Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, before the fall of Kabul on August 15 — ironically on the same day that a federal election was called in Canada — a letter from women civil society leaders, such as Senators Mobina Jaffer, Rosa Galvez, Julie Miville-Dechêne, Donna Dasko, Paula Simons and me, went to Prime Minister Trudeau, to key cabinet ministers and to key ambassadors, urging Canada to take a strong international lead by applying our feminist foreign policy skills and resources to helping the people of Afghanistan, in particular to recognize that women leaders were at extremely high risk.

This week, every member of the Canadian women’s soccer gold medal team signed another letter to the Prime Minister, with many international sports leaders and organizations, calling for leadership and follow-through on evacuation and resettlement promises that Canada has made since mid-August, noting that Canada has helped fewer women athletes at extreme risk than Australia, Portugal, Switzerland and the U.K., for example.

Senator Gold, Afghanistan’s women athletes are targeted by the Taliban. “Athlete” is listed on their passports. I ask you “when?” Even though donations have poured in and there are planes waiting, why, after months now, are so many of these athletes still without their visas to Canada? When will Canada start issuing visas more efficiently to save those lives?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question, for raising this important issue and for your continued devoted advocacy for human rights.

Your advance notice of this question permitted me to make inquiries with the government, but I have not yet received an answer with respect to visas, in particular for women athletes. However, I would like to note that the government is working in close collaboration with international and Canadian partners to implement a second humanitarian stream focused on resettling the most vulnerable Afghan nationals, including women leaders and their immediate family members.

When I hear back from the government on the question of visas, I will report to the chamber.

Senator McPhedran: Actually, what we are told from inside the IRCC, when many of us in this room try to get more women parliamentarians and athletes to safety, is that the second 20,000 of the promised 40,000 is held up in cabinet right now. For some reason it hasn’t been cleared. Lives are at risk.

Senator Gold, would you please ask them why they are not following through, activating and becoming much more efficient, as is needed, for all of the 40,000 promised?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the Russians are very actively developing their Arctic. This past decade has seen Russian forces consistently building up their Far North capabilities and stationing tens of thousands of troops in state-of-the-art bases. We have seen assets such as advanced missile launchers and nuclear submarines strategically positioned throughout their Arctic region. Earlier this year, Russia flew two fighter jets over the North Pole for the first time, refuelling in mid-air — an obvious example of military posturing by a foreign entity in an area where Canada has a competing claim.

Senator Gold, in light of everything that is happening in the Russian Arctic, what is Canada’s response to this increased Russian military activity?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Harder, would you take a question?

Senator Harder: Delighted; I almost miss it.

Senator Batters: That’s what I’m here for.

Senator Harder, last spring you were the sponsor of Bill S-4, which was, I understand, identical to Bill S-2. The Trudeau government pressed to get that bill passed very quickly through the Senate so that the House of Commons had a considerable time to pass it prior to adjourning for the summer, when they prorogued and called the election. Yet despite Bill S-4 passing the Senate with weeks available before the House of Commons adjourning, the Trudeau government not only didn’t call it for a vote, it didn’t even call that particular so-called priority legislation for first reading or any debate in the House of Commons. Senator Harder, why not? And how can senators know that your new Bill S-2 will not once again be ignored by the Trudeau government in the House of Commons after they try to rush it through the Senate?

Senator Harder: Yours is a very relevant question and one that I sought to answer in my comments. It was a disappointment to me, and I am sure, hopefully, to most senators, that the other place did not deal with this legislation. It arrived in the other chamber, albeit in May, but we have seen other bills dealt with in that time frame, so it wasn’t an improbable mission. But you will also know that in a minority government in the other place, there were discussions amongst leaders, and all of the partners necessary to pass a piece of legislation were not onside to advance this bill in a fashion which would see it get to Royal Assent. I regret that, but that’s politics and the reality we’re facing.

The good news is the same bill is being reintroduced within a month of the election to demonstrate to the other chamber, I hope, not only the will of this chamber but the commitment of the Government of Canada to get this done.

Senator Batters: Senator Harder, the Trudeau government has introduced this new Bill S-2 as an identical bill to Bill S-4. The government did have several months to re-evaluate its legislation and make any needed changes. I note that terms undefined in the Parliament of Canada Act and in 150 years of history, like “liaison” and “facilitator” — positions that will, under this very bill, receive taxpayer funded remuneration — are still undefined in this new Bill S-2. Why hasn’t the Trudeau government used some sober second thought and provided a definition for these still new terms in the Parliament of Canada amendment act?

Senator Harder: That was the same question you asked, as I recall, when I gave my speech on Bill S-4. The Government of Canada, in drafting the bill, made the decision, not the omission, to leave the definition of those officers to the Senate itself and its practices. Remember, it’s permissive. It doesn’t obviate the future possibility of a return to old nomenclature. It simply adds to the nomenclature available for this chamber.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I was struck by your language when you talked about equal treatment, and I wonder — as someone who is inhabiting a new identity here in the Senate as an unaffiliated independent senator — if you could provide any assurance about the impact of this bill on unaffiliated independent senators.

Senator Harder: The Parliament of Canada Act provides no framework for the treatment of unaffiliated senators or, frankly, independent members of Parliament. That is done in the normal practices of each chamber as it deals with, for example, membership on committees. What the bill is intended to deal with is the framework of parties, groups, caucuses and organizational responsibilities that each chamber faces, and this is an opportunity for the Senate to be modernized with the experience of the last now almost six years.

Senator Dasko: This is a follow-up to Senator Batters’ question. Thank you for your presentation. I’m heartened to hear that the government has placed this high on its list. I want to press a little further on what is going on over in the other place. You suggested earlier that perhaps some of the other parties in the other place were not enthusiastic about this bill. I’m wondering, has that changed? Does the government have a dance partner, if I can put it that way? Can you further enlighten us as to what is actually happening over there and whether we can be optimistic that this is going to happen very soon? Thank you.

Senator Harder: Senator, the government would not be proceeding at the time and at the urgency that it is if it was not assured in its mind and discussions that there is a window of opportunity to get this legislation done. I think it would be foolish for me to pretend that there are — our commitments that I can reference, but let’s have Committee of the Whole, have the minister here, and hear how they expect to move forward. My hope is that we get it to the other chamber before Christmas, because that too adds more momentum of expectation on delivery and it’s early in the Parliament, so it’s not as though the government’s agenda on other legislation prevents the normal discussion in a minority Parliament as to how to advance and conclude legislation.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Patricia Bovey moved second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate).

She said: Honourable senators, I speak from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and as a Manitoban, as from the territory for the as-yet-unfulfilled Treaty 1, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Ojibway, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene and Dakota and the homeland of the Métis.

Senators, I rise today to speak at second reading to Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate). This is the fourth iteration of this bill, first introduced in May 2016 by our former colleague Senator Wilfred Moore. Passed unanimously by this chamber twice, it unfortunately died on the Order Paper twice in the other place, despite having all-party support prior to the dissolution of Parliament last June 2021.

It would be wonderful to have it passed in both houses and become law before I retire from this chamber in 18 months. Bill S-202 would create the position of a visual artist laureate, a position which would be similar to that of the Parliamentary Poet Laureate; complementary yet working in different mediums. Like the poet laureate, the visual artist laureate would be an officer of the Library of Parliament, which provides for independence from Parliament like the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If passed, this bill provides that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons shall select the artist laureate from a list of three names that reflect Canada’s diversity, provided by a committee chaired by the Parliamentary Librarian. The committee would include the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages, the CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts, the director of the National Gallery of Canada and the chair of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts or their designates.

[Translation]

The visual artist laureate would serve the Speakers of both chambers for a term not exceeding two years. As I have already mentioned, their mandate would be to promote the arts in Canada by producing or causing to be produced artistic creations. At the request of either Speaker, he or she could produce artistic creations for use in Parliament or on occasions of state. The visual artist laureate could also sponsor artistic events and give advice to the Parliamentary Librarian regarding the Library’s collection and acquisitions to enrich the Library’s cultural holdings. Either the Speaker or the Parliamentary Librarian could ask the visual artist laureate to perform other related duties.

As I have already mentioned in this chamber, the visual artist laureate would definitely portray Canada’s diversity, no matter the medium used — painting, print-making, sculpture, design, video, film, art installation, photography or other. Any artist appointed to the position of visual artist laureate would consider it an honour to serve as an ambassador for the arts and creative works in the Parliamentary precinct. Indeed, the term “laureate” denotes the honour for distinction in a particular field.

[English]

This portrayal of our diversity and our need to understand each other — whether on a federal, provincial, territorial or cultural level — is paramount, especially now as we move forward as a country. Artists have always depicted or discussed contemporary issues in their work and drawn attention to critical concerns. It is clear, for instance, that understanding each other will play a key role in reconciliation, for which cultural understanding is essential.

For instance, Alberta artist Joane Cardinal-Schubert’s 1990s installation The Lesson provided a clairvoyant and clarion call to understanding the redress which predated the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Faye Heavyshield’s 1985 work Sisters — long before the national inquiry was established — drew attention to the need for sisters to support each other, a truly poignant universal statement with the tragedy of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls. For years, Jane Ash Poitras’s paintings have presented her poignant insights into the unmarked graves at residential schools, while Robert Houle has documented many issues around colonization in our collective treaties. Isn’t it time that the work of our two houses become part of these visual conversations? I feel the same regarding environmental and climate change concerns, which artists like Don Proch have been highlighting in their work for decades.

We all heard Senator Ataullahjan’s poignant statement last week depicting the situation in Afghanistan. The ustad burying his rabab, the symbolic burying of the cultural expression of the Afghan people. She said:

For me, the burying of the rabab is a significant act. The strings of the rabab pull at the heartstrings of everyone for that region. For me, it signifies the burying of the heart and the soul of Afghanistan.

I repeat that here because culture is a cornerstone of who we are, and without the arts our unique voices go unheard, and I believe those visual voices should carry our parliamentary messages and work.

Colleagues, I could go on with examples to prove that Canada does indeed have many excellent artists who give voice to the various perspectives regarding societal issues, but I won’t. We have seen — even in the small installations in this chamber of Indigenous work, the new presentation of Inuit art and our two iterations of honouring Canada’s Black artists — that visual expression does make a difference and creates new understandings. I think our work and theirs would indeed be strengthened by the work and the presence of a parliamentary visual artist laureate as it has with our Parliamentary Poets Laureate.

In previous speeches I have highlighted the value of our artistic sector to the Canadian economy and there are compelling economic statistics from Canada’s cultural industries. Statistics Canada publishes the Canadian Culture Satellite Account, which for instance, found that the GDP of cultural industries in 2017 was $58.9 billion or $1,611 per capita, equalling 2.8% of national GDP.

According to the most recent Statistics Canada and Hill Strategies report, between 2010 and 2017, the GDP of culture products increased by 16%. The number of jobs in that period related to culture products increased by 7%. In 2017, there were indeed 715,400 jobs directly related to cultural industries, or 3.8% of all jobs in the country.

[Translation]

Of course, the pandemic has dealt a serious blow to our economy and the arts and culture sector. The federal government has recognized this. The most recent budget provides funding for this sector, as it will be one of the last to recover from the pandemic.

[English]

According to Hill Strategies’ research, the total value of goods and services in the culture sector decreased by 10% between 2019 and 2020. Between 2019 and 2020, 55% of organizations and businesses in the arts, entertainment and recreation experienced a revenue drop of at least 30%. Organizations have outright closed to the tune of 8% since 2019. The 594,000 employment and self-employed positions in the culture sector in 2020 represented the lowest job total since 2010. The performing arts and festivals have been hardest hit, losing 52% of sales and 36% of jobs between 2019 and 2020.

As I mentioned in debate in the last Parliament, through the pandemic, I’ve spoken to over 600 artists and they have been telling me that passing this bill, even though there will only be one visual artist laureate every two years, would be an important welcome vote of moral support for our artists in these dark times. Artists working in other disciplines — musicians, writers and actors — have also echoed those sentiments in my meetings and conversations with them. I can assure you that parliamentary support for this will be extremely well received.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, the arts are a universal language that we all speak. The arts break down barriers and help us understand one another. I like to think that as we look back on our nation’s history, we are reminded of the many great artists who have represented Canada through multiple visual media and the rich tapestry of the many peoples and cultures that inhabit this place.

Our story is and has been told by many visual artists who see this land through a myriad of viewpoints and lenses. Each contributes to the vision of Canada. The same is true of the visual artist laureate.

[English]

So it is with these thoughts in mind that I thank you all for your support for the arts and culture sector in Canada and ask once again for that same support in making this legislation a reality, hopefully within my remaining time in this chamber. I hope we can help the restart of the arts in this country by moving this bill forward quickly to the other place, recognizing that twice already we have passed it unanimously, and it was so close to being voted on in the other place before the election call. Thank you.

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, I want to thank the honourable senator for her determination, her patience and her engagement toward this very important bill for artists in Canada.

Thank you for all the work you’re doing for arts and culture for Canada. Your dedication is an inspiration for all of us. Just for more certainty, I want to ask about the definition of videography. Does it include all digital technologies? You know how young creators today use digital technologies in different ways. I want to make sure, when you talk about that, that it’s included. Thank you.

Senator Bovey: Thank you for your question, Senator Cormier. Absolutely. We don’t know what media artists will be using in the coming years, and that’s why I said, “and others.” But this is looking at the creative visual expressions of what we on Parliament Hill, in this chamber or in the House of Commons, undertake. As you say, I think it’s really important. This is one of the fields of creators among us that really do speak an international language. I think it would heighten the work that our parliamentarians are doing. That’s what I’m hearing from members of Parliament, from colleagues in this chamber and from artists, and that’s why I was so excited to hear from so many artists that even this one small gesture will be heartfelt and positively taken by all.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak about a subject near and dear not only to my heart but to the hearts of so many of my colleagues, present and past. Of course, I would be remiss without highlighting the fantastic work done by Senator Munson through the years in advocacy in this chamber of causes like autism.

When I came here, of course, he was a bit of a role model, being a fantastic spokesperson for the cause. He was quite a pioneer and ahead of his time and I was happy to jump on that bandwagon. Since then, there have been a number of colleagues as the momentum grows and we come to understand the importance of autism and how many people it touches. Of course, Senator Bernard and Senator Loffreda — who has accepted to be the friendly critic on this bill — and, of course, my dear friend and colleague Senator Boehm, who, right at the beginning, at the embryonic stages of this bill, and I chatted together. We’ve come to the conclusion that this is about time and is needed.

In many respects, I consider Senator Boehm my co-sponsor of the bill. We hope we can stickhandle this through on a non-partisan basis where all corners of this chamber will speak with a force and a power that will propel this issue to where it belongs.

Each and every one of us have spoken about this. We’ve had committee meetings and Autism Awareness Months and various events. We’ve tabled a very cutting-edge report called Pay Now or Pay Later here in the Senate, which has been cited for many, many years, but I remind colleagues that report was published in 2007. Now the time has truly come for action, I believe. The time has come for us to stand together as members of this great chamber to support the 1 out of 66 Canadians who receive this lifelong, debilitating diagnosis.

Autism spectrum disorder, commonly referred to as ASD, is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed amongst children in Canada, occurring in all racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups. Would you believe that almost 15 years have passed — as I mentioned — since a distinguished group of our colleagues in the Senate reported Pay Now or Pay Later and put it on the radar, calling for a national approach in support of autistic persons and their families? The report outlined in great detail how such a framework should be developed in consultation with leaders from the autistic community, medical experts, researchers, government bodies such as Health Canada and many others, and include a properly defined budget, while respecting jurisdictional regulations.

Colleagues, 15 years is a long time. While successive governments have made some efforts to support specific projects or autism programs across our great nation, these efforts do not, in any shape, way or form, fully meet the needs of Canadian families dealing with the challenges of autism.

This is why I stand before you in a non-partisan spirit of unity and ask each of you to support this bill calling upon the government to implement the framework proposed in 2007 in the Senate by a committee of our own peers.

To understand the challenges faced by many autistic individuals, one must first begin with a definition of autism. According to leading international medical organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association, autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that includes impairments in language, communication skills and social interactions, combined with restricted and repetitive behaviours, interests or activities.

While every individual is unique and encompasses specific challenges and strengths, many autistic people often suffer from a variety of sensory issues and the inability to completely regulate their emotions.

At this time, I’d like to reiterate something I have previously stated, and that is that the quality of Canadian expertise in autism care is certainly not in question. Indeed, we proudly boast some of the best and brightest minds in the world who are involved in all levels of autism research and care.

For example, in my own province of Quebec, the Transforming Autism Care Consortium, known by its acronym TACC, is a world-class research network based at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Its stated goal is to connect and mobilize Quebec’s strengths in autism research, all in an effort to improve the lives of people with autism as well as their families. According to the TACC, this is accomplished through “accelerating scientific discovery, capacity building, and integrating evidence in practice and policy.”

Another organization near and dear to my heart is the Giant Steps Resource and Training Centre in Montreal, a very special school that caters to the needs of autistic students while offering a wide variety of services, including major projects that focus upon employment options for autistic adults in partnership with major Canadian corporations such as Weston.

Indeed, Giant Steps has embarked upon a very ambitious project: the construction of a $51.5 million centre that will act as a major hub in the autism community and will include the school itself, in addition to three more pillars focused upon community services, adult and vocational services and research in partnership with TACC. The Province of Quebec has committed $15 million to the project, while the organization has raised millions of dollars in private funds to see it completed.

These are just some of the examples of the incredible work regarding autism being done by a variety of organizations right across Canada. There are most certainly many others, but these types of Herculean efforts are severely hampered by the deeply disappointing fact that we have not adopted a structural national policy.

Fifteen years after the Senate report, we still hear about the wait-list for diagnostic services and availability for therapies critical to the development of autistic children. We still hear the stories about families struggling with ever-increasing financial burdens involved with autism. We still hear the stories of parents being forced to give up jobs and careers to care for their autistic kids. We still hear the scary statistics regarding the challenges faced by autistic adults who face daunting employment prospects with an unemployment rate of 80% and a lack of suitable housing and support.

My fellow senators, as I stated earlier, successive governments have, in a piecemeal fashion, made efforts to support autistic people and their families in Canada.

I think of the example of Prime Minister Harper, who committed $11 million to support training programs for autistic adults. More recently, I had the privilege of working closely with Senators Munson and Bernard when we met with former health minister the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor. The minister visited Giant Steps and the TACC in Quebec, in addition to other organizations in various parts of the country. These efforts resulted in the successful implementation of several programs, including the autism employment project run by Giant Steps, the TACC, the English Montreal School Board and the Weston corporation.

I would be remiss if I didn’t underline and highlight the participation — more than participation — of the former government leader Senator Harder who was the catalyst for bringing then Senator Jim Munson, Senator Bernard and me around the table with the minister, and some of these initiatives were realized by that work. So thank you, Senator Harder, for that.

While we all deeply respect our critical role in this chamber of sober second thought, a role that includes serious debate based upon our respective philosophies and opinions regarding policy, we must work together on basic issues that affect so many of our fellow citizens.

Hence, when one considers the issue of autism, we owe Canadians the spirit of collaboration they so richly deserve, particularly when one considers the specific challenges faced by 500,000 autistic Canadians and their families — a number that rises every year in this country.

My fellow senators, the Pay Now or Pay Later: autism families in crisis report was very well thought out, and it speaks volumes. There is a great deal of research demonstrating the often debilitating periods autistic people and their families go through. These include the early stages of a child’s development when parents realize their son or daughter may exhibit the symptoms of autism only to discover the lack of diagnostic services and waiting lists in the public system.

Once diagnosed, many families then endure the stress of waiting for therapeutic services such as applied behavioural analysis, speech and occupational therapy. The challenges continue when looking for an appropriate school setting while balancing the realities of therapies that not only impose the already stated financial difficulties but are extremely time-consuming.

Colleagues, these parents are tired and need support. For most, the challenges mentioned only continue when adolescent children reach the age of majority.

The Senate report illustrates what many autism advocates have known for a long time: namely, that families often experience the feeling of falling off a cliff when their child becomes an adult.

Essentially, precious and often fought-for services geared toward autistic children and adolescents disappear as individuals enter the separate realm of services geared toward adults. Parents find themselves desperately restarting the process of finding appropriate medical services and programs for their adult children.

Questions regarding employment, housing and age-appropriate social services are paramount. Families struggle to find programs for their autistic sons and daughters, asking the common question: What happens to him or her when I’m gone?

The simple reality is that our adult years represent a far longer period than our youth years. Incredibly, so many years after the report, we still don’t have a policy that takes these factors into account. For a large percentage of families dealing with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Canada, the diagnosis represents not only a lifelong condition for the child but a lifelong commitment for caregivers.

Many opportunities readily available to healthy young adults are often unattainable for people on the spectrum, not because of lack of ability but because of a lack of resources or awareness. Many autism organizations, some national in scope such as Autism Speaks Canada, have worked hard to raise awareness about this critical issue. I cannot help but ask: What is our federal government doing to help?

Like all of you, I’m fully aware of the role our esteemed colleagues at the provincial level play across this great nation. We are fully aware of provincial jurisdictions and must respect our constitutional realities.

Having said that, there is no doubt that the Canadian government has a critical role to play, whether in support of our provinces with funding for provincial programs focused on ASD or through the development of a much-needed, comprehensive national policy that includes the development of programs that fall under the jurisdiction of Ottawa.

We must also look at dealing with autism as more than just a health care issue, especially as it pertains to autistic adults. The issue transcends health care and education and reaches into areas such as housing and employment. This is very much the responsibility of our federal government. We must provide the necessary leadership as senators and as parliamentarians.

Moments ago I mentioned ASD organizations with a national scope. Soon after the release of the Senate report on autism, the autism community came together and established CASDA, the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance. We all know of the great efforts being made by organizations such as CASDA, which has also called upon the federal government repeatedly over the years to develop a national autism strategy. The obvious question is: Is anyone listening? Are we going to respond?

CASDA has worked on a blueprint that takes into consideration all key elements of the Senate report, recognizing that regardless of what province one lives in, parents continuously report that they are responsible for covering any service shortfalls because of the variability in provincial funding and availability of programs. Families have had to move because of the lack of services. My fellow senators, this is unacceptable in a country like Canada. Can we accept the systemic failure by the federal government to develop a national policy when the data clearly demonstrates an increase in the prevalence of autism and the needs of thousands of Canadian families?

I’m hopeful that everyone in this chamber agrees that legislative action at the federal level is absolutely necessary — from coast to coast to coast. We, as well as our elected colleagues, have heard autistic Canadians, their family members, experts and advocacy groups demanding help. We have heard the calls to improve services through a federal policy, and we’ve heard the calls to raise awareness not only about autism but about the principle of neurodiversity in Canadian society. We have heard the calls to recognize the innate value of each and every unique citizen among us. Why, then, have we not acted in good faith by doing our job and putting into law that which we know to be just and fair?

Colleagues, what I’m proposing is that we pass legislation requiring the federal government to create and adopt a national policy on autism, within a specified time frame, with the expressed intention of working with the provinces and territories while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In addition to a specific time frame, this framework would be subject to parliamentary oversight.

Again, we all recognize that jurisdictions must be respected. However, I will remind everyone here that we have witnessed successes with federal and provincial cooperation on projects such as the recent example of the federal support for provincial child care programs. In principle, this approach can also be used to establish a national policy on autism that will focus upon, among other things, appropriate levels of funding, services, employment and housing.

While there are benchmarks, including timelines, the legislation is intentionally not being too prescriptive in what the framework itself should entail. The government has to be allowed the flexibility to respect the consultative process of this legislation. The legislation would ensure a coordinated national strategy aimed at supporting long-term solutions for autistic Canadians and their families, who would ultimately benefit from the implementation of a federal framework.

One of the projects the team at Giant Steps embarked upon, which the federal legislation can support and build upon, was based on the notion of inclusive communities that focus on the principle of neurodiversity. Dubbed the Autism-Inclusive Cities Project, Giant Steps worked closely with the City of Laval several years ago in an effort to improve the lives of autistic people living in that municipality. With substantial buy-in from the city administration, the police force and other first responders receiving training — as did local organizations such as Tourisme Laval, which helped to organize a conference in conjunction with the city — the police training expanded to the city of Montreal and is now being used by several municipalities across our nation.

Other local efforts include an autism awareness and sensitization initiative at the former Dorval airport, where hundreds of parents and their young autistic children get to experience the process of arriving at the airport, going through customs and actually entering an aircraft. This gives the children a valuable opportunity, that of understanding the process involved in travelling, thereby easing a highly stressful experience that so many of us take for granted.

Other bold initiatives include a variety of employment projects, such as the already mentioned Polaris Enterprise initiative, the national-based Ready, Willing and Able employment service and Specialisterne Canada, a job placement service for autistic adults based in Toronto. These examples of initiatives are exemplary and are being developed across Canada. In most cases, without the proper support by the federal government, many local businesses, corporations and non-profits — such as the Azrieli and Coutu foundations, among others — have supported these types of efforts. However, they can only do so much in a country the size of Canada. That is why we must provide the necessary legislation to ensure the rights of autistic Canadians. We need to make these efforts the norm and not the exception. Proper support for these types of endeavours, in addition to proper services for individual families, must be supported by the rule and weight of law.

It isn’t all about doom and gloom. On the contrary, it’s about making sure everyone has the resources and support to realize their true potential. That was the core principle behind the fundraiser — a number of fundraisers, in fact — that my colleague Senator Loffreda and I have hosted in Montreal in support of autism and particularly in support of Giant Steps. Of course, we call those events Children First. We Can. because we believe that that is the right thing to do. Thank you, Senator Loffreda, for your unwavering support through the years.

It was about putting these autistic children first, giving them the tools and their families the support to make sure that they could; to make sure that they won’t be left behind. We as Canadians take pride in the fact that we have to harness and emulsify all the skill sets of every single Canadian regardless of what speed they go; we need to get to the finish line together. That’s why this national framework is so vital to autistic children and to the autistic adult community in particular. Not only do they benefit from realizing their true potential, but we all benefit.

I hope, colleagues, that we can get this bill headed towards the right direction. Again, I thank Senator Boehm for his unwavering support and cooperation with this and, of course, for his advice on preparing the bill and on how best to approach government. There’s no one in the chamber that has more experience than Senator Boehm in stickhandling things through our administrative process here in Ottawa because of his contacts through the years with government. I’m so happy to see, as well, the answer of so many of my colleagues. When Senator Boehm and I reached out to so many of you, the interest was overwhelming. The campaign and awareness regarding autism seem to be just ramping up in many ways. Senator Gignac, one of our newest senators here, reached out, and we had a good conversation. He, as well, has a keen interest in this issue.

I am excited, happy and hopeful that early in the year we can unanimously send this to the Social Affairs Committee for a thorough review and prepare the ground so we can send it over to the other side and encourage the government to embrace this as their initiative. Because this should be the initiative of both chambers, all of Parliament and the Government of Canada. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Your Honour, may I respectfully request that senators present be advised? It’s my understanding that there was a gentleperson’s agreement and that the Speaker advised we were to wear masks at all times unless a medical exemption was granted, even when we are speaking and addressing our colleagues in the chamber. Would you clarify that point for us, please?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): The Speaker sent a memorandum on Saturday, November 20. With your permission, honourable senators, I will remind you of the contents of this memo:

Please be advised that commencing on Monday, November 22, 2021, the Senate Chamber will return to full capacity. Senators will be required to wear a mask at all times while in the Senate Chamber, common areas, and in any situation where the 2 metres distance cannot be maintained. This means senators are required to wear their masks when speaking in the Chamber.

[Translation]

Any senator who is unable to remain masked due to a medical condition will be accommodated. In this scenario, should an unmasked senator take the floor, colleagues nearby will have the option to move to a free seat that is properly distanced prior to the beginning of the senator’s speech. Furthermore, senators who desire social distancing can be seated in the galleries, which is fully operational for Senate sittings.

[English]

That said, on November 22, 2021, and November 23, 2021, there will be limited attendance and 2 meters distancing maintained during the ceremonial components of the Opening of Parliament and Speech from the Throne. The portions of the sittings prior to and following these events are not subject to this exception.

[Translation]

This solution is made possible by the combined layers of protection that are provided by full vaccination, masks and optimal ventilation.

The contribution of all honourable senators is critical to ensure the safe return of the Senate.

It is signed by our Speaker, the Honourable George Furey.

I hope that answers your question, Senator Duncan.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, for the second reading of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise to provide my support for this bill. I commend Senator Housakos for introducing it and for his work in the autism community, particularly in Montreal.

Colleagues, this is not a partisan issue. Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, impacts families all across our country regardless of their location, ethnic background and how they may vote in elections.

For me, the appeal of the bill is that it is general, recognizing that there are jurisdictional issues and varying approaches in dealing with ASD across the country. Hence it is a framework within which a national autism strategy could be created.

It suggests general measures encompassing financial support for autistic persons, their families, appropriate tax benefits, a research network, a public awareness campaign, using online resources to highlight best practices and measures to ensure accountability.

It recommends consultations across the breadth of the federal government, but also with provincial jurisdictions; relevant stakeholders; experts; advocacy organizations, to which I would also add self-advocates, many of whom have been in touch with me; and, of course, important for us here and in the other place, a mechanism to report back to parliament.

As Senator Housakos has said, the idea for a national autism strategy is not new. However, while much has been talked about, very little has actually been done since the release of the 2007 report by the Senate’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled, Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis. This is a well known and oft-cited report which our current colleague Senator Cordy had a hand in as a member of the committee at the time.

We need to recognize that the government has been preoccupied in the health sector for almost two years with a pandemic that is still not over as new COVID-19 variants emerge. This has engaged policy planners as well as federal and provincial government operational units full time, but, hopefully, this pandemic will soon become endemic. Work that may or may not have begun towards a national autism strategy could be encouraged by this bill. In fact, former Senator Munson and I had plans to meet with the previous Minister of Health to talk about a national autism strategy, and it was just at that point when the pandemic hit us with full force.

The intention is not to supplant any activity that may or may not be going on but to give it structure and, through the publicity for this bill, purpose.

A number of senators in this chamber have taken a great interest in ASD. Senator Housakos has mentioned a few, but I want to mention Senator Bernard, Senator Loffreda, Senator Harder, Senator Hartling, and my colleague and seatmate Senator Kutcher, who knows a lot about mental illness and mental health.

We cannot forget the great contributions made by our former colleague Senator Munson who championed the need for a national strategy, ensured the creation of an Autism on the Hill event and provided a voice for many advocacy organizations. In fact, Senator Munson was also a member of the committee in 2007 that produced the Pay Now or Pay Later report.

Work is not just happening here in the Senate. In the other place, Member of Parliament Mike Lake has been a tireless advocate in pushing the need for a strategy forward, not just in Canada, but also globally.

The Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance has set out some clear precepts for a strategy. Senator Housakos has touched on them. I will add a little bit.

On research, we need to realize that there is only fragmented knowledge sharing across the country, without national standards on research. A national leadership framework and regular federal, provincial and territorial ministerial meetings could change that and create a national advisory group that could assess accessibility standards as well as intersectional elements to ensure racialized immigrants and newcomers, Indigenous peoples and those in remote and rural communities are not discriminated against.

Affordability and access to services are important elements to ensure autistic individuals can reach their full potential and live a fulfilling life. This aspect could also include review, renewal or improvement of federal tax measures, including reforming the Disability tax credit, comprehensive training programs to provide greater access to the job market and introducing a national autism waitlist reduction initiative. The waitlists for therapy, assessment, training and placement in special education or living in specialized group homes as adults are horrendous. In my own province of Ontario, the current and previous governments have failed to address this challenge head-on.

Active consideration of placing treatments for ASD under medicare is also a subject that has been discussed by numerous advocates and should be addressed.

It is important to make sure early development intervention services are available on the autism spectrum through what has been called an Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit so that children can get access to early developmental intervention services. There should be a universal, standardized approach across the country.

As Senator Housakos mentioned, nearly 80% of adult autistic Canadians are unemployed, and many of the remainder are underemployed. This is both a reflection of the breadth of the spectrum but also the lack of pre-employment training programs and funding. There is much to do here and a concerted effort could be made to attract the private sector, including with some federal sectoral incentives.

Regarding housing, there should be a disability supplement to the Canada Housing Benefit. Canada Mortgage and Housing could also be brought into the picture with respect to supply, and establishing contacts between housing developers and autism service agencies.

Finally, data. Data is being talked about in the context of the COVID pandemic. Data systems should be linked to ensure better information sharing. There should be a media campaign to improve the public perception of ASD, equity and inclusion, as in fact the bill before us suggests.

Colleagues, for me this is deeply personal. The third of our four children, Nikolas, is autistic. He was born on posting in San Jose, Costa Rica. We had to bring him back here to have him diagnosed. He was misdiagnosed here in Ottawa. We had to go through more diagnostic procedures. He is now 33 years old and remains non-verbal, but he understands three languages.

Dealing with diagnoses, treatments and navigating supports in a foreign service life that has taken my family from his birth in San Jose to Ottawa, to Washington, back to Ottawa, to Berlin and back to Ottawa during his lifetime has been arduous.

Dealing with his lifelong disability has, without a doubt, been the greatest of challenges, certainly for him, his siblings, my spouse and myself. We have and he has particularly scrambled and persevered. Others have not been as fortunate. Families and relationships have disintegrated. Services have not been offered, diagnoses missed, waitlists extended in perpetuity.

In our travels and in living in other countries, we have learned how other jurisdictions approach autism spectrum disorder. Much can be gleaned from practices abroad in other jurisdictions. Indeed, Nikolas lived in a group home for two years in the state of Brandenburg in Germany, about an hour-and-a-half from Berlin where we lived.

Ironically, Nikolas now lives about an hour and a half away from Ottawa in a small group home. He is doing well. He sometimes comes home. We also go to him, as was the case this past weekend. The pandemic has made meetings difficult, but we were able to go out with him to a restaurant last Saturday. Like many of us, he doesn’t like the mask thing. I think the Point of Order just touched on that. You don’t have to be verbal to indicate that.

Like other parents of autistic individuals, we worry about his future and who will advocate for him in that future. Colleagues, we have a long history in our great country of helping those who are disadvantaged. In fact, we have built ourselves on this. There are many with disabilities who require our support.

Autism needs to be addressed in a straightforward manner. In my opinion, a federal framework can set the parameters for what will surely be a very tough path that lies ahead. This bill will provide the impetus to do just that; I support it very strongly, and I thank Senator Housakos again for introducing it and recommend that we send it to the committee as soon as possible so it can be further enriched as required.

(On motion of Senator Loffreda, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie moved second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day.

Philosopher George Santayana wrote that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” He is essentially saying that if our world is to move forward, it must learn from and remember the past. We must learn from this pandemic to avoid repeating the same mistakes with another future pandemic or with any coronavirus variants that may yet emerge.

March 11 was chosen because March 11, 2020, was the date on which the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. As everyone knows, memories can fade, and establishing a pandemic day responds to the twenty-seventh recommendation of the Québec Ombudsman’s special report on COVID-19 in long-term care homes, which was released last week.

The recommendation states the following:

Propose that there be an annual day of commemoration for the COVID-19 victims and those who worked with them directly or indirectly, in order to remember what they went through during the first wave of the pandemic and the suffering and loss experienced by these sorely affected people.

It is normal for memories to fade over time, which is why Bill S-209 is necessary.

The Québec Ombudsperson entitled her report Identify the causes of the crisis, act, remember. Why commemorate the pandemic anyway?

I see three reasons: the duty to remember, the duty to get through it, and the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. Our first duty is to remember. Many health care workers in Canada died because of COVID-19.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has recorded many cases, some of which remain anonymous.

I would like to talk about some of those cases. They are the people who stepped up to help during the pandemic and who did so at the cost of their lives.

Dr. Huy Hao Dao was the first health care worker to die of COVID-19 in Quebec. Dr. Dao was a professor and researcher in the department of community health sciences at the Université de Sherbrooke. One of his achievements was obtaining a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for a project to detect opioids in order to “prevent overdoses in people who consume drugs alone at home.” He also supported colleagues working on epidemiological studies to track where people who tested positive for coronavirus contracted it. That’s when the disease took his life. He was 44 years old.

Marcelin François was a father who had recently arrived in Canada with his wife and children via Roxham Road. He was a machine operator in the textile industry through the week and a personal support worker on Saturday and Sunday. He was “dragged” to various seniors’ residences by his “agency.” He died from COVID-19 in April 2020 at the age of 40. La Presse columnist Yves Boisvert wrote the following about Mr. François:

He does not appear on any official lists, since he was neither a government employee nor a union worker. Nor anything else. Although I should say, “pending status”. . . .

In the meantime, they were denied refugee status. When you only seek refuge from misery, you are not a refugee under the law.

Victoria Salvan, who immigrated from the Philippines in the 1980s, had two children and had been working as a personal support worker for over 25 years. She died of COVID-19. She was 64 years old.

Yassin Dabeh was a housekeeping attendant at a long-term care home in London, Ontario. A Syrian refugee who came to Canada in 2016 with his entire family, he died in January 2021 after testing positive for COVID-19. He was 19 years old.

Honourable senators, these individuals who died helping to care for or save the lives of others who were ill from COVID-19 were working on the front lines. They are called “essential workers” or “guardian angels,” an expression our politicians often use to refer to them.

In contrast, other workers, such as security guards, remain an anonymous group that are not really regarded as “guardian angels.” They have not received the same treatment in their immigration cases. It is important to note that people in those jobs are often racialized individuals. They can be found on the front lines, at the entrances to stores, hospitals, long-term care facilities, COVID-19 testing sites and so on. They are taking care to enforce health guidelines to protect the public and contain the virus. Some of these people are verbally and sometimes even physically abused as they work to keep us safe.

We are also thinking about the truck drivers and the delivery people, who work in a sector that has seen marked growth with the rise in home delivery. They are far too often underpaid and undervalued.

In addition to workers, our duty to remember also extends to seniors who were hard hit by the virus in private and public seniors residences, as well as in long-term care centres. These seniors often died far from their loved ones, who were unable to be by their side as they took their last breath.

Given the current COVID-19 numbers in Canada, we can assume that everyone knows someone who has died from the virus. Many people in my office have also recently lost loved ones, either a mother, a grandfather, a grandmother or an uncle from the ravages of this disease.

Closer to home, in this chamber, Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, our late colleague, fought COVID-19 before returning home. I want to express my condolences to her family and her staff.

This pandemic has prevented many from carrying out the rituals of grieving. Far too many people have not mourned their losses. The grieving process, set aside by many, will take time to heal.

Our second duty is to get through this pandemic. With the sudden arrival of the new Delta and Omicron variants, we can see just how much our daily life continues to be far from normal. Until we manage to immunize the vast majority of people on the planet, it will be difficult to overcome this pandemic.

Given the new concerns over variants, there is only one way to emerge from this pandemic, and that is by doing so together. We must ensure that vaccination is accessible in all countries. This will help us combat the variants, restrict their transmission and reduce the rates of hospitalization and death.

Finally, our third duty is to draw lessons from this experience in order to be better prepared for a possible future pandemic.

The pandemic of 1918, known as the Spanish flu, caused the death of 50 million people around the world. That pandemic led to the creation of Health Canada. It is one example of the measures that helped ensure better health for Canadians. We must learn from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that we put the right measures in place or change the current system to save more lives and keep people healthy.

Honourable senators, I opted for the legislative approach in introducing this bill. I wanted to ensure that the subject would move forward in both chambers and that we would be able to reach a consensus quickly in order to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day.

In closing, you are familiar with the motto of Quebec, which is attributed to the architect of the National Assembly, Eugène-Étienne Taché: “Je me souviens.” That motto is very relevant today. In the words of former Quebec minister Thomas Chapais:

This motto has only three words, Je me souviens, yet in their simple brevity, these three words rival the most eloquent of speeches. Yes, we remember. We remember the past and its lessons, the past and its misfortunes, the past and its glory.

It is my hope, for the generations of today and tomorrow, that March 11 becomes a time to reflect on the impacts of the pandemic, on how to manage and prevent pandemics, as well as to remember those who have cared for and protected us and all those who have died. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Senator Simons: I’m very happy to see all the changes to the bill, because I think Bill S-210 addresses a lot of the concerns raised at committee around Bill S-203.

The preamble of the bill makes reference to online age-verification technology being extremely sophisticated and effective, but the bill itself doesn’t mandate that kind of technology. You will recall, because we had these debates together in the spring, that I’m very concerned about the implications of face-scanning technology that purports to guess someone’s age and what that means, not just for privacy but for the capacity of that kind of AI to guess how old one is. I’m wondering why you’ve returned to that model rather than having people simply provide photo ID. Is there something I’m not understanding about why having people upload a picture or photo ID would be a problem?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for the question, Senator Simons. I will respond in French.

Just because the preamble states that the technology must be sophisticated doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s referring to using face-scanning technology to determine a person’s age.

All technologies are now possible, and a range of methods are generally included in the regulations. The use of digital identity technology is one possibility. There is a Canadian company called Bluink, whose technology allows users to input certain information on a cellphone, and these users only share the information when they want to, for example, when they must prove that they are over the age of 18. There are other methods, such as adding a token to a browser. It is obviously important for a third party to conduct the verification.

Nevertheless, we do not advocate for one specific method. The beauty of this bill is that, because verification technology is evolving so quickly, the regulations are the only way to make sure that the latest technologies and privacy protections are taken into account.

You’re right about that being an important element. I will say that the reason it now takes a second to erase or encrypt all the information collected is that a lot of progress has been made over the past few years.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Pate, would you take a question?

Senator Pate: Absolutely.

Senator C. Deacon: Senator Pate, I am looking at the Correctional Service Canada mission. It says they contribute to the protection of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens.

Do you know what key performance indicators they are monitoring to ensure they are fulfilling that mandate? Have you thought about the sorts of key performance indicators you would like to see to ensure that mission is fulfilled?

Senator Pate: In fact, Senator C. Deacon, Senator Forest-Niesing and I were working on a bill that I will likely be introducing coming forward that will hopefully try to address some of those very issues. I look forward to introducing those next week.

As you rightly point out, there aren’t necessarily performance indicators, but there certainly are principles and values that are supposed to be upheld by Correctional Service Canada. First and foremost is least restrictive measures and community integration as well as, of course, public safety and doing all of that within that construct.

As we learned when we examined Bill C-83, there is much work to be done in terms of holding accountable Correctional Service Canada in not just the most punitive areas of their work or the areas that are most restrictive, but across the board in the areas they work. Thank you.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)