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.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable Senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Kutcher’s proposal for the Senate Social Affairs Committee to study the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention according to the specific criteria he lists in his motion. These include an evaluation of the framework’s effectiveness; an examination of rates of suicide in Canada as a whole and in unique populations; a report on funding and the evidence-based criteria for the selection of each initiative under the framework; the evidence of a “demonstrated significant, substantive and sustained decrease in suicide rates in the population(s) targeted;” proposed recommendations to ensure the framework and federal funding for suicide prevention activities are based on suicide rate reduction; and a requirement that the committee report be sent back to us in the Senate no later than December 16, 2022.

One of Senator Kutcher’s primary concerns with the current Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention seems to be that he is seeking to know the quantifiable, scientific effectiveness of the activities that have been implemented as part of the framework. However, I can’t help but notice that the content of this motion is somewhat similar to two studies Senator Kutcher published before his arrival in the Senate. The first, from 2016, was entitled “School- and Community-Based Youth Suicide Prevention Interventions: Hot Idea, Hot Air, or Sham?” and the other, from 2017, is called “Suicide Prevention: Doing the Right Thing Is Not the Same as Doing Something.” Both studied popular suicide prevention programs, and both concluded that those particular programs could be ineffectual and, in some cases, even harmful. I assume it is these types of programs Senator Kutcher had in mind when he requested that the Social Affairs Committee evaluate programs used by the government as part of the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention.

I’m not sure, though, because throughout his 15-minute speech, Senator Kutcher didn’t refer to any specific examples. He spoke vaguely about, as he put it:

. . . those who use the anguish of suicide and the pain and suffering of others to sell, promote or initiate activities, programs or products that they claim will prevent suicide but do not.

He also said:

We would like to be assured that the interventions that are being put into place have robust and solid evidence that they worked prior to them being applied.

There are no examples in his motion, either. Even when I gave Senator Kutcher the opportunity to explain what suicide prevention interventions the Trudeau government has implemented under the federal framework since taking power, he was unsure, saying that he couldn’t speak on behalf of the current government and any actions that they have taken.

I found that a curious response for a senator who is a psychiatrist and who even serves as a mental health advisor to the Trudeau government from time to time. I also remember seeing Senator Kutcher on TV as one of the few guests at Rideau Hall for the swearing-in of the Trudeau government’s new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Surely, if anyone were aware of what this government has delivered on mental health, it would be Senator Kutcher. If he’s drawing a blank, it doesn’t say much for the Trudeau government’s record of results in mental health and suicide prevention over the last six and a half years.

Since we don’t know what the Trudeau government has implemented, it’s unclear what the Social Affairs Committee would be studying. Senator Kutcher says, “We need to know.” But that’s the thing: we don’t. The motion is too vague to give the committee sufficient direction to know where to begin.

As Senator Kutcher stated in his speech:

We would not condone spending large amounts of taxpayers’ money for interventions that had little or no evidence of effectiveness.

Still, the question remains: Has any significant money been spent on suicide prevention interventions by this Trudeau government?

Unsurprisingly, the framework’s biannual progress reports from the Trudeau government are scant on detail — in fact, embarrassingly so. The two cursory reports that have been posted online so far use the same template and throw a few phrases into each section. This is far beneath what an issue as serious as suicide prevention deserves.

Of course, taxpayers’ money should be spent wisely, and of course, data and follow-up are important factors to evaluate the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions. But we must not lose sight of common sense either. The purpose of creating the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention was to give provinces and regions the ability to share best practices with one another — to not have to reinvent the wheel every time. Some of those ideas might be established programs or activities, but others could be relatively straightforward and low cost. For example, when the bill creating the framework was originally studied, one idea that was proposed at the time was limiting the number of Tylenol pills sold in one container. It’s a simple idea but one that could actually save lives. I don’t think any of us would require a lot of empirical data or prolonged committee study to understand that. I would hate to see Senator Kutcher’s motion squelch simple ideas like that one by bogging them down in bureaucracy and red tape, resulting in unnecessary delay when instead these ideas could already be in place, saving lives.

Senator Kutcher made the argument that suicide is an emotional topic, but said that, “Robust scientific study, using appropriate design methods and analytics, is needed to measure rates of suicide reduction.” I submit we must also be careful not to distance ourselves, through the detachment of academia, from the human element at the heart of suicide. At its core, we are dealing with people’s lives and deaths.

Senator Kutcher said in his speech that he’s met with family survivors and they have looked to him for answers about why a loved one’s suicide has happened and rarely could that question be answered. I disagree. Here’s the answer in 90% of suicides: mental illness. Survivors of family suicide need desperately to hear that answer so that they do not forever wonder whether there’s something else they could or should have done.

As many of you know, I am myself a family survivor of suicide. My late husband, former member of Parliament Dave Batters, struggled with issues of depression, anxiety and addiction. In 2008, while still a sitting parliamentarian, Dave chose to go public with his struggle with mental illness. It was revolutionary at the time. The stigma around mental health issues was huge. For public figures — particularly for politicians — mental illness was potentially a career-ender. There was no Bell Let’s Talk Day yet. The Senate’s groundbreaking Social Affairs Committee report on mental health had been published only two years earlier.

Throughout his illness, Dave and I experienced firsthand the shortcomings in the mental health care system. The gaps were many, and they were exceedingly painful. Tragically, Dave died by suicide in June 2009 — two weeks short of his fortieth birthday.

In the spirit of Dave’s openness about his struggle with mental illness, I issued a press release about his suicide. While significant stigma still existed around the discussion of mental illness, suicide was even worse: a taboo. Dave’s death moved that public discussion forward, out of the darkness.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave an important address at Dave’s funeral, speaking not only about Dave personally but also about the indiscriminate nature of depression and anxiety. He said:

Depression can strike the sturdiest of souls. It cares not how much you have achieved, nor how much you have to live for.

Prime Minister Harper’s speech was unprecedented in addressing the issue of mental illness and suicide publicly and openly. In fact, I know of psychology professors who actually had their students read that speech in relation to discussions of mental health awareness and suicide prevention.

In the years that followed, I became involved in mental health advocacy and fundraising, particularly in the area of suicide prevention. Still politically involved and still close with many of Dave’s MP colleagues, I supported member of Parliament Harold Albrecht’s private member’s bill to create the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention. I knew that such a framework was one way to help address some of those gaps we had experienced in the mental health care system and where regions could effectively share their ideas and best practices in suicide prevention with other regions across Canada.

I testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in favour of Mr. Albrecht’s Bill C-300 in March 2012. His bill was ultimately passed by Parliament in December of that same year, and the Harper government went to work to implement the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention.

I was part of the Conservative government caucus in the first few years that Mr. Albrecht’s bill was being implemented. I had frequent conversations with my caucus colleagues, including the Minister of Health, about the Federal Suicide Prevention Framework. As such, I knew the work they were putting in on this file.

By the time the Trudeau government took office in 2015, the Federal Suicide Prevention Framework had been established to the point where that government should have been able to just take the ball across the goal line. Yet seemingly they have not. When I look at what the Trudeau government has done on suicide prevention in the last six and a half years, it appears not much has been happening. Even their mental health adviser can’t tell us for sure.

I can tell you what the government has been up to during that time, though. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s crowning legacy “achievement” has been to legalize marijuana in Canada. While its legalization might be popular in some circles, the frequent use of marijuana is bad for mental health, increasing the risk of addiction and other mental health problems over time and potentially developing or worsening depression and anxiety. Research shows that these detrimental effects are especially of concern for young people under the age of 25, whose brains are still developing.

The other significant change this Trudeau government has made in the realm of mental health is to expand assisted suicide to include people who have mental illness as a sole underlying condition. In fact, it was the very sponsor of the motion before us today, Senator Kutcher, who recommended the legislative change to do that.

Senator Kutcher said in his speech on the motion before us today that the government should only fund suicide prevention programs that achieve “significant, substantive and sustained decrease in suicide rates. . . .” Well, do you know what doesn’t help achieve “significant, substantive and sustained decrease in suicide rate?s” Legislating suicide into a state-offered option for those enduring psychological suffering and offering suicide as a rational choice for the treatment of mental illness. That is what this Trudeau government has done for suicide prevention. That is a travesty, honourable senators.

The number of people who have accessed assisted suicide since its legalization continues to climb. Nearly 8,000 Canadians received medically assisted deaths in 2020, which was up 17% from 2019. That number was up 26% from the year before that. And none of those numbers yet incorporates the most recent and significant change: that of removing the near-death requirement and expanding access to those with mental illness as a sole, underlying condition. I expect, between the widening of the criteria to access MAID and the detrimental impact of the pandemic on Canadians’ mental health, we will continue to see the number of people seeking assisted suicide climb significantly.

Earlier this month, I was dismayed to read a tweet from the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, which illustrated the very scenario I had feared at the time this chamber expanded the assisted suicide criteria to include individuals not near death. It read:

Closed our GoFundMe Page today. We were to use the funds to try and assist a lady with disabilities who was not at end of life, but who chose MAiD rather than suffer due to lack of supports. We raised $270 dollars, $270 freakin dollars, she died by MAiD on Feb 23, she was 51.

Leaving Canadians with inadequate supports to meet their needs and then giving them the “option” of assisted suicide leaves them no options at all. That is the legacy of this Trudeau government.

I’ve spoken at length on the issue of assisted suicide during our debates on the issue before, so I don’t want to pursue it further now, except to say that the experience has made me leery of trusting the Trudeau government’s definition of whose “evidence” is considered adequate and whose hand-picked “experts” are selected to do the peer review.

Suffice it to say, while I appreciate Senator Kutcher’s quest for transparency from this Trudeau government — good luck; we’ve been trying for years — I do think the government should be providing much of this information already via its mandated Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention biennial report. The Senate’s Social Affairs Committee shouldn’t have to go begging for it. That the government is not proactively forthcoming with this information raises questions about the sincerity of their commitment to mental health and suicide prevention.

As I mentioned earlier, suicide prevention isn’t just an abstract academic exercise. It’s not just something you tweet about twice a year on Bell Let’s Talk Day or Mental Health Week. Suicide prevention is vitally important. It is about the saving of lives. That’s why I am concerned that the scope of this study, by focusing on this — what I believe to be a flawed motion — may itself be flawed and may do more harm than good.

Senator Kutcher’s motion asks us to study the effectiveness of the Federal Framework on Suicide Prevention, which hasn’t even yet been fully implemented by the Trudeau government. He’s putting the cart before the horse.

I would be all for the Social Affairs Committee studying the subject of suicide prevention in general. And by all means, yes, let’s encourage the Trudeau government to fully implement this framework. But the motion before us could actually undermine the Federal Framework on Suicide Prevention — and I would hope that none of us would want to do that. To what end, honourable senators? So we have to tear it down and start from scratch yet again?

After six and a half years of inaction from this Trudeau government, we can’t afford further delay, especially when, potentially, the cost is paid with the lives of vulnerable Canadians. That is why I will not support this motion. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That the Senate:

1.recall that, despite the commitment found in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have a fully bilingual Constitution, as of today, of the 31 enactments that make up the Canadian Constitution, 22 are official only in their English version, including almost all of the Constitution Act, 1867; and

2.call upon the government to consider, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, the addition of a requirement to submit, every 12 months, a report detailing the efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Klyne, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Boniface, there are a number of senators who wish to ask questions. Will you accept questions?

Senator Boniface: Of course.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Boniface, your time has expired, but there are a number of other senators who would like to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer a few additional questions?

Senator Boniface: With the permission of the chamber, yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.” I’m sorry, Senator Boniface. Leave is not granted.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Did I hear a “no?”

If honourable senators are opposed to leave, please say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?