Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Lankin. I appreciate the question because I know of your long experience in the charity sector. You led the United Way in my wonderful city and led it ably for many years, so you come from a point of experience and concern. I’m grateful for your question.

On the terminology, “expenditure responsibility” in the U.S. versus “resource accountability,” in this proposal, I have been advised by Canada’s top charity lawyers, who advised me that the term “resource accountability” is more appropriate for the Canadian context.

Now, this is a private member’s bill, so if and when it is passed — and I certainly hope it is passed, honourable senators, with your support — one of the processes that will follow will be consultations by the CRA on how far we go with resource accountability. Is it just money? Is it more than money?

While I hope it’s a more fulsome expression of what we mean, it is at the same time a strong underlying expression of accountability, whether it is limited to money or whether it expands to technology, space, staff, et cetera. I hope that answers your question.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, for Senator Mercer, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to resume my speech in support of Senator Ngo’s motion to recommend Canada’s support in reconvening the International Conference on Viet-Nam as set out in the Paris Peace Accords.

It has been a long time, almost 50 years, since the Paris Peace Accords were signed. Honourable senators, Canada has a proud record of peacekeeping in its history and in Vietnam, having sacrificed troops in the conflict and having been a party to and pledged to uphold the terms of the Paris Peace Accords.

Approving this motion would be of great symbolic importance to Vietnamese Canadians, and would be an important first step to protecting the stability of an important geopolitical region.

I recognize that there must be agreement of at least six parties to the Paris Peace Accord in order to reconvene the conference, unless the U.S. and Vietnam jointly request it per Article 7(b). However, someone always has to go first, and I believe in this instance, it should be Canada.

By supporting this motion, the Senate would call on Canada to be a leader in promoting and protecting peace and order within the Indo-Pacific region, as was signalled in the recent Throne Speech.

Colleagues have heard Senator Ngo’s impassioned hopes for the revival of the peace process for Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords envisioned long-term peace in a country which so many refugees fled after a bitter, long and costly war. Many of those who fled came to Canada looking for a better life.

Senator Ngo has told me that, by the Senate of Canada passing this motion, we will demonstrate to Vietnamese Canadians that we recognize they were forced to leave their home country because of what it had become — a country with an abysmal human rights record that continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly and the rights to freely practise beliefs and religion.

He has told me that we will give the diaspora hope and prove that the Senate of Canada supports their yearning for a peaceful and free Vietnam. In leading by example, Canada can spread this hope amongst the Vietnamese diaspora around the world.

The Senate is a chamber that allows senators to advocate for regions and minorities. This is the chamber that is meant to reflect the passions and priorities of Canadians that may not have as prominent a voice in the other place.

That is why I believe it is so important to listen when the first Vietnamese-Canadian senator stands before us and tells us that it is important to act. That is why I have been moved by Senator Ngo to stand up for Canadian beliefs and values by supporting his motion.

Thank you, Senator Ngo, for your decade of leadership, advocacy and support of the Vietnamese diaspora in Canada.

I urge you, honourable senators, to support this motion and consider the question in a timely manner. Thank you. Qujannamiik.

(On motion of Senator Dean, 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.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Dalphond, I sincerely thank you for your work and leadership on this matter. I would like to remind this chamber that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, as part of its study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, published a report on the justice sector. The Canadian Bar Association clearly explained at that time the unfortunate consequences of the lack of translation, notably in Caron in Alberta.

Senator Dalphond, do you agree with me that the failure to translate these documents has a real impact on the development and growth —

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Senator Cormier, I regret to advise you that your time is up.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Éric Forest: Esteemed colleagues, I am pleased to speak to Senator Galvez’s motion about declaring a national climate emergency so Canada will step up its action against climate change in accordance with the Paris Agreement targets.

[English]

I thank Senator Galvez for this motion, which would allow the Senate to join the House of Commons and 500 other provincial and municipal governments in Canada that have declared a climate emergency, including the City of Rimouski, which recognized the climate emergency with a formal resolution in November 2018.

[Translation]

This resolution comes at a pivotal moment as the UN Climate Change Conference, COP26, ended without delivering on its promises.

Despite some progress, it seems that the final agreement will not slow climate change. Even though the international community is not as resolute as we would wish it to be in addressing climate change, I believe it is important to keep hope alive and to keep fighting. The worst thing we can do right now is give up.

I listened closely to the Speech from the Throne and I was pleased to see that the government is making this issue a priority by announcing certain measures, such as capping greenhouse gas emissions, investing in public transit, mandating the sale of zero-emissions vehicles and helping communities deal with the effects of climate change. The federal government’s moment of epiphany may be a bit late in coming, but better late than never.

Personally, when I look at local governments, that is where I see the most hope when it comes to fighting climate change. Hope comes from cities and our local communities. The old adage, think globally and act locally has never been more apt.

Several surveys on the priorities of citizens in municipal elections have shown that climate change is the top priority for people in many parts of Canada. It’s also refreshing to see that many of the young people who supported these ideas were elected. One example that comes to mind is the new Mayor of Laval, Stéphane Boyer, who presented a very elaborate green platform and hired the well-known environmentalist Laure Waridel as an advisor to lead the green transition. Another example is the leader of Transition Québec, Jackie Smith, who won a seat in Quebec City with an electoral platform focused primarily on the green transition. There is also the new Mayor of Sherbrooke, Évelyne Beaudin, who promised to provide the city with a credible and ambitious plan to fight climate change, developed in collaboration with the stakeholders involved, in order to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets set out in the city’s document declaring and planning for a climate emergency.

Several Quebec media outlets have noted that environmentalists seem to be taking municipal elections by storm, with Quebec following a strong trend that has emerged in other parts of the world. It seems that citizens concerned about the environment are choosing to redirect their political activism to the municipal levels, where they feel they can make a difference.

In France, for example, environmentalists had their best showing yet in the June 2020 municipal elections and even won in several major cities such as Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux and Strasbourg.

Let us quickly look at the impact of climate change on municipalities.

Local elected officials care about climate change because municipalities are on the front lines when it comes to experiencing the effects of climate disturbances.

The risks associated with climate change are very real: fires, storms, erosion and flooding that destroy neighbourhoods and public infrastructure, as we are currently seeing in British Columbia and the Maritimes; smog and heat islands that threaten the most vulnerable people; droughts that reduce the supply of drinking water; premature wear on water pipes because conditions have changed since they were built. The climate emergency is already having a significant impact on our municipalities, and our communities have a vested interest in taking action.

What is the role of municipalities in this context? Municipalities are responsible for land use, so their actions have a direct impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. Municipalities have the power to influence the choice of modes of transportation.

By providing safe bicycle paths, sufficient pedestrian crossings, and accessible, effective public transit, municipalities enable residents to make choices that are more environmentally friendly. The same thing happens when they make the effort to design communities that minimize travel and facilitate access to public transit.

However, that takes money.

As local governments, municipalities can put in place measures that seek to address climate change and prepare us for extreme weather events. We must ensure they are given the means to do that.

It is unrealistic to think that municipalities will be able to respond to the climate emergency with only their existing tax base, which relies too heavily on property taxes. According to a 2018 study conducted by Group AGÉCO, the 10 largest cities in Quebec would require more than $2 billion over five years to adapt their infrastructure to withstand climate change. The whole of Quebec would require $4 billion. This is on top of municipalities’ other responsibilities, for example, those pertaining to social development.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support this motion.

[English]

Climate change, which represents the main threat to humanity and our public finances, is an emergency that demands an immediate and ambitious response.

[Translation]

That said, I would like the federal government to recognize that municipalities are responsible for 60% of public infrastructure and that, although they are victims of climate change, they are also in the best position to properly respond to the challenges of the climate emergency.

The current government claims that addressing climate change is a priority in its upcoming mandate, so it must use the next budget to partner with municipalities and ensure that they have the money and flexibility they need to fully contribute to the fight against climate change.

Hon. Stan Kutcher, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak about the importance of preventing suicide and to expand upon why I am bringing this motion forward for the study of the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Suicide is an issue that we are all aware of, and a tragedy that has touched many of us in this chamber.

I ask that you consider voting in favour of this when it comes forward. Let me explain why I feel this study is timely and greatly needed.

Prior to my arrival at the Senate, I spent my professional career trying to help improve the lives of young people and families touched by mental illness. This has included doing all I could to assist them during some of their darkest moments, such as when they were convinced that their lives were not worth living and that they would be better off dead.

I have sat with families who lost a loved one to suicide — usually unexpected and mostly unexplained. In their grief and their sorrow, they often blamed themselves and wondered why. Rarely could this question be answered.

I have also sat with colleagues as they struggled with the sudden death of one of their patients and questioned the care they had provided and whether they had the skills to be a clinician.

I have also studied suicide from many angles, mostly in young people, and taught psychiatrists and physicians how to support, assess and manage patients at risk of suicide — indeed, I have written a textbook on this.

Beyond this professional experience, I have, like others in this place, been deeply wounded by the sudden and unexpected death of a beloved family member. It was my uncle, a highly successful banker with a loving and caring family. Nobody picked up on his depression. He sought medical attention, but his physician focused on his sleep difficulties and fatigue. He sought solace from his pastor who attributed his anguish to a loss of faith. At work, his performance deteriorated but, because he was in charge, nobody spoke up.

He — as was his wont for always tying up loose ends — prepared his will, organized his affairs and made sure that every family member would not have financial difficulties after he was gone. All this we learned after the fact.

For me, although I had not seen or spoken to him for many months prior to his death — he lived in Vancouver and I in Toronto — I blamed myself, that as someone who has taught others about suicide prevention, I had failed miserably in regard to my own family. Not only had I failed him, but I had failed all of us.

So I have a personal as well as a professional interest in helping develop and deploy suicide prevention interventions that can demonstrate, when they are applied, that the rates of suicide decrease and stay that way.

In turn, I have no time for those who use the anguish of suicide and the pain and suffering of others to sell, promote or initiate activities, programs or products that they claim will prevent suicide but do not.

I do not expect every specific suicide prevention intervention will stop all suicides from happening. But I do expect that if someone is telling Canadians that the intervention they are promoting prevents suicide, that there is robust and solid best-available evidence, independently determined and published in peer-reviewed journals, that demonstrates that the specified intervention actually does prevent many suicides.

What we want to do is apply interventions that we know prevent suicide. What we do not want to do is apply interventions that, appealing as they may be, have marginal or no clearly demonstrated impact on preventing suicide.

Canada’s national suicide prevention framework unveiled in 2012, following the passage of Bill C-300, an Act respecting a Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, is supposed to do that. The question is, does it? What impact has it had on suicide rates in Canada and in specific populations within Canada since its inception? We need to know.

Suicide is an emotional topic, thus when we address suicide prevention, we must be certain to use our sober second thought to ensure that, in our wish to find something that works, we don’t end up supporting, promoting and funding those things that do not. In short, doing something is not the same as doing the right thing.

Robust scientific study, using appropriate design methods and analytics, is needed to measure rates of suicide reduction. Through a committee study, I propose we examine all aspects of the framework’s guidance on what should be done and determine the effectiveness of each individual component. Then Canadians can have comfort that what is needed to be done to prevent suicide is indeed being done, and we are not spending valuable resources on what sounds good but may not be helpful in decreasing suicide rates and not investing at the margins but where our returns will be the greatest.

A study could additionally look at other measures that would at least demonstrate important secondary benefits of suicide prevention. Some reassurance could come from knowing if what we saw were significant and substantive decreases in visits to emergency rooms and hospitalizations for suicide attempts. At the same time, we need to demonstrate what else needs to be done to show that suicides are, indeed, being prevented.

We would like to be assured that the interventions that are being put into place have robust and solid evidence that they worked prior to them being applied. Not to do so is the same as taking a treatment for a potentially fatal condition that had never been scientifically studied and demonstrated to be effective.

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

Canadians need to know that the framework provides the best directions possible for achieving significant, substantive and sustainable decreases in rates, and that it does not promote a myriad of activities that may seem at first glance to be effective suicide prevention interventions but, on close critical examination, are shown not to be so.

We know that suicide rates are not equally distributed across Canada. Rates are considerably higher in Indigenous populations compared to the national average, especially in young people. The need for effective suicide prevention programs in these communities is essential. Year after year, we are reminded that this need has not been addressed. Year after year, we hear calls for the creation and deployment of effective suicide prevention programs, especially for young people.

Has the framework made a significant and substantial difference in addressing this pressing need? We need to know.

Prior to and following the creation of the framework, considerable amounts of money have been spent by various federal ministries in pursuit of suicide prevention. However, to my knowledge, it is not usually known what impact this spending has made on significantly and substantively reducing suicide rates. For example, a paper published recently in BMC Public Health in 2018 described this concern. It noted that between 2005-06 and 2015-16. The federal government had spent $108 million on a national Aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy, but an evaluation of the impact of this program noted that “. . . there was no clear picture of whether or not the NAYSPS had an impact, positive or negative, on suicide rates.”

We do not know if the framework demands rigorous, independent evaluation of all federal government investment in suicide prevention, and we need to know that.

A plethora of training programs and other interventions purporting to prevent suicide have been nationally marketed and rolled out by the private sector and civil society organizations over the past decade. With these, a number of questions have arisen. What relationship, if any, should the framework have with these initiatives? What independent, robust evidence is there that any of these products actually prevent suicide? Should taxpayer funds be used to purchase and support these programs? Does the framework now appropriately engage with these issues and provide appropriate guidance? These are all important questions that the committee studied and addressed.

As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that the framework is built on the best available evidence that has identified what works and what does not. There is good information to guide the design of a committee study. For example, there have been a number of helpful reviews of suicide prevention interventions, and these have identified some interventions that have reasonable evidence that they may actually prevent suicide and some for which evidence is lacking. Has the framework used this evidence in its development and application? We need to know.

If we want to make an impact on suicide prevention, we need to look at those populations where the rates are greatest. I have already raised the sad reality of excessively high suicide rates in Indigenous communities, but there are other groups on which we must also focus. While Canada’s suicide rates range from 10 to 12 per 100,000 in people who live with a mental illness like schizophrenia, the lifetime rate is about 5%. For the math, this translates into 5,000 per 100,000, not 10 or 12 per 100,000.

There are about 360,000 Canadians living with schizophrenia right now. For comparison, that equals more people with schizophrenia dying of suicide than the total number of Canadians who died from suicide in 2014 to 2018 inclusive. For those living with a bipolar disorder, the rates of suicide are estimated to be between 10 and 30 times higher than the general population. Individuals who live with a substance-use disorder are also more likely to die by suicide, and this increase is even greater in women than in men. We need to know if the framework does enough to address the needs of these high-risk populations.

Senators, I have laid out some of the issues that a committee study examining the substance of the framework and its impact over the last decade can tell us. Such a study can also recommend what adjustments may be needed to the framework to guide suicide prevention in Canada over the next decade and longer.

Honourable senators, Canada’s national suicide prevention framework should be able to demonstrate a positive impact on significantly and substantively decreasing rates of suicide in the general population and particularly in those unique populations where the rates are the highest. To achieve this goal, it must identify and drive the application of interventions that, based on best available scientific evidence, are known to be effective. It must invest in what works to actually prevent suicide, not in what some hope might work or in interventions with marginal impact on the primary outcome. And it must protect Canadians from opportunistic promotion and sale of so-called suicide prevention interventions if there is insufficient evidence for their effectiveness.

Colleagues, we have a golden opportunity to conduct a constructively critical and comprehensive study of this important issue. In their election platforms, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP all identified mental health as an area of action. A new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions has just been established, a first in the history of the Canadian federal government. The time is right for us to move quickly.

I realize that committees are masters of their own fate and will decide what they deem necessary to study and when. That said, our committees can be informed by what this chamber considers to be priority areas. Social Affairs is the ideal committee in which to undertake this work.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope when the time comes, you see it proper to vote in support of this motion. Thank you. Welalioq.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald, Chair of the Committee of Selection, presented the following report:

Thursday, December 2, 2021

The Committee of Selection has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

On November 25, 2021, the Senate authorized your committee to make recommendations to the Senate on issues relating to the scheduling and coordination of hybrid committee meetings. Your committee now presents an interim report.

Pursuant to the order of the Senate of November 25, 2021, authorizing committees to hold hybrid meetings, and based on the Senate’s current capacity to support hybrid meetings, your committee makes the following recommendations:

1.That Senate committees be authorized to meet according to a fixed committee schedule provided that:

(a)meetings of committees be prioritized for those that are meeting on government business, subject to available capacity;

(b)any changes to the approved schedule be subject to approval by the Government Liaison, the Opposition Whip, and the whips and liaisons of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

2.Your committee also appends to this report an interim schedule for hybrid Senate committee meetings, and further recommends that:

(a)the interim schedule be implemented immediately; and

(b)any subsequent changes deemed useful or necessary be done in consultation with the Government Liaison, the Opposition Whip, and the whips and liaisons of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL L. MACDONALD

Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator MacDonald, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

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

Hon. Claude Carignan introducedBill S-231, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?