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

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Harder, thank you for that. I think that it would be a fascinating study, and I think that it’s important that we turn our minds to leadership of this particular important institution as well as — as Senator Jaffer talked about today — Corrections Canada. And, of course, we’ve had discussions about the Canadian military. You’re right in terms of the RCMP being a paramilitary culture, and that’s the same in corrections as well. It brings with it — as evidenced by the crisis that we see in the Canadian military itself — this kind of cultural behaviour that follows attitude.

I want to participate in your inquiry and potentially a study looking at that, but I want to ask you today about federal policing powers. I think that you’ve hit on something very important. I know that the RCMP has certainly put forward this position at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I have been part of conversations that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians have had about this. In addition to the list of federal policing powers, you talked about organized crime. So, for example, in this latest round of special measures for CERB, we found that organized crime was involved in skimming money from those benefit programs. Yet it is my understanding that the RCMP is very strained in terms of its budget to be able to fulfill its federal policing duties. Could you speak a little bit more to that, please, and what the impact of that is? Thank you.

Senator Harder: Thank you very much, senator. It is a bizarre situation where a national organization such as the RCMP has a contractual understanding with the Attorney Generals of the provinces, for whom they are provincial forces, on precisely what the priorities and obligations of the force are in respect to the provincial policing role. They don’t have such a contract with the federal government, so the constraint of budgets is all felt at the federal level. And the training that is necessary for the kind of RCMP work that you and I referenced just isn’t up to scratch with our competitors or even the criminals with whom they are dealing. I think the time has come, at least in my view, that the federal policing role be adequately resourced, deliberately defined and properly managed.

Senator Gold: Canada’s two official languages are fundamental to its identity. Recognition of Indigenous languages is also an important step on the path to reconciliation. I think the appointment of the current Governor General and her commitment to mastering French are assets for Canada.

Senator Boisvenu: I think you’ve identified the real problem. What’s really disappointing is that it takes a private member’s bill to protect women in Canada, when it should be the Justin Trudeau government introducing this bill. As a member of the Privy Council, will you commit to asking the Minister of Justice to introduce the same bill that I have introduced here, but as a government bill, to protect women in Canada?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved second reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to my bill regarding the repealing of mandatory minimum penalties and upholding the coveted sentencing principle of judicial discretion.

[Translation]

Before I begin sharing with you all why this bill is so important, I would be remiss if I did not begin by acknowledging and truly thanking Senator Pate for her tireless advocacy and work on this and so many other issues.

[English]

Senator Pate, I want to thank you for your exceptional work around these issues and for helping me draft this bill.

Senators, I viewed Senator Pate in prisons and I tell you that prisoners across the country look to her to protect their rights. She has built such credibility on these issues that they look to her to make sure that she will be there to speak in the Senate to protect the prisoners’ rights.

Senator Pate, I’m in real admiration of your work and thank you for your work.

In spite of their name, mandatory minimum penalties are in direct contravention of judicial discretion of one-size-fits-all. The cookie-cut approach to sentencing, such as mandatory minimum penalties, destroy the ability of judges to determine appropriate sentences based on an individual’s particular circumstances.

Honourable senators, it is easy for us to make laws we believe are right in the warmth of this chamber. We make laws we believe will benefit society and yet we, most of us, do not see the people who are most impacted by these laws.

The judges across the country do see these people. They come to know their circumstances, the circumstances on which they base the judicial sentencing principle. Every day the judges see their faces when they are making a decision about whether or not to send a person to prison and for how long.

In their current form, mandatory minimum penalties tie a judge’s hands. They give them little other options than to look at the person in the face and sentence them without sufficient consideration of their circumstance.

We parliamentarians, without knowing these individual cases, have decided that their sentence is against sentencing principles. In doing so, we parliamentarians are directly preventing judges from doing the job they were appointed to do.

The bill I have in front of you, in summary, says it allows a court to decide to not make a mandatory prohibition order provided for under a provision of that act, or to add conditions or vary any conditions set out in that provision if the court considers it just and reasonable to do so. It requires the court to provide its reasons for making such a decision.

[Translation]

What is more, the imposition of mandatory minimums effectively rejects considerations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[English]

In this way, mandatory minimums undermine the founding principles of sentencing outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code, namely:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives . . . .

As many of you know, I have long been an advocate for the importance of judicial independence. A cornerstone of independence rests on the ability of a judge to use their discretion and determine the correct ruling in the matter they are tasked with adjudicating.

Honourable senators, those of you who have been in this place for some time will also know I’ve always been in support of addressing the injustices which persist due to mandatory minimum penalties. I have introduced a bill not once, not twice but three times regarding the use of mandatory minimum penalties.

In June 2013, I introduced Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exception to mandatory minimum sentences for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death).

In November 2013, I introduced Bill S-209 of the same name.

In February 2014, I once again introduced Bill S-214 with the same name.

[Translation]

As is clear by the title of all three bills, I was focused on addressing the use of mandatory minimum penalties with regard to changes of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death. I know now that I did not go far enough.

[English]

Honourable senators, that was then and this is now. I now realize that I should have had a more extensive bill.

Last parliamentary session, the federal government introduced Bill C-22, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill marked a step forward in that the government was at last acknowledging the failures of mandatory minimum penalties and seemingly committing to moving fast on their routine use.

Despite these very commendable efforts, the bill did not go far enough. Rather than taking a clear stand against all mandatory minimum penalties, and thus wholly reinstating judicial discretion, the bill simply repealed 19. The number is even more inadequate when you consider with the fact that to date at least 43 — I repeat, senators — 43 mandatory minimum penalties have already been struck down by the courts at all levels throughout this country.

As I speak, the courts continue to rule mandatory minimum penalties unconstitutional and disproportionate in how they are applied, with an emphasis on how they reinforce systemic racism.

Honourable senators, as we all know when hearing bill titles, speeches and political rhetoric from all sides in both this and the other place, it can be easy to lose sight of the human beings at the forefront of every issue we face and every decision we make.

In fact, when it was first tabled in the other place, I was very supportive of Bill C-22 and I argued with some of you to let us encourage this bill to go through as it’s important that we have something in place. It was important that we have some kind of government acknowledgment in place. I saw it as a step forward, and I still do.

That said, we know that the government is planning to reintroduce a bill regarding mandatory minimum penalties. Before they do, senators, we now have a chance to send a very strong message by sending this bill to the other place. We can send a message that this time we will not just accept a tick mark. We’ll not accept going one quarter or even halfway on this issue.

Senators, we have the opportunity to tell them the time is now to restore judicial discretion and to ensure justice is upheld for all people in Canada. Honourable senators, this bill is so important because flawed legislation directly impacts lives.

[Translation]

Most often, it is the lives of those who are most readily ignored and who are forced to find ways to survive that come into conflict with the law.

(1540)

[English]

Some of you may have heard of the story of Cheyenne Sharma, a young Indigenous girl. At the time of her sentencing, Cheyenne was 23 years old and a single mother. Cheyenne’s grandmother is a residential school survivor who was impregnated at age 13. Her mother was caught in the grips of the foster care system.

When Cheyenne was just 5 years old, her father was deported to Trinidad. Cheyenne first ran away from home at 13 years and then 15 years old. Consequently, she was forced to begin prostituting herself. She said the reason was because she needed the money to pay rent, as she was facing eviction. Honourable senators, I ask you for a moment to think about our own children. Where were they at 13 and 15 years old? What were they doing? Were they in school? Were they playing their favourite sports? Did they spend a lot of time out having fun with their friends? Cheyenne did not have the opportunity to do any of these things. By age 17, Cheyenne had attempted suicide multiple times.

[Translation]

From the moment she was born, Cheyenne was forced into circumstances entirely out of her control.

[English]

Honourable senators, mandatory minimum penalties do not allow a judge to consider any of Cheyenne’s circumstances, only that she committed a crime.

Thankfully, in this instance, the Ontario Superior Court justice, Justice Casey Hill, who was presiding over her case concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence of two years, which he was being tasked with imposing, “. . . would outrage standards of decency” and would violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Cheyenne’s all-too-rare instance, a semblance of justice prevailed. However, honourable senators, we cannot leave the balance of justice to lean on the goodwill of some well-meaning and compassionate judges. Honourable senators, I really wish that this was a precedent-setting ruling, but it was not. Unfortunately, other judges across the country are not bound to follow Justice Hill’s stellar example. Far too often this is not the end result.

Over the summer, I was very shaken when I accompanied Senator Pate and saw firsthand the realities of prisons in Canada after two years of the pandemic. There is a conception around society that prisoners are very well treated. Well, senators, I did not see that. I was also most outraged by the disproportionate numbers of racialized men and women in maximum security prisons.

[Translation]

In Fraser Valley Institution, there are women from minimum and medium all the way up to maximum security.

[English]

When we first met with staff inside the prison’s gymnasium, we were told that 61% of prisoners and 89% of those classified as maximum security are Indigenous women. This is yet another example of the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples, in particular of women in prisons across Canada.

We also visited Kent Institution, the only federal maximum security prison for men in the Pacific region. When we arrived, we were met by the senior staff at the prison who informed us that out of 240 men inside, 88 — about one third — are Indigenous, and 22 are Black. I would like to remind you all that Indigenous people represent less than 5% of our entire population. We also learned that some prisoners feel that prison has created a racist and toxic environment. This is another reminder of the racism and discrimination that happens behind prison walls every day.

Honourable senators, these people are suffering and very few people are listening. When the length of their sentence is blindly decided by the mandatory minimum sentencing legislation we pass, it should not be considered a punishment. It is sheer cruelty. It follows that, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator, 30% of all federally sentenced prisoners and 42% of federally sentenced women are Indigenous. This rate has increased by 43% since 2010. During the same period, rates of non-Indigenous incarceration decreased by 14%. The Office of the Correctional Investigator pointed to the ongoing failure of the criminal legal system to respond to needs, histories and social realities of Indigenous peoples at the root of these high rates of criminalization.

There is a further problem with mandatory minimum penalties. It makes it impossible for the court to follow section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to ensure Gladue factors are taken into account. Fundamentally, the Gladue principles ensure judges account for the fact that Indigenous people rarely have the same access to justice as non-Indigenous people, which often impacts the outcome of their cases. Gladue also pushes judges to act with increased awareness with regard to their legal matters and, if applicable, their sentencing. Honourable senators, how can judges look at this if they are bound by mandatory minimum principles?

For clarification, Gladue principles means a judge must consider:

• your community’s perspective on the situation, their needs, and their suggested alternatives to jail. Your community can be the Indigenous community where you live or come from, but it’s also your support network or the people you interact with. If you live outside an Indigenous community and aren’t connected to one, you still have a community.

• the laws, practices, customs, and legal traditions of your Nation or the Nation where the alleged offence took place.

• ways of making decisions that are sensitive and appropriate to your culture.

Ultimately, the principles aim to account for documented daily and seemingly routine injustices faced by Indigenous people within the justice system.

Accordingly, this bill is directly aligned with the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

In 2015, the government’s election platform included a promise to implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In 2019, the Minister of Justice’s mandate letter reiterated the need for progress toward this goal and toward the implementation of the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Both demand that minimum sentences be remedied.

Echoing this sentiment, the federal government itself noted that the percentage of Indigenous people in prison federally due to a mandatory minimum penalty has almost doubled in the last 10 years: 39% of all Black and 20% of all Indigenous federal prisoners have been convicted of a crime that carries mandatory minimum penalties.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, how can we expect people to be able to safely and successfully reintegrate into our communities when we keep locking them away for longer and longer sentences, without considering what circumstances led them there in the first place?

[English]

To date, Canadian courts have found a significant number of minimum penalties invalid on such grounds. Nearly half — some 31 of the 72 minimum penalties currently in force — have been found unconstitutional by at least one court. Of these, about 25 mandatory minimums have been struck down as invalid in various provinces. In 11 cases, a court that struck down the mandatory minimum was a Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

(1550)

In 2016, in R. v. Lloyd, the Supreme Court drew attention to Canada’s precarious position with respect to mandatory minimums and called on Parliament:

. . . to build a safety valve that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum will constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This exemption is related to the application of minimum penalties.

Senators, I repeat what the Supreme Court of Canada has said: It will constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Without legislation such as this bill before you all, mandatory minimum penalties have to be challenged one by one before the courts, tying up significant court and government resources, and requiring individual Canadians to shoulder the heavy burden of mounting constitutional challenges. In too many cases, those facing a potential unconstitutional minimum simply do not have the means to defend their rights. At the same time, for those with the most resources, mandatory minimum penalties allow for and even encourage drawn out legislation, including constitutional challenges.

[Translation]

Individuals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to trial and trying every trick up their lawyers’ sleeves to avoid a harsh sentence, rather than seeking early resolution.

[English]

Honourable senators, you may remember the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on court delays identified the strain that mandatory minimums place on scarce judicial resources and pressing issues of trial delays. During the study, at least 11 different criminal justice experts singled out minimum penalties as a factor contributing to overall delays and inefficiencies in the court system. Worst yet, such principles are in sharp contrast to what occurs in cases where mandatory minimum penalties are applied. Mandatory minimums often shift discretion from judges to other actors with virtually no accountability either to the public or to the appeal process.

Honourable senators, those other actors are us. For instance, Crown prosecutors are often tasked with determining what charges to lay and whether to pursue a mandatory minimum penalty. Far too often, their reasons have little to do with legal principles. In some instances, these powers are used as bargaining chips to encourage a person to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than risk facing the mandatory minimum penalty of a more serious one, if they are convicted.

Honourable senators, today we have an opportunity to send yet another clear message that we do not support this flawed approach to federal sentencing. This bill will provide judges with the long overdue alternative to imposing mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, it provides judges an unfettered ability to exercise their expertise when determining whether or not it is appropriate to apply mandatory minimum penalties. In doing so, it ensures judges are freely able to not impose a mandatory minimum penalty, in particular when doing so is determined to be inappropriate or unjust.

What this bill does not do is give judges a golden ticket to act unfairly or arbitrarily. In fact, the powers this bill aims to provide judges are not new and are in line with the Criminal Code. As many of you will know, section 726.2 of the Criminal Code clearly states:

When imposing a sentence, a court shall state the terms of the sentence imposed, and the reasons for it, and enter those terms and reasons into the record of the proceedings.

It follows that all judges are required to give reasons for their sentencing decisions. In addition, their decisions must be rooted in legal principles and are subject to scrutiny from the general public, the legal community and other judges through appeal processes.

Honourable senators, I know these principles of transparency and fairness are ones which we will take seriously. The bill intentionally does not go so far as to prevent judges from imposing minimum sentences. It will simply add a requirement that judges must reflect on and provide justification and fairness in imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

In 1987, the Canada Sentencing Commission found that 9 in 10 judges concluded that mandatory penalties had interfered with their ability to render a just sentence. Also in 1987, when there were 10 mandatory minimum penalties and their approach was deferred to file less frequently, still 57% of judges approved of their use. They went so far as to state that their use inhibited their ability to determine fair and appropriate sentences fitting of the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Since then, the issue continues to worsen. In the decades since, the use of mandatory minimum penalties in Canada has continually grown at an alarming rate. This bill follows the experts’ leads by allowing judges not to impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

[Translation]

I would ask you all to carefully consider this question. Honourable senators, what are we waiting for?

[English]

The reality in Canada can and should be contrasted with the experiences of other democratic states whose laws include mandatory minimum penalties. Many, including England and Wales, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and jurisdictions, and even a number of U.S. jurisdictions, have taken steps to ensure the integrity and constitutionality of their laws and the rights of their citizens by allowing some form of judicial discretion. In most cases, the judicial discretion extends to even the most serious life sentences.

Honourable senators, I want to share with you the words of a man at William Head Institution, in my Province of British Columbia, whom I had the privilege of speaking with this past summer. He told me “the way the federal prison system functions is churning out broken people.” I cannot get those words out of my head: “churning out broken people.”

We now have an opportunity to change this long-held course.

Senators, when I was a young defence counsel, I often went to court with my senior partner, the Honourable Mr. Dohm, who used to be a judge before he retired. He taught me that when a judge sentences somebody, he has to balance everything. He has to balance what kind of person will return to society. He always used to say to me:

We do not throw the key away. Sooner or later, those prisoners will be released, and they will have to be reintegrated into society.

Honourable senators, I ask you, with the system we have at the moment, when a prisoner from William Head said that we are “churning out broken people,” is this the right system?

[Translation]

I am deeply troubled as to whether we are doing anything meaningful to prepare prisoners to be reintegrated into society.

Honourable senators, please join me in opposing unnecessary mandatory minimum penalties and standing up for judicial discretion.

[English]

Honourable senators, we are supposed to look after the most marginalized people. The time is nigh for us to stand against this injustice. The time is now to stand up for true fairness and equality for all. The time is now to move forward together.

I hope, senators, you will give this bill serious consideration. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question for the government leader today is related to the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which will be observed tomorrow. There have been other questions related to supporting that important community.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government attempted to phase out funding for the Centre for Equitable Library Access and the National Network for Equitable Library Service, which both work to provide accessible reading materials for people with print disabilities. Thankfully, this decision was reversed in March, and the two groups had their funding restored for one year. This was described at the time as an interim solution.

Leader, the year-long reprieve that your government granted will soon come to an end. Has your government found a long-term resolution to help these two organizations continue their important work?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, in my question last week regarding the murder of Marylène Levesque, I mentioned a report by coroner Stéphanie Gamache, who recommended that dangerous criminals released by the Parole Board of Canada be made to wear an electronic bracelet.

Yesterday, Deputy Premier Guilbault, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, announced that the government would start requiring violent men to wear an electronic bracelet starting in the spring of 2022. The electronic bracelet has become an increasingly popular tool to protect women who are the victims of domestic violence and to save lives.

During this week of action on violence against women, I want to remind you that, over the past six years, your government has done nothing to protect women who are victims of domestic violence, and when it did act, it was only to hide them at home. I introduced Bill S-205 last week, which would require the use of these electronic bracelets. Senator Gold, since Bill S-205 would take the measure Quebec is considering to protect Quebec women and apply it to the rest of Canada, would you agree to prioritize this bill, so that it can be sent quickly to the Legal Affairs Committee, to ensure better protection for Canadian women?

Senator Gold: Thank you for raising the question. Yes, indeed, I’ll have to inquire and report back. Thank you for that.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): With respect to the issue involving the CEO of Air Canada, the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland work as a team.

As for the Governor General’s bilingualism, first, I hope that Canadians agree with me to say that the effort the Governor General made in delivering the Speech from the Throne was impressive. She clearly made a great effort, and that was a sign of respect for our official languages. We should also note the historic significance of this event, because this is the first time a female Innu member of our Indigenous peoples has become Governor General. It is a credit to the government that it made that choice, but it is also an honour for Canadians.

Senator Moodie: You have given me a challenge because there is, as you say, no clear research approaches that would lead to a definitive cause and effect.

I would say this: We do have surrogate models that do show us how children’s brains develop in response to various negative triggers. We know a lot about toxic environments and toxic recurrent exposure that children gain early in life and the long-term effects.

There are other surrogates that my colleague Senator Kutcher might be able to share as well, around the development of the brain and behaviour patterns of children who are exposed repeatedly to negative stimuli.

With that in mind, I would extrapolate it to say that although we cannot in any purposeful way expose children to noxious stimuli, such as recurrent exposure to pornography and to sexually explicit materials, in fact, we do have surrogates that suggest that they would behave in the same way and in a very similar way to the outcomes. That’s the best we can do. I know that we do have limitations in this area, but we also know that there are lots of examples where if we modify the exposure that we give children, we can change the outcomes that we see.

(On motion of Senator McCallum, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I commend you for your dedication to such an important cause and for your work on this bill. Since it is a Senate public bill, I am on the same footing as all other senators and can’t do anything to prioritize it. I urge the parliamentary groups to ensure that they make decisions on your bill and all of the others on the Order Paper.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, a recent CTV News report revealed that a large number of Afghan refugees are living in Canadian “ghost hotels” for months on end. Those hotels lack basic amenities, such as a kitchen and laundry facility. To make matters worse, children are not allowed to go to school. These families often arrive wearing sneakers and sandals that are not appropriate for our harsh winter. They rely on the kindness of neighbours to get their basic needs.

Senator Gold, the government committed to welcoming 40,000 Afghan refugees but is already struggling to provide for fewer than 4,000 Afghans here today. Why has there been no follow-up with those families? What is the government planning to do to help them?

Senator Gold: Again, I confess that I don’t know the details of all the different measures that are being taken by all the many groups, whether faith-based, community-based or government-supported. I know that Canadians in all parts of the country and organizations are doing their very best to assist.

As I said, again, I will try to get a fuller picture, and I would be happy to share it when I can.

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which is tomorrow. I wish to highlight the intersection of disability and poverty with information released by Campaign 2000 in their 2021 report card on child and family poverty in Canada, No One Left Behind: Strategies for an Inclusive Recovery. Thank you to Senator Moodie, who shared information from this report on Tuesday during her statement on National Child Day.

Almost one in three working-aged people with disabilities live in poverty. Before the pandemic even started, 26% of people with disabilities reported their needs were unmet due to financial barriers when it comes to the cost of required aids, assistive devices or prescription medications. Campaign 2000 is urging the inclusion of children with disabilities in any legislation involving disability income benefit reform. They are recommending that the federal government develop a “comprehensive, broad, and adequate benefit program for children with disabilities.”

I often say that there is no such thing as child poverty, since children do not live in isolation from their families. We should be talking about family poverty. Families caring for a child with a disability are often burdened with extra costs that other families are not, leaving them with a significant need for more support and, at times, unmet needs.

Honourable senators, when we talk about the need to build back better after the pandemic, we know there are some groups at risk of being left behind, such as children with disabilities. Colleagues, I urge you to help ensure that the government’s attempts to build back better leave no one behind, especially not children with disabilities. Asante. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you. Senator Kutcher, a year before I was named to the Senate, I actually testified at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in favour of Bill C-300, the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act. Given the tragic life experience of the suicide death of my husband, former MP Dave Batters, the Health Committee called me to testify about that bill.

As the Conservative government was then in power, I was named to the Senate a year later. I had the opportunity to have frequent interactions with the health minister of the Conservative government at the time and with my MP colleagues, of course, in the Conservative caucus. Then the Trudeau government has now been in power for six years.

During the time of the Conservative government, I know that substantial progress was made to set up the framework and to do consultations across the country. But since the Trudeau government has been in power for six years, I really haven’t seen much if any progress on that. Could you please tell us what the Trudeau government has done to implement the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act in those six years?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Batters. You and I both share the tragedy of having to deal with family suicide, yours much closer than mine but a tragedy nonetheless.

The importance of us both having that understanding and having lived through that difficult time — and it never leaves you; I’m sure you would agree with me, it never leaves you — is that we’re committed, and we should be committed, to ensuring that whatever government is in place, whatever its political stripe, is using the best evidence to ensure that the guidance from any framework it creates is the way we need to go.

I applaud the previous government for bringing in Bill C-300, which actually laid the groundwork for the framework. It has been there for a decade. We have an opportunity to answer the question you’ve just posed to me. It’s exactly the same question I posed to this chamber: What has been the impact of the framework? Has it actually made a difference, a substantive and real difference, in decreasing rates of suicide, not just in all of Canada in general but in those specific populations where the need is greater?

If it hasn’t done that, should it be improved? Are there things that can be done to make it better? I think you and I both share a wish that that will happen. I hope that every member in this chamber also shares the wish that you and I share. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, I rise to speak today because I have come a long way on the issue of climate change.

This issue has not always been a priority for me. Not so long ago, I thought we should focus our efforts on the most vulnerable, feed the hungry and combat violence against women before worrying about the fate of whales or endangered ecosystems. Obviously, I was wrong. Everything is connected: our survival and the planet’s survival; social issues and environmental issues.

As we celebrate the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery today, let’s not forget that 40% of global deforestation is done by victims of forced labour. When I see the movement and migration of desperate human beings who want to save their family by fleeing drought and disaster, I feel distressed by their despair and the barriers we put up.

In the past, some people became interested in the issue of climate change through science. Others took interest because of its economic impact. Personally, it is my social commitment that led me make the climate and ecology more of a priority.

For many years, the issue of climate change was mostly a matter of science. Variations in the climate needed to be tracked by analyzing the causes and trying to predict future changes. It was something for climatologists, oceanographers, biologists and statisticians to worry about.

However, now that the science is well established, the climate issue has become a political issue, not partisan, but political in the noble sense of the term. It is up to us, as legislators, to take over from the scientists and implement the changes that are needed. These changes are likely to affect many aspects of our lives, including our energy sources, our infrastructure, our consumption patterns, and the rules that govern our government and our economy.

The purpose of the motion before us is not to debate concrete action. Rather, I see Senator Galvez’s initiative as a preamble to action, a gesture to focus our attention on the work ahead. While today’s motion may be symbolic, whatever actions follow should not be.

In supporting the motion, I would like to express three wishes. The debates around the climate issue can be complex, filled with acronyms, calculation methods, international agreements, technical protocols, industry initiatives, regulatory strategies and technological solutions. It’s enough to make your head spin, and I don’t mind telling you that that is often the case for me.

In the debates and discussions to come, we will have to keep a clear head and resist the temptation to look for excuses, loopholes, bogus math, easy fixes, buzzwords, technicalities or rhetorical devices that would allow us to avoid making the required changes. No matter what, we must always seek the most comprehensive assessments, consider all of the consequences and choose real solutions. We have a duty to be realistic when it comes to the environment.

Unlike human beings, our planet does not recognize borders, jurisdictions, cosmetic changes or green marketing. This is why the climate emergency requires that we, as politicians and legislators, find a new way of thinking. We must also think long-term, setting partisan factors aside, and put the interests of the planet and future generations ahead of our immediate, regional or national interests. I encourage everyone, including myself, to face up to the environmental reality and act accordingly.

The way that some people talk about the climate issue, it sometimes seems as though the transition simply involves buying an electric vehicle, installing carbon capture machines or planting a tree. In reality, the transition we need to make will require courage.

Canada ranks second worst in the world when it comes to cumulative emissions per capita. According to 2018 figures from the World Bank, Canada ranked seventh in the world in terms of GHG emissions per capita, higher than Saudi Arabia and the United States, and that is without even counting Canada’s fossil fuel exports.

If we are serious about making a major transition, it can no longer be business as usual. We will have to rethink our system.

[English]

In an op-ed published in January 2020, the well-known Canadian investor Stephen Jarislowsky wrote:

. . . we must unfortunately be prepared to make sacrifices, as my generation did during the war. If we do not, billions of lives are at stake worldwide, and social structures may fall.

On an economic policy level, this means that we have no choice but to act decisively and urgently. It must become more expensive to buy products or services that contribute to climate change, and less expensive to buy those that are not detrimental.

Stephen Jarislowsky speaks of sacrifice. He is right, but to succeed in the difficult transition the effort will have to be shared and supported by all. Certain regions of our country that happen to be better positioned will have to support those for whom the transition will be more painful. If everyone thinks only of their short-term interests — the regions of Canada among themselves and Canada against other countries — we will have failed. We must not abandon the displaced workers and outdated industries. We cannot expect developing countries to do their part without massive aid, and we will likely have to do our part as a rich and vast country by welcoming climate refugees when they come knocking at our door.

The good news is that polls show Canadians are ready to make fundamental changes. In a 2019 Abacus poll, 62% of Canadians said they were ready to change how our economy worked a lot or fundamentally to combat climate change. The two age groups with the highest support for that proposition were youth aged 18 to 29 and adults aged 60 and over, like us. So the climate issue is not only a concern for young people. For those who are wondering, it is not just a concern for Quebec, either. The desire for change is often at its strongest in the Atlantic provinces and in British Columbia, at both ends of the country.

A poll taken in October, just six weeks ago, showed the same trend, with 66% of Canadians saying the government needs to do more to reduce our GHG emissions. A strong majority of 75% believes it is necessary to do so primarily through more direct and targeted regulation.

The public is asking us to act, and to have the courage to reconsider the status quo. We should be giving priority to these people — to younger Canadians in particular — and not to those who would like to preserve a system that is unsustainable but favours them.

In sum, I believe we should act as stewards of the public interest and of future generations. We should not seek to adapt or dilute emerging social and environmental standards to serve our short-term economic interests, but rather ensure that our economy is urgently made compatible with planetary limits and a sustainable society.

That is the meaning I find in the motion presented today, and that is why I fully support it.

Senator Batters: Just to follow up on that, Senator Kutcher, certainly, yes, I want to make sure that the most effective measures are put into place to improve suicide prevention in Canada, but my question remains. You brought this motion, so I’m assuming that you’re aware of what the Trudeau government has done in the last six years, because I don’t know.

So I’m asking you: What has the Trudeau government done to implement and use this particular framework to improve suicide prevention in Canada?

Senator Kutcher: I don’t think I’m the person who can speak on behalf of the current government and all the actions they have done. There are a number that I am aware of. As you probably know, reports are posted on the website in a regular manner about what activities have occurred.

Activities are important. There are many activities that may have happened, and some that I know did happen. However, the big issue remains: Does the framework provide the kind of groundwork that we need in this country to ensure that our activities are actually preventing suicide? To my knowledge, there has not been such an evaluation of the framework. This is why I thought it was appropriate and prescient for the Senate to do that kind of critical evaluation of the framework.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Paula Simons rose pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

She said: Honourable senators, I hope this inquiry will provoke senators to give a long, hard thought to the role of municipalities in Confederation and to the urgent necessity to ensure that municipalities have the fiscal and political resources they need to lead Canada to a more just, prosperous and creative future.

In spite of the sprawl of our vast country, almost 82% of Canadians live in urban areas, making us one of the top three most urbanized countries in the world. That’s a tremendous shift from the way Canada looked in 1867, when about 84% of Canadians lived in rural areas. Back then, at the beginning of Confederation, our Constitution set up cities as “creatures” of the province.

Some municipalities contain multitudes. Cities such as Toronto or Calgary have populations and economies that are far larger than those of many Canadian provinces.

Some municipalities are small towns or villages or rural counties. But they are municipalities nonetheless and face challenges that parallel those of their larger, more urbane sisters.

Municipal governments are on the front lines of so many of the major issues, problems and crises facing our country. They are, for example, the ones most directly affected by natural disasters, including those spurred by climate change. Whether we’re talking about flash floods, wildfires or violent storms, it is municipalities that have to pick up the pieces and rebuild their communities.

Hence, it is also cities and towns which are the first responders when it comes to rebuilding and retrofitting infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change — from retooling storm sewers, to protecting water reservoirs, to depopulating flood plains.

In our global world and in our multicultural nation, municipalities are also the ones that do the nitty-gritty practical work of helping new immigrants adapt and adjust to life in Canada.

And in our country, still wrestling with the realities of reconciliation, cities and towns, particularly in the Prairie West, have been the ones working directly with urban Indigenous populations, and the ones in the vanguard, forging new relationships with nearby First Nations. Cities such as Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Edmonton have all taken leadership roles in establishing those new relations of trust.

Municipalities, large and small, are dealing first-hand with the twin dilemmas of homelessness and drug addiction as Canadian cities and towns wrestle with the scourge of the opioid crisis.

And in parts of the country, including Alberta, it was municipalities that responded most urgently and nimbly to the COVID-19 crisis, bringing in public health measures such as masking and occupancy rules when provinces declined to act.

But cities aren’t just tasked with problem solving. They are also the economic and creative engines of our Confederation. They are where our entrepreneurs, inventors, artists and authors gather; where our research universities are centred; and where our theatres, orchestras and ballet companies thrive. Cities are where you go to find our banks, venture capital and so much of our industry.

The digital revolution? It’s taking place in our cities. We need to acknowledge our municipalities not just as places to solve social problems, but as the drivers, the incubators of our economic prosperity. Yet these poor “creatures” are the constitutional Cinderellas of Canada, the Rodney Dangerfields of Confederation. For decades, they have been fighting for the respect and resources they need — and, yes, their voices have sometimes intermittently been heard. But they still find themselves in a dance that feels all too often like two steps forward, one step back.

Cities, which provide so many of our most essential public services and which are responsible for so much of our economic future, are the most poorly resourced order of government, collecting far less in tax revenues than provinces or the federal government. For every household tax dollar paid in Ontario, for example, municipalities collect just nine cents.

Canadian cities on average derive about 45% of their revenue from property taxes. This creates a variety of problems. In cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, where home prices have soared to stratospheric levels, homeowners may often be real estate rich but cash poor, unable to pay the taxes on previously modest homes that have somehow escalated sharply in value.

Then there is the separate challenge of business property taxes — one that may become far more acute as we absorb all the social changes wrought by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

Even before the coronavirus, we were transitioning from an industrial economy to a digital one. Even before this health crisis, retail stores, large and small, were feeling the pressure of internet competition. The pandemic has led to a rapid acceleration in online shopping. With meal delivery apps all the rage, how many restaurants are feeling pandemic pressure to change their business model, to reduce or even eliminate in-person dining space?

As for office towers, after the business world has spent some 20 months with staff working from home, how many office towers are going to be sitting empty for years to come? The current Canadian office vacancy rate is 15.7%. It’s 15.5% in Halifax, 16.1% in London and 24.4% in Edmonton. In Calgary, the current downtown office vacancy rate is a concerning 31%.

How many plans for new office spaces and cities across Canada have been mothballed indefinitely?

City business taxes are based on the square footage of an operation. If malls and power centres close down, if independent stores and restaurants shut their doors, if office towers never rise, where will cities get their property tax revenues?

As we undergo tectonic shifts in our industrial resource economy, there are regional repercussions for small municipalities too. Towns and counties all across my home province of Alberta are seeing huge stresses on their finances because of the loss of revenues from oil and gas producers.

In 2019, the Rural Municipalities of Alberta found that an unprecedented $81 million in property taxes from oil and gas companies had gone unpaid to small towns and counties across the province. By January 2020, the same body reported that Alberta’s rural municipalities were facing a shortfall of $173 million in unpaid property taxes from the oil and gas industry. For 2021, Rural Municipalities of Alberta reported its members were owed $245 million in unpaid property taxes from oil and gas operations.

Municipalities have few other options to raise money. User fees and permit fees simply can’t make up the shortfall when traditional property taxes aren’t enough — or even available — to keep cities and towns in proper operation. In the meantime, many provincial governments have downloaded more and more responsibilities to municipalities to deal with, which used to be in the provincial ambit, without necessarily giving them the additional resources to take on those tasks.

Various federal governments over the years have tried to step in to address the short gap. The Canada Community-Building Fund, formerly known as the Gas Tax Fund, now provides more than $2 billion to Canadian municipalities — not directly, but as flowed through from their provincial governments.

There are a variety of other project funds too — ranging from the Universal Broadband Fund, to the Zero Emission Transit Fund, to the Investing in Canada Plan — which support municipalities and their needs. Those are welcome dollars, to be sure, but they don’t quite get to the heart of the constitutional inequity in this country, which leaves cities, even cities with millions and millions of residents, dependent clients of other orders of government.

In a paper written this year for the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, the author, Dalhousie political science professor Kristin R. Good, notes the 1997 decision by the Ontario Court of Justice against a challenge to the provincial City of Toronto Act, 1997, the one that dissolved six discrete municipalities to create one big “megacity” via a controversial unilateral process. Five of the six municipalities went to court to challenge the province’s legislation. In its ruling in the case, known as East York v. Ontario, the Ontario court stated that, one, “ . . . municipal institutions lack constitutional status;” two, “ . . . are creatures of the legislature and exist only if provincial legislation so provides;” three, “ . . . have no independent autonomy and their powers are subject to abolition or repeal by provincial legislation;” and, four, “ . . . may exercise only those powers which are conferred upon them by statute.”

The decision cited expert Andrew Sancton, who opined that Canadian municipalities “ . . . have no constitutional protection whatever against provincial laws that change their structures, functions and financial resources without their consent.”

We saw that illustrated again just this October when the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Ontario was within its constitutional rights to dramatically reduce the size of Toronto’s city council in the midst of a municipal election campaign.

Unless there is some kind of fundamental change, it would seem, Canada’s municipalities will forever be locked in a feudal relationship with their provincial overlords.

Wholesale constitutional reform is probably a political non-starter. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t embark on incremental changes to give Canadian towns and cities more economic self-determination and control over their future planning and growth.

I have no magic answers. Rather, I hope we in the Senate can start asking the necessary questions. I’m inviting you, my fellow senators, to join me in this undertaking. This inquiry needs your voices, your stories, your ideas, your experiences and your insights. Several of you have been mayors yourselves. Others of you have spent years thinking over these very questions because of your work with provincial governments or with First Nations or with not-for-profit organizations or with the business community.

There is no Senate committee with the appropriate mandate to study this question. Still, I hope this essential inquiry can bring to bear the Senate’s best expertise and analysis. I look forward to hearing from you soon so we can compile a sort of collection of thoughtful speeches that interrogate different aspects of this dilemma from different political perspectives.

In his great comic novel Candide, the French philosopher Voltaire suggests that the secret of happiness in life is to cultivate one’s garden.

[Translation]

We must cultivate our garden.

[English]

One could take that advice literally or, as I do, as a metaphor. Canada’s municipalities are the gardens where our communities set down roots and grow. They are the hothouses where we can test our plans to fight climate change, to encourage diversity and to inspire reconciliation. If our cities do not flourish, our nation cannot prosper. We must tend our municipalities, because there we plant the seeds of our future.

[Translation]

Yes, dear friends and colleagues, we must cultivate our gardens and, in this chamber, we must cultivate our gardens together. Thank you, hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Forest, debate adjourned.)

[English]