Senator Dupuis: Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Thank you to Senator Gagné and Senator Marshall for their comments. I echo the appreciation expressed to all members of the Finance Committee, as well as the support staff.

Honourable senators, the government has committed to recovery for all — a response to COVID-19 that leaves no one behind, neither during nor after this pandemic. The reality so far is, quite frankly, starkly inadequate.

A significant part of Supplementary Estimates (B) concerns responses to the pandemic. Millions of Canadians remain below the poverty line, yet for nearly two years meaningful economic supports have been unavailable to those who vitally need them. The evidence continues to roll in with regard to the avoidable human, social and financial toll of excluding disproportionate numbers — in fact, millions — of women, Indigenous, African-Canadian and other racialized people, as well as those with disabilities.

We have an opportunity and duty to urge the government to be bold. Emerging from this pandemic should not mean going back to normal but, rather, building toward greater equality.

Programs like the CERB and CRB have demonstrated the difference that direct income supports can make for those in need. For many who lost jobs or income as a result of the pandemic, $2,000 per month meant being able to put the health and well-being of themselves, their families and communities first, without the worry of how to feed their families or the spectre of eviction.

For those who did not qualify for programs like the CERB because their incomes were too low, new data reaffirms the inadequacy of the alternative supports available. Already inadequate social assistance payments were compounded by inadequate emergency pandemic supports. In some provinces, a single person was left with as little as $660 per month. This had to cover not only everyday necessities such as housing, food and clothing, but the many extra costs of trying to safely survive the pandemic.

In many provinces, the combined provincial and territorial emergency pandemic benefits for those on social assistance amounted to only 1 to 2% of what a CERB recipient received — $24 per month, or less than a dollar a day.

Across Canada, people continued to be abandoned to poverty at a time when it became impossible to ignore the link between economic stability, health and well-being. There was not a single jurisdiction, not a single province or territory, where amounts were sufficient to get people out of deep poverty, let alone above the poverty line.

Even for those who were able to access programs like the CERB, there are sharp differences in outcomes for those with the least and those who are more well off.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this year about 88,222 of Canada’s lowest-income seniors lost part or all of their entitlement to a non-pandemic basic income program, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, on which they rely to make ends meet. Why? Because they claimed CERB last year, and when their new GIS payments were calculated this summer based on last year’s income, CERB payments were counted.

The situation is more dire for many who claimed CERB in good faith and later found out they were not eligible. They are being told to make CERB repayments to the government. At the same time, their GIS payments have been cut. Where will they get the money to repay? How will they survive this, let alone live?

Families have also seen cuts to Canada Child Benefit payments for the same reason. Since at least May, federal officials have acknowledged this problem with CERB and similar types of pandemic supports, such as the CRB and the recently proposed Canada worker lockdown benefit, and yet have not taken corrective steps. The effect on lowest-income recipients has been the worst.

While CERB has functioned as intended for many higher-income recipients, for those with less, the programs have not prevented but have only delayed economic hardship. Against this backdrop, in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic alone, the wealth of 47 Canadian billionaires increased by $78 billion.

For decades, wealth inequality has been increasing in Canada. As of 2019, one quarter of Canada’s family net wealth was held by 1% of families. The 40% of families with the least had access to a mere 1.1% of total wealth.

To date, pandemic economic policy has reinforced — worse yet, increased — inequalities.

Honourable senators, we have not yet seen recovery for all, and we have an obligation to demand nothing less.

On the eve of the pandemic, in more than half of the households in which people went hungry, family members were working but not earning enough to cover the costs of basic necessities. Economic inequality results in worse health and social outcomes. It also contributes to outrageous and unacceptable situations such as the steady increase in and reliance on food banks. Too many forced to seek such sustenance are seniors and people with disabilities. Many food banks also report a significant number of clientele who are workers, too many of whom are also living in homeless shelters. Food banks were created as temporary measures. They have become permanent fixtures with significant costs that treat the symptoms but fail to address the root causes of poverty, inadequate wages and income supports.

Escalating economic inequality leads to increased costs in terms of homelessness, shelters, the criminal legal system and emergency health care. It also significantly impedes economic growth.

In 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, found that rising inequality in wealthy countries significantly impacts gross domestic product.

Furthermore, the UN’s World Social Report 2020 emphasizes that slower economic growth is associated with income inequality, in particular because of disparities in health care and education.

Today, the National Advisory Council on Poverty reported that, relative to 2015 levels, the government had reduced poverty by 30% by 2020, but they caution that the numbers conceal the deep inequities that persist in Canada. They recommend a whole-of-society approach to create equitable systems to address poverty.

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is still awaiting a full response from the Department of Finance to questions regarding how the government is evaluating whether the measures it is proposing in the supplementary estimates are expected to achieve recovery for all.

Unfortunately, what we have seen so far reveals we are missing the mark. It is long past time, honourable senators, for measures like a guaranteed liveable income to ensure that no one is left behind. Poverty puts people’s health, well-being and lives at risk. Alleviation is a question of human rights that Canada cannot afford to continue to ignore.

Thank you, honourable senators. Meegwetch.

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

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Ngo for bringing this motion forward. The issue, both in the context of the Journey to Freedom Day Act of 2015 and the application of the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, and its protocols, known as the Paris Peace Accords of 1975, is of great concern to our colleague and, indeed, to many Canadians of Vietnamese origin — as well it should be.

Indeed, countless people like Senator Ngo and thousands of Vietnamese first came to our shores fleeing conflict and/or persecution. The reasons to leave were traumatic enough, to say nothing of the journey to a new land and ultimately arriving in a strange new place to call home, where refugees face new challenges.

My parents faced a similar situation in losing their land, property and possessions during World War II, after which they came to Canada as refugees. We are all touched by such stories; they are integral to the fabric and the folk memory of so many Canadians.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the spirit of this motion, I oppose its passage. I will explain why.

Colleagues, this motion calls upon the Government of Canada to reconvene a meeting of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to discuss events that took place 45 years ago, within the framework of that treaty, and of that conference that is just as old. Further, some of the members with which Canada worked at the time, such as Hungary and Poland, were then part of the Soviet bloc. Things have changed somewhat in 45 years, including the fall of the U.S.S.R., which among other points, resulted in these countries completely changing their constitutions and systems of government.

It is not clear to me why Canada should expend great energy, not to mention international political capital, to re-engage in a discussion for which, in my view, there would not be much appetite from other parties to reopen. Also, I do not know what will be included in the government’s forthcoming Indo-Pacific strategy, but I would wager that reconvening the International Conference on Viet-Nam will not be in it, and I am not a betting man.

In bilateral terms — that is, the relationship between Canada and Vietnam — I am convinced that this motion would be seen in a negative light by Vietnam, a country with which Canada has enjoyed friendship and cooperation for many decades. That is no small thing, colleagues. Vietnam is a member of the ASEAN group with which both the government of Prime Minister Harper and the current government have sought to achieve closer ties. Vietnam, along with Canada, is a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, that is already showing positive signs for both countries and, indeed, all members. Our two-way trade last year was nearly $9 billion, making Vietnam Canada’s largest trading partner among ASEAN countries.

Would it not be more constructive for Canada to focus on developing our positive relationship with Vietnam within the framework of the Canada-Vietnam partnership, where there can be engagement on a comprehensive agenda that could, and in fact does, include economic and political reforms?

Symbolic gestures — and this motion represents just that — can have negative consequences. I have made this important point in the chamber before, colleagues.

I would also note that our dialogue with the government of Vietnam includes larger geostrategic questions, military cooperation that concerns Vietnam, scientific and academic cooperation, clean technologies and cooperation on the Green Climate Fund. It also includes discussions about the ASEAN countries, large neighbouring countries and the wider Pacific region.

We need to work with friends and allies all over the world, the Indo-Pacific region being no exception, particularly when we see ourselves aggrieved or unfairly treated by other countries. Canada has had some recent experience in this regard.

In his speech supporting the motion, our colleague Senator Patterson referred to the international rules-based order. We have had one since 1945 through the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions, and it has changed and expanded over the years with decolonization; the development of regional groupings and alliances, in many of which Canada enjoys membership; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the development of the European Union; regular global and regional summits; and the list goes on.

The end of the Vietnam War falls into that rubric.

There are international norms and rules that are set out that should be followed by all countries. We all know this is not always the case.

I recognize that the concern expressed by Senators Ngo and Patterson revolve around human rights and the development of Vietnam since the peace treaty was signed. Various Canadian governments have, in the interval, raised these issues with the government since 1975, in bilateral terms. But what I consider very important is the multilateral element, as shown in the Universal Periodic Review that Canada had undertaken in the UN system to assess Vietnam’s efforts on human rights and the harmonization of its laws with international standards. That is the development in the UN system that has also occurred since 1975, when the peace treaties were signed.

In the last round in 2019, Canada recommended that Vietnam revise its penal code and cybersecurity laws to align with international standards for freedom of expression, association and assembly; to ensure due process rights and the right to a fair trial; to allow religious groups to practise freely; and to allow for the establishment of independent labour unions and gender-equality issues.

That is the way to achieve progress, colleagues: peer review and multilateral engagement, the push that the CPTPP brings today for all parties to step up and continue bilateral dialogue. The solution is not to return to an instrument from 45 years ago, regardless of any perceived symbolic value or reassurance and hope it might provide to our valued and respected community of Vietnamese Canadians, of which our dear colleague is an illustrious member.

Honourable senators, the chances of getting six parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reopen the conference are well nigh impossible.

As I have said before with respect to motions on international affairs in this chamber, we must keep in mind that the management of Canada’s international affairs falls within the Royal Prerogative. While the Senate and the House of Commons can certainly provide indications of what should be done, what actually can be done resides solely with the government of the day.

If we pass motions, they need to be realistic and reflect well on our institution — the Senate of Canada. I don’t think this one does.

In my view, our government would need to think long and hard before committing its international political capital toward returning to an issue that, for many people and countries, was settled long ago.

It is for those reasons that, with the greatest respect for our colleague Senator Ngo, I oppose this motion.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I am speaking on behalf of the Wa Ni Ska Tan Alliance of Hydro-Impacted Communities in Manitoba.

We welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and offer insights into emerging urgencies and new threats, such as climate change, while also warning of the dangers posed by blindly accepting large-scale hydroelectric projects as a route towards the future reliance on renewable energy. Though the climate crisis offers a very real danger to all peoples of the world, promoted solutions must be founded in principles of justice and avoid the sacrifice of communities for the benefit of others.

The people who comprise our research partnership include grassroots individuals from a number of hydro-impacted First Nations in northern Manitoba who have expressed concern about the history and expansion of hydro power in their respective territories. Our alliance also includes researchers and academics from nine universities, as well as members of several local NGOs.

Northern Manitoba is home to many freshwater lakes and tributaries, some of which were critical to the earliest encounters and commercial activities that would eventually influence the settlement of Canada. Scholars have clearly documented the historic importance of several ancient tributaries such as the Churchill, the Nelson and the Saskatchewan rivers. For Ithiniwuk (the Cree), these tributaries sustained their ancestors and their communities for millennia. Beginning in the mid 1960s, however, a new industrial presence would irreversibly alter landscapes and reverse waterways.

During this time Manitoba, together with the federal government, embarked on a joint study which examined, in part, the feasibility of large-scale hydropower in the north. Not long after the completion of the study, Manitoba’s public utility ambitiously set out to “harness” the power of the waters in the region. Mega projects followed and in what would become known as the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation projects, massive diversion channels were excavated en masse so water flows could be rerouted. The purpose for the dams along the Nelson River was originally to save money on electricity production for Winnipeg and other communities in Southern Manitoba, not for any environmental reasons. The public discourse on climate change and its connection with fossil fuels did not enter public discourse until much later.

The Churchill River Diversion affects the flow of the Churchill River which historically and naturally flowed into Hudson Bay. This river was, by the mid 1970s, intentionally and artificially rerouted via the Missi Falls Control Structure at the outlet of South Indian Lake. Its new path now flows through the Rat and Burntwood Rivers and eventually into the Nelson River system. The Province of Manitoba writes that “CRD is used for the generating stations on the Nelson River, which account for about 75% of power generation in Manitoba.”

Large-scale hydro projects like the CRD in Manitoba were made possible by a series of agreements and deal making spanning more than 30 years, affecting four generations, and counting, in numerous Indigenous communities. Dam building for commercial purposes, and export, was ushered in with the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement in 1977. While this agreement involved the Province of Manitoba, the Board of Manitoba Hydro, the federal government, and five First Nation communities collectively represented by the Northern Flood Committee, it was effectively triggered by the resistance of the Cree whose reserve lands would be flooded as a result of Hydro’s CRD and Lake Winnipeg Regulation projects. This agreement, which has been acknowledged as a treaty, was meant to mitigate a broad range of adverse impacts, the scope of which were not entirely known at the time of its signing.

The CRD has directly impacted more than 8,000 kilometres of shoreline. This is a conservative estimate based on available data sets from publications of shorelines around South Indian Lake, but the true numbers are difficult to calculate due to the inaccessible nature of supposedly public information. . . . Both the Manitoba government and public have to rely on the information provided by Manitoba Hydro, because they fund the vast majority of scientific studies on their projects and utilize strategies of divide and conquer when signing agreements with communities.

The South Indian Lake community and its people were self-sufficient, thriving and even prosperous, before the CRD project came to fruition, not having to rely on government intervention or support. The South Indian Lake Commercial Fishery was the third largest lake whitefish fishery in North America. South Indian Lake had an average annual income approximately seven times that of other Northern communities, because they were mainly reliant on fishing and trapping activities. Scientific reports on potential adverse impacts of the project were ignored by authorities and licences were granted for the Crown corporation to legally proceed.

The hydroelectric energy produced by these megadams has long enjoyed an undeserved reputation as “clean” and “renewable” energy. In the move towards addressing climate change through electrification, “greenwashing” of hydro power poses an emerging threat of ideological proportions. Ongoing dysfunctional and deep-rooted colonial structures, including jurisdictional gaps, also strain existing power imbalances in the region. This ecological footprint has resulted in impacts that have yet to receive due environmental consideration. Entire islands have been swallowed up. Historic and commercial fisheries have been decimated. Thousands of people and entire communities have been flooded, displaced and dispossessed.

Emissions from hydro dams are produced through the flooding of shorelines and forests, which introduces organic matter into the water that then decomposes, producing carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Flooding in northern Manitoba was not restricted to a single project or event. In the areas impacted by hydro operations, the water levels and flows are raised or lowered based on the demand for power. This results in ongoing inundation and/or de-watering of tributaries and produces greenhouse gas emissions on an ongoing basis. Hydroelectric reservoirs are a source of greenhouse gases and in individual cases can reach the same emission rates as thermal power plants. Independent scientific studies have shown emissions related to hydroelectricity to be severely undercounted. Rigorous monitoring of individual reservoirs is desperately needed, in order to ensure that they are not contributing significantly to climate change.

The shorelines of several historic tributaries throughout this region contain two histories and two competing narratives: one before hydro and the other after hydro. The former, life before hydro, represented an era where the people moved with the ebbs and flows of the land and waters, were independent, and sustained themselves on the very land and waters that have become critical to hydropower and its operations. Before hydro, the land and waters were pristine. Today these same lands, and the communities who relied on them, carry the cultural, social, environmental, and economic scars of a fairly recent and ongoing colonial encounter. The danger of marketing this energy as responsible, green, and clean, must be avoided; this energy is not without consequence and we have yet to measure the full scale and scope of its environmental footprint in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, its cumulative environmental impacts, or the ways it can exacerbate the climate crisis.

Renewable energy projects are desperately needed in the face of the climate crisis, but they must not be undertaken in a way that repeats the mistakes of the past. The hydro dams in Manitoba were developed in a colonial manner that did not prioritize collaboration with Indigenous Peoples or minimize environmental harm. Future energy projects should focus on renewable energies such as wind and solar that can be built closer to urban centres such as Winnipeg — reducing the amount of necessary infrastructure and fuel. These energies will also be less susceptible to future changes in our climate, unlike the susceptibility of hydroelectricity to a drought, such as we are currently experiencing in Manitoba. Northern Canada is also predicted to experience greater warming than the global average, signalling another reason to focus efforts on resilient solutions. We call upon governments and industry to seize the opportunity to develop innovative solutions to our energy needs and in a manner that does not contribute to additional environmental, socio-economic, and cultural degradation.

Today we are witnessing, across Canada, a shift in how the public views megadam projects. From Site C in British Columbia, to Keeyask in Manitoba and Muskrat Falls in Labrador, the cost overruns and unnecessary environmental harms are being weighed against the supposedly cheap electricity that they will produce. Indigenous communities have always been voicing their opposition to these projects, but the non-Indigenous public is finally starting to listen. We recommend that all public utilities and Provincial Governments in Canada collaborate meaningfully, in good faith, with hydro-impacted communities in order to receive consent on all existing and planned energy projects. We also recommend that an immediate moratorium be placed on all megadam construction. This moratorium should be maintained until proper research has been done into all aspects of hydro’s impact on climate change, including greenhouse gas production, release of sequestered carbon, and all other effects of hydro that worsen climate change.

Today, the very waters and lands that gave the region and the original peoples of that land life and meaning have been disrupted and destroyed, displacing many Indigenous communities. In this era of reconciliation, we offer you a brief glimpse of one more history, and one more story, that requires a reckoning and redress of sorts: it is the story of hydropower in Manitoba. Four generations have already been affected by large-scale hydro development. As we find ourselves amid a rapidly evolving climate crisis, the cautionary tales to be gleaned are many, so too are possibilities and opportunities. We need to keep the next generations in mind as we move forward towards a more just and sustainable future.

We thank Senator Galvez for raising this very important issue, and we also thank the Senate. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Tannas, for Senator Black, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That the Senate of Canada:

(a)acknowledge that racism, in all its forms, was a cornerstone upon which the residential school system was created;

(b)acknowledge that racism, discrimination and abuse were rampant within the residential school system;

(c)acknowledge that the residential school system, created for the malevolent purpose of assimilation, has had profound and continuing negative impacts on Indigenous lives, cultures and languages; and

(d)apologize unreservedly for Canada’s role in the establishment of the residential school system, as well as its resulting adverse impacts, the effects of which are still seen and felt by countless Indigenous peoples and communities today.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-211, short titled “Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.”

I would like to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for reintroducing this important human rights bill. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

This bill lifts the veil on the prevalence of modern slavery around the world, impacting at least 90 million children and adults.

Canada is far behind in terms of forced labour legislation. If we are to uphold our standing as a champion of human rights, we must keep pace with countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which have already passed legislation requiring their companies to investigate and report on the risk of forced labour in their supply chains.

With this bill, we would uphold Canada’s international commitment to contribute to the fight against forced and child labour.

Modern slavery is the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain, which encompasses many forms of exploitation, such as human trafficking, descent-based slavery, forced and early marriage, as well as forced and child labour.

The latter is particularly troubling and is defined as work that is mentally, physically, socially and morally harmful to children, and it interferes with their ability to receive an education. Yet, one in four victims of modern slavery is a child.

We know the major factor in child labour is poverty, as children work for their survival and that of their family. This is part of a vicious cycle where education is seen as secondary to earning an income, which in turn prevents child workers from escaping poverty once they reach adulthood.

Of course, this bill cannot solve these root issues alone, but it can force private sector entities and government institutions to take steps to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable.

One of the key steps outlined in this bill is the requirement for large entities and government institutions to submit an annual report outlining steps taken to curtail forced or child labour; additionally, any training provided to employees on the prevention of modern slavery in any step of the production of goods produced, purchased or distributed.

Education is a vital step because many of us are too far removed from the goods we purchase and consume. Personally, I had the unique opportunity to visit the site of the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh. I arrived only three months after the eight-storey building collapsed, killing over 1,100 people and injuring countless individuals. I witnessed first-hand the cost of cheap fast fashion. These poorly paid workers had been forced to keep producing clothes even after police had ordered the evacuation of the building due to deep visible cracks in the walls.

It is time for Canada to implement legislation to curtail forced and child labour around the world.

As critic of the bill, I do have to point out some potential concerns that should be reviewed at committee. Some of you raised excellent questions last week. Senator Black questioned the broad definition of child labour and Senator Omidvar had concerns regarding the ramifications for children who rely on employment for survival. This is not a simple bill nor is it comprehensive in addressing forced labour.

Discussions will need to take place regarding the additional responsibilities provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; the broad powers allotted to designated persons in enforcing mandates outlined in the bill; and legal considerations of holding executive members, employees and/or agents liable for any discrepancies in the annual report.

It is also important to hear from witnesses at committee to ensure that this bill is as strong as possible.

With further input, we can eliminate corruption and shine a light on forced labour through transparency. I hope you support me in sending Bill S-211 to committee so it can be thoroughly reviewed. Thank you.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The vote will be at 5:22.

Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to and report adopted on the following division:

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. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 7 moved by Senator Galvez.

This motion calls on the Senate of Canada to recognize that climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response. Honourable colleagues, as you know, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, moved a similar motion at the other place on May 16, 2019.

At the time, the minister’s motion noted the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, wildfires, heat waves and other extreme weather events, as well as other concerns, such as the fact that climate change impacts communities across Canada, with coastal, northern and Indigenous communities particularly vulnerable to its effects.

The disastrous flooding in British Columbia should serve a reminder that climate change is real and that governments around the world must act quickly and decisively. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

As the new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, said, Canada is doing its part and has taken the following measures.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government put a price on carbon pollution and set a price trajectory out to 2030 that is one of the most ambitious in the world.

The government is also offering support to help homeowners improve their home’s energy efficiency and help drivers buy zero-emission vehicles.

The government is accelerating its plan to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity generation and is offering industries incentives to decarbonize and develop clean tech. The government also introduced regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and it is committed to doing the same for the entire Canadian economy.

Alongside that, the government is committed to protecting 25% of our land and oceans by 2025. That is why it earmarked $4 billion to support natural climate solutions, which include an initiative to plant 2 billion trees over the next 10 years.

[English]

Honourable senators, finding ways to speed up climate change action can be a frustrating experience for many of us.

As early as 1973, when many of us might have been learning of ecological problems for the first time, in his classic work Small is Beautiful, E.F. Schumacher wrote of:

An attitude to life which seeks fulfilment in the single-minded pursuit of wealth — in short, materialism — does not fit into this world, because it contains within itself no limiting principle, while the environment in which it is placed is strictly limited. Already the environment is trying to tell us that certain stresses are becoming excessive.

Nearly 50 years later, these environmental stresses have only increased. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change constantly reminds us — and more recently at COP26 — we are now reaching points of ecological exhaustion in several areas.

Before concluding, I want to commend Senator Galvez for tabling this motion and for her relentless climate change advocacy.

Here at the Senate, as elsewhere, we need to tackle climate change on a number of fronts. We are up against a problem of titanic proportions that requires all hands on deck if we are to avoid the proverbial iceberg that is now well within sight.

Senator Galvez’s motion is an important action but, of course, more needs to be done. In this chamber, in committees and individually, we need to be creative and innovative in contemplating how we can act to increase greater climate action for today and tomorrow.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 7 moved by Senator Galvez that aims to recognize the urgency for action on climate change.

The responsibility is in our hands, colleagues, and we must take the lead so that all our legislative actions can contribute to finding appropriate solutions.

A few years ago, as a private citizen, my understanding of environmental protection was limited to reducing the use of plastic bags and bottles, reducing harmful emissions from vehicles and industry, and reversing the effects of holes in the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. This concept has evolved over time, with media coverage and speeches by politicians on the subject. In the Senate, my conversations with Senator Galvez and the reading of her white paper convinced me of the urgency to act.

In medicine, we use the word “emergency” when a patient’s life is in danger and they require immediate care. Today, this is true of our planet, which supports life. It can’t wait any longer for us to act. It needs intensive care without further delay.

Honourable senators, I would like to focus on the importance of part (d) of the motion, which reads as follows: “climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians.”

In medical practice, the questionnaire on a patient’s environment includes questions about their home and workplace.

For example, if a person suffers from chronic lung problems and there are questions about why they have been repeatedly hospitalized despite using medication appropriately, a home visit may sometimes reveal a damp basement and signs of mould.

At work, if a person has an asthma attack or presents with skin lesions and itching as soon as they set foot in their office, this can be a sign of mould in the walls or poor air quality.

Two updates were published by the American Heart Association, in 2004 and 2010. They clearly established that air pollution is a risk factor and a cause of heart attacks and strokes.

In his article on the impact of atmospheric pollution on the health of Quebecers and Canadians, Dr. François Reeves, interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, pointed out the following:

Extensive use of fossil fuels affects human health in two ways: through direct toxicity and through climate events. The environmental impact on our health is highly significant: air pollution is the leading global cause of death . . . .

It causes more than 8 million excess deaths a year, which is more than tobacco or COVID-19.

In 2019, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported that air pollution accounts for C$114 billion a year in health and disability costs.

Hussein Wazneh, a researcher at Quebec’s centre for research and innovation in civil security, said the following:

Heat waves have significant health implications in Quebec and elsewhere in the world. For example, a five-day heat wave in 2010 led to the death of 106 people in Montreal. During this time, there were 280 extra deaths . . . .

Extra or premature deaths refer to deaths that would not have occurred if not for the adverse factor in question.

It is widely accepted that climate change will make the severity, duration and frequency of heat waves increase in the coming decades. The number of 30°C days could triple as early as 2080 in several Canadian cities.

These figures are masking some significant inequalities in terms of health determinants. People in precarious socio-economic situations often live near highways and urban heat islands.

According to Quebec’s department of the environment and the fight against climate change, road pollution accounts for 62% of the fine particles, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone in the air. The difference between some wealthier neighbourhoods, which have ample green space, and working-class neighbourhoods, where every square inch is paved, reflects social and public health disparities. In its report entitled The Health Costs of Climate Change, the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices emphasized that:

Disadvantaged groups are at higher risk of heat-related illnesses and death

Some of the pre-existing diseases that affect heat risk are associated more strongly with disadvantaged groups.

A literature review published in March 2021 by Quebec’s public health institute, the INSPQ, paints a picture of the many climate phenomena that affect population health, from extreme heat to extreme cold, from storms to floods, from air pollution to smog events, from drought to forest fires, from human encroachment on natural spaces to zoonotic diseases, and so on.

As we saw in Western Canada, the catastrophic consequences of deforestation that depletes soils, combined with forest fires and extreme rainfall, caused devastating floods. It is therefore not surprising that we once again called in the Canadian army to help us cope with disastrous meteorological phenomena.

Climate disturbances are causing cascading effects that can be seen in Canada from coast to coast to coast. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, with about one in five people living on the coast. The impact of climate change is generally considered over the long term, that is, over 10, 20 or even 50 years. Coastal erosion in the Arctic can be observed from one day to the next. According to Natural Resources Canada, it is estimated that each year in the Arctic, 30 to 40 meters of coastline are lost.

Changes related to erosion have been affecting the food supply of Inuit populations for the past 10 to 15 years. The extraordinary and urgent steps we must take to counter the impact of climate destabilization are crucial to combat food insecurity among northerners.

While the health impacts of pollution are obvious, as I mentioned earlier, some of the effects of climate change on population health are more insidious.

Take, for example, zoonotic diseases, which are diseases or infections that naturally spread from an animal species to humans. Lyme disease has been in the news every summer for the past few years. Tick migration on white-tailed deer populations is responsible for the arrival of this disease north of the forty-fifth parallel.

The risk of zoonotic diseases increases as humans continue to encroach on wild spaces.

In a book on epidemics in Quebec entitled Brève histoire des épidémies au Québec, the author references a 2015 warning from virologist Patrick Berche:

With population and poverty levels rising and contact with animals becoming increasingly common, it is highly likely that we will see other epidemics, such as flu or coronavirus . . . .

We must take care of our ecosystems. This type of intervention will help prevent future epidemics or even pandemics.

Dear colleagues, we know what we need to do. The Government of Canada has proposed a number of concrete measures to improve our chances of reversing the devastating effects of climate change, including building sustainable and net-zero buildings, accelerating the energy transition to renewable sources, moving away from our dependence on dirty fossil fuels by electrifying vehicles, and purifying our air by planting 2 billion trees in Canada.

In the “Initiatives” section of Senator Galvez’s website, you’ll find other measures, such as improving soil health, improving the National Building Code and creating a circular economy.

Motion No. 7 reflects the observations made by the INSPQ. Even if we significantly reduce Canada’s production of greenhouse gases in the coming years, the effects of climate change are already being felt and will continue to affect our communities for decades to come.

This is why it is more important than ever that we work even harder to combat the causes of climate change.

This is the only way to guarantee a longer life expectancy and good health for current and future generations.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion as well. This emergency is real, though the extent to which each of us, in Canada and globally, feel its effects so far depends in large part on our class, our race, our gender and our access to resources — in short, on our privilege.

Environmental degradation has both amplified and been driven by systemic inequalities. Our climate action will not be successful if we continue to leave the most marginalized behind. Future generations will be shaped by our collective work. We must uphold international commitments to reconciliation, eradicate inequality and urgently act to redress environmental destruction.

The first of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is the eradication of poverty in all its forms. Millions of Canadians live below the poverty line. They are disproportionately bearing the consequences of our failure to manage carbon and other emissions, from increased flooding, droughts and fires to catastrophic weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. Too many families and communities do not have the resources to shield themselves from the impacts of climate change.

Money pays for air conditioning as temperatures soar; money fills grocery carts as food insecurity increases; money pays for relocation and shelter away from natural disasters, such as floods, landslides and hurricanes.

Those living in poverty have fewer viable means to prepare for, protect themselves from and safely leave areas experiencing environmental disasters. Policy decisions intentionally ignore and abandon them.

In 2020, the woeful inadequacies of social assistance programs meant the poorest and most marginalized were left to survive a pandemic that cut them off from many community supports and services, on amounts ranging from 34% to 63% of the poverty line.

Let us be very clear, colleagues. This is below even Canada’s deep income poverty threshold. In some provinces, more than 50% were below that threshold.

While the poorest of the poor suffer the greatest consequences, the richest of the rich are actually driving climate change. Oxfam tracks the richest 1% of the global population as having used two times as much carbon as the poorest 50% over the last 25 years.

This inequality has only been exacerbated by COVID-19. The pandemic saw the wealth of billionaires increase by $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 31, 2020, alone, while the number of people living on less than $5.50 per day is estimated to have increased to as many as 500 million in 2020.

During pandemic-related commercial travel bans, sales of private jets soared internationally. The jets and yachts of billionaires are the main contributors to their huge, unfair and unsustainable carbon footprints.

According to Oxfam:

. . . it is the richest who are least affected by the pandemic, and are the quickest to see their fortunes recover. They also remain the greatest emitters of carbon, and the greatest drivers of climate breakdown.

Their report concludes that the division between those who reap the rewards of carbon-producing processes and those who pay the price needs to be a top priority for global governments. As Oxfam states, “. . . The fight against inequality and the fight for climate justice are the same fight. . . .”

Bearing the brunt of this crisis are women. On average, women have lower incomes and are more likely to live in poverty than men. Black and Indigenous women in particular experience the highest rates of poverty. Globally, they also typically bear responsibility for tasks such as securing food and water — tasks made more difficult by climate change.

In 2017, the United Nations Development Programme reported that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women.

When natural disasters associated with climate change occur in Canada, they are accompanied by notable increases in violence against women.

Systemic racial inequality contributes to disproportionately negative health outcomes, overrepresentation in jobs being outside exposed to the elements and therefore face disproportionate exposure to extreme heat and air pollution. First Nations peoples living on reserve are 33 times more likely than others to face evacuations due to wildfires. Racialized and low-income communities in Canada are in peril as a result of our inaction.

Women and girls are a powerful force for climate action. Polls consistently indicate that women are more aware than men of environmental degradation and its harms, want the government to take urgent action on this issue and they vote based on issues relating to climate.

Action to arrest, mitigate and prevent climate change and environmental degradation is a fundamental part of upholding the right of women and girls to equality. Climate policies won’t last if they do not reflect feminism or intersectionality. Success depends on us identifying vulnerabilities, creating more inclusive climate policies and improving economic equality and inclusion.

As Senator Galvez’s white paper highlighted, guaranteed liveable income initiatives would help to foster climate resilience. Such programs create opportunities for everyone to participate in climate action.

Climate action:

. . . requires urgent, society-wide mobilization to provide children born today with the liveable environment and functioning health systems they need to thrive in a climate changed world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated what governments can do to respond effectively to a global crisis. The climate crisis demands the same level of action. We need policies that reduce demand for energy, end subsidies to fossil fuel industries and we need banks to end investments in fossil fuels and ramp up investment in sustainable, renewable energy. We need to end tax benefits for fossil fuel corporations that, according to last week’s report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, cost $1.8 billion annually or about $9.2 billion between 2015 and 2019.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Pate: As we saw with the Canada Emergency Response Benefit during the pandemic, income support can help keep families and communities afloat through the challenges associated with such mobilization, from lost employment to ensuring that all have the means necessary to protect themselves from health hazards. This type of support could be particularly important as the economy transitions to better align with human, social and environmental well-being.

Looking forward, in addition to alleviating poverty, it is important to recognize and support Indigenous traditional knowledge and leadership in plans for climate action. Despite being differentially impacted by climate change and having fewer resources to adapt as a result of systemic inequities, Indigenous peoples continue to take the lead in protecting land and water in ways that benefit all of us. In spite of their laudable work, Indigenous peoples are too often criticized for causing “inconveniences” and depicted as transgressors of the rule of law, then criminalized and even imprisoned when they act to protect waters and lands.

Canadian legal systems have too often failed to protect and uphold rights conferred by Indigenous and international legal orders, such as those that Wet’suwet’en land and water protectors have been asserting. Canada has not, however, demonstrated the same hesitation when it comes to criminalizing and imprisoning Indigenous peoples for taking measures to protect themselves, their families or the environment.

As we work to address climate change and environmental degradation, it is clear that Canada needs to better recognize and respect Indigenous laws and rights. This must include following through on its commitment to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Criminalizing people for protecting their environment and asserting their rights will only escalate and underscore historic injustices.

Honourable senators, it is incumbent on us as people in positions of power to lead the way forward in climate action. We must not forget that the harms of climate change are not felt evenly, and that the most marginalized populations need our immediate attention. I urge us all to act now and support this motion and the work of Senator Galvez and many others, and help build a more sustainable, equitable and healthy society for generations to come. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to the motion brought forward by our colleague Senator Ngo.

Over the years, Senator Ngo has provided a voice to issues close to his heart and has done so with honesty and passion. This motion is no different. This chamber — and I will presume to speak for this chamber — but I, speaking personally, thank Senator Ngo for his contributions over the years. We will miss his interventions.

The government agrees with Senator Ngo that Canada has a vested interest in continuing to uphold stability, peace and democracy in Asia. However, the government does not agree with the method being proposed by Senator Ngo in Motion No. 13.

[Translation]

Canada’s relationship with Vietnam has developed significantly over the years. Vietnam is an important bilateral, regional and multilateral partner for Canada. The relationship between our two countries was recently strengthened, mainly due to the establishment of a comprehensive partnership during the Prime Minister’s visit to Vietnam in 2017.

[English]

The comprehensive partnership strengthens cooperation in several key areas, including political and diplomatic engagement; trade and investment; development assistance; defence and security; cultural and academic exchanges; science, technology and innovation; and people-to-people ties. This partnership aims to meet both our countries’ priorities, contributes to upholding the rule of law, and to maintaining peace and stability in Southeast Asia and in the Indo-Pacific region.

[Translation]

The government believes that it would be more constructive for Canada to focus on the 2017 comprehensive partnership with Vietnam. As we approach 2023, the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Vietnam, it is vital that we maintain the positive momentum with Vietnam. The Government of Canada will continue to support Vietnam’s progress and to advocate for improved human rights and democracy through this partnership.

[English]

Canada will also continue to support stability, peace and democracy through the existing and growing avenues at our disposal. This includes leveraging our comprehensive partnership with Vietnam, as well as our relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN.

Canada has been a dialogue partner of ASEAN since 1977. We are one of only ten countries with this designation. Canada cooperates on political and security issues, regional integration and economic interests. We also provide security assistance to ASEAN member states, which contributes to regional peace and security and promotes Canadian foreign policy objectives in Southeast Asia.

In addition, Canada supports ASEAN’s regional development priorities. Our assistance is used to promote and protect human rights, inclusive governance and peaceful pluralism.

To support our work with ASEAN, Canada has both a dedicated mission and an ambassador to ASEAN. As an example, the government is pleased to see that ASEAN members and China have resumed negotiations to develop a code of conduct for the South China Sea. Canada encourages transparency in these negotiations and reiterates that the agreement should not derogate from the rights that parties enjoy under international law or prejudice the rights of third parties.

[Translation]

The government does not agree that the Act of the International Conference remains a viable diplomatic tool for settling disputes or an effective mechanism for initiating negotiations on urgent geopolitical issues, such as developing a code of conduct for the South China Sea.

[English]

Reconvening the international conference, in Canada’s judgment, is not an appropriate avenue to uphold stability, peace and democracy in Asia at this time. Moreover, the government does not see a compelling policy rationale to consider reconvening the conference after so many years, as Senator Boehm underlined in his remarks. We have moved on and, frankly, such a motion might very well undermine Canada’s bilateral relationship with Vietnam.

As well, we should take into consideration how such a motion could affect the bilateral relationships between Vietnam and parties to the act. Resuming the conference could, in fact, have a negative impact on the decades-long friendship and cooperation between Canada and Vietnam. Canada will continue to advance its relationship with Vietnam and consistently advocate for peace, stability, diplomacy and the upholding of international obligations.

For all of the reasons mentioned, the government respectfully is unable to support Motion No. 13. However, this chamber should be assured that Canada values its relationship with Vietnam and views Vietnam as a friend and partner in the region. Our two countries will continue to work closely together in multilateral fora. Thank you.

An Hon. Senator: Question.

Hon. Dan Christmas: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in strong support of Senator Kutcher’s motion to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to study the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention.

My remarks today will be brief, but hopefully compelling, as I share the impact of suicide on a young Mi’kmaw man whose life was seemingly filled with promise, yet sadly ended well before its time.

I do so today because I feel I must, rooted in reality that First Nations people, living both on and off reserve, Métis and Inuit, die by suicide at a higher rate than non-Indigenous people. I’ve seen suicide not only result in immeasurable loss to family and friends, but also to our communities and their social fabric, especially when the victim is a young person.

As I mentioned, I knew such a young man. He was a member of a family from the Millbrook community in Nova Scotia. I would like to share his story with you now, honourable senators.

His name was Cody Glode. Cody grew up in a warm and loving family. His parents, Matthew and Lisa, described young Cody as a rambunctious child with a wonderful sense of humour which would carry on into his teenage and young adult years. He was the type of man that literally lit up a room when he entered it.

What’s more, Cody was an achiever, some might say even an overachiever. At 19, he became the youngest full-time firefighter with the Truro Fire Service and the only Mi’kmaw person in its ranks.

He was also a rising star in the local mixed martial arts scene with dreams of making it to the pinnacle of his sport.

He had a healthy obsession with martial arts, which saw his pastime become his passion. It was his sense of passion and determination that masked his personal battle, for you see, Cody was a high-functioning depressive.

Eventually at age 20, after suffering for eight years, Cody’s symptoms were such that he sought help from the local mental health helpline. When he didn’t get immediate assistance, he tried the emergency room at a hospital where he was told to follow up with his family doctor, who then recommended he see a psychologist.

Faced with a two-month wait time, which for him felt like an eternity, his light of hope immediately dimmed. Three weeks later, on March 2, 2016, he took his own life, feeling totally defeated.

Three years afterwards, his mother was asked whether she wished she could bring her son back. She replied she would not, noting that “To do that would be so selfish because he was in so much pain.”

Yet, indirectly, Cody Glode has left a legacy that has helped to illuminate a path forward, where lives like his might be spared and a system in disrepair might be made right again.

In 2017, the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs studied the suicide crisis in First Nations communities and issued its report, Breaking Point: The Suicide Crisis in Indigenous Communities.

Members of the Glode family courageously appeared before the committee as witnesses. I will let their words give voice to the legacy of their son and nephew, Cody Glode.

His father, Matthew, spoke of Cody’s plight in seeking help with his mental illness:

For a lot of people suffering from mental illness, who are deep in that pit of despair, making a phone call would be climbing Mount Everest. If Cody had gone into the office with a bump on his head, high sugars, chest pain, or even a broken foot, help would have been immediate. Mental health issues need immediate action. “Mental health” are words that people have to be comfortable with. Our son was not crazy. He did not have bad nerves. He was not lonely. He suffered every day from mental illness. If it had been cancer, there would have been all kinds of help available.

He then described the impacts of suicide and mental illness and offered his advice in the face of this:

Mental health is lonely and crippling. It kills its victims. We as a nation need to make mental health a household word. We need to put in place a system that saves lives, one that, if need be, holds that person’s hand until they get the help they need. We need people there to continue the care even after help has been given and received, whether that be with a simple visit or a phone call, or a person in place who would offer a hug, words of encouragement, or a listening ear. Sometimes it’s so simple, but yet crucial to that person on the dark and lonely road of mental illness.

Cody’s Aunt Pam is Executive Director of the Halifax Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre. She offered the committee context and clarity around mental health issues in the Indigenous community. She said:

I’ve just listened to a young girl say she was broken, and I take great offence at that. I take great offence that this young girl or any of our children feel like they are broken. As a people, we are not broken. The systems are broken and the policies are broken, and that’s what needs to change. In our community, whether you’re on reserve or in an urban context, we are not broken. The systems are broken. They’ve been broken. They’ve been designed to fail us time and time again. I’ve seen it happen over and over again.

I believe in my heart of hearts that there is a way forward. We talk about reconciliation—everybody throws that word around now—and it’s where we need to go. I actually believe that it can be done. I believe that it will take a long time to be done. I believe that it will take us doing things together, not having government do things to our community, but with us, beside us, not in front of us, and not behind us. I believe that those policies need to be joint and they need to be done together.

I believe in my heart that our community can get better. I believe that when society as a whole recognizes.... [that] we need to have understanding of why things are the way they are. Don’t hold it against us that our families were put into residential schools or that there was the sixties scoop, or the past and all of those things that created this, like the Indian Act. They’ve all been created to assimilate and to eradicate the Indian problem, and those are real things.

People need to be treated with respect. It breaks my heart knowing that out of everything we do, we couldn’t even help my own nephew. I questioned what I do because of that. However, I also believe that what happened to Cody, for me, is the changing point even in my life. I believe that something good will come from Cody’s passing.

. . . we have to start doing things together, not in silos, not separately, and not in Ottawa, but together. We talk about a national strategy. We talk about all these things. The reality is that we have to start doing things together. I don’t mean at each other. I mean together. We need to have that honest truthful conversation, and humility has to play a role in that.

Honourable senators, if we ever needed a wake-up call, this is it. How can we not move forward in support of this motion after hearing such words of truth as these?

There’s an adage of unknown origin which says, “Suicide doesn’t end the chances of life getting worse. It eliminates the possibility of it ever getting any better.”

Honourable senators, supporting the adoption of this motion can help measurably improve the possibility of mitigating the seemingly endless tragedy of suicide and its destructive impacts. It has been said of our noble institution that some of its best work is achieved in committee.

I wholeheartedly support Senator Kutcher’s position that our committees can be informed by what this chamber considers to be priority areas, and I hope and pray that our collective voice in response to this motion affirms that studying the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is indeed of significant import to permit its deliberation by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Cody Glode suffered. So many others have suffered, and there are so many still suffering but thankfully still with us. It’s been said that “All storms end with the rising of a new dawn.” Yet, we are still dealing with the darkness of suicide.

Let us hopefully hasten the dawn with our deliberation of this vital matter in this place, and its committee, through the speedy adoption of this motion.

Wela’lin. Thank you.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you for sharing Cody’s tragic story, Senator Christmas, and for pointing out to us in the words of his family that what needs to be done is not being done. In your opinion, in this situation, was there something that could have and should have been done that wasn’t?

Senator Christmas: Thank you, senator. I have reflected on the situation many times. When Cody went to the emergency room and asked for help, the emergency room physician referred him to a psychologist, and that had a two-month wait time. I wish what had happened was that there had been a mental health triage — that within 24 hours, a mental health professional had talked to him, ideally in person but even over the phone, and assessed his mental health to see what kind of mental health services he required. I think if Cody had had someone reach out within 24 hours, it could have made the difference.

Unfortunately, as you know, senator, the mental health system is unable to react that fast. I hope a time comes when we do have a system that is not broken — that is fixed — that will enable young people or anyone who is faced with mental illness to be reached immediately, and from there the care would begin.