Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on March 3, 2022, the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on March 22, 2022, its first report (interim).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in accordance with subsection 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46), the Senate approve the reappointment of Mr. Joe Friday as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for a term of 18 months.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, today I rise as an independent senator from New Brunswick to speak to Senator Dalphond’s Motion No. 15. I am mindful of the fact that I am speaking to you shortly after the International Day of La Francophonie, which took place on Sunday. Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, and I am sincerely grateful to them for welcoming us here.

First of all, Senator Dalphond’s motion reminds us that the Canadian Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land, is not fully bilingual, despite section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In fact, official versions of some of the constitutional texts that lay the foundation for our Canadian Confederation in the Constitution Act, 1867, exist only in English.

This motion calls on the federal government to consider adding to the Official Languages Act a requirement to submit periodic reports detailing efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 55 reads as follows:

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

[English]

Simply put, colleagues, Senator Dalphond’s motion seeks to give effect to constitutional commitments already enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. In a sense, this motion also highlights the need to implement the work undertaken by the French constitutional drafting committee in 1990, which drafted a French version of all the constitutional texts referred to in the schedule to the Constitution Act of 1982. At this point in time, the remaining step in implementing section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982 is to officially adopt these texts as alluded to in Senator Dalphond’s speech on this motion.

The Constitution could be considered the bedrock of our parliamentary system, colleagues. Therefore, with this motion we have an opportunity to collectively affirm our commitment to uphold and respect the Constitution. This is why, again as an independent senator representing New Brunswick, I support this motion.

[Translation]

On February 19, 2021, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages at the time, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, tabled a reform document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada, which contained a series of measures to strengthen the Official Languages Act.

In her introduction, the minister pointed out that the French language was in decline across the country and that concrete action was needed to achieve substantive equality between our two official languages.

It is important to remember that substantive equality means that, depending on the circumstances, a linguistic minority could be treated differently from a linguistic majority so that the former receives the same quality of services as the latter.

It should be noted that adopting a fully bilingual Constitution was not one of the concrete measures mentioned by the federal government in its reform document. This is confirmed by Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which was recently introduced in the House of Commons. In its current form, this bill does not contain any clauses related to the implementation of section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

François Larocque, an eminent professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, has already pointed out the following, and I quote:

The long road to achieving substantive equality begins first and foremost with minimal respect for formal equality, or parity. The enactment of the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts is a matter of formal equality and fundamental justice for French-speaking Canadians.

In other words, ensuring compliance with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is fundamental to achieving substantive equality of the two official languages, which will remain an unattainable ideal if the constitutional commitments set out in section 55 remain unfulfilled.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, during its exhaustive examination of Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act — including a short study on the official languages reform document — received input from stakeholders on how this act could be a vehicle to address the ongoing omission to adopt a fully bilingual constitution. Indeed, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has received briefs and heard testimony from La Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, La Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law, The Canadian Bar Association and eminent jurists — notably Professor Larocque — who all agreed on one central premise: the Official Languages Act must recognize the need to implement section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In the context of our current debate on the motion before us, their recommendations bear some consideration.

[Translation]

Although the committee did not officially recommend measures in connection with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in its final report on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it did make a good point regarding the non‑compliance with section 55, which I think is worth sharing:

 . . . the English version of these texts is still the only one that has the force of law. This has an impact on the interpretation of language rights by the courts, since judges cannot apply the shared meaning rule to both versions. The Senate Committee therefore calls on the federal government, in the context of modernizing the Act, to take the lead and follow up on implementing this constitutional obligation.

Professor Linda Cardinal, holder of the Research Chair in Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies at the University of Ottawa, and Professor Larocque concluded that the enactment of the French version of the Constitution is a matter of moral justice for Canada’s francophones.

That said, a fully bilingual Constitution would not only serve francophones in this country, but would also serve the interests of all Canadians, including us, as parliamentarians.

Knowing that constitutional texts are official in English only, how can we carry out our role as legislators correctly and thoroughly?

Explicitly making reference to the Constitution Act, 1867, our former colleague, the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal, eloquently said the following, and I quote:

 . . . when senators and members of Parliament need to refer to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, they can only use or refer to the English version, even though a Department of Justice translation is available. This is also true for anyone else who must refer to or quote from the 1867 Act.

If Canada wants to live up to its status as an officially bilingual country, it must respect the commitment in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. . .

How can Canada claim to defend the equal status of the two languages when its constitution is in English only?

Far from being a symbolic measure, Senator Dalphond’s motion embodies the idea that it is important to recognize and respect bilingualism and the linguistic duality of our country.

[English]

Colleagues, I support the overarching objectives of this motion, which simply asks the federal government to — at the very least — consider this important issue in the context of modernizing the Official Languages Act, an initiative that is currently underway in the other place. Although the Senate and its Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will presumably undertake this valuable independent work in the foreseeable future on the proposed Bill C-13, I nevertheless feel bound to give voice to this motion that raises a key constitutional issue for our bilingual country — one that has remained unresolved since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Éric Forest: It is my pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate started by our colleague Senator Simons to draw the attention of the Senate and Canadians to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

[English]

I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about the renewal of the relationship between the municipalities and other levels of government, as this issue has been at the heart of my political engagement for 40 years.

[Translation]

I will begin by saying that it may seem paradoxical to discuss the role of the federal government in Canadian municipal affairs, because local government falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government, giving rise to the oft-heard expression that cities are creatures of the provinces.

No doubt you know that I shudder when I hear this expression. First, because it is extremely paternalistic and disrespectful and it devalues municipal democracy, but also because it is not quite accurate from an historical perspective. In the history of human development, cities appeared before empires, countries and provinces.

The first municipal institutions in Quebec were founded in Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivières during the French regime, long before Confederation in 1867, under which the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction over municipal institutions.

[English]

In fact, it would be more correct to argue that municipalities create countries and provinces.

[Translation]

I apologize for that historical aside. Getting back to the federal-municipal relationship, I think it’s important to note that this relationship is not static and has evolved quite a bit over the past few decades. This is important to note, because I often hear people say that nothing can be done and that it would be impossible to rethink the nature of federal-municipal relationships without triggering a difficult round of constitutional negotiations.

Formally recognizing the role of municipalities in the Constitution would be ideal, but let’s be realistic. Given that it is virtually impossible to amend the 1982 Constitution, I think we should focus our efforts on changes that we can make outside the scope of the Constitution.

Over the course of my 40 years in municipal politics, I witnessed many attempts to redefine the federal-municipal relationship. I’d like to demonstrate that changes to this relationship are possible.

First, we need to recognize that the federal government has shown renewed interest in urban issues in recent years.

One such example is the recognition of the central role that municipalities play in our economic development. The economist and urbanist Jane Jacobs did a wonderful job of demonstrating that in the 1960s, saying cities create the wealth of nations.

Paradoxically, the national policies that are imposed on cities can end up curbing their vital activities. This truth stands the test of time and knows no geographic bounds.

In Canada, 80% of the population is concentrated in urban centres. No so-called national government can claim to have control over the economy unless it mobilizes our cities as economic drivers.

To paraphrase an old saying, what’s good for cities is good for the country — and vice versa.

Moreover, municipalities’ expenses have increased considerably in recent decades, partly because of responsibilities downloaded onto them by higher levels of government, but also because of the social changes some cities have been dealing with for some time.

Our colleague, Senator Boniface, did a great job explaining the situation when she talked about problems related to opioids and the municipalities’ responsibilities in that regard.

The pandemic has also made it clear that municipalities play a vital role in all aspects of human activity.

Cities have stepped up to facilitate vaccination. They have had to reinvent how they deal with homelessness. They have contributed to public health efforts since the start of the crisis. Montreal even stepped in for the federal government to better handle international travellers.

Clearly, no so-called national government can claim to be in control of public health, the fight against homelessness, mental health issues, welcoming immigrants, fighting climate change and more without mobilizing cities and municipalities.

Federal government involvement in municipal affairs is not a new phenomenon. As early as the 1920s, the federal government implemented national programs to improve housing conditions by providing loans and grants to cope with waves of mass immigration. Yes, we are experiencing a housing crisis at the moment.

It is also important to remember that, during the Great Depression, the government created a loan program to enable municipalities to upgrade their infrastructure and stimulate job creation.

In the 1950s, as the suburbs grew, the federal government supported municipalities by creating programs to improve water and wastewater infrastructure. In the 1970s, the federal government even established a Ministry of State for Urban Affairs to foster cooperation between the three levels of government. The ministry had a short life, however, as it existed for less than nine years.

The weak economy, the fiscal crisis, the federal government’s refocusing on its own responsibilities, and the particular dynamics of federal-provincial relations on the eve of the Quebec referendum dampened the federal government’s interest in municipal issues for a time.

What a shame.

It was not until the Liberal Red Book in 1993-94 that a proper infrastructure program reappeared. Originally intended as a temporary two-year program, it expanded greatly as the federal government’s finances improved.

Under the Paul Martin government of 2004 to 2006, we saw an interesting attempt at establishing closer collaboration between the federal government and the municipalities with the launch of Canada’s New Deal for Cities and Communities. This new deal was a real attempt at establishing:

 . . . a national urban policy aiming to transform federal-local relations by involving municipalities in public policy development.

This policy was based on three pillars: first, provide municipalities with predictable, long-term revenue streams; second, establish multi-level collaboration mechanisms for area‑based policy making in the larger urban centres; and third, introduce an urban lens to assess and improve federal activities in cities.

Unfortunately, this promising experiment ended abruptly with a change in government, but several worthwhile initiatives survived, from the sharing of gas tax revenues — an excellent initiative — to the full GST rebate and the inclusive cities initiative.

There is no denying that the need to review the federal-municipal relationship stems primarily from budgetary pressures, because the current financial situation of the municipalities is untenable. In 1955, municipalities owned 22% of public infrastructure in Canada. Today, municipalities are responsible for nearly 60% of all public infrastructure in Canada.

The revenues did not follow, however. In fact, the federal contribution to municipal budgets fell from 23% in the 1990s to 17% in 2005.

I was unfortunately unable to obtain updated statistics, but it is not difficult to imagine that the trend has continued, if not accelerated.

Municipalities’ current tax regime is based on property taxes, which represent more than 70% of their revenues. In the 1970s, the reason for this association was that the role of municipalities was basically limited to providing property-related services such as firefighting, wastewater treatment, and road maintenance.

This premise no longer corresponds to today’s reality, given that municipalities are now involved in all aspects of the organization of our societies.

When I was president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, we published a municipal white paper entitled “L’avenir a un lieu,” about the place of municipalities in the future. It called for the municipal taxation system to be adapted to take the municipalities’ current responsibilities into account and for municipalities to finally be recognized as local governments.

The idea of requesting a constitutional amendment was set aside.

It would have been too easy for higher levels of government to latch onto this as a pretext for not making changes. I believe that the strategy we proposed in the white paper is still valid and that only two things are required to revisit the federal-municipal relationship.

First, all levels of government must acknowledge that municipalities are local governments, which means that they are in the best position to address various issues. Once this has been generally acknowledged and there is a new division of responsibilities, we can review the tax base of each level of government. Like it or not, I think that a new division of responsibilities can be done through administrative agreements.

Seeing as Quebec and Ottawa have managed to come to an agreement on the transfer of responsibilities regarding immigration and skills training, for example, I don’t see why we couldn’t come to an agreement to assign municipalities some responsibilities that, I should point out, some already take on. The municipalities would receive more revenue in proportion to their increased responsibilities, and this would allow all levels of government to contribute to wealth creation, while focusing on environmentally friendly choices and social cohesion.

I’m not deluding myself. I know that this will involve some difficult discussions, but we’ve been sweeping problems under the rug for too long.

We unfortunately need to acknowledge that the provinces and Ottawa are just fine with the status quo because it gives them a fiscal advantage.

However, for the future of our country, we must be mature enough to consider this in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. This principle will help us determine which level of government is best suited for and most efficient at providing a given public service most cost-effectively.

I’m choosing to be positive here, in spite of the challenges. I suggest that we build on the progress made in recent years. I note, for example, that the Gas Tax Fund, renamed the Canada Community-Building Fund, is working quite well. It is a cornerstone of federal infrastructure programs and is framed by federal, provincial and territorial agreements that provide municipalities with considerable flexibility and predictability.

Another good example of a tripartite agreement is that Toronto, Canada’s top destination for immigrants, is a signatory to the Canada-Ontario-Toronto Memorandum of Understanding on Immigration and Settlement.

In the category of positive experiences, we could also include various urban revitalization projects that are led by tripartite organizations. Some examples that come to mind include the Corporation du Pôle des Rapides, which manages the revitalization of the Lachine Canal in Montreal, and Waterfront Toronto, where the relationship between Ottawa, the provincial government and the city has been institutionalized.

If we can agree on a piecemeal basis on how to share responsibilities in order to better serve Canadians, I am confident that we can achieve this with a more ambitious project.

In closing, I want to thank Senator Simons for raising this important debate. Now is the time to get this done. We have a moral duty to work together to modernize our institutions and create an effective environment for delivering quality public services at the local, provincial, territorial and national levels to serve the fundamental interests of Canadians.

I see a clear path to renewing the relationship between the municipalities and the higher levels of government. All it will take is a bit of political will.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman, for Senator Cotter, pursuant to notice of December 14, 2021, moved:

That, for the remainder of the current parliamentary session, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators be authorized to:

(a)meet even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto;

(b)hold hybrid meetings or meetings entirely by videoconference; and

That for greater certainty the provisions of subparagraphs 20 to 22 of the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid committee meetings apply in relation to meetings of this committee, including meetings held entirely by videoconference.

Senator Forest: This is a great illustration of the situation we are in.

I believe that when we look at pandemic-related issues, the people of Alberta or Calgary, or any city really, are the same people who turn to their municipality first to call for the adoption of measures that affect their daily lives. In that case, it is truly the cities that can take the pulse of their population and adopt appropriate measures.

The situation you mentioned is an anecdote that clearly shows the connection between the municipalities and the provincial governments.

Thank you for your question.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Esteemed parliamentarians, friends and colleagues, good morning and thank you for being here today to welcome a courageous and exceptional leader.

[English]

President Zelenskyy, on behalf of parliamentarians and all Canadians, it is an honour to welcome you to our House.

Mr. President, Volodymyr, you are a friend. Canadians and Ukrainians are friends, and they have been for a long time. Our people share deep historical ties. In the early 20th century, a massive wave of Ukrainian immigrants came to Canada. Many of them settled in the Canadian Prairies. They worked the land, they built churches distinguished by their beautiful spires and they helped shape Canada in significant ways.

[Translation]

Today, there are 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians in our country. This is the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. Whether as farmers, scientists, community leaders, athletes or frontline workers, Ukrainian Canadians continue to make a tremendous contribution to our country.

The friendship between Canada and Ukraine is based not only on this shared history but also on our shared values.

[English]

Volodymyr, in the years I have known you, I have always thought of you as a champion for democracy. Now democracies around the world are lucky to have you as our champion.

Your courage and the courage of your people inspires us all. You are defending the right of Ukrainians to choose their own future and, in doing so, you are defending the values that form the pillars of all free democratic countries. Freedom, human rights, justice, truth and international order are the values you are risking your life for as you fight for Ukraine and Ukrainians. Beyond that, you are inspiring democracies and democratic leaders around the world to be more courageous, more united, and to fight harder for what we believe in. You remind us that friends are always stronger together.

With allies and partners, we are imposing crippling sanctions to make sure Putin and his enablers in Russia and Belarus are held accountable. Today, in line with our European Union partners, I can announce that we have imposed severe sanctions on 15 new Russian officials, including government and military elites who are complicit in this illegal war.

[Translation]

Canada will continue to support Ukraine by providing military equipment as well as financial and humanitarian assistance. We will be there to help rebuild Ukraine once the aggressor is repelled.

[English]

In Canada, we like to root for the underdog. We believe that when a cause is just and right, it will always prevail, no matter the size of the opponent. This does not mean it will be easy. Ukrainians are already paying incalculable human costs. This illegal and unnecessary war is a grave mistake. Putin must stop it now.

[Translation]

Vladimir Putin’s blatant disregard for human life is absolutely unacceptable. Canada continues to demand that Russia stop targeting civilians and that it end this unjustifiable war.

[English]

Ukrainians are standing up to authoritarianism and, as parliamentarians united in this House today and all Canadians, we stand with you. As friends, you can count on our unwavering and steadfast support.

Now it is my great privilege to introduce to you all the President of Ukraine, our friend, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister, dear Justin, members of the government, members of Parliament and all distinguished guests and friends, before I begin, I would like you to understand my feelings and the feelings of all Ukrainians, as much as is possible, over the last 20 days of the full-scale aggression by the Russian Federation after eight years of fighting in the Donbass region. Can you imagine that at 4 a.m. each of you started hearing bomb explosions, severe explosions?

Justin, can you imagine you and your children hearing all these severe explosions, the bombing of airports, the bombing of the Ottawa airport, in tens of other cities in your wonderful country? Can you imagine that?

Cruise missiles are falling down on your territory and your children are asking you what is happening. You are receiving the first news as to which infrastructure objects have been bombed and destroyed by the Russian Federation, and you know how many people have already died. Can you only imagine? How can you explain to your children that a full-scale aggression just happened in your country? You know this is a war to annihilate your state, your country. You know that this is a war to subjugate a people.

On the second day you receive notifications that huge columns of military equipment are entering your country. They are crossing the border. They are entering small cities. They are laying siege, encircling cities, and they start to shell civilian neighbourhoods. They bomb school buildings. They destroy kindergarten facilities, like in our city in Sumy, in the city of Okhtyrka. Imagine that someone is laying siege to Vancouver. Can you just imagine that for a second and all of the people who are left in such a city? This is exactly the situation that our city of Mariupol is suffering right now. They are left without heat or hydro, without a means of communicating, almost without food and water. They are seeking shelter in bomb shelters.

Dear Justin and dear guests, can you imagine that every day you receive memorandums about the number of casualties, including women and children? You have heard about the bombings. Currently, we have 97 children who have died during this war. Can you imagine if the famous CN Tower in Toronto was hit by Russian bombs?

Of course, I do not wish that on anyone, but this is the reality in which we live. We have to contemplate and see where the next bombings will take place. You have your Churchill Square. We have our Freedom Square in the city of Kharkiv. We have our Babyn Yar, the place where victims of the Holocaust were buried. These have been bombed by the Russians.

Imagine that Canadian facilities have been bombed similarly to how our buildings and memorial places are being bombed. A number of families have died. Every night is a horrible night. The Russians are shelling us from all kinds of artillery and tanks. They are hitting civilian infrastructure. They are hitting big buildings.

Can you imagine a fire starting at a nuclear power plant? That is exactly what happened in our country. In each city they are marching through, they are taking down the Ukrainian flags. Can you imagine someone taking down your Canadian flags in Montreal and other Canadian cities?

I know that you all support Ukraine, and we have been friends with you, Justin, but I would also like you to understand and I would like you to feel what we feel every day. We want to live and we want to be victorious. We want to prevail for the sake of life.

Can you imagine calling your friends, friendly nations, and asking them to please close the sky, close the airspace, please stop the bombing? You ask them, “How many more cruise missiles have to fall on our cities until you make this happen?” In return, they express their deep concerns about the situation, when you talk to your partners. They say please hold on, hold on a little longer.

Some people are talking about trying to avoid escalation. At the same time, in response to our aspiration to become members of NATO, we do not hear a clear answer. Sometimes we do not see obvious things. It is dire straits, but it also allowed us to see who our real friends are over the last 20 days, as well as the eight previous years.

I am sure that you have been able to see clearly what is going on. I am addressing all of you. Canada has always been steadfast in its support. You have been a reliable partner to Ukraine and Ukrainians, and I am sure this will continue. You offered your help and assistance at our earliest request. You supply us with military assistance and with humanitarian assistance. You have imposed severe sanctions.

At the same time, we see that unfortunately this did not bring an end to the war. You can see that our cities, like Kharkiv, Mariupol and many other cities, are not protected like your cities are protected, like Edmonton and Vancouver. You can see that Kyiv is being shelled and bombed, and Ivano-Frankivsk. It used to be a peaceful country with peaceful cities, but now they are being constantly bombarded.

What I am trying to say is that we all need to do more—you need to do more—to stop Russia to protect Ukraine, and by doing so to protect Europe from Russian threats. They are destroying everything: memorial complexes, schools, hospitals, housing complexes. They have already killed 97 Ukrainian children.

We are not asking for much. We are asking for justice, for real support, which will help us to prevail, to defend, to save lives, to save life all over the world. Canada is leading in these efforts, and I am hoping that other countries will follow suit. We are asking for more of your leadership. Please take a greater part in these efforts, Justin, and all friends of Ukraine, all friends of the truth. Please understand how important it is for us to close our airspace to Russian missiles and Russian aircraft. I hope you can understand. I hope you can increase your efforts and you can increase the sanctions so they will not have a single dollar to fund their war effort. Commercial entities should not be working in Russia.

Probably you know better than many other countries that this attack on Ukraine is nothing less than an attempt to annihilate the Ukrainian people. This is the main objective. It is actually a war against the Ukrainian people. It is an attempt to destroy everything that we, as Ukrainians, do. It is an attempt to destroy our future, to destroy our nation, our character.

You Canadians know all this very well, and that is why I am asking you to please not stop your efforts. Please expand your efforts to bring back peace to our peaceful country. I believe that you can do it and I know that you can do it. We are part of the anti-war coalition, and jointly I am sure that we will achieve results.

To our Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, this is a historical moment, and we need your support, your practical support. We hope that with your practical steps, you will show that you are part of more than Ukrainian history. Please remember that this is a practical, modern-day history of Ukraine. We want to live. We want to have peace.

I am grateful to everyone in the Parliament of Canada who is present and to every Canadian citizen. I am very grateful to you, Justin. I am grateful to the Canadian people, and I am confident that together we will overcome and we will be victorious.

Glory to Ukraine. Thank you to Canada.

[Applause]

I now invite the Hon. George Furey, Speaker of the Senate, to say a few words.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That the Address by His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, to members of both Houses of Parliament, delivered Tuesday, March 15, 2022, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the Debates of the Senate of this day and form part of the permanent records of this House.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

Hon. Marty Klyne introduced Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to study matters relating to federal estimates generally and other financial matters, as described in rule 12-7(5); and

That the committee submit its final report no later than April 14, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for Senator Gold. Domestic violence is a scourge that kills too many women in Canada every year. The numbers in Quebec reached a record high in 2021. Since 2008, 26 women have been murdered. For the vast majority of them, this occurred in the context of domestic violence. Many women are forced to hide, flee their homes, leave their jobs and change their lives, even though they are the victims.

Since Justin Trudeau came to power, the Government of Canada has not taken any action to protect these women. Despite numerous calls for help, your government refuses to listen, choosing instead to introduce bills like Bill C-5, which will reduce sentences for abusers convicted of domestic violence. It is incomprehensible.

Senator Gold, I asked you back in December to engage in discussions with the Privy Council Office on my Bill S-205 to prevent femicide in Canada. Did you get any answers from that office regarding a government bill that would include the same measures as the ones in my bill?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, colleague. I’m still waiting for a response from the government on this.

Allow me to correct you, however. It is false to say that the government has done nothing on this file since coming to power. On the contrary, the government has allocated $100 million to women’s shelters, centres for victims of sexual assault, and other support organizations for victims of gender-based violence across Canada. Budget 2021 sets out an additional $200 million to support organizations that combat gender-based violence.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As a Quebecer, I am proud of the measures that our province has taken to better protect women. It is a testament to the calibre of the Quebec society that we belong to.

As I said, I am still waiting for a response, but I can assure this chamber that protecting women is a priority for the government, and that will not change.

[English]

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.