social service response available 24-7. Dryden does have a mobile crisis team, but it is unable to operate on a 24-7 basis.

Sarah Kennell, the National Director of Public Policy with the Canadian Mental Health Association, has said that the Dryden story is one she hears all the time and that it is a story being experienced in towns and cities right across our country. This, along with the pandemic, also adds to burnout, anxiety and depression, leading to many health care workers leaving the profession altogether.

I read a great piece in The Manitoulin Expositor entitled “Out of the Shadows: An in-depth look at Manitoulin’s opioid crisis.” I recommend this piece to anyone interested in this issue, especially at the community level. Opioid-related deaths on Manitoulin Island, which has a population 14,000, have more than tripled during the pandemic compared to 2018-19 data, from two deaths to seven in 2020. Paramedics on the island fear that the death statistics may even be higher, including cases where opioids contributed but were not necessarily the main cause.

Paul Myre, the Chief of Paramedic Services with Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB, confirms this. He stated for The Expositor:

(Our statistics are) not the total picture, as there are several sudden cardiac arrests that cannot be 100 percent attributed to an overdose as the cause due to a number of variables, but would be considered highly suspicious. Sadly, my assumption would be that the picture is much more grim than the one painted below with that specific data set. The (younger) age of some of the sudden cardiac arrest patients leads me to suspect something other than a cardiac event . . . .

In the Sudbury and Manitoulin areas from 2020 to 2021, there were four times more drug-related deaths than deaths caused by COVID-19, without adjusting for the potential opioid deaths Mr. Myre suspects.

Just like smaller communities, Indigenous communities have been experiencing much the same. Six Nations in Ontario, for example, saw over 50 suspected overdoses in 2020, resulting in three deaths. There has also been a “noticeable increase of fentanyl and methamphetamines,” and overdoses, generally, were up in 2021 compared to the preceding two years.

Opioid-related deaths among Ontario’s First Nation people jumped 132% during the pandemic alone. British Columbia’s First Nations Health Authority reported that Indigenous people accounted for nearly 15% of all drug toxicity deaths in 2020, although they represent only 3.3% of the province’s total population. Over 250 Indigenous people died in 2020, a 120% increase from 2019.

In Alberta, the Kainai Nation, also known as the Blood Tribe, reported 117 opioid poisonings in their community in just the first eight months of 2021. Provincial government data in 2020 identified that First Nations people represented 22% of all opioid-related deaths, despite only making up around 6% of the population of Alberta.

While this issue is not just a big-city problem — smaller communities and Indigenous communities are feeling its effects — big cities are reeling with tragedies every day because of the opioid epidemic. Ontario’s Big City Mayors — a collective of Ontario’s 29 mayors with populations of 100,000 or more and representing nearly 70% of Ontario’s population — released a policy paper recommending decriminalization of simple possession as a main takeaway. The paper was unanimously backed by the 21 mayors who voted on it.

I had a conversation with Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward on the issue and this report. Mayor Meed Ward was a co‑chair of the Big City Mayors Mental Health Working Committee that helped to shape the policy paper. She told me:

Addiction is a mental health and public health issue, not a criminal one. We will not solve these challenges through the criminal justice system. Our residents who struggle with addiction deserve treatment, not jail time and a record. We can take a step toward acknowledging that reality through decriminalization. That, in turn, allows us to focus our resources and efforts on solutions to the actual problem we are dealing with.

Mayor Jeff Lehman of Barrie, Chair of Ontario’s Big City Mayors, was also supportive of this policy paper. In our exchange, he stated:

The opioid crisis is in many ways as severe a public health emergency as COVID-19. Residents of my city and of communities across the country are struggling and dying, and our municipal resources can’t begin to keep up with the number of people who need help. This is a national emergency and it requires a shift in our thinking as a country and as a society . . .

Municipalities are doing the groundwork in this losing battle. They see the crisis at eye level, and they know the people involved — both the people who use drugs and the caregivers. I always pay attention when the community perspective is on the table. They understand the issues intimately. It’s best if we don’t ignore their call.

Colleagues, I focus on Ontario to shine a light on the province I represent, but the issue of substance use is certainly not geographically isolated. It is prevalent in every province and territory from coast to coast to coast.

British Columbia, and Vancouver specifically, are often seen as the epicentres of substance use and overdoses in Canada. B.C. is experiencing new records in emergency services calls and overdose numbers. The BC Coroners Service reported that in October 2021, 201 deaths were related to substances — the highest of any month on record — and that there were more deaths in the first 10 months of 2021 than in all of 2020.

Deaths occurred in all age groups and in every local health area in the province. This is not just a Downtown Eastside issue in Vancouver. Honourable senators, we are talking about an average of six deaths per day in British Columbia. Approximately 8,500 deaths have occurred in B.C. since the province declared a public health emergency in 2016. Toxic drugs are now the most common cause of unnatural death in the province, and the leading cause of death among those aged 19 to 39. The problem in British Columbia is only getting worse with inconsistent de facto decriminalization and a meager safe supply program.

The Prairies have also seen an upswing in drug toxicity deaths. Alberta set a new record in 2021 for substance-related deaths. In 2020 they saw a total of 1,351 deaths — a record at the time — and the first 10 months of 2021 surpassed that total by over 20. September and October each saw 150 deaths.

Saskatchewan has also seen new record highs for substance-related deaths in 2021, eclipsing 2020 numbers. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service has counted 464 deaths that are either confirmed or suspected. A suspected death is a death where the evidence points to an overdose, but a toxicology report or autopsy hasn’t yet been completed. Considering the 2020 numbers stood at just under 330 deaths, we can predict that 2021 was the worst year on record for Saskatchewan.

The trend of record-breaking death rates continues with Manitoba with an 87% increase between 2019 and 2020. If that isn’t telling enough, there was a 44% increase in substance-related deaths in the first six months of 2021 than the same period of 2020. While the data has yet to be finalized, Manitoba is on pace to break that 2020 record in 2021.

For quite some time, Quebec was an anomaly in Canada as far as opioid-related deaths were concerned. In 2018, Quebec ranked second from the bottom among Canadian provinces and American states — only 2.5 per 100,000, or roughly 200 deaths in total. In 2019, this number doubled to over 400 deaths, and 2020 saw nearly 550 deaths. Montreal saw a 50% increase in opioid-related deaths from 2019 to 2020. I have been unable so far to locate 2021 numbers at this time, but, if the previous three years are any indication, Quebec may be trending in the same direction as all the provinces to its west.

East of Quebec, however, is not seeing the same dramatic upward trends at this time, although the outlook is not optimistic either. Nova Scotia, for example, saw the highest number of opioid-related deaths back in 2012 with 67, while 2021 has only seen 45. The years in between have been up and down, depending on the year. The data for all substance-related deaths, not just opioids, has been steady since 2018 at nearly 100 deaths per year.

New Brunswick saw 82 substance-related overdoses in 2020 — 19 more than in 2019. In both years, over 50% of those deaths were opioid related. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2020, they reported 16 deaths, which is the highest number in a single quarter and more than double the quarterly averages from 2016 to 2019. The first overdose prevention site in Moncton, named ENSEMBLE, had 200 visits in its first 18 days of operation. This is a place where people’s drugs can be tested and used in a safe environment and where conversations around detoxification, rehabilitation and health care can be initiated with the staff.

Colleagues, this overdose prevention site was needed, as evidenced by the number of visits: 200 visits represent 200 potential lives saved.

It wasn’t until late 2018 that Prince Edward Island emergency departments could even screen for fentanyl. Accidental opioid-related deaths in 2019 numbered five, and none of those deaths involved fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue. On the other hand, 2020 saw eight accidental opioid-related deaths, with half of those involving fentanyl.

While these numbers may seem low at first blush, this is a statistically substantial increase from 2019 to 2020. Unfortunately, 2021 data on opioid-related deaths isn’t available at this point. What we do know is that fentanyl has made its way to the Island.

Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t have much information to draw from — or at least that we were able to find for 2021 — but in the first three months of last year, the province had five apparent opioid deaths. In comparison, 2020 had 24 and 2019 had 18. Just this past December, there were three overdoses in a short span in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. Front-line workers are worried this trend will continue as fentanyl trickles into the province.

Honourable senators, I have spoken in detail to some of the challenges Ontario municipalities face, but what about our territories? Is there solace in the North? Fortunately, Nunavut cases are so low at this point that the data is suppressed. In the Northwest Territories, government data indicates there is only one apparent opioid-related death in 2019, three in 2020 and two in the first six months of 2021.

Yukon, on the other hand, is facing immense challenges. Their opioid-related death rate is one of the highest in the nation at 48 per 100,000, according to their chief coroner Heather Jones. This is two and a half times greater than the national average. There were 21 opioid-related deaths in the first 11 months of 2021, which amounts to more than 1 in 5 deaths investigated by the Yukon Coroner’s Service. Most frightening is that each of these 21 deaths involved opioids and various forms of fentanyl.

Colleagues, the devastation appears to be inescapable. This isn’t just a West Coast problem anymore. It has reached the East Coast, the North Coast and everywhere in between. Now is the time to address this problem as it hits so close to home — so close, in fact, that it’s in each of our backyards.

Our dedicated first responders have certainly noticed the uptick in calls related to drug toxicity and it’s wearing them out. While it’s generally the paramedics or police people think of as responders to a substance overdose response, it’s increasingly the fire departments having to respond.

I read a very interesting first-person submission to the CBC last month which detailed former Calgary firefighter Dan Scheuerman’s experience dealing with opioids. He had to learn how to administer NARCAN — a type of nasally administered Naloxone — in the off chance of coming into contact with those who are experiencing an overdose.

As he explains it, in the beginning:

After the patient was handed off to EMS we’d return back to the firehall, waiting for a big fire or other “real firefighter” emergency where the cavalry was needed.

Firefighters did not see this as a substantial part of their duties.

As Mr. Scheuerman goes on to explain, “. . . overdoses became an increasingly significant part of the job.” Accidental exposure to the substances became an increasing concern.

He tells of a particular incident where his team responded to a call and found a lifeless body at the bottom of a public stairwell surrounded by needles. He and his partner had to contort themselves to lift the person, trying to avoid an accidental puncture from the needles.

Once the paramedics arrived and administered Naloxone, the person came to, but having heard the sounds of sirens in the distance, the individual leaped up and sprinted off for fear of reprisal. If a person refuses treatment, there’s nothing they can do.

Mr. Scheuerman signs off the article by stating:

As I retire after 13 years of service and pivot into a new career, there is plenty I’ll miss about firefighting. All the crews. Firehall life. Being at the centre of catastrophic events and feeling like our interventions were meaningful.

But leaving the front lines of the opioid epidemic is one of the things I’m most looking forward to.

Senators, I bring this first-hand account to you to demonstrate that the epidemic has far-reaching consequences. It’s not only those who use substances who are feeling the effect, but also those people whose job it is to help them.

The work of our EMS and police during these trying times has been very challenging. According to The Globe and Mail, paramedics and medical dispatchers in British Columbia responded to over 35,500 overdose calls in 2021 alone, a record; this is a 31% increase over 2020. Senators, that’s 97 overdose calls on average each and every day.

The president of Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, Troy Clifford, acknowledges that they knew the numbers were going up because paramedics would see it on every shift, but they didn’t realize the extent. He also raises another important issue facing paramedics. He states that the opioid epidemic takes a heavy toll on them, that:

The numbers of our members off and in treatment because of psychological injuries is incredible, and the opioid epidemic is definitely a significant part of that.

Colleagues, if our first responders aren’t optimally able to help those they serve due to psychological injuries, how can we expect those in need to fare any better? Anxiety, depression and burnout are becoming more commonplace amongst first responders, especially with the perpetuation of the pandemic.

The current obstacles are Sisyphean without the necessary plateaus and perches to stop that rock from rolling back down the hill.

I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the effects of the opioid epidemic on policing. In many instances it is the police who are the first contact of those in a crisis situation involving substances. I’m sure every former officer in this chamber has their own stories of devastation. I know I do.

It isn’t easy to police substance use and people who use drugs. Officers want to help those in trouble but at the same time have to balance the needs of the community. As the presence of substances increases in a community, so do community safety risks.

Our colleague Senator White had a column in the Ottawa Citizen last fall in which he wrote:

When I worked as the police chief in Ottawa, I saw first‑hand the impact the illegal drug trade had on the community — not just the drug trafficking itself but the impact of that drug trade on the community as those affected by addiction participated in ever-increasing criminal activity to address their dependent substance use. Often their offences were considered minor — by the police and the community — but as the drug trade grew so did the number of offences and community impact.

Senators, these minor offences are largely property crimes like theft. What they gain from stealing can be used or sold to obtain more substances, and the cycle continues.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada established a directive in the summer of 2020 that alternatives to criminal prosecution for simple possession be sought in all but the most serious instances. And while I applaud the PPSC for making reference to the health effects of substance use in its directive, this form of de facto decriminalization hasn’t found the balance between protecting those who use drugs and community safety.

I understand the reasoning behind the directive, and much of it has to do with the significant delays in the court system. It’s an attempt to move more serious and violent crimes through the system in a timely manner while weeding out the non-violent and petty crimes. In fact, 85% of drug possession charges in Ontario were either withdrawn or stayed in the year after the directive was put in place.

Of course, prosecutorial discretion plays into this process, but so does police discretion. Even before a charge moves before the court, the police will determine, based on evidence and circumstances, whether to even proceed with the charge.

Unfortunately, this high level of withdrawal or staying of charges by the prosecution communicates to the officers that their efforts are unnecessary and perhaps their efforts are better focused elsewhere; after all, police use their discretion based on the law and the guidance from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to determine which cases to move to the next stage of the judicial process.

Without the proper diversions from the criminal justice system to actually help people who want and need it, we are doing nothing but preserving the status quo.

Dropping charges for simple possession on people who rely on non-violent petty thefts to feed their substance addiction does not make a community feel safer and does a disservice to the trust in policing. It’s a revolving door.

Chief Constable Mike Serr of the Abbotsford Police Department has indicated that someone whose drug habits cost them $100 a day would need upwards of $1,000 worth of goods to sustain that habit. A better avenue would be community supports and treatment programs for diversion purposes, including safe supply, all of which could be discussed in a national strategy consultation.

Senators, I am encouraged by the increasing support across the country to move on a health-centred approach to substance use. We have heard the numerous medical and health associations and organizations call for a health approach and decriminalization.

But more recently a prominent Canadian leader in addictions and mental health has joined the call. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, released a statement on September 29, 2021, calling for the complete decriminalization of currently illegal substances.

Policing has come around to the idea of decriminalization, which was previously a hard sell. Not only has the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police come out in favour of decriminalization, but so have many provincial cohorts, including British Columbia and Ontario.

There is expert support for decriminalization in Canada, and progress is being made at different jurisdictional levels as evidenced by the applications for exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act submitted by both British Columbia and Toronto.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada directive and Bill C-5 before the House of Commons both include a de facto decriminalization regime federally. But none of these are enough to combat the substance-related death rate we are currently seeing.

A comprehensive federal approach is absolutely necessary. The piecemeal approach won’t solve a pan-Canadian problem. A national crisis deserves a national response. Federal legislation is required to eliminate the criminality attached to substance use.

The Mayor of Chatham-Kent, Darrin Canniff, understands the importance of a federal approach. Mayor Canniff is a proponent of decriminalization and the second co-chair of the Ontario’s Big City Mayors Mental Health Working Committee.

About the importance of a national strategy, here is what he said to me:

(Municipalities) desperately need federal guidance and funding to bring the issue under control. It will take the full weight of the federal government to bring resources and expertise to this issue. Expecting municipalities to deal with and solve something of this nature without significant federal assistance is unrealistic. We need a national strategy to bring a unified approach using the most comprehensive knowledge base, expertise and funding available We’re willing to be on the front lines in this battle but, without the support of Ottawa, it’s a fight we can’t win.

He calls for a “unified approach,” senators. This is a baseline of necessity in each province, territory and municipality. Not all jurisdictions’ strategies will look the same, nor should they. Needs differ depending on where you are.

But setting a federal baseline and unifying the strategy interprovincially, rather than provinces and municipalities going at it alone, just makes good sense. This call has been echoed by other municipalities. Mayor Lehman of Barrie, while working at the community level, has an innate ability to see the big picture. He said:

Every progressive change that has built a more just society in Canada has ultimately happened only because of leadership from Ottawa. Canadians need our parliament to be our moral compass and change the way we treat addiction in our society — from treating it as a crime to treating it as an illness.

Honourable senators, treating substance use as an illness rather than a crime brings much-needed humanity to this issue. After all, each one of these deaths is more than a mere statistic. These are people. There are thousands of lives lost every year. This translates into tens of thousands of relationships — family, friends, partners — who are themselves caught in a whirlwind of despair.

At the introduction of my remarks today, I suggested that every senator in this chamber has likely been affected by addiction or knows of someone who has been affected. I know this to be true because you all know me, and I have felt that despair of losing a loved one, and I promise there are others.

Senators, recall my analogy to Sisyphus. It’s not only people using drugs struggling to push the rock up that hill any longer. There are extra hands pushing from all sectors of society. The effort is getting a little bit easier with each set of hands, but it is imperative to keep the momentum going for the rock to climb. All they can do is continue to push. Fortunately, we, as legislators, don’t have to push the rock from underneath. Instead, we have the tools to keep the rock from tumbling back down the hill altogether.

Because you see, honourable senators, ultimately we create that hill and we can shorten that hill, for that hill is Parliament. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, last week, Hong Kong Watch, a U.K.-based organization dedicated to monitoring and exposing threats against Hong Kong’s basic freedoms and autonomy, was itself threatened under the draconian national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese communist regime. In addition to using this law to block Hong Kong Watch’s website in Hong Kong, Beijing is threatening the organization, of which I am a patron, with a fine and the imprisonment of its Chief Executive, Benedict Rogers, for telling the world the truth about what is happening in Hong Kong.

This organization is not based in Hong Kong, yet the Chinese regime feels very comfortable threatening them and threatening Mr. Rogers, a British citizen, just as the Chinese Ambassador to Canada felt very comfortable threatening Canadian parliamentarians in late 2019 because of a motion I brought forward, along with Senator Ngo.

As Lord Patten of Barnes, the last British Governor of Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch commented:

This is another disgraceful example of Mr Putin’s friends in Beijing and their quislings in Hong Kong trying not only to stamp out freedom of expression and information in Hong Kong but also to internationalise their campaign against evidence, freedom and honesty.

Lord Alton of Liverpool, a patron of Hong Kong Watch and one of the parliamentarians sanctioned by China, said last year:

This represents a significant escalation in the Chinese Communist Party regime’s attempts to silence dissent well beyond its borders . . . .

Hong Kong Watch’s Chief Executive, Benedict Rogers, himself said:

By threatening a UK-based NGO with financial penalties and jail for merely reporting on the human rights situation in Hong Kong, this letter exemplifies why Hong Kong’s National Security Law is so dangerous.

We will not be silenced by an authoritarian security apparatus which, through a mixture of senseless brutality and ineptitude, has triggered rapid mass migration out of the city and shut down civil society.

I echo all of these statements, and I remind everyone of the growing threat from the communist regime of China right here in Canada. Hong Kong Watch has trustees, patrons, staff and volunteers here in Canada, so these threats should very much be a matter of interest to this chamber and to the Canadian government.

I call on this chamber and the Government of Canada to join me in expressing support for Mr. Rogers and everyone involved in Hong Kong Watch and to make it clear that the draconian national security law will not be used to threaten or intimidate Canadians or anyone else on Canadian soil, nor anyone else involved with Hong Kong Watch anywhere in the world.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Your Honour, I wanted to express our appreciation to you for your discretion in allowing an exception to the rules that are currently in place to permit us to welcome a distinguished guest to the chamber gallery.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable colleagues, today I want to share a very interesting initiative based in my province, Quebec. This is a project called Indicators of Well-Being in Québec, and it was unveiled in January by members and partners of the G15+ collective.

The G15+ collective is made up of 15 economic leaders from the union, social and environmental communities who have taken unprecedented steps to support Quebec’s economic recovery efforts. The group includes the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Fondaction, the Institut du Québec, Équiterre, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the FTQ.

I applaud this concrete example of social dialogue. This kind of dialogue moves ideas and major social undertakings forward. After all, by speaking to one another, we can understand one another.

The collective explains its work on the indicators of well-being as follows:

Gross domestic product (GDP) and job creation are no longer enough to evaluate the well-being of Quebecers.

I agree. They are no longer enough. We also have to talk about all the elements that go into what we call the social wage, and other things too.

I would also like to take a moment to point out that the Senate Prosperity Action Group, an informal group in which I participated along with several other colleagues, also proposed a series of key performance indicators for building sustainable, inclusive and shared prosperity in Canada.

In Quebec, the indicators will be updated annually and will take into account the impact of the pandemic. The data is also available online.

The collective is calling on policy makers to make well‑being more central to their actions by linking well-being indicators to government budgeting and strategic planning, and to align methodologies through high-level federal, provincial and territorial collaboration in order to properly measure the well‑being of Canadians.

Honourable colleagues, that statement was written prior to February 24, 2022. As I reread it, it occurred to me that peace in this country, and in the world, is a necessary condition for the pursuit of collective well-being. War can never improve the fate of humanity.

I urge everyone to support the approach proposed by the collective for the benefit of all Canadians and, consequently, to pursue dialogue and social peace.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, every year on March 20, we celebrate the International Day of La Francophonie, and we remember that, according to the Observatoire de la langue française, there are more than 300 million French speakers living on five continents.

We remember that the French language is the fifth most spoken language in the world — or the sixth, according to some — as well as the fourth most used language on the internet, and that 59% of those who speak French on a daily basis live in Africa.

Every year, we reaffirm the importance of this language for Canada’s economic, diplomatic and cultural relations. We celebrate it in all its forms, not just to defend the language and cultural rights of a minority, but to recognize it for its true value, as one of our common languages in this country, one of our two official languages enshrined in Canada’s Constitution.

We celebrate its international significance and its universal, inclusive and unifying nature as a national treasure to be cherished. We remember also that the Francophonie is not just the French language. It is also an institution that Canada belongs to and that is dedicated to promoting political, educational, economic and cultural cooperation among the 88 member countries of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

The theme of the 2022 International Day of La Francophonie is “La Francophonie of the future,” and it seeks to highlight the Francophonie’s support for youth and their aspirations, because by 2060, dear colleagues, more than 700 million human beings will live in francophone countries, and three quarters of them will be under the age of 30 and live in Africa.

Where do things stand in Canada? Why is there still so much to do to ensure that all Canadians get a chance to learn French? Why is it still so difficult to work and receive services in French in Canada? Why do some Canadians still believe that protecting and promoting the French language takes away from other linguistic realities?

There is still a lot of work to be done to help the French language and the francophonie thrive in Canada.

When we study Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which would modernize the Official Languages Act, we will have the perfect opportunity to work on this and plan for the future.

On March 20, we also celebrate the International Day of Happiness, and, on March 21, we mark World Poetry Day.

Dear colleagues, I want to leave you with the beautiful, vivid words of Acadian poet Jonathan Roy:

I am a network of people

connected through blogs and community radio

together, minds open

my people, sharing

and down the road

at a fleeting feu de joie or tintamarre

we would chat to one another, about one another

in a language as passionate and majestic

as we are

I speak as one

French, Chiac, Acadian, Acadjonne

and a thousand other colourful languages

that we, together, have yet to name

but that, with a twinkle in the eye,

we understand all the same

Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed reappointment of Joe Friday to the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for a term of 18 months.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, we experienced some proud and joyful moments during the Beijing Paralympic Winter Games, which were held from March 4 to 13. Team Canada won 25 medals, including 8 gold. This goes down as Canada’s second-best showing ever at a Paralympic Winter Games, the best being at the Pyeongchang games in 2018.

These Canadian athletes include the incredible Brian McKeever, who took home 3 gold medals, bringing his career total to 16 gold medals. Yes, sad to say, he beat my personal record. All joking aside, I want to congratulate Brian. He is a legend, an outstanding athlete who has been inspiring us for many years and who has already committed to sharing his talent and expertise with our aspiring athletes.

[English]

The week before the Paralympic Games in Beijing, Russia began attacking Ukraine — a situation that troubles all of us and continues to trouble everyone worldwide. Let us take a moment to recognize the resilience of the Ukrainian team and athletes who came to the games to compete, and inspired all of us by winning a total of 29 medals and finishing in second place overall.

Before the games, Ukrainian Paralympic Committee President Valeriy Sushkevych told reporters it was a miracle for this team to be there. He said:

Not coming here would have been taking the easy option. . . . Our presence at the Paralympics . . . is a sign that Ukraine is and will remain a country.

That, colleagues, is the power of the Paralympic movement: beating all odds, making a difference, inspiring those around us, showing the world that we can overcome anything with strength and humility and proving that, in the end, human courage will prevail. Meegwetch. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Government leader, this morning we saw the Prime Minister of Canada go before the people of Canada to try to defend the indefensible. Late last night, we saw that there was a deal negotiated by Prime Minister Trudeau and the NDP in order to essentially create a majority government, which is, without a doubt, an unprecedented power grab.

We know full well that in the last election the NDP received 17% of the vote. We also clearly know that this is not the agenda that the people of Canada have embraced. How can the Prime Minister justify this?

Over the next three and a half years, the NDP has agreed to unequivocally support four budgets, and we already have a government in place that has been spending money like a drunken sailor. Now we have a clear indication that they will continue down that path and more.

Today, while the Prime Minister stood before the Canadian public trying to justify this majority coalition government — which the people of Canada clearly did not choose only six months ago in a general election — there was not a single figure attached to how much this deal between the NDP, the Liberals and Prime Minister Trudeau will cost taxpayers. Can you explain to us what the exact number is — the cost to taxpayers — for this power grab coalition between the NDP and the Liberals?

Senator Housakos: The only one to benefit from this is the Liberal government that got a minority mandate and are trying, through negotiation and deals with the socialist NDP, to turn it into a majority government. The only one to benefit here, let’s be clear, is the Liberal government.

I have previously raised the affordability crisis impacting Canadian families in this place. Inflation, as you know, government leader, is at a three-year high, and it will remain sky‑high under an NDP-Liberal coalition government. The NDP‑Liberal coalition government will be a high-spending, high-tax government with no regard whatsoever for the deficit or the cost of living.

Government leader, let’s be clear, we have a 30-year high in inflation. We have challenges for single mothers and middle‑class families to be able to feed their children due to just inflation. We see these difficulties every time a Canadian goes to the pump in order to fill their car or truck to go to work. We see the cost for young Canadians when they go out there to try to become first-time home buyers and the difficulty they are having in this country.

This NDP-Liberal coalition will further impact the daily lives of these Canadians because the NDP has given you a blank cheque until 2025, yet, the government leader in the Senate can’t tell us the exact figure of costs and how much this coalition is going to cost Canadian taxpayers.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The issues of affordability that you raise are serious ones. We are all concerned about it, the government and I’m sure all opposition parties. It’s a serious question. However, it does not assist in dealing with serious questions by continuing to misrepresent the nature of the understanding that has been reached by the government and the NDP.

Honourable colleague, you have used the term “coalition government” on many occasions. It’s simply not the case. Talking points aside, it’s not helping Canadians understand what needs to be done to address the serious issues of affordability that you quite properly mention.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator.

The government recognizes the importance of reaching a deal before the end of the fiscal year to ensure that Ontario families have access to all the funding allocated for them to help make their lives more affordable.

I’m advised that Ontario has submitted a first draft of its action plan demonstrating how it would use federal funds to implement affordable, accessible, high-quality and inclusive child care across the province. The submission of the first draft of the action plan has allowed for negotiations to move to the next phase where officials can work to ensure the plan meets federal objectives on space creation, affordability, data and reporting, workforce supports, inclusivity and quality within the parameters of the funding allocation for Ontario. I’m advised that Minister Karina Gould remains optimistic they can work together to secure a deal that will deliver for Ontario families and children.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question, senator.

Before an agreement can be signed, my understanding is that provinces and territories must demonstrate through their action plans how they will achieve $10-a-day child care by 2026. I am advised that the agreements with provinces and territories do not stipulate any specific approach when it comes to existing providers. All licensed providers will be part of the Canada-wide system. Any system transformations are led by the provincial governments using funds from the federal agreement as outlined in their action plans.

Honourable senators, it’s important to retain existing licensed spaces and providers. As the federal and provincial governments work to build this system together, we need every high-quality space that we have. The government’s goal is to ensure all licensed providers and the families they serve are supported.

Senator Bernard: Senator Gold, I have heard from many African-Nova Scotian community members that funds from the Black Entrepreneurship Program have been challenging to access. What funds have been released to date, and what is the breakdown by province of organizations that have received this funding?

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in 2018, through an order-in-council, the government established The Leaders’ Debates Commission, which is charged with organizing one leaders’ debate in each official language during each federal election period. The Leaders’ Debates Commission is required to provide to the Minister of Democratic Institutions a report no later than five months after the day on which a general election is held. Subsequently, the minister is to table the report in Parliament.

February 20 marked five months since the last federal election. As you may recall, there was much controversy surrounding the format and questions of the last federal leaders’ debate. I have initiated a Senate inquiry on this topic but have been delayed in speaking to it. I am hoping to use the report of The Leaders’ Debates Commission to inform my speech. I know that I’m not the only Canadian who is interested in this report.

Senator Gold, when can we expect to see The Leaders’ Debates Commission’s report?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the supplementary question. To date, I’m advised that $8,126,726 has been distributed and the average loan size is $88,302. As for the breakdown of organizations by province that have received money, I will make inquiries with the government and report back to this chamber.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I was pleased to attend the world’s largest annual women’s human rights conference at the UN last week, CSW66. As I sat in the grand hall of the General Assembly, I asked myself what more Canada could be doing to support Ukrainians who are fighting to save their democracy because there’s a stranglehold on the UN Security Council by the vetoes of its permanent members Russia and China.

As you know, Senator Gold, 141 countries supported the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last week. Only four countries voted against. My question to the government today is geared to what more Canada can do through Ambassador Bob Rae’s effective and respected presence in the UN General Assembly.

Since the Security Council is inaccessible and ineffective, will the Government of Canada act on the authority of the UN General Assembly to mandate peacekeeping operations at the request or with the consent of Ukraine and continue Canada’s distinguished history, including the idea of the Blue Helmets at the time of the Suez crisis, by leading — as suggested today by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy and the Honourable Allan Rock — an initiative now at the UN General Assembly to assemble and deploy peacekeepers to protect humanitarian corridors in Ukraine?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and for reminding us, if we needed reminding, of some of the challenges that the United Nations system imposes on the democratic countries seeking to work together to address, in this case, atrocious crimes against humanity. Canada will continue to work with its allies to do whatever it can and will participate and play whatever roles are appropriate for it to play, with its allies, to address the plight of Ukrainians being attacked and killed by Russia.

With regard to the specific question, I will make inquiries. Whether I’m able to report back will be a function of the nature of the discussions and the confidentiality that may be attached, but I will certainly make inquiries.