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?

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.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan moved second reading of Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-224, which aims to facilitate the conviction of those charged with human trafficking-related offences. This bill will amend the Criminal Code’s definition of exploitation in human trafficking offences so that the Crown is no longer required to prove a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances feared for their safety or the safety of someone they know. This will put the onus on the perpetrator rather than the survivors.

Bill S-224 is not a partisan bill. It’s about protecting young, vulnerable Canadians from predatory criminals who exploit their hopes and dreams for personal gain. Our judicial process currently has low rates of prosecution for human trafficking. It’s traumatizing for survivors and puts the burden of proof on victims.

The current definition in the Criminal Code suggests that a person is exploited only if fear was a driving factor in their exploitation. Here I quote:

. . . a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

However, as I will demonstrate today, human trafficking is more complex and can only be defined by the perpetrator’s actions rather than the victim’s experience.

By amending the Criminal Code to reflect the international definition of “trafficking in persons” as outlined in the Palermo Protocol, we enable the Crown to efficiently convict human traffickers. The Palermo Protocol views human trafficking as having three distinct elements: the act, the means and the purpose. Human trafficking is defined as the act of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and receiving a person by means of coercion, abuse of power or deception for the purpose of exploitation. This is not reflected in our Criminal Code.

The Palermo Protocol was adopted in 2000 at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations and has 117 signatories, including Canada. Yet, 22 years later, this is another example of Canada’s promises without concrete action. This bill proposes to remove the element of fear to reflect the international definition of trafficking in persons as outlined in the Palermo Protocol.

In its current form, the Criminal Code puts the responsibility on victims or survivors to provide compelling testimony to prove the validity of their experience. This small yet powerful change will allow the Crown to convict human traffickers. I stand here today for human trafficking survivors, for their families, for young, vulnerable Canadians and for those who are currently being exploited in plain sight.

As such, Bill S-224 is not a partisan bill: It’s about protecting young, vulnerable Canadians from predatory criminals who exploit their hopes and dreams for personal gain.

This is an important bill. Human trafficking is a modern form of slavery that is on the rise worldwide with an estimated 40 million victims. It is a practice that relies on abuse and coercion to exploit young victims for sexual purposes or work. Traffickers will approach victims in various ways, either by convincing them that they are a potential friend or boyfriend, contacting them on social media, posting ads for jobs or even threatening or kidnapping them. They will promise money, clothes, work, education or financial aid for their family. Victims often do not realize that traffickers don’t have their best interests at heart.

In Canada, the geography and layout of the highways makes it easy for traffickers to avoid detection by law enforcement and maintain control over their isolated and disoriented victims. Although there is a popular belief that victims of human trafficking are brought into the country, most victims are young Canadian women. Almost half of them were found to have come from another city in the same province, and 60% of all victims come from Ontario.

Traffickers use transport corridors to haul their victims along the Trans-Canada and the 401 highways. Many willing customers can be found near oil patch work camps in Alberta, and traffickers exploit the province’s online sex markets. In Ontario, the practice is so commonplace on highways 11 and 17 that you most likely have crossed paths with a rental car in which a trafficker and his victim were travelling from Sudbury and Thunder Bay through northern Ontario towards Winnipeg.

As I have mentioned, traffickers often recruit their victims with false promises, but can also use threats and violence to break them. It is heartbreaking to hear how they exploit vulnerability by aiming for young people dealing with homelessness, substance abuse, addiction, trauma, abuse or violence.

Among the most at-risk groups are women and girls, new immigrants, children in the welfare system, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ2+ and migrant workers. These are Canadians already falling through the cracks.

The most vulnerable are Indigenous children who live with the impact of hundreds of years of ongoing trauma. In 2014, Indigenous people made up 4% of the population but accounted for half the trafficking victims. Recruiting young Indigenous girls is so commonplace that many survivors have described men waiting at Greyhound bus stations at night and approaching them, promising a place to stay and safety. One Indigenous survivor explained that by the age of 16, she believed it was okay to be beaten by men.

Traffickers will also use their victims to do their dirty work and recruit other vulnerable individuals, often promising them a way out. This shows the extent of manipulation, fear and gaslighting victims face on a daily basis.

Alternatively, social media has unfortunately made recruiting young Canadians and children much easier. Pedophiles can reach out to as many as 100 children per hour on popular apps like TikTok and Instagram.

Leaving such exploitation requires courage, dedication and, often, outside help. Many survivors work tirelessly to help victims escape their traffickers. However, many victims fear or distrust law enforcement, and it can take up to 18 attempts before permanently leaving human trafficking. To make matters worse, it can easily take up to two years before an adult realizes a youth in their life is being sexually exploited. This is what happened to Clementine, a teenage girl in Montreal who was exploited for a year before her parents noticed strange behaviour and worrisome scars on her body. Although she had wanted to leave many times, a trafficker’s threats to kill her family and dog made her stay.

So it’s not surprising that human trafficking is known as low risk with high reward among traffickers. It has generated about US$32 billion annually for perpetrators, and very few cases have been successfully prosecuted in Canada. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, less than 8% of perpetrators charged with human trafficking have been prosecuted.

Also, too much responsibility is put on the shoulders of people who have endured unimaginable things. Most survivors do not identify as victims as a result of manipulation and gaslighting. They can believe their trafficker cares for them. We owe them the necessary help and care. Instead, they must prove that they fear for their life on the stand, often only a few metres from their trafficker. Victims are usually the only evidence against traffickers. Without their testimony, the Crown has no case. Testimony shows that the fear-based model is the biggest issue when dealing with convictions and that the experience is more traumatizing than being forced to work in the sex trade. They must relive their nightmare during the preliminary hearing and then at full trial.

During the cross-examination, it is common for the defence lawyer to twist their words and call them a liar. We all remember a federal court judge in Alberta who asked a victim, during a sexual assault trial, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” This, as you can imagine, can lead to survivors recanting or simply dropping charges. According to the current Criminal Code, the offence rests more on a victim’s ability to perform on the witness stand rather than on what the perpetrator has done. Hence, human trafficking charges are often dropped, and traffickers are charged under related crimes such as prostitution-related offences, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault and sexual exploitation. This is not justice. This is certainly not a way to prevent, suppress and punish perpetrators of trafficking in persons.

Before I conclude, I must highlight the wonderful work done by MPs Carrie and Viersen to put an end to human trafficking in Canada. I would like to thank them both for their hard work on the original private member’s bill on human trafficking, which I now have the privilege of introducing in the Red Chamber.

Honourable senators, 22 years ago we agreed — along with 116 other nations — to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Yet, the onus remains on the victims to prove fear. Colleagues, I ask you, how does a person prove fear?

This bill aims to remove one obstacle in the prosecution of human traffickers. With a simple modification to the Criminal Code, victims and survivors will finally be able to find greater justice and hopefully the safety they require to heal and rebuild their lives.

Honourable senators, by removing this barrier — the element of fear — we will finally be able to tackle bigger challenges in human trafficking in Canada. This is the first crucial step to putting an end to this horrible practice in our country. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Kim Pate: Would you take another question?

Senator Ataullahjan: Yes.

Senator Pate: I was surprised to hear your answer to that question. Could you point me to the provision in Bill C-5 that actually decriminalizes kidnapping?

Senator Ataullahjan: Sorry, Senator Pate. I don’t have that answer for you; however, I can look it up and provide that for you.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Thank you, senator. I congratulate you on this very important bill.

In 2015, we adopted Bill C-452, introduced by Ms. Mourani in the other place, and sponsored by me here in the Senate. This bill cracked down on people involved in human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of minors. One of the clauses of this bill, proposing harsher sentences, was never implemented by Mr. Trudeau because he felt that this clause was inhumane for traffickers. Bill C-5, which we will one day study in this place, would decriminalize kidnapping. Doesn’t it seem as though this bill contradicts what the government has done to combat human trafficking?

[English]

Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, senator, for your question. I agree, I remember that bill. I don’t know why the government would do what they have done. We need to stand up and make sure that people who inflict crimes or kidnap young women and subject them to sexual assault do get their due punishment.

Hon. David Richards: Thank you very much, Senator Boniface. I agree that any medical protocol would help. I also agree with decriminalization, but I’m wondering if it will actually solve the problem. I don’t think it will. Methamphetamine will still be methamphetamine. Fentanyl will still be fentanyl. It has ravaged our communities in New Brunswick. People who begged their family members to get help, who promised them the sky and the world if they could get help and turned their backs on them.

We know what addiction does. I don’t think there is any quick fix here, and I know you would know that. In the long term, if we don’t criminalize the selling of these drugs, the decriminalization of using them will not do that much. I hope it does, but I’m just not sure that it will. Maybe I’m too much of a cynic, but I know what alcoholism does in our country. I know the disastrous effect of that on family life, and I wonder if you might comment on that.

Senator Boniface: Thank you, Senator Richards, for the question. It is a complex issue, and you are absolutely correct that the complexity of the issue makes for a multitude of things. Let me step back and clarify a couple of them.

The bill calls for a national strategy. We have much interesting and good work being done across the country. It’s just very ad hoc. It’s usually funded locally or funded on a limited basis, and we’re not gathering the information we need on it. Firstly, that’s really an important point — that we actually look at what’s happening in Canada and where Canada may be a leader on some of this. I refer you to my comments about the City of Timmins and the difference they found in a short period of time just by changing strategy.

The second important thing on decriminalization is the shame and stigma attached with the criminal process, and Dr. Jeff Turnbull, who heads Ottawa Inner City Health, spoke on this a couple of times when I’ve been in his presence. Again, as the firefighter I quoted from Calgary said, you don’t get to follow up when you’re in the call because they are gone as soon as they hear the sirens.

What would really be helpful is taking a look at the good work being done. If you look at the Portugal experience, which some of you may be familiar with, one thing they found in the long term — Portugal’s policy has been in place since the 2000s — is when you shift the thinking that it’s a health issue and not a criminal law issue, for young people coming up they start to see it as a health issue. They start to see it in a different light, and you don’t get the same propensity to use drugs. In fact, Portugal has found that they have been able to reduce drug use as a result of their approach. It’s a very comprehensive approach and appears to work in Portugal. Other countries, Switzerland and Norway, are carrying out many initiatives. There are many ways we can look at it. This is a tough issue, and it would be unfortunate for government to back off from a tough issue just because it’s tough.

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Thank you, Senator Boniface, for sponsoring this really important bill, and thank you for telling us all about it today and how devastating opioid poisoning is, in particular with Indigenous peoples. We see they are suffering from many needless deaths. I believe there are many reasons why, but the legacy of colonialism and intergenerational trauma are the main reasons we see these problems today. It seems to me that government responses have been inadequate so far.

How do you think reconciliation might help address these horrific issues, and how would it fit in with the national strategy of which you spoke?

Senator Boniface: Thank you, Senator Boyer, for the question, and particularly for the reference to reconciliation. You will see in the bill itself, in terms of the national dialogue that needs to take place, it’s very specific on including Indigenous communities. This is fundamental because, as you would know better than I, this goes to a very key public health issue. If we want to have healthy communities, Indigenous and non‑Indigenous, we have to ensure that we can help deliver that. There is nothing better in terms of reconciliation than addressing the issues around public health in Indigenous communities.

It’s a really important message that needs reinforcement, and I thank you for reinforcing it. Dr. Turnbull speaks passionately about this. It is often people from Indigenous and BIPOC communities generally who are most seriously impacted by this issue and are among the groups that find it most difficult to get the services they need. So it’s crucial in terms of how we see each other from a humanity perspective, and if the reconciliation process isn’t about humanity, I don’t know what it is about.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran rose pursuant to notice of December 2, 2021:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to parliamentary privilege, the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and options for increasing accountability, transparency and fairness in the context of the Senate’s unique self-governance, including guidelines on public disclosure.

She said: Honourable senators, as a senator from Manitoba, I acknowledge that I am on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I also want to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is located on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

[English]

Honourable senators, I rise today to be the first speaker in the Forty-fourth Parliament to inquiry 6, which calls the attention of the Senate to parliamentary privilege, the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators and options for increasing accountability, transparency and fairness in the context of the Senate’s unique self-governance, including guidelines on public disclosure.

Before speaking today, I sought feedback from a range of experts including retired senators and I am grateful for their time and attention to this issue. As one said to me, name the elephant in the room, and so I will. Honourable colleagues, please be assured that my inquiry is addressed to all senators, and it’s not intended in any way to target a particular senator.

It may be recalled that I have introduced similar inquiries in each session since being appointed to the Senate, long before I resigned from the Independent Senators Group in October 2021.

Both the Senate and the House of Commons are equipped with ethics codes which, although similar, are nonetheless distinct and separate policies. Beyond the fact that the Senate code manages to be 20 pages longer than its Commons counterpart, the codes are largely similar in content but there are significant differences that make the Senate’s code less demanding.

For one example, income thresholds for disclosure are under $1,000 for House members and under $2,000 for senators.

A second example is that Senate disclosure provisions apply mostly to the senator and their spouse, whereas the House provisions cast a wider net to include income of family members.

Another is that their code’s purpose section explicitly requires MPs to:

(b) demonstrate to the public that members are held to standards that place the public interest ahead of their private interests and to provide a transparent system by which the public may judge this to be the case . . . .

But section 1(b) of the Senate code does not include such a clear and unequivocal statement of purpose.

As a fourth example, the House code articulates a third principle that the obligations under the code “. . . may not be fully discharged by simply acting within the law. . . .” Again, the Senate code contains no such reference.

There is also a significant difference between the two houses in that the mandated five-year review of the MPs’ code — which is occurring now — is being conducted in public by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In presenting his report to the review committee, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner stressed that his recommendations for changes:

. . . aim to safeguard public trust in the integrity of the House of Commons and its Members, and in their endeavour to fulfill their public duties with honesty all while upholding the highest standards.

Recently, I sent a non-confidential letter — not my first such letter — to all members of the Senate Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. Today I seek to ensure that some key points in that letter are on the public record for the consideration of all senators, because we are all responsible, collectively and individually, for our ethical conduct and for upholding the honour of our institution and our titles.

Honourable colleagues, is this really a responsibility we should be farming out to a Senate committee, no matter how honourable and principled senators on that committee may be?

In my letter, I proposed that Senate self-governance would benefit from clarifying amendments and a consolidation of interpretive commentary to our ethics code to provide greater guidance in relation to extra-parliamentary activities, and I provide several suggestions for both process and content for further study.

Today I would like to highlight several opportunities for a more fulsome review than addressed in recent Conflict of Interest Committee reports, namely the seventh report in the Forty-second Parliament, released in 2019; and the second and third reports in the second session of the Forty-third Parliament, released in 2021.

Honourable colleagues, we would all benefit from clear amendments to the ethics code and guidance regarding the code’s application to extra-parliamentary activities. In doing so, it is likely that public skepticism of the Senate and its members could be reduced.

The ethics code, the Conflict of Interest Committee’s directives and the Senate Ethics Officer’s interpretation of the ethics code in recent inquiry reports make it clear that the ethics code applies to senators’ extra-parliamentary lives. However, some senators’ awareness of the code’s application outside the context of their senatorial duties seems to be quite limited.

It seems reasonable that we all want an ethics code that balances between allowing senators to be community and social leaders while prohibiting situations that would cause substantial public doubt in our ability to serve Canada in the public interest.

Section 2(1) of the ethics code sets out a requirement that “Senators shall give precedence to their parliamentary duties and functions over any other duty or activity . . . .”

More broadly, section 7.1(1) of the code provides that “A Senator’s conduct shall uphold the highest standards of dignity inherent to the position of Senator.”

Arguably, then, no action we take in public or private can be isolated or shielded from the added authority and responsibility we carry every day as members of the upper chamber.

Indeed, in a March 9, 2017, SEO inquiry report regarding disgraced former senator Don Meredith, it was specified that while 7.1 does not “. . . invite a free-standing analysis of whether certain conduct merits moral condemnation . . . ” it certainly does, however:

. . . require an evaluation of whether alleged conduct (a) undermines the standards of dignity inherent to the position of Senator, such that, for example it impacts a Senator’s professional reputation, integrity or trustworthiness, or (b) may have an adverse impact on the reputation of the office of Senator or the Senate as an institution.

These 2017 criteria have been restated in subsequent SEO communications, such as the March 19, 2019, SEO inquiry report regarding former senator Lynn Beyak. As well, a published opinion by the SEO, prepared at the request of distinguished former senator André Pratte, issued April 10, 2019, conclusively held that these criteria were clearly applicable to all matters that arose in relation to a senator’s “outside activities,” such as “. . . being a director or officer in a corporation, association, trade union or not-for-profit organization . . . .” — those words being direct quotes from section 5(c) of the ethics code.

In particular, Mr. Pratte is to be commended for openly sharing the SEO’s opinion, which took the view that section 5 of the code limits outside activities to those that can be undertaken while fulfilling senators’ other obligations under the ethics code, including with respect to maintaining the public’s confidence in the senator’s integrity.

Colleagues, the Senate Conflict of Interest Committee has the mandate to consider, on its own initiative, all matters relating to the ethics code, so I have requested action on eight points of inquiry, and that they be placed on the Conflict of Interest Committee’s agenda for the Forty-fourth Parliament, and that they remain on Conflict of Interest’s agenda until each point has been examined openly and thoroughly by the committee, including by way of one or more public hearings for which any senator can suggest witnesses to be heard and information to be examined and reported on in a public report from the committee in response, to be tabled in the Senate without delay.

Please allow me to summarize my eight points of inquiry as follows. Regarding consultancy arrangements, one would be that the Conflict of Interest Committee conduct a comprehensive comparative review of ethics codes for parliamentary bodies guided by the Westminster model regarding parliamentarians entering into consultancies, whether by formal contract or informal agreement for any payment in money or compensation of any kind from government departments, corporations, organizations, individuals or any other entity based in Canada or in any other country, to identify amendments to the ethics code regarding (a) what form of public disclosure should be required; and (b) whether those parliamentarians should be voting on legislation covering topics that they have consulted on and received compensation in any form for such consultation.

Regarding board memberships and advisory boards, the second is that the Conflict of Interest Committee conduct a comprehensive comparative review of ethics codes for parliamentary bodies guided by the Westminster model regarding parliamentarians being paid and/or compensated and/or rewarded in any manner as board directors or advisers of for-profit or not‑for-profit corporations or of any government corporations or other organizations, individuals or any other entity based in Canada or in any other country, to identify possible amendments to the ethics code regarding (a) what form of public disclosure should be required; and (b) whether those senators should be voting on legislation covering the industries or topics that they have consulted on and/or from which they received compensation in any form.

The third is regarding business dealings among senators: included in the comprehensive review addressing the issue of disclosure by senators who are business partners or in any way engaged together in business activities geared to making a profit, receiving compensation in any form over and above their Senate salaries.

Another is regarding parliamentary privilege and accountability regarding the SEO’s authority and function under the ethics code to address if there is a need to provide for a check and balance within the SEO function: Conflict of Interest should examine parliamentary privilege, as it is applicable to the SEO, through a lens that would allow for meaningful scrutiny over the SEO operations, thereby increasing accountability without undermining the essential functioning of the office or duties of confidentiality to people involved in an SEO investigation.

Number five is that Conflict of Interest should assess and report publicly on the extent to which the SEO may claim parliamentary privilege to create a cloak of confidentiality and privilege over administrative and procedural practices or operations that do not breach confidentiality promised by the code, because parliamentary privilege is not without limits.

My next point is to investigate whether a needed check and balance would be provided by adding procedural rights for non-parliamentarians impacted by SEO inquiries.

Number seven would add a mechanism for error correction. As such, in reviewing possible amendments to the ethics code, Conflict of Interest should consider how to implement an effective appeal process within the ethics code, as the SEO’s rulings are not subject to judicial review while acting under a recognized category of parliamentary privilege.

Number eight is with regard to commentary to increase understanding of the Senate ethics code: Some ethics codes compile and include commentary accompanying the codes’ dispositions. This commentary serves as an educational tool and as an informational resource.

The Code of Conduct for Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories contains detailed commentary accompanying its provisions. Similarly, the Canadian Judicial Council’s Ethical Principles for Judges contains detailed commentary.

Honourable senators, we are here to serve Canada and are generously paid from public funds to do so. Is it not reasonable for the public to expect that the absolute and unique self‑governance granted to the Senate of Canada, entirely funded by public money, should meet the highest threshold for good governance with clear, enforceable standards of accountability and transparency?

In my letter to the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, I set out the points shared with you today in more detail. Now I invite all senators to consider and respond to these points, or to speak to any other matter related to the code, including current interpretations of what conduct should or should not be protected by parliamentary privilege. This is your opportunity to decide what aspects of our unique self-governance merit further contemplation by contributing to the exploration in an open, transparent and collegial manner in the public interest. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Pate, debate adjourned.)

(At 5:22 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Address

of

His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy

President of Ukraine

to both Houses of Parliament

in the House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa

on

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy was welcomed by the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, by the Honourable George J. Furey, Speaker of the Senate, and by the Honourable Anthony Rota, Speaker of the House of Commons.

[English]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette moved second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

She said: Honourable senators, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I am happy to finally introduce my bill to lower the criminal interest rate. I have spoken on this topic many times before. I am optimistic from the support I have received in the chamber, but alas, the bill has not passed.

The first time, the bill made it to committee, but then there was an election. The second time, it made it through committee, with amendment, but then another election. I also tabled it in the spring of last year, but, of course, there was another election. So let’s see if we can do it this time before another election.

Let us talk about the bill. The bill will revise section 347 of the Criminal Code that currently sets the criminal interest rate at 60%.

This legislation will set the following interest rate limit at 20% above the Bank of Canada rate, which is currently 0.5%. It would be a 20.5% maximum interest rate; after that it would be a criminal interest rate.

I have tied it to the Bank of Canada rate so that the limit will move with general interest rates and remain relevant to current markets as they change over time.

The criminal interest rate was first put into place in 1981. At that time, 40 years ago, the bank rate was at 21%. Now the rate is at 0.5%. Why should the Bank of Canada rate fall so low while interest rates paid by Canadians remain so high? It does not have to be that way.

This new rate limit of 20% over the Bank of Canada rate will leave almost all normal financial transactions alone. It is above the vast majority of credit cards, mortgage rates and standard loans. Since the bank rate will not likely go lower, and in fact will likely rise soon, there is no danger of this new limit falling below those standard rates. Almost every major bank credit card is 19.99% or less. However, it would affect the excessive outliers, such as late charges from phone and cable companies — look at your monthly statements — instalment loans, high‑interest credit cards, et cetera.

Many instalment loans, lines of credit, et cetera, that are being offered by some companies are also heavily involved in payday loans.

Fairstone advertises instalment loans at 26.99% to 39.99%; easyfinancial advertises unsecured instalment loan rates starting at 29.99%; Money Mart advertises at 29.90% to 46.90%; Loans Canada ranges from 2.99% to 46.96%; and Capital Cash loans are at 59%.

You wonder where that number comes from?

There are also some store-branded credit cards that have high rates. For example, The Home Depot card is 28.8%, as are other store cards.

[Translation]

These loans often target the financially vulnerable. They are even advertised not as last-resort loans, but as easy cash, and there is no mention of whether or not people can make the payments. Even the companies’ names focus on that aspect, as in the case of easyfinancial. These companies say that no credit check is required, that it’s easy money and so forth. They downplay the costs while giving the impression that they grant loans out of the goodness of their hearts.

Late fees would also be covered by this bill. For example, companies such as Rogers and Bell charge 42.58% interest for late fees. After 31 days, Alberta Utilities Commission charges an interest rate of 30% plus the prime business interest rate taken from the Bank of Canada website.

Most financial instruments would not be affected, but we can target those that I, like many of you, would consider to be excessive.

The purpose of this bill is not to criminalize legitimate financial activity, but section 347 of the Criminal Code is where the maximum interest rate is set and is therefore the most productive place to lower interest rates. Section 347 is currently used in civil contract disputes; it is not used as a criminal matter. This amendment would force down the interest rate, not cause arrests.

[English]

I will quickly address the issue of payday loans, which is quite different.

This legislation does not hit standard payday loans, although I do see them as a problem as well. Payday loans were carved out of section 347 in 2006. This placed regulation of small short-term loans — that is, loans under $1,500, no longer than 62 days — into the control of the provinces.

So they do not have to offer loans under this limit, recognizing that short-term loans require a higher fee in relation to an annualized interest rate.

Colleagues, the provinces vary in how they regulate. Generally, it is around $15 per $100 borrowed for up to $1,500 for a two-week period. Annually, that is an interest rate of 391%. In Quebec, they just won’t license any loan lender that charges more than 35%, effectively banning payday loans. They are the only province that does that in this entire country.

Honourable senators, we also made a mistake in 2006, when we agreed to the provinces regulating the payday loan industry. It was a mistake that Parliament made. It was a mistake the Senate made in agreeing to that part. I do wish that we will find a way to rescind that decision.

Payday loan companies have been busy and have expanded into loans that would fall under section 347 in regard to longer terms and larger amounts of money. Currently, they should be covered under the criminal interest rate, but there is a major lack of enforcement. My goal is for this bill to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate these excessive rates. Enough is enough.

In the last few weeks, colleagues have risen in this place to talk about how difficult it is for families with the inflation rate. The inflation rate has not yet gone down. How do you think that a normal family — some making a minimum wage that has not increased — can make ends meet, buy groceries, put gas in their car to go to work and buy medication for their kids? We rise this in this place and we say it’s awful; inflation is awful for what it’s doing to our most vulnerable. I do hope you understand that this bill is not aimed at any of us. This bill is aimed at those who are in dire need. Unfortunately, banking institutions do not necessarily have open arms to help them along when they are in need. But we have other institutions, like easyfinancial, which more than welcome them.

Some may say this will affect access to loans for many vulnerable people, but it isn’t a good thing for the vulnerable to have access to loans that they cannot pay back with these extreme rates and fees. I grant that this is a concern, so I will note that there are options, such as current low-cost borrowers, like Borrowell, with an average APR around 11% to 12%, not 59%, and home equity loans with rates around 10%. You have to ask yourself this question: If this business entity makes a profit with that amount of interest charged, how can we accept other entities coming to the Senate Banking Committee and saying that if they cannot charge 49%, they will have to close up shop? How can we accept that?

There are also secure credit options for building credit scores. Recently, Canada Post and TD Bank joined forces in a pilot project to offer Canadians in rural and unbanked areas small dollar loans through the post office at competitive rates, between 6.33% and 16.03%. This will provide Canadians across the country accessible, reasonably priced loans. The market test from the pilot project included over 200 post offices in select locations and aimed to gauge demand and impact on underserved communities. Canada Post has informed me that the pilot has been very successful at providing accessibility to key customer segments, with approximately 80% of those who received loans having no credit or credit scores below the national average. With the pilot recently completed, I am very excited to see how this progresses. I strongly encourage Canada Post and TD in making this a nationwide program. For the first time in more than 19 years in the Senate, I will thank and congratulate a bank. They earned it. Thank you, TD, for initiating this pilot project with Canada Post.

While many argue that high rates are the cost of accessibility, there are clearly companies that are able to operate with these lower rates. Also, I do not believe that the answer to this concern is to just throw our arms up and say that the financially vulnerable must pay extremely high rates because they are risky. We should be concerned and look at the issue of loan access for our most vulnerable. A previous version of the bill had been amended with a higher rate, and I disagreed with that rate. While I hope to have a fruitful discussion around the specific rate as we proceed, I will support 20%. The 20% covers the vast majority of existing options from mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit, government rates, et cetera. It particularly allows for the most common of these credit cards to continue unaltered, with a standard rate of 19.99%, so 20% plus the bank rate adjustment hits the right spot. I could also be persuaded to get it lower. That’s up to all of you.

These companies are all able to operate with rates at and well below this new limit, and in fact these rates have changed very little in light of the plunge in the bank rate over the last 10 years. Consumer debt is a growing problem in Canada, and the pandemic has made it even worse for too many Canadians. According to MNP, 6 in 10 Canadians are at least somewhat likely to borrow more before the end of this year; and 3 in 10 say the pandemic worsened their credit, their debt, or increased the debt burden on either themselves or their family. The number of Canadians who report being insolvent sits at its highest level since 2017, at 30%. Overall, consumer debt now stands at $2.08 trillion, which is up 0.62% from last quarter and up 4.78% from the first quarter of 2020.

Over the course of the pandemic, the Canadian government has borrowed at historically low rates, while Canadians themselves have continued to amass debt under what are extremely punishing interest rates for too many. The government has been using these funds to help Canadians, but this measure will help Canadians help themselves, and it does not cost the government a penny to do it — not one penny to help Canadians.

People do not take on debt lightly. They are often forced to through matters out of their control, be it an unforeseen medical expense, the loss of a job, a car breaking down or, perhaps, a global pandemic. This is a matter of fairness. It will help the most marginalized. It will help them not by paying off their debts but by giving them the opportunity to do it themselves. This is a hand up, not a handout.

I look forward to a lively debate, and mostly, I look forward to your support. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized, when and if it is formed, to examine and report on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, including, but not limited to:

(a)evaluating the effectiveness of the Framework in significantly, substantially and sustainably decreasing rates of suicide since it was enacted;

(b)examining the rates of suicide in Canada as a whole and in unique populations, such as Indigenous, racialized and youth communities;

(c)reporting on the amount of federal funding provided to all suicide prevention programs or initiatives for the period 2000-2020 and determining what evidence-based criteria for suicide prevention was used in each selection;

(d)determining for each of the programs or interventions funded in paragraph (c), whether there was a demonstrated significant, substantive and sustained decrease in suicide rates in the population(s) targeted; and

(e)providing recommendations to ensure that Canada’s Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention and federal funding for suicide prevention activities are based on best available evidence of impact on suicide rate reduction; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than December 16, 2022.

Hon. Anthony Rota (Speaker of the House of Commons): Your Excellency, President Zelenskyy, Prime Minister, Speaker Furey, party leaders, honourable parliamentarians, distinguished guests, mesdames et messieurs, welcome to this extraordinary event, a joint address to Parliament by His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine.

I thank all those who have made it possible for us to hear from President Zelenskyy today, whether here in the chamber or by video link.

[Translation]

I now invite the Prime Minister to address us.