The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Pate, there are still 14 minutes left. We have two senators who would like to ask questions. Is that okay with you?

Senator Pate: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Hon. Éric Forest: Thank you, Senator Pate, for speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable Canadians and for clearly explaining just how important this program is.

At the beginning of your speech, you spoke about the number of CEOs who had the gall to increase their own gigantic salaries while seeking public funds for their companies by applying to the COVID-19 wage supplement programs. If I recall correctly, you mentioned that 30 companies had done this. Could you please confirm exactly how many companies showed so little social conscience?

[English]

Senator Pate: There are a number of companies. I can certainly point you to the report. I don’t recall all of the names of the companies offhand, but I would be happy to send that to you and to all colleagues as a follow-up. Certainly, in the notes attached to my speaking notes, I have the direct hyperlink to those.

It was a shock to me, when I mentioned some of our colleagues, to find that when the five largest grocery chains in this country got together and decided to end the hero pay for front-line workers, it was not considered a conspiracy or contrary to competition law. That would be one example, and I certainly will be happy to provide you with more of those names. Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Thank you for your speech, Senator Pate. I think there are many different ways to approach the topic of a guaranteed basic income for Canadians. It doesn’t necessarily have to be through a single program. I will no doubt have the opportunity to speak to this bill and explain how we can share the same objectives of reducing poverty and integrating people, but using different approaches.

My question for you has to do with your speech and your approach, specifically. You mentioned the 1971 Senate report, the Croll report, a number of times. I would like to hear your thoughts on two of the fundamental aspects of the Senate proposal for a guaranteed basic income.

The first is that the guaranteed basic income was being proposed on condition that it be supported by a policy of full employment, which would involve a suite of active measures to support people in the labour force.

The second condition on the Croll report’s proposal was that the government definitely should not start by offering a guaranteed basic income to people aged 18 and over, but rather focus on people aged 40 and over.

What do you think about this and, most importantly, why would you want this proposal to include people as young as 18? Don’t you think it would be better to prioritize people who are a little older and have some work experience?

I would like to hear your thoughts on these two essential conditions from the Croll report that I didn’t hear you talk about much in your speech.

[English]

Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and thank you for all your work and for the time you have taken to educate me about the incredible initiatives that you have been part of and the research you have done, Senator Bellemare.

Yes, 50 years ago last year, when the Croll report was tabled, it talked about a broader approach to addressing poverty. In the ensuing 50 years, we have seen the evisceration of many of the supports that were then in place that actually meant that we had certain populations at greater risk of being in poverty than we do now.

As we saw in the B.C. research that has been done, almost every body of research starts with a suggestion that we start somewhere and incrementally build. In the B.C. model, it was women leaving violent relationships or people with disabilities. But when you actually read all those documents, we’re not talking about getting rid of other supports. We’re talking about building on and increasingly creating the kind of social, economic and health safety nets that Canada, quite frankly, has dined out on internationally for many decades but hasn’t necessarily been worthy of that reputation for at least the past three or four. I think it’s vitally important that we look at the work that you and others — and I mentioned Senator Lankin, Senator Wetston — and members who are here in the chamber now, like Senator Woo, and all of this work. I shouldn’t start naming people because then I forget people, but there is incredible work being done and I think there is a great body of knowledge and expertise here that can assist the government in moving forward on this.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I can see how a universal program might seem very appealing, but I would like to go back to the idea of adopting more targeted measures to tackle poverty. Senator, how did you react to the second report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, specifically the part where he laid out the impact on income distribution should a guaranteed basic income be funded with money currently allocated to existing programs? In other words, several programs would be abolished to fund one universal program. If we look at the impact on distribution, it is clear that the group most severely impacted would be single-parent families, whose income would decrease under a guaranteed basic income system. Single-parent families are currently the second-poorest segment of society, and they would lose over $5,000 per year if a universal basic income program like this one were introduced.

Maybe you missed that bit of information, but I think it is proof that universal programs can sometimes hurt the very people we want to help.

[English]

Senator Pate: I agree. There were facets of the costing that I certainly have questions about and have raised with the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well. I think one correction perhaps is that we’re talking about universally accessible, we’re not talking about a universal basic income such as a demo grant, which has been recommended by some where it would go to everybody and then be pulled back at tax time.

When I first started looking at this some years ago, I was interested in all of these facets, but in talking to people like our colleagues Senator Downe and Senator Wetston, people who have more expertise — and former Senator Eggleton, who spent his pre-Senate life, his working life, as an accountant helping people with money protect and hide that money — we don’t want that. We also need tax reform, which I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer touched on but doesn’t really go into.

Then when I talked to Senator Downe, he talked about the fact that those who are hiding money offshore — of course, an issue that he has a tonne of expertise and I have none in — that we could virtually fund an initiative like this with the tax resources that are lost by some of those sorts of measures. Then I talked to Senator Wetston and he talked about how we need to address the money laundering issues in this country. That’s why I say I’m very excited about the possibility of a number of us working on this, looking at a framework, addressing these issues and meeting those challenges because it’s not that we should hide our heads in the sand about the very real challenges of doing this in a country as large and with as many jurisdictions as Canada. But the fact that we pretend that we’re not already paying multiple billions of dollars — tens of billions, hundreds of billions — to deal with not dealing with poverty, I think that is where we are putting our heads in the sand. That’s what I’m suggesting that we need to stop doing. We need to look at how we can actually invest those resources so they create better opportunities for everybody in this country, not just those whom we — because of myths and stereotypes — judge to be deserving or those who do not.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Galvez’s motion to recognize that climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response.

Such a motion is not unprecedented. In fact, on June 17, 2019, the House of Commons passed a motion put forward by the former minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna to declare a national climate emergency in Canada.

As Senator Galvez said:

By passing this motion, the Senate will demonstrate the solidarity our fellow citizens expect and send a strong message to the House of Commons and the government that the Senate is finally ready to take on the challenge and will henceforth expect more ambitious and meaningful climate action.

As of December 4, 2021, a climate emergency has been declared in over 2,000 jurisdictions and local governments, covering 1 billion citizens worldwide. In Canada, over 500 local governments, covering 99% of the population, have declared a climate emergency.

We are beginning the year 2022 knowing that catastrophic events took place last year — floods, fires and unbearable heatwaves. In British Columbia, the Coroners Service eventually reported that 526 people in the province died as a result of the heat. An analysis from World Weather Attribution, a collaboration of scientists, later determined that the devastating heatwave would have been virtually impossible without climate change caused by human activity. If we do not want this crisis to worsen, we need concrete action.

For almost three decades, the United Nations has been bringing together almost every country on earth, including Canada, for global climate summits. In that time, climate change has gone from being a fringe issue to a global priority.

For the first time ever, in Paris in 2015, every country agreed to work together to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees and to aim for 1.5 degrees.

As well, there is scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to human activity and that greenhouse gas emissions must be massively reduced. The COP26 meetings held last year in Glasgow identified in particular the need for significant new investments to fight climate change.

It is clear to everyone involved in this area that concerted action is required to meet these ambitious goals. Others speaking to this motion have spoken eloquently with respect to the extent of the climate crisis and the actions that are required, and I will not repeat those arguments here.

The main purpose of my brief comments today is to try to understand how Canadians themselves view climate change and whether we are up to the challenge. Recently I read a piece in The Globe and Mail, describing the booming worldwide demand for luxury cars: massive three-tonne structures with fuel consumption ratings of 12 miles per gallon — but you can get 17 on the highway — which are flying off the dealers’ lots. When you read this, you have to wonder how such disdain for the environment can co-exist with our climate challenge.

Still, I want to try to make sense of some of the public opinion research on aspects of climate change. We can look at it from the perspective of Canadians’ awareness of the existence of climate change, their knowledge regarding climate change, perceived consequences of climate change and — last but definitely not least — what Canadians are willing to do to address the issue.

International surveys as well as Canada-only research confirm that Canadians’ understanding of climate change has come a very long way. A report by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication presents results from an international survey conducted in over 30 countries and territories worldwide in February and March of last year. Among its many findings, 89% of Canadians say that, yes, climate change is happening. This ranks Canada in fifth place — imagine, there are four other countries higher than 89% — in the world in recognizing this basic fact.

Similarly, an October 2021 Abacus Data survey finds that almost all Canadians — 93% — believe there is at least some evidence that the earth is warming. That includes 69% who say there is either conclusive or solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. This latter view has increased over the previous six years with a notable increase in the numbers of Canadians who now say there is conclusive evidence of warming temperatures.

Knowledge that global warming is caused by human activity is growing. In 2015, 71% felt global warming was being caused by human activity. This is now 75%, according to Abacus. Similar findings are shown in the Yale study, with 86% of Canadians agreeing that climate change is mostly caused by human activities or equally by human activity and natural changes.

I conclude from these and many other similar findings that there is significant awareness and knowledge of climate change. But what about the climate emergency that is at the heart of the motion before us? An Angus Reid Institute survey from last November — just a few months ago — indeed shows that three quarters of Canadians believe that climate change poses a serious threat to the planet earth. A Leger Marketing survey recently found that 85% of Canadians agree that global warming is a serious threat for mankind.

As Senator Galvez has noted in her speech to her motion, the way we should actually address climate change is subject to debate and deliberation. But since Canada has committed ourselves — this country — under the Paris Agreement to an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, it is clear that serious action is required.

Are Canadians ready for this?

Well, when it comes to individual actions, it’s a mixed picture. In looking at some of the public opinion data, I was disappointed to see what I would say is a lack of engagement among Canadians in taking up truly impactful individual actions to mitigate climate change. For example, in a very extensive Ipsos poll taken in 2020, before the pandemic, only about 20% of Canadians said they take public transit and avoid taking planes and travelling by car whenever possible in order to reduce carbon emissions. Even fewer than one in five people limit their consumption of meat and dairy, ride a bike or use renewable energy in order to reduce emissions.

How do we bridge the gap between the significant awareness and recognition of the climate emergency on the one hand and the lower level of enthusiasm to take action at the individual level? In fact, the gap is actually bridged by government action. Whether we like it or not, Canadians are looking to government to take the steps necessary to deal with climate change.

For example, the Yale survey that I mentioned earlier from 2021 shows that 7 in 10 Canadians say that climate change should be a high priority for government, and an equal number say that the Canadian government should do much more to deal with climate change. Six in ten strongly support Canada’s participation in the Paris Accord.

Governments have a vast arsenal of policy options available, including taxation, subsidies and regulation. Public support varies for a number of policy initiatives.

A 2021 Leger survey finds, for example, that 7 in 10 Canadians support capping and reducing pollution from the oil and gas sector to net-zero by 2050; two thirds support a policy to stop exporting coal by 2030, and; 6 in 10 support ending subsidies that help oil and natural gas companies operate and expand their operations outside Canada.

About half of Canadians, according to various polls and depending on what is asked, support the federal government’s carbon pricing initiative, which is its most significant policy in place meant to reduce carbon emissions.

All this being said, we have to recognize that the Covid pandemic and its challenges to Canadians’ health and to the economy has shifted the focus somewhat toward other issues on the national agenda, especially in the recent period. Also, inflation has grown in importance as an issue in recent months as well as during the recent federal election campaign, and this concern adds to existing unease about jobs and income security.

Still, it’s important to note that even in this challenging economic environment, Canadians place environmental concerns at least on an equal footing with economic concerns. This was found in a 2021 survey conducted by the Environics Institute. As well, Nanos Research found in a 2020 poll that 49% of Canadians placed the priority on the environment, even if it causes less growth and job loss, compared to 39% who prioritized jobs and growth over environmental protection.

Colleagues, in my brief comments today I have tried to present a picture of some aspects of public opinion related to the climate emergency. I would conclude that Canadians have come a very long way in their understanding of the climate crisis. They are aware that climate change is real, they understand it, and they see that its impact is immense. They look to government to take actions, and they support some serious policy directions.

I also believe that Canadians are open to more change on a personal level. If over 80% of us can be persuaded to double vaccinate over the course of one year — that is, going from 0 to 80% — so too I believe we can we make progress in promoting better individual actions around the environment.

By passing this motion, I believe the Senate can bring our strong voice to this debate and continue to move Canada and Canadians in a positive direction. I say to us all, let us pass this motion with enthusiasm. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Hello, tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

[English]

I also acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe and Algonquin First Nations.

I am honoured to speak in support of this motion by Senator Rosa Galvez, the senator in this chamber with the most expertise on the science of climate change. If this scientist alerts us to the urgent need to declare a national climate emergency, we would do well to respond carefully, thoughtfully and rapidly.

We are exceptionally fortunate to have her voice here in this place, bringing credibility to the Senate and to Canada in multilateral settings around the world.

I similarly applaud the Senate of Canada coalition for urgent climate action, and in particular Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their initiative in bringing this inclusive work group into being. By this I mean that as an unaffiliated senator I get to participate along with any other senator, because this issue is bigger than any lines drawn by our small ways in this place.

This evening I hope to be respectful of the brilliance and tenacity of youth leaders who woke up to this crisis much sooner than most of us. For the first time, colleagues, Canada has become an old country. The 2016 national census marked a new reality. Canada has more folks in the age range of this chamber than younger generations. This is a shift that does not bode well for Canada unless we amplify intergenerational joint action.

From the age of 12, Autumn Peltier has continued in the line of Indigenous matriarch leaders with her clarion voice as a water defender. She reminds us that we can’t eat money or drink oil. And repeatedly she has reported that she has not felt respected or heard — perhaps because she is a young Indigenous woman. Autumn has said that it is almost like the politicians “don’t believe climate change is real. Climate change is a real thing and they are not realizing that.”

When Autumn was recognized at the elite gathering of the powerful at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she said that people are awarding her, but:

“I don’t want your awards. If you’re going to award me, award me with helping me find solutions. Award me with helping me make change.”

No corner of the globe is immune from the devastating consequences of climate change. Rising temperatures are fuelling environmental degradation, natural disasters, weather extremes, food and water insecurity, economic disruption, conflict and terrorism, both international and domestic. Sea levels are rising; the Arctic is melting; coral reefs are dying; oceans are acidifying; forests are burning.

To state as much is not fear mongering. It is the tragic reality we are living today and will only increase in frequency and magnitude. As other senators have noted in this debate, we need look no further than our own recent Canadian experience of wild fires, flooding, infrastructure and ecosystem collapse, heat domes and Arctic degradation for the evidence that this truly is an emergency, truly a crisis. It is beyond obvious that business as usual is illogical, ineffective and immoral. It has been said that we fool ourselves if we think we can fool nature. As the infinite cost of climate change reaches irreversible highs, talk, debate and negotiation fall away. This is not a climate negotiation because we can’t negotiate with nature. What is required is action, inspired by this truth that this is an emergency.

I was recently inspired by Dominique Souris, the founding executive director of the Youth Climate Lab, who has said:

. . . real action and real leadership does not lie at the negotiating table, but on the ground. Young people and local communities are the drivers of this change.

In explaining why the Youth Climate Lab was founded, Dominique said:

. . . we were frustrated with a lack of meaningful youth engagement, which is why we created Youth Climate Lab.

. . . young people today, especially those on the front lines have the most at stake and the most to gain when it comes to fighting climate action. So Youth Climate Lab focuses on supporting youth to create and support climate solutions because as a generation youth are the most impacted by climate change.

I agree with Dominique Souris that young leaders are some of the most collaborative, intersectional and innovative problem solvers that create the solutions that we need. Not seeing youth as partners to solve this is a total missed opportunity and, she goes on to say, it’s even a moral mishap.

Speaking of young leaders, I’m honoured to be able to work with members of my youth advisory from many parts of Canada on a range of issues. Now a Toronto university student, Aleksi Toiviainen was in high school when he suggested to me that we start the climate justice work group of youth advisors, which is now active and paying close attention to what Parliament is doing about the climate crisis. They well know that they are the ones who will soon be living the impact of the decisions that parliamentarians make today.

Colleagues, it is imperative that we do not myopically reduce climate change discussions to a simple accounting of temperature. As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, report clearly establishes with sound, concrete, scientific rigour and unparalleled data, climate change is already affecting every region on earth in multiple ways. Many of the changes observed in the climate are unprecedented in thousands of years, and some of the changes already set in motion, such as continued sea level rise, are irreversible.

Climate change is intensifying the water cycle, bringing more intense rainfall, flooding and more intense drought in many regions.

Coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding, rapid Arctic ecosystem devastation such as the loss of seasonal snow cover, melting of glaciers and ice sheets and loss of summer Arctic sea ice.

Changes to the ocean including warming, more frequent marine heat waves, ocean acidification and reduced oxygen levels have been clearly linked to human cause.

Urban areas are not immune to these worsening conditions which manifest in increased urban temperatures, flooding, fires, food and resource shortages. All of these have costly impacts on basic services, infrastructure, housing, human livelihoods and health.

While technology has contributed to this climate crisis, new and efficient technologies can help us reduce net emissions and create a cleaner world. Readily available technological solutions already exist for more than 70% of today’s emissions.

I am not talking here about the proposals from the nuclear industry. That is not a viable way for us to go in finding technological solutions to the climate crisis.

In the meantime, nature-based solutions provide breathing room while we tackle the decarbonization of our economy. These solutions allow us to mitigate a portion of our carbon footprint while also supporting vital ecosystem services, biodiversity, access to fresh water, improved livelihoods, healthy diets and food security. Nature-based solutions include improved agricultural practices, land restoration, conservation and the greening of food supply chains.

Honourable senators, please consider these words from Dr. Andreas Kraemer — founder of the Ecologic Institute and senior fellow at the Canadian Centre for International Governance Innovation — at COP26 where he described how we have:

. . . missed the opportunity to initiate meaningful change, particularly to integrate the ocean into the climate agenda, and the damage about to be done to marine ecosystems will be in the trillions of dollars.

Several trillion, whether euros or U.S. dollars, in surplus liquidity are currently stashed in household bank accounts, accumulated during the pandemic and waiting to be spent once restrictions are lifted. On release, this pent-up demand will reinforce existing economic patterns and accelerate the destruction long underway.

Dr. Kraemer goes on to state:

Driving earth’s overheating are dominant patterns of production, trade, and consumption, reinforced by perverse subsidies and tax rules. Along with the deteriorating climate, rising inequality, and modern slavery, cocktails of chemicals poisoning life on land and in the water, rapid loss of biological diversity, and disruptions of natural cycles are the direct consequences of policy choices and business practices. About 15 percent of economic activity might be sustainable, 85 percent is clearly not. The 15 percent should expand. The 85 percent needs phasing out fast.

Dr. Kraemer continues:

National stimulus packages are small by comparison, and investment in infrastructure that locks in dirty practices is still too high. All eyes are on “building back better” rather than “building forward toward sustainability.”

At the COP26 summit held last November in Scotland, there were mixed results. Despite the many advances and new commitments reached at COP26, the wider consensus was that Glasgow revealed the weight of unkept promises, missed targets and a growing loss of public confidence in national commitment and capacity.

As Senator Forest aptly surmised in his comments, is it any wonder that the public is increasingly losing faith in federal promises and instead turning to local, municipal, community and grassroots leadership instead?

A group of Canadian and Scottish researchers in environmental law and governance from the University of Ottawa, the University of Cambridge and the Quebec Environmental Law Center have provided a stark assessment of the COP26 summit.

While acknowledging that the 1.5-degree temperature increase target remains alive, these scientists stress that the goal is in critical condition as the required concrete measures to achieve it are still lacking. It is telling that, under the Glasgow Climate Pact, states did not adopt new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Among the positive results of COP26 was a strengthening of certain alliances among states. This was the case, for example, of the Powering Past Coal Alliance co-founded by Canada, which aims to eliminate unabated coal power. It now has 165 members, including 28 that joined during COP26.

Another example is the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, which aims to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Quebec joined, but not Canada.

These agreements, which were concluded in parallel to the main negotiations, may allow states to take action on issues where there is still no international consensus.

At COP26, Canada was one of more than 130 countries that signed a declaration to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It covers more than 3.6 billion hectares of forest around the world. However, 40 countries, including Canada, signed a similar agreement in 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests, yet deforestation increased 40%.

Senator McPhedran: I would appreciate it. I can wrap up in one minute, Your Honour.

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you from the traditional, unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people in Riverview, New Brunswick.

I rise today in support of Motion No. 14 introduced by Senator Kutcher in December 2021, which proposed that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to conduct an in-depth study of the federal framework for suicide prevention. It would explore and examine what has transpired around suicide prevention since the framework was implemented in 2012.

The framework’s objectives were to reduce stigma and prevent suicide. What has transpired and what is the evidence? Senator Kutcher suggests that a robust scientific study using appropriate design methods and analytics is needed to measure rates of suicide reduction.

I believe that the committee is the place where all aspects of the framework could determine the effectiveness of each component and review what could help in future planning for the prevention of suicide.

I wanted to add my voice to support this motion because it’s a complex and deeply personal issue for many Canadians, including me. During my social work career of over 30 years working on mental health issues and suicide prevention, I have known many people whose family members died by suicide and who faced a most difficult and painful experience after their loss. Suicide impacts family members, but also those who work on these issues and our communities at large.

Many of the situations that I witnessed around suicide relate to youth and young adults. One particularly painful personal situation involved close friends. Joanne and her son Richard lived with my daughter Melissa and me. As single parents, Joanne and I shared space, meals and many conversations related to supporting and raising our teenage children. Richard and his mom were very close. In 2011, Joanne died of cancer. Richard was devastated, and he died by suicide in 2017. I felt so sad, as they were so close to my family.

In situations that I have known around suicide, these folks were deeply loved by their families. The mental health impacts on their families cannot be understated. I will share another tragic situation that occurred in my home province of New Brunswick last February 2021.

Lexi, a Grade 10 student, appeared to have an outgoing nature and constant smile that masked the pain she was experiencing inside. In November 2020, she became depressed and unsuccessfully attempted suicide. On February 18, 2021, while at school, she spoke to a guidance counsellor who knew about Lexi’s history and encouraged her to go to hospital to seek help because she was experiencing some depression.

Lexi went to the hospital and sat for eight hours. Later she went home feeling like a burden. Her father always believed that if she had gotten help that night, there would have been a different outcome.

While in hospital, according to the hospital record, Lexi was assessed by the triage nurse as being urgent and requiring an emergency intervention. Yet she only saw an ER physician who repeatedly asked her if she could keep safe if she went home. Lexi repeatedly answered that she could not.

Finally, after hours in hospital, Lexi replied, “Yeah, I think I can,” and was sent home with a referral.

The next day, February 19, the physician’s urgent psychiatrist referral was faxed to the Victoria Health Centre. This fax was then forward to Lexi’s assigned integrated service delivery clinician but did not result in a psychiatric referral as intended. Lexi died by suicide on February 24, 2021.

After her death, her parents were very vocal and wanted something done to prevent future tragedies. Her death sparked a public outcry and eventually led to promises by our health minister, Dorothy Shephard, to fix the province’s broken mental health care system.

A comprehensive report prepared by the New Brunswick Child & Youth Advocate was part of the review of the services. It was an in-depth report with many recommendations, but it has left me wondering: Has there been change? Has the problem been fixed or improved? I have no idea.

I am sure there are situations across Canada like this one. What are we doing? It has been a year since Lexi’s death and I am left wondering, what next? Hence why I support the Senate study, as it’s a matter of life and death.

Many people are at risk of suicide, but I believe our youth are particularly vulnerable and at risk, especially Indigenous, LGBTQ+ and other marginalized youth. I believe it’s the right time for the study as proposed in Motion No. 14.

A couple of mothers I know personally find ways to cope with their grief. Mary, Tony’s mother, often posts on Facebook to remember him after almost four years since he died by suicide. Last week, she wrote:

It’s almost four years since I got the phone call. Even though there are many days I feel so sad, it seems like yesterday. I struggle even now not believing it’s true. I love you, my son.

She said:

These anniversary dates are the worst of any day. I can be in tears. My son, my first-born child, was the kind of person everybody looked up to. His friends and family treasured their relationship with him. I’m sad and I look forward to the day when we are reunited.

Mary’s grief is real and continues to be a sharp reminder of this tragedy. Another mother, Sheree Fitch, is a well-known East Coast author with a colourful, whimsical imagination. Her lyrical rhyming children’s books Mabel Murple and Toes in my Nose were inspired by her children. Sheree’s son Dustin died by suicide almost four years ago. To help her cope and understand her grief, she wrote and published her book You Won’t Always Be This Sad. The writing is raw, real and explores the depths of a mother’s love. She found healing in the creative process. She said, “I’m regathering bits of myself and that feels good after being shattered.”

Many parents who have lost their children have reached out to her after reading her book. I honour those who walked this journey, perhaps still wondering why or what they could have done differently. I honour the lives of Richard, Lexi, Tony, Dustin and Becky and the many I have not named who have died too soon.

I believe it’s imperative to undertake the study to explore, examine and evaluate and make recommendations for the future. I urge you to support this important study, as I believe it is important to many Canadians. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion 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 five years, a report detailing the efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Senator Plett: Certainly, Your Honour. Thank you.

Senator Tannas, when I read paragraph 2 of your motion — maybe I’m not reading it right, but it says:

. . . when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill . . .

I fully agree with you that the government’s mismanagement is not our urgent matter. But are you not allowing the government leader here to decide that their mismanagement — constant, everyday mismanagement — is in fact an urgent matter?

We were told before the bill was introduced in the House of Commons that Bill C-10 is already an urgent matter. And it’s not yet before the House of Commons. Does this not kill your entire motion?

Senator Tannas: It’s a good question. Frankly, that is a matter for debate as opposed to urging at leaders’ meetings, wheeling and dealing at leaders’ meetings, pressure in caucus or groups to stand quietly and not object, pressure on every single senator not to give leave or to give leave knowing every single senator individually — it’s actually a way to divide us all, the way that we have been doing it.

This way, the government leader would have to get up, he would have to make his case about why this is an urgent matter. We could, in debate and through questions, ask him why it’s an emergency. Then, we can actually collectively decide through a standing vote whether or not it is an emergency. It still allows for bad planning, for it to become our emergency. But we will do it on purpose and transparently, and through a vote.

Senator Plett: I accept that is your intent, Senator Tannas. Of course, as I said, when debate collapses here, I’ll move adjournment because I want to study that. I don’t think what you just said would, in fact, happen the way I read this.

I’m not a Philadelphia lawyer, but to me, this reads as Senator Gold can decide and tell us this is an urgent matter, and he could say, “Now, I don’t care what paragraph 1 says. I say it’s an urgent matter.” To me, this looks like our incompetent government — and I don’t want to say our incompetent government leader. It’s our incompetent government, who Senator Gold has to represent unfortunately — is still allowed to do what I said.

We might want to find a way of amending that. I’m not sure, but we will certainly want to look at that for a while and see whether or not — if you want to reply to that, certainly, please do. It was a comment more than a question, but please.

Senator Tannas: Again, we are looking to find whatever rule possible to legitimately recognize real emergencies, debate and decide that it is an emergency, and move, rather than by deciding through side negotiations and pressure that will certainly always come from the government: phoning people, telling people we’ve got to get this done, et cetera. According to them, it’s vital. It’s always vital, always an emergency.

We have got to take those discussions out of the hallways and into the chamber and allow senators to decide whether or not — and how they want — to waive their constitutional rights and obligations in the consideration of legislation. We are wide open to any amendments you think will help solve the problem. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Tannas, I’ve just looked at this briefly myself. Is it correct that if the sort of urgent matter the government is potentially going to say some of these bills are, then it’s your paragraph 3 that states to determine whether it actually is an urgent matter, there could be a debate, but that debate could last only 20 minutes with 5-minute speeches, and with four senators maximum having the ability to speak for 5 minutes? I’m not sure if that would get to the crux of the matter. Certainly, I can understand the need to not have a lengthy, protracted debate. However, that seems to be an extremely short debate, especially for a place like the Senate.

Senator Tannas: I agree. We put something that was as short as we thought possible, with the view that we would look closely at it. It might make sense to have an hour-long debate. It might make sense to have a five-hour debate. We’re wide open to ideas, but we picked 20 minutes, so if it’s truly an emergency, it should be obvious to us. Maybe it won’t be. Maybe sometimes we’ll need more time to flesh it out. Maybe we should increase the time frame.

Hon. Scott Tannas, pursuant to notice of December 14, 2021, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.except as provided in this order, the question not be put on the motion for third reading of a government bill unless the orders for resuming debate at second and third reading have, together, been called at least three times, in addition to the sittings at which the motions for second and third readings were moved;

2.when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill;

3.when a motion has been moved pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order, the following provisions apply:

(a)the debate shall only deal with whether the bill should be deemed an urgent matter or not;

(b)the debate shall not be adjourned;

(c)the debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes;

(d)no senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes;

(e)no senators shall speak more than once;

(f)the debate shall not be interrupted for any purpose, except for the reading of a message from the Crown or an event announced in such a message;

(g)the debate may continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, if necessary, until the conclusion of the debate and consequential business;

(h)the time taken in debate and for any vote shall not count as part of Routine Proceedings;

(i)no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain senator be now heard or do now speak;

(j)when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and

(k)any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and the bells shall ring for only 15 minutes.

He said: Honourable senators, you will recall my speech and the subsequent discussion we had during the final days of our December sittings when we reluctantly waived our rights and obligations to thoroughly consider legislation that, in some cases, had only just arrived in our chamber hours before the scheduled adjournment for the holidays.

In fact, there were a number of bills that were passed in December by us through a process that involved us waiving some or all of our Rules regarding our processes long established for sober second thought.

Some of the bills were urgent. They were financially urgent. They were needed by Canadians. They were in response to the COVID crisis. Frankly, some of the bills were politically urgent and with less clear rationale for such swift passage without consideration in accordance with our Rules. We passed them all.

Many of us on that final day expressed regret and frustration at being forced, influenced and encouraged to compromise our duty to sober second thought. There was a consensus over the course of that discussion to examine this issue and to take action to prevent us from falling into the same situation again.

I think when you look to solve a problem, you have to make sure you understand what the problem is, and so let me pause with what I think the problem is. I think there are two things we should focus on.

First, the House of Commons does not appear to accept that the Senate needs time to fulfill its constitutional duty to apply sober second thought to legislation. I think that’s clear by their actions, particularly last December and last June. I would say those were exceptional situations, but I have been here for nine years. It seems that this has happened over and over again, but none more obvious than last December. I would say that’s problem number one.

Problem number two, I think, is that over many years and many governments of different political stripes, the Senate has enabled and reinforced the government’s expectation that the Senate will waive its rules and/or truncate its processes when receiving bills in the final days of the session. We have, through our own actions, shown that we will be a willing partner in throwing over what our job is in the final days of the session.

With those two problems on the table, how do we consider solutions, and what are they? We have had discussions about this before. We have good rules. We choose to waive them. So the first and foremost suggested solution to this problem involves a change of behaviour by us. We have to stop granting leave all over the place; leave to break our own rules on legislation, particularly. That is an easy first step.

In aid of that, I’m pleased to announce that after discussions, the CSG senators will not grant leave to facilitate or waive our rules on the passage of any legislation anymore. That’s not going to be there. We can rely on our rules. We can debate changing our rules. We can hear explanations about changing our rules. But in situations where we are asked to grant unanimous consent, we will not provide it. I hope all senators from all corners will consider adding their negative voices if and when we are asked in the future.

I think we also need to be a bit more critical of emergencies. There was a statement I made once before, something to the effect that your bad planning is not my emergency. Bad planning is not an emergency. Political expediency is not an emergency. Even if we want to see the legislation passed, if we support it with our hearts, we still should do the job we are here to do. In business, no matter how good the deal or how important, there is an issue of due diligence that must be undertaken, and we need to do our job in providing due diligence.

Those are a couple of ideas around behaviour change that we need to consider and look to ourselves on as we look to solve this problem. I think we have to have better communication and more candid communication. Committees need to, I think, get in front of bills, understand and communicate what they see as a work plan, maybe earlier in the process. It’s something to consider, to communicate with the government leader and the chamber how much time they believe they will need if they are assigned the job of reviewing legislation.

I think we have some communications efforts to educate members of Parliament and the public as to what work we actually do on a bill and why it takes as long as it does. I think we should also show that, in most cases, we deal with a bill faster than the House of Commons does, even when we are applying our normal rules and discipline, so that we get the real facts out about the job we do, how long it takes in comparison to the other place and make sure that everybody understands the value of that. I think we still have lots of work to do in that area.

The third action I think we need to take is to make some adjustment to our rules. I think we have to make an adjustment that recognizes that there are going to be emergencies when we will need to move faster than our current rules allow. If anything has highlighted that, it is COVID-19. But we should have some clear rules around how we are going to do that. If we do, I think that will allow better transparency, it will allow debate and it will make it clear that we have considered, thoughtfully, on purpose and in a public way, and waived our rights and obligations to full sober second thought.

That is what Motion No. 30 attempts to capture. There is a process by which we would have a procedure within our own rules to deal with genuine emergencies in a transparent and orderly way, through a brief debate, triggered by the government leader, and then a standing vote. In that way, we can publicly and thoughtfully decide whether or not — whatever the bill is — it is an emergency worth having us suspend our rights and obligations under the Constitution. Maybe all three of these things — a change in our behaviour, better communication and changes to our rules — will allow us to avoid the Christmas crunch and the June jam-up that we have suffered so many times.

I know others have ideas on how to deal with this; others may say there is nothing we can do. But we look forward to debate and discussion on this motion. There is no pride of authorship. We are wide open to amendments, additions, deletions — whatever senators want. I undertook, on behalf of a number of people who asked, to put something forward, and after consideration I think Motion No. 30 is helpful. It is one of the things that needs to be done and I look forward to continued discussion. Thank you, senators.

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

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

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved third reading of Bill S-207, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle.

He said: Honourable senators, I’ll be brief today. I thank the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which has studied this bill and has reported it back without amendment. I would like to acknowledge Senator Audette’s contribution to the debate. She took it upon herself to proactively reach out to the Mohawks of Kahnawà:ke First Nation to ask if they had any comments to make. I hope the electoral boundaries commissions will follow her lead and take the initiative to consult with First Nations in the territories covered by the electoral districts that are being redrawn.

I urge you to pass this bill today and send it back to the House of Commons, where it began nearly three years ago, so we can bring it to a successful conclusion, perhaps even before the next election, which may come sooner than we think.

With that, I will turn it over to Senator Carignan, who may have a few words to say.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Yes, to put it in legal terms, I do not dissent from my colleague on this bill. I think an honest mistake was made, and changing the name will correct that mistake. It’s a bit sad that, in the age of high-speed internet, it takes three and a half years to send a message from the House of Commons to the Senate.

I agree, and I move that we proceed immediately to third reading of the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Pate, thank you very much for bringing forward this bill.

As you and I know, many of us have been working on this for many years. I think of the work of Evelyn Forget in trying to finally bring together the research from the Dauphin, Manitoba project. I think about the changes that have been made, and the calls and some sort of patchwork from the Eggleton-Segal report. I think about the report on social assistance reform in the province of Ontario, which called for enhancement of the disability benefit and a basic income. Those were over the years. I think of P.E.I. more recently being interested in exploring this.

It doesn’t matter the political stripe of the government in power over all of these decades that we have been fighting for this; there is a stop — a hard wall. It seems to come from the Finance Department. I’m not blaming bureaucrats; they have their interests, reasons, philosophy, ideology and whatever. I want to understand it better, because I have never gotten a straight answer from them. They talk about the problems of design, but those are problems to be solved.

Have you, in your discussions with the minister or the department, gotten any clear information about why they continue to say “no” and won’t pursue what so many Canadians think is a much more inclusive and much more deliberately compassionate social policy?

Senator Pate: I wish I had a clear answer for you. My answer is “No, I have not received clear understanding,” hence the reason I spoke about many of the myths and stereotypes about poor people and the assertions that, in fact, CERB has significantly impacted the labour situation in this country when all of the available evidence to the government and beyond reveals just the opposite.

The only thing I have heard is that some have said, “Well, that’s not the legacy project this particular government or any government was looking for.” I think that’s beyond regrettable.

As we’re seeing outside the doors of this chamber right now, people’s frustration with their inability to navigate throughout this pandemic is rooted in the evisceration of social, economic and health policies over decades, and then is being used — I would argue is being appropriated — by some with very extreme horrific views, and they are exploiting people who are very much struggling to get by.

It’s imperative that not just the government, but all of us, look at how we move forward on this. I thank you very much for all of the work you have done historically, both in this chamber and before being in this chamber in the work you did provincially, municipally and throughout the country.