Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, today I rise to tell you the story of a great Canadian who has been lauded for his leadership and outstanding contributions to the arts and media sectors in Canada.

Peter Herrndorf, a towering giant — both literally and figuratively — in both of those sectors and in the places where they intersect, sadly passed away last month surrounded by his magnum opus — his beloved family — Eva Czigler, his wife, and Katherine and Matthew, his children. I was so happy to know that Peter had become a grandfather to baby Nico just months before his passing.

Yes, Peter Herrndorf was the Renaissance man of Canadian journalism, the dream publisher, the godfather of Canadian arts, the media mogul, one of Canada’s greatest cultural leaders, the man of big vision and big heart, as he has been rightly credited in the outpouring of tributes to this wonderful man.

His innovative, extraordinary and transformational contributions to our National Arts Centre; our national broadcaster, the CBC; TVOntario; Toronto Life magazine; the Luminato Festival; the Stratford Festival and many others are clear evidence that Peter deserved these accolades.

However, what I would like to highlight today is that Peter Herrndorf also had an influence on so many other aspects of Canadian nation building, ones that are far harder to quantify.

Like many Canadians, I was fortunate to be in Peter’s orbit. Like others, I was a person with a cause that Peter took an interest in.

I first met Peter when he was the new president and CEO of the National Arts Centre, NAC, and I was the new director of the Coady International Institute at StFX University in Nova Scotia. Peter attended an event that we held in Centre Block. He liked what he heard and offered to help me.

Peter ended up hosting events for us at his home in Toronto and at the NAC. Those events bore important fruit for our institution, supporting community leaders internationally and in Canada.

Peter also became my friend and mentor and would be there to offer advice whenever we spoke on the phone or met in person, like in 2018, when I was a newly appointed senator to this chamber. He took me out to dinner to fill me in on the Ottawa scene.

Colleagues, my experience was quintessential Peter Herrndorf — while excelling at his rather important “day job” transforming Canada’s performing arts scene, Peter Herrndorf was causing huge positive ripples in so many other important sectors across Canada and around the world.

Colleagues, Peter Herrndorf was a national treasure. May he rest in peace.

Wela’lioq, thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Well, of course, my question was why didn’t he answer the questions not what is he doing on the side, but you mentioned the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. Another document provided to Global News was an unredacted copy of an August 2019 report prepared by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

This committee reports directly to the Prime Minister, and he and his office approve redactions or edits to their reports before they are made public. By the way, leader, this is a committee that the Prime Minister has been bragging about that all registered, recognized parties are part of. Ironically, he is failing to appoint somebody from the official opposition in the Senate to that committee but appoints supposedly independent senators and not somebody from the Conservative Party of Canada.

I am curious about that, leader, why is that not happening?

My question is — and I will continue with this — Global News says that this report:

. . . offered several examples of alleged Chinese election interference from 2015 to 2018 that involved the targeting and funding of candidates.

The Prime Minister would have seen this report, leader. He saw it and did nothing about it. I have to wonder if he wants the leaks of both this report and the Privy Council Office, or PCO, report investigated the same way that he wants the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, whistle-blowers hunted down.

Leader, you said this committee would get to the bottom of this in a responsible and prudent way. Maybe we need to have a Conservative on the committee from the Senate. That might help us.

How is a secret committee whose reports the Prime Minister already ignores going to do that?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable colleagues, this year, I decided to speak to International Women’s Day on March 9.

You’re probably thinking I’m a bit late, or you may be wondering why I would talk about this on March 9. To me, every day of the year should be a day for talking about women’s rights. Shouldn’t we reflect on the importance of recognizing women’s rights every day of the year, instead of just one day a year?

My mother reminded me of this every day. At 18, she already had a university degree. She went on to have 10 children and taught for 35 years, until she was 65. My mother never needed to remind me or any of my brothers or sisters to respect her rights. She instilled in us the fundamental value — or duty, I would say — of respecting her as a woman and as a mother.

Ever since my daughter Julie was murdered 20 years ago, the fight for women’s rights, especially the right to be better protected, has been in my DNA. The death of my daughter Isabelle a few years later reminded me that the fight for this fundamental right to be recognized was central to women’s sense of security in our society, and that as many men as possible must be part of that fight. In my head and in my heart, I know it is not just women who must wage this fight. Above all, it must be fought by all men, by fathers, brothers, husbands, friends and all men who are important in the lives of all women and girls. Men must dedicate themselves to standing alongside their mothers, their sisters, their wives and their friends so that these women do not fight this battle alone.

The theme for International Women’s Day 2023 is “Every Woman Counts.” I’m thinking of every woman and girl who lived through the horrors of violence as a child or as an intimate partner because she was a woman who “didn’t count,” and who had injuries inflicted on her by a man because she was a woman.

Today, women are gradually taking back control over their lives because they are reclaiming the right to speak up and to speak out. This empowerment is fragile because female victims have lost trust in the justice system. That loss of trust is a deep scar that will heal if, and only if, we make it a priority in this place.

Honourable senators, let us take a moment to think about the 185 women who were murdered in 2022 because they were women. Today, let’s recognize that every one of these murdered women counted, but we failed to protect them.

To give true meaning to the theme of International Women’s Day, let’s make a commitment to make women safer in 2023. Honourable senators, we need to make this commitment, because every woman counts.

Senator Gold: The position of the government is clear. It has confidence in the committee of parliamentarians. It welcomes the work that it did. As I said, I commend to all senators that report on foreign interference. He continues to have confidence in the members who represent all parties.

It will —

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): That was very touching, Senator Boisvenu. Thank you.

On Tuesday, January 31, Saint-Boniface lost a true hero when the visionary philanthropist Marcel A. Desautels passed away.

This Franco-Manitoban will be remembered primarily for his contributions to post-secondary education in Canada, to which he donated tens of millions of dollars. The University of Manitoba, the Université de Saint-Boniface, the University of Toronto and McGill University all benefited from his generosity and named several of their faculties and scholarships after him.

He was an accomplished businessman who headed up Creditel, one of the country’s biggest credit agencies with 16 offices, which he sold to an American competitor.

As president of the Université de Saint-Boniface, I can personally attest to Mr. Desautels’ devotion not only to that university, but also to the University of Manitoba. For example, in 2008, he donated $20 million to the Faculty of Music. It was the biggest private donation ever made to the University of Manitoba and one of the biggest ever made to a music department in Canada.

In 2009, he was the lead donor and president of VISION, the Université de Saint-Boniface’s biggest-ever fundraising campaign, with a $15-million target. A building bearing his name was inaugurated at the Université de Saint-Boniface in 2011 and is now home to the health sciences program and the school of social work.

However, his remarkable philanthropic work is not the only reason to remember this francophone lawyer and businessman. He attributed much of his success to the classical education he received from the Jesuits at the Collège de Saint-Boniface. Marcel Desautels would voluntarily spend many hours meeting with students to encourage them and offer his personal support for their endeavours. He became a source of inspiration.

Marcel Desautels’ story is the story of a true visionary. It shows how, with determination, a citizen can leave their mark not only locally, but nationally. Most importantly, for Canadians, Mr. Desautels exemplifies what it means to give back to the community.

Rest in peace, dear Marcel.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled Equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

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

Senator Housakos: These announcements were made a year ago. This problem that has now arisen because of courage on the part of CSIS officials who obviously were exasperated by the Prime Minister — and they had to go to the media to get this out in the public — is that they have no faith in this government. There is a bill before this chamber that sets out the implementation of a foreign agent registry. It mirrors a bill that had been tabled in the other place in the previous Parliament and ignored then by the government as well.

Both were drafted with wide consultation from the diaspora and the very communities that are being intimidated. It has been a full year that this bill has been sitting here, and Mr. Trudeau, senators, could not be bothered to speak once on this issue. There has been one speech, no follow-up except procrastination on it. It is the job of parliamentarians to study such things. That is what the public expects us to do. It is our role and our obligation.

Why don’t we do our job? Why doesn’t your government embrace Bill S-237, send it to committee for study, for review and get it past this place quickly as we have done with other bills that we think are of public importance? We’ve seen how we come together quickly on issues of public importance and get bills over to the other side quickly. We can do that with Bill S-237 and get the ball rolling instead of wasting another year in consultations and maybe have another election before we get anything done.

Senator Gold: I certainly will. You are quite right, I can’t answer specifically how the task force report might have influenced things. Addressing gender equity, equality and inequality is an ongoing process. It didn’t begin with this task force, and it will not end with the report.

There are a number of measures that the government has taken that have tangible and important benefits for women across the country. A national system of early learning and child care will have an enormous impact on the ability of women to participate in the labour force. The labour force participation rate for Canadian women in their prime working years is at a record 85.6%.

There have also been improvements, since this government took office, in the participation rate to which I just referred. It has risen by approximately 3% since then. I will make those inquiries, senator, and get back to you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Smith, for the question. The licensing of physicians is a provincial and territorial responsibility exclusively. There is a problem because the provinces and territories have been slow to liberalize their rules to allow for the easier accreditation of those with degrees from elsewhere.

Indeed, the problem is not restricted to doctors coming from outside of Canada; there are problems within Canada. There have been interesting and welcome initiatives from the Atlantic region, but, still, work needs to be done.

You made mention of doing things other than providing funds, but we should not gloss over the fact that the injection of federal funds into the provincial system and the enhancement of those funds — almost $200 billion over 10 years to improve health care services — go a long way to give the provinces the ability to absorb new doctors and to pay for new doctors — as well as other health care professionals, one should add.

The Minister of Health works with his counterparts across the country on a regular basis. I will make inquiries as to how the subject of licensing is progressing on the agenda and report back. The ability of the federal government, and indeed Parliament, to legislate in this area is quite limited by virtue of the Constitution.

Senator Gold: I do not have more details than to say how pleased I am — and I think we should all be — that the federal government has concluded agreements with nine provinces. Discussions are ongoing with the remaining province and the territories.

These discussions, as you know, and the structure of these arrangements include bilateral funding arrangements, which will be tailored to the needs and requests of the provinces and territories. Again, I have every confidence that the discussions that have gone on and will continue to go on in the structuring and crafting of these bilateral agreements will take into account the issues that you raise, but, again, I will make inquiries and report back.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 26, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, concerning the Canada Disability Benefit.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on December 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Cordy, concerning the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Chantal Petitclerc on April 26, 2022)

On June 2, 2022, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion (EWDDI) introduced Bill C-22, Canada Disability Benefit Act, to establish a new Canada disability benefit. After being studied and amended by Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Bill received all-party support in its third reading on February 2, 2023, before being referred to the Senate where it will be debated and studied.

In the spirit of Nothing Without Us, the government will continue to engage with Canadians with disabilities and other stakeholders to inform the design of the benefit and future regulations. Engagement activities began in summer 2021 with ministerial round tables and an online public survey. Consultations have also taken place throughout 2022, and community-led engagement as well as Indigenous-led engagement through national Indigenous organizations is continuing into winter and spring 2023.

The legislation also recognizes the critical role that provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to Canadians with disabilities and the importance of engaging with them. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services met in July 2021 for an initial discussion on the proposed new benefit and discussions with provincial and territorial governments have been ongoing since, including bilateral meetings between the Minister of EWDDI and provincial/territorial counterparts.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Jane Cordy on December 15, 2022)

The government is committed to preserving our freshwater resources and protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species, given their cultural, social and economic significance to both Canada and the United States.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) is vital to controlling sea lampreys, conducting research and maintaining cooperation and coordination among Canadian and American agencies in the management of the Great Lakes fisheries.

As part of Budget 2022, the Government of Canada announced new funding of $44.9 million for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to ensure the continued success of the commission in contributing to the health of the Great Lakes. This increased funding, which takes Canada’s annual support for the work of the commission to $19.6 million, demonstrates our commitment to improving the Great Lakes fishery, ensures continued Canadian sea lamprey control activities and supports the GLFC’s research agenda and its coordination of binational fisheries management across the Great Lakes.

Payment for the current fiscal year has been made and departmental officials and commission staff are working together closely in planning for future activities.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: third reading of Bill C-39, followed by second reading of Bill C-22, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

Hon. Stan Kutcher moved third reading of Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-39, which extends by one year the implementation day for medical assistance in dying — mental disorder as the sole underlying condition, or MAID MD-SUMC. Once again, I would like to acknowledge that our debates which address sensitive issues such as suicide can be distressing to some and that seeking help when you need it is a sign of strength.

During second reading, I spoke to the scope and purpose of the bill and the reasons why the extension is necessary. Today I will remind us of those reasons, and I will also spend time addressing some of the misinformation that has coloured public understanding of the complex issues surrounding end-of-life choice and has sadly crept into medical professional and parliamentary discourse on the topic of MAID MD-SUMC.

The one-year extension will allow for readiness within our health care systems through cooperation between federal, provincial and territorial governments, regulators and providers. In my opinion, readiness means that four conditions have been met: one, that the model practice standard is finalized, published and distributed to regulators in each province and territory; two, that the certified MAID training program has been completed and is available for access by MAID practitioners; three, that the updated reporting requirements have been fully implemented, and the government has begun to gather the data that will be critical for ongoing assessments of the MAID system in Canada; and four, that the government has had the time needed to review the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.

Colleagues, we are addressing one of the most important legislative challenges that Canadians have faced and, as Senator Martin said in her second-reading speech, a “complex and deeply personal” issue. We are dealing with an issue that will go down in our history as a touch point in the evolution of our understanding of the individual rights and autonomy of those who are living with a mental disorder. This is of the same depth, complexity and nature as two other health-related issues that we have previously grappled with: contraception and women’s reproductive rights. This evolution in our thinking reflects a movement towards a more compassionate society in which we respect and value each other regardless of who we are, who we love or how we choose to die.

This evolution also reflects how Canada is moving to health provision in which the traditional autocratic paternalism of the past is being replaced by patient-centred care. Now we expect that health care providers collaboratively work with patients to create the compassionate conditions in which competent individuals can make free and informed decisions about their own bodies in life, as well as when contemplating death.

The complex issues that we are dealing with in MAID MD‑SUMC require careful critical thought, respectful discourse, a deep understanding of the nuances involved and a willingness to put the interests of those who are intolerably suffering ahead of unbending ideology or political expediency. Addressing these complex issues also requires us to avoid creating or spreading misinformation and to call it out when we encounter it. We can respectfully disagree with each other. After all, that is an integral part of democratic discourse. That said, this is not the same as misinforming ourselves and each other.

Since the coming into force of Bill C-7, my office and I have been following the public discussions about MAID for mental disorder as a sole underlying condition in mainstream and social media. We have also carefully reviewed all the debates on Bill C-39 recently held in the other place. Personally, I have had the privilege of being part of the joint committee on MAID, as a number of other senators here have also had, and being privy to the many hours of witness testimony and the reading of many briefs.

As a result of this research and deep exposure to the complexities and nuances that surround MAID MD-SUMC, I have identified three areas of misinformation that have characterized public and parliamentary debate in the last year. I will share those with you, as engagement with this issue will not likely end with the passing of Bill C-39. As we all go forward, knowing what some of the common types of misinformation are can help us in our research, discussions, deliberations and in our conversations with each other, regardless of what viewpoints we may hold. They are the following: MAID is replacing access to mental health care; MAID MD-SUMC is a slippery slope; and MAID is another name for suicide. I will take each and examine their origins.

Before doing so, however, let us be clear about how misinformation arises. Some of it is deliberate, initiated by actors who do not like how our society is evolving and who respond to this by the creation and distribution of misinformation. Some of it may be inadvertent, where well-meaning people are swept up into an emotional state and accept what is being promoted without a deep understanding of an issue and careful consideration and critical analysis of what information they are sharing.

I discussed the false statements that have been made about MAID MD-SUMD replacing access to mental health care and that individuals in an acute crisis can access MAID in my second-reading speech. Let me be very clear. People who are suicidal or in an acute mental health crisis will not qualify for and will not receive MAID.

Individuals who request and receive approval for MAID MD‑SUMC will have experienced a substantial amount of different kinds of mental health care for a prolonged period of time. They can also withdraw their consent at any time during the minimum 90-day period. Their intolerable suffering is not because they could not access mental health care; it is because none of the many interventions that have been tried over long periods of time have worked sufficiently well to alleviate their intolerable suffering. Sadly, for mental illness, as for other types of illnesses, not every person who is severely suffering finds the relief that they seek with any of the treatments that we have. Thankfully, this is a very small number of people, but it is still a group of individuals who suffer intolerably.

That is why for those who suffer intolerably, decisions as to MAID MD-SUMC eligibility must be made on a case-by-case basis. As I discussed on Tuesday, there is no “cookbook recipe” for determining if a person’s suffering is irremediable and intolerable. There are substantive clinical considerations for sure, and these have been identified in the expert panel report and in the model practice standard. Psychiatrists, using a two-stage Delphic process have also reached a consensus on what this means clinically. The regulatory bodies will further address these in their MAID practice standards, just as they do for all medical care.

It is essential for us to understand that clinical interventions for complex medical conditions are always done case by case, using evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care. Decisions on how and when to intervene eventually come down to a jointly made agreement between the one who suffers and those doing what they can to help alleviate that suffering. That is how modern health care is meant to work. The phrase “to cure sometimes, to relieve often, and to comfort always” aptly captures this patient and healer collaboration.

Another common misinformation argument made about MAID MD-SUMC is that it is a slippery slope — a classic example of a logical fallacy. Of the three different types of slippery slope fallacies, the causal slope variety is the one most frequently found in MAID MD-SUMC discourse. This is defined in the following way:

Causal slopes . . . revolve around the idea that a relatively minor initial action will lead to a relatively major final event.

While the outcome of this so-called slippery slope is not clearly identified, the presumed conclusion is that if MAID is offered for MD-SUMC, then in a short period of time, very large numbers of individuals who suffer with mental illnesses will receive MAID and/or that other horrific and untoward events will occur. A key component of this type of fallacious misinformation argument is that no evidence is provided to prove that what is predicted to happen will actually happen. Furthermore, it often confuses the expected and usual uptake of a new intervention as proof of the existence of a slippery slope and substitutes emotional angst and fear for rational consideration.

Here is what an expert review of the slippery slope fallacy had to say:

In general, slippery slopes are primarily associated with negative events, and as such, slippery slope arguments are frequently used as a fear-mongering technique. As part of this, slippery slope arguments often include a parade of horribles, which is a rhetorical device that involves mentioning a number of highly negative outcomes that will occur as a result of the initial event in question.

Unfortunately, the slippery slope fallacy has been perpetuated in media, in speeches in Parliament and during testimony provided to the joint committee on MAID.

The slippery slope fallacy also “. . . ignores or understates the uncertainty involved with getting from the start-point of the slope to its end-point.”

Therefore, the person making the argument has no idea what will actually happen. But they are certain that what they fear will happen will certainly happen and on this basis they promote this argument.

The misinformation distributed using a slippery slope fallacy can be substantial and have harmful impacts on the health and well-being of individuals and populations. It needs to be countered by pointing out the logical fallacy that this argument is based on and by providing data that addresses the fear that the argument is meant to encourage.

Let’s unpack the slippery slope fallacy as it pertains to MAID MD-SUMC in Canada. In the case of MAID MD-SUMC in Canada, we can look to evidence from other jurisdictions to determine the truth of such arguments. We can study jurisdictions that have introduced MAID MD-SUMC to determine if there is an ever-increasing and very large proportion of the population that is receiving MAID for a sole mental condition.

There is data to examine from the Netherlands and Belgium. In those jurisdictions, MAID MD-SUMC was introduced over a decade ago. We can examine the percentage of people accessing MAID for mental and behavioural disorders as a proportion of those accessing MAID once the pattern of use has been established.

Here is what the data shows us. In Belgium, in the last five years — for which the Library of Parliament was able to provide data to me — the proportion of people who accessed MAID for mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition was as follows: 2017, 1.7%; 2018, 1.4%; 2019, 0.8%; 2020, 0.9%; 2021, 0.9%.

Let’s put these numbers in a different perspective. In 2021, the population of Belgium was 11.59 million. The total number of persons receiving MAID MD-SUMC was 24 — that is 0.00020% of the population. Clearly, there is no slippery slope in Belgium.

In the Netherlands, the numbers are as follows: 2017, 1.2%; 2018, 1.0%; 2019, 1.0%; 2020, 1.2%; 2021, 1.5%. Again, I’ll put these numbers in perspective. In 2021, the population of the Netherlands was 17.53 million. The total number of persons receiving MAID MD-SUMC was 115, that is, 0.00065% of the population — no slippery slope in the Netherlands either.

This data lines up with the recent study by Jordan Potter, published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy in 2018, titled, “The psychological slippery slope from physician-assisted death to active euthanasia: a paragon of fallacious reasoning.” Professor Potter concludes:

. . . (1) employing the psychological slippery slope argument against physician-assisted death is logically fallacious, (2) this kind of slippery slope is unfounded in practice, and thus (3) the psychological slippery slope argument is insufficient on its own to justify continued legal prohibition of physician-assisted death.

Colleagues, as practitioners of sober second thought, it behooves us to call out this misinformation based on the fallacious slippery slope argument when we come across it. Indeed, we could identify the phrase “slippery slope” as a yellow light warning us that what follows could be a fallacious argument.

A third area of mushrooming misinformation directed toward MAID MD-SUMC relates to the issue of suicide. Here the logical fallacy called the “jingle fallacy” — yes, there is a logical fallacy called the jingle fallacy — has been extensively used to muddy the reality and to call into question the primary purpose of MAID itself: an end-of-life choice made by a competent person who is suffering intolerably and who meets all requirements established by law.

A jingle fallacy is the erroneous assumption that two things are the same because they bear the same name — Logic 101, I remember. With MAID MD-SUMC, commentators using this logical fallacy state that MAID is suicide either because this medical practice had previously been called “physician-assisted suicide” or because, for their own reasons, they are using emotional rhetoric to activate the fear factor in others.

A very recent example of this is found in a media story on MAID MD-SUMC in which the following quote appears:

. . . when you introduce legislation that allows someone to prematurely end their life with the assistance of a medical practitioner, that is then doctor assisted suicide. By definition, that is suicide.

In this case, nomenclatural confusion may have contributed to the ease with which this type of misinformation has spread. Indeed, it was the 2016 joint House and Senate report that reviewed many of the terms used to describe this end-of-life intervention and settled on the term “medical assistance in dying,” possibly to avoid this confusion.

As a reminder to us all, the 2016 joint committee report was titled Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach. Those who have not yet had the opportunity to read it may want to do so. Those who have read it will recall that the third recommendation was:

That individuals not be excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying based on the fact that they have a psychiatric condition.

This committee also grappled with and accepted a definition of “grievous and irremediable,” which is similar to what the expert panel recommended in 2022.

If we listen closely to the suicide misinformation narrative, we will find that at no time is there any attempt made to critically parse how MAID and suicide are the same. The statement is simply made that they are, and that is that. So instead of blindly accepting this statement as truth, let us compare death by suicide and death by MAID. If MAID is indeed the same as suicide, these two types of events should have many similarities.

Suicide is often impulsive. MAID MD-SUMC requires a minimum of 90 days’ waiting and is not impulsive. Suicide is often violent, resulting in traumatic experiences for family members or first responders who come upon the body. MAID MD-SUMC does not result in that type of traumatic experience.

Suicide is a secretive and lonely act, often committed by an individual in desperate circumstances. Family and friends are avoided, not included. MAID is not a secretive and lonely act and usually occurs in the presence of family and/or friends.

Suicide often results in unresolved grief and lasting mental anguish for those left behind. Rates of depression, psychiatric admission, suicide attempts and death by suicide are increased in family members who are in bereavement from a suicide. For families involved in MAID, this experience results in grief and feelings of loss that are similar to those of families involved in palliative care experience and does not mirror the negative outcomes found in families who have experienced the loss of a family member to suicide.

Colleagues, you can decide for yourselves how these two items are similar or different. In my estimation, they do not share the same characteristics and are clearly not the same.

Perhaps, however, there are other ways that suicide and MAID could be the same. Let’s explore this possibility. If suicide and MAID were the same phenomenon, they should be similar in their population demographics. Further, if suicide and MAID affect the same population, the introduction of MAID should decrease rates of suicide. If, on the other hand, as some have argued, the availability of MAID will increase suicide rates in the population, the introduction of MAID should be followed by increased rates of suicide. Let’s check these possibilities out.

First, regarding the assertion that MAID and suicide affect the same populations, this is false. The age distribution of MAID deaths and suicide deaths is different. The gender distribution of MAID deaths and suicide deaths is different.

Second, the assertion that MAID will increase or decrease suicide rates in Canada is also false. The suicide rates in Canada did not increase or decrease significantly since the introduction of MAID. This difference in MAID as compared to suicide demographics in Canada and the lack of MAID impact on suicide rates in Canada strongly suggests that the population that chooses MAID and the population that dies by suicide are not the same population. This data simply does not support the contention that MAID and suicide are the same phenomenon.

What about other countries in which MAID is available? Are they the same as Canada or different? Here the data supports the same conclusion: They are not the same. I will quote from a review of this data in Belgium and the Netherlands by Dr. Tyler Black, who was a witness at the special joint MAID committee:

The following is a comparison between countries that enacted death with dignity legislation (Belgium and the Netherlands) and neighbouring countries that did not. Comparisons between countries have several challenges, but there is no empirical support for the notion that suicide rates increased or differed in MAID-legislated countries versus those that didn’t.

This had a control group in it. Again, it’s not the same there either.

Another component of this MAID-is-suicide misinformation is falsely arguing that suicide is unique to MAID MD-SUMC, a comment that is easily debunked by simply turning to the facts. For example, in the same recently published media article, a self‑identified opponent of MAID MD-SUMC stated:

The traditional form of MAID with a reasonable foreseeability of death allowed MAID to actually operate on a plane that didn’t intersect with suicide.

So let’s look at this assertion. I addressed this during my second reading speech on Bill C-7 and will quote myself:

. . . the presence of a severe and chronic illness is, by itself, an elevated risk factor for suicide. This elevated risk is not only found in persons with a sole mental disorder.

For example, the Canadian Community Health Survey found that, in young adults, attempted suicide was four times higher in those with chronic illnesses such as asthma and diabetes. Suicide rates in persons with cancer are twice as high as in the general population and eight to ten times higher in persons with Huntington’s.

In a study of suicide and chronic pain, Fishbain et al. found that the rate of suicide in chronic pain patients was two to three times greater than in the general population. Tang and Crane, in a global review of suicide and chronic pain, found that the risk of death by suicide is at least double in those with chronic pain.

A similar pattern of significantly increased rates of suicide in chronic illnesses occurs with other chronic illnesses, including cancer. A recent global meta-analysis published in Nature Medicine in 2022 by Heinrich and colleagues reported that the suicide rate was 85% higher for people with cancer than in the general population.

Colleagues, according to Health Canada data for 2021, over 65% of all people who chose a MAID death had cancer as the underlying condition. Remember, suicide deaths in cancer patients are 85% greater than in the general population.

It is false to say that chronic diseases that are not mental illnesses do not have similar concerns about suicide. That is just completely wrong. So why is this misinformation being spread? Whatever the reason may be, our role in providing sober second thought behooves us to follow the data, not pontifications or personal opinions.

As I wrap up this speech, I will turn to another issue that, in my opinion, has been poorly addressed in all these discussions: that of the need to improve rapid access to effective mental health care for all who require it. This is something I fought for my whole professional life and continue to do so.

When I graduated medical school in the 1970s, the number one mental health care need was rapid access to effective care for all those who required it. When I completed my residency in psychiatry in the 1980s, the number one mental health care need was rapid access to effective care for all those who required it. When I entered the Senate, the number one mental health care need was rapid access to effective care for all those who required it. According to the World Health Organization, the expenditure for mental health care should be about 10% of the total health care budget. The Canadian Mental Health Association calls for that number to be about 12%.

This is not solely a federal government issue. Provinces and territories set budget allocations for health and mental health. In my research, the proportion of health care budgets allocated to mental health care fall between 5% and 7% in most provinces and territories — well below required amounts.

We keep hearing that mental health care is on a priority list. Well, colleagues, let’s take mental health care off the priority list and put it on the equitable funding list.

We currently have a national push and environment to move beyond talk to implementation. There is now a federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. There is discussion of a targeted mental health transfer fund. Perhaps this will result in the federal government providing more support for improving rapid access to high-quality mental health care for all who need it.

Perhaps this will be the impetus that provinces and territories require to step up their investments in mental health care and also to invest in what works and not what ticks a box.

Honourable senators, we need to keep up the pressure on all levels of government to equitably invest in improving rapid access to effective mental health care for all Canadians. But this pressure is not because of MAID MD-SUMC. It is because we need this to happen, MAID or no MAID.

As we prepare to go to a vote on Bill C-39, I thank you for allowing me to share concerns I have about the misinformation surrounding MAID MD-SUMC and for your continued support for doing better for those Canadians living with mental illness. They deserve compassionate, equitable treatment throughout their life journey, and that includes the end of life.

Colleagues, thank you for your attention and your careful consideration to the complexities and nuances of the MAID MD‑SUMC debate.

For the many reasons that we have discussed this week, in my opinion, it is the right thing to do to delay implementation for MAID for mental disorder as a sole underlying condition by one year.

Wela’lioq, thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak briefly in support of Bill C-39 at third reading. The bill delays, by one year, eligibility for medical assistance in dying in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

As my colleagues Senator Manning and Senator Kutcher have mentioned, this is a very difficult issue. It’s not easy to talk about medical assistance in dying. I’m feeling quite emotional after listening to my colleagues, so I will continue.

I support this delay, which will give experts another 12 months to try to refine the guidelines around this extremely rare practice globally. More fundamentally, however, I don’t see any need to act too quickly on such a serious issue, especially in light of the critical shortage of psychiatric resources.

I have always believed that the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with psychiatric illnesses can’t be boiled down to just individual rights or a constitutional analysis. Mental illness is more complex than physical illness, because it often progresses slowly and unpredictably. Unlike degenerative neurological diseases, whose course is known and predictable, it is not uncommon for the psychological suffering associated with mental illness to improve over the medium and long terms.

The federal government outpaced the Government of Quebec on this file before conducting a similar review. Less than a month ago, in mid-February, the Government of Quebec introduced a bill that does not extend medical assistance in dying to patients suffering solely from mental illness.

This exclusion was recommended in the report of the Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care, after extensive consultation with the public and experts. The report states, and I quote:

Self-determination is not the only principle that should be taken into account in this discussion. The protection of vulnerable persons, the ability to consent and the risk of abuse are all elements that enter into the equation.

The Quebec report notes that psychiatrists are divided on the incurability and irreversibility of certain mental disorders. That division reflects the complexity of these illnesses, which are more unpredictable than physical illnesses.

Consequently, there is a real risk of making medical assistance in dying available to a patient too soon. Senator Kutcher, I do not believe that I am participating in what you referred to in your speech as a misinformation campaign on this matter by saying that. I think that there are fundamental differences of opinion in the medical profession, which is why we need to be very careful.

The Quebec report cites psychiatrists who explained that suicidal thoughts are inherent to certain mental disorders. What’s more, the response to psychiatric treatments varies. Alleviated suffering can be a long time coming, after months or years of psychiatric treatment, assuming such treatment is available. I will quote another excerpt from the same report:

We heard the testimonies of several individuals who, after years of unsuccessful treatments, managed to achieve a better balance. These witnesses told us that if they had been eligible for medical aid in dying, they would undoubtedly have applied for it at a time when their health condition seemed hopeless. Today, these same persons are doing much better and are able to cope with their illness because they have received a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Thus, the uncertainty surrounding the trajectories of mental disorders prompts us to be very cautious.

The testimony that made the biggest impression on the select committee came from the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide, the Quebec association for suicide prevention. According to the association, expanding MAID would have an impact on people with suicidal tendencies. There is concern that it could send the signal that death is a legitimate or appropriate option for people with mental disorders. This would undermine years of suicide prevention efforts. I should point out that this does not mean that these suicidal patients would access MAID, but their distress could increase. Let me remind you that Quebec is a pioneer in medical assistance in dying, yet Quebec’s elected officials decided not to rush into the specific issue of eligibility where mental illness is the sole underlying condition, because there are too many differences of opinion.

I also want to point out two things that I think reinforce how important it is to take the time to think about these sensitive issues. First, Quebec now leads the world, with 7% of deaths in the province resulting from MAID. That is higher than Ontario and even long-time pioneers Belgium and the Netherlands. The fact that the rise in MAID was markedly faster in Quebec than elsewhere prompted the chair of the Quebec select committee to investigate the cause and launch a consultation, while advocating for better access to palliative care.

Second, it seems as though, in Quebec at least, it is now easier to get medical assistance in dying than it is to get comprehensive palliative care, and yet both of these options should be available under Quebec law, which guarantees all citizens access to both medical assistance in dying and palliative care, whether at home or in a health care facility.

Some tragic events that occurred in Quebec recently exposed flaws in the system. Andrée Simard, widow of former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa, was denied palliative care during the last three days of her life at St. Mary’s Hospital in Montreal. According to her daughter, Michelle Bourassa, with whom I spoke at length, Ms. Simard died in a lot of pain because she was not given any palliative sedation. Ms. Simard forbade her family to use her fame to get preferential treatment. Her daughter chose to fight in memory of her mother so that all dying persons are treated fairly and with humanity, whether they choose palliative care or medical assistance in dying.

That’s why, even though these issues don’t fall under federal jurisdiction, I think that the availability and quality of palliative care and psychiatric services are a prerequisite for expanding medical assistance in dying. We can’t legislate in a vacuum, in the abstract universe of the Charter of Rights, with no regard for what care is actually available to patients. As responsible legislators, we need to think about the applicability and actual consequences of the laws on which we vote. In this case, we need to prevent the current trend of the health care system getting around providing access to care by expanding access to medical assistance in dying. Better access to psychiatric care is a prerequisite for treating people’s suffering. That is also how we show our compassion. For all of these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-39. Thank you.

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of March 7, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on minority‑language health services, including matters related to the following:

(a)the inclusion of language clauses in federal health transfers;

(b)population aging, including the ability to obtain health care, long-term care and home care in one’s own language, which encompasses linguistic resources to support caregivers, the quality of life of seniors and disease prevention;

(c)access to minority-language health services for vulnerable communities;

(d)the shortage of health professionals in public and private facilities serving official language minority communities and the language skills of health care personnel in these facilities;

(e)the needs of francophone post-secondary institutions outside Quebec and anglophone post-secondary institutions in Quebec respecting recruitment, training and support for future graduates in health-related fields;

(f)telemedicine and the use of new technologies in the health sector, including the associated language challenges; and

(g)the needs for research, evidence and solutions to foster access to health care in the language of one’s choice; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than October 31, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act. This bill modernizes the disciplinary process for Canada’s federal judiciary — a process that has not been updated since 1971. I’m not going to speak about how long ago that was, given that I was born the year before that, but suffice to say it was due for a refresh.

The current process for judicial discipline had some notable shortcomings that Bill C-9 aims to rectify. First, the process was cumbersome and inefficient: multiple opportunities for judicial review combined with the fact that a judge’s salary and pension earnings continued to accrue throughout the review process left it prone to delays and potential abuse. Second, the length of multiple judicial reviews, and their ensuing delays, increased costs to Canadian taxpayers who were left to pick up the tab for the entire process. Bill C-9 will institute provisions to address these significant problems. In addition, it will introduce greater public involvement to the disciplinary process with the inclusion of laypeople — or non-legal people — on hearing boards. While the government must always strive for even greater transparency, this bill is an important step forward in increasing public confidence in the judicial system.

At this point, honourable colleagues, it seems Bill C-9 is relatively uncontroversial: it passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

You may also recall that this is not the Senate’s first kick at this proverbial can. A similar version of this bill — almost completely unchanged — was introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 in May 2021. At that time, I questioned the bill’s sponsor, Senator Dalphond, on why a bill such as this, which contained monetary provisions, was being introduced in the Senate of Canada.

The Trudeau government, of course, didn’t agree, and the bill remained on the Order Paper, unchanged, until the government called an unnecessary election in the summer of 2021. After that election, the government reintroduced the bill in the Senate, this time numbered Bill S-3. The Speaker of the House of Commons expressed the similar concern I had regarding the bill containing monetary provisions originating in the Senate Chamber.

Oddly enough, the Trudeau government seems to hear things a lot better from fellow Liberals than it does from Conservative senators.

The government did reintroduce this bill — properly, finally — in the House of Commons as Bill C-9 in December 2021. They then proceeded to let it wither for almost a year, until late 2022, when it was amended by the House committee, passed unanimously by the House of Commons and returned to the Senate just before we rose in December for our further debate. After this long journey, that is how we find it before us today.

To appreciate the changes made in the new process proposed in Bill C-9, it’s important to first start by reviewing how the judicial conduct disciplinary system currently operates. Presently, any member of the public can lodge a complaint against a federally appointed judge by contacting the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC. I have been advised that, although the number of complaints varies by year, the CJC receives roughly 600 complaints per year — usually resulting in only a few moving forward for investigation, and only one or two reaching the inquiry committee stage. To date, no judge has ever been removed, although four have resigned once a recommendation for removal was made.

The Canadian Judicial Council receives the complaint, and one of its members screens the complaint to determine whether it is without merit. If so, the complaint is dismissed. If it seems serious enough to warrant removal of the judge, the complaint then proceeds to the review panel, consisting of three CJC members which include chief justices or associate chief justices and one puisne judge — which is a judge who is not a chief justice or associate chief justice — as well as one layperson who has never been a lawyer or judge before. That review panel determines if the complaint is serious enough to potentially warrant a judge’s removal. If yes, the review panel will send the complaint to an inquiry committee, comprised of a majority of CJC justices and a minority of lawyers designated by the Minister of Justice.

At the end of that inquiry committee’s hearing, it issues a report to the Council of the Whole, which is a group of at least 17 CJC members, but also as many as are available. The report from the Council of the Whole requires consensus by a majority of the CJC recommending removal of the judge to the Minister of Justice. The minister then recommends the judge’s removal to each federal house of Parliament for a vote.

Under the current system, the judge involved can appeal for judicial review of the inquiry committee’s decisions and recommendations for removal — first to the Federal Court, then to the Federal Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada, with leave. Of course, each level of appeal delays resolution of the case and becomes increasingly expensive, as costs are borne by Canadian taxpayers for the entire process.

Cases of judicial discipline requiring removal from the bench are quite rare. In fact, no federal judge has ever actually been removed from the bench, with most opting, instead, to resign before reaching that point. Still, high-profile cases of abuse of the current judicial review process have prompted the government to institute changes to the appeal system.

One recent case was that of Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Girouard. In 2012, Justice Girouard was the subject of complaints — some of which led to the recommendation that he should lose his job. He appealed his case through the judicial review process, through the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, ultimately resigning in 2021 — when the Supreme Court denied leave for another appeal, and the Minister of Justice indicated his intent to seek parliamentary approval for Girouard’s removal. The entire process took nine years, and cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $4 million. Throughout the appeals process, this judge continued to receive his salary and accrue his pensionable earnings.

The government changed the rules for judges’ pension accrual in 2022 under Bill C-30, the Budget Implementation Act, so that judges cannot continue to collect their pension while they are challenging a Canadian Judicial Council removal recommendation. It would make the end date be the day the CJC recommends the removal of a judge to the minister. This was a notable improvement which would help to avoid cases like Justice Girouard’s in the future.

Bill C-9 removes this provision, and replaces it with a new end date. Under this legislation, pension entitlement would cease on the day after a full hearing panel notifies a judge of its decision to recommend their removal from office. Of course, this new provision would not apply if the Supreme Court of Canada overturns the full hearing panel’s decision, the minister chooses not to remove the judge from office or either the House or the Senate votes against removing the judge from office.

Here is the new judicial conduct process, as outlined in Bill C-9: First, a screening officer at the Canadian Judicial Council determines whether a complaint is without merit. If so, the complaint is dismissed. If not, it proceeds to an initial review by one CJC member. That member determines whether the complaint should progress to a review panel, consisting of one CJC member, one puisne judge and one lawyer. If that panel determines that a judge warrants removal, the matter then goes to a public hearing panel, consisting of five members: two CJC members, one puisne judge, one lawyer and one layperson. If the complaint does not warrant removal, it is either dismissed or, if it warrants penalties less than removal, the review panel can issue a private or public expression of concern, a warning, a reprimand, ask for an apology, order a judge to take specific measures — including counselling or education — or, with the consent of the judge, take any other appropriate action. The judge in question can appeal the complaint to a reduced hearing panel.

The reduced hearing panel consists of three members: one CJC member, one puisne judge and one lawyer. If the reduced hearing panel determines that the judge’s removal from office could be justified, they then refer the complaint to the council for the establishment of a full hearing panel. That reduced hearing panel can also dismiss the complaint, or recommend other disciplinary measures. The reduced hearing panel’s decision — or as much of it as possible — is made public. The full hearing panel operates in much the same fashion. The outcome of the panel, whether of three or five members, can be appealed to an appeal panel, consisting of three CJC members and two puisne judges. That panel’s decision can ultimately be appealed, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There was a national media article this morning that may have given the impression that the Minister of Justice does not have a role under the reformed process in Bill C-9. Let me assure you that this is not the case, and the article has now been corrected. If a full hearing panel recommends removal of a judge, they prepare a report and send it to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice must respond publicly, and, if he decides to recommend removal of the judge, he will bring it to the House of Commons and the Senate for a vote before making a recommendation to the Governor General for removal. For those wondering about the recent report of a complaint against Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown, I’d like to note that his case would proceed under the current judicial conduct system, not the reformed system, since Bill C-9 is not yet law.

In any case, as I mentioned earlier, the House of Commons Justice Committee amended Bill C-9. These amendments give a complainant a written explanation for why their complaint is dismissed — from either a reviewing member or from the review panel, depending on the circumstance. These changes introduce greater transparency into the judicial complaint process, thereby increasing the public’s confidence in the fairness of the system.

The reformed judicial disciplinary process under Bill C-9 aims to address some significant shortcomings in the old system. First, it provides additional remedies for infractions that fall short of behaviour calling for a judge to be removed from the bench. This provides additional flexibility regarding discipline, while ensuring corrective measures can still be applied in less serious situations. Second, the reduction of multiple opportunities in the process for judicial review will prevent the lengthy and costly multi-year appeal scenarios we have witnessed in the past.

While I think this legislation is largely supportable, I do have a few questions and areas of concern where I think parliamentarians need to be vigilant. The new system replaces the Council of the Whole with a smaller appeal panel. While I understand that this step is meant to improve streamlining and efficiency, and I appreciate those goals, I submit that we need to proceed cautiously here. Removing a judge is a very serious step. It needs to be carefully considered. I will be interested to hear from witnesses at our Senate Legal Committee about whether they find this particular change to be a sufficient protection of the rights of judges undergoing this process.

I also have questions about the penalties that can be imposed in cases of judicial misconduct that do not meet the criteria for removal of a judge. Under this reformed process, these other penalties could include expressions of concern, warnings, reprimands, forced apologies, training, education or counselling — but Bill C-9 does not propose the option to either suspend a judge temporarily or dock their pay.

I have further reservations about the consultation process. It seems that the public consultations for these new changes to the judicial disciplinary system were conducted quite some time ago. In fact, they began in 2016 when the Department of Justice posted an online survey to its website, and then conducted a review of public correspondence received by the department regarding the judicial conduct process. This doesn’t appear to be a robust public consultation process.

The government also consulted with many players in the judicial system, including the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Council of Canadian Law Deans, the Canadian Bar Association and the provinces and territories, as well as lawyers previously involved on both sides of the judicial disciplinary process. The department also received submissions from the Barreau du Quebec and the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics. With respect to the provincial and territorial consultations, I would be interested to know when those occurred, as many of those governments have changed in the last several years.

Yet with all those consultations, I find it strange that the one stakeholder in the legal system the government didn’t think to consult for this bill was the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, nor anyone else representing the concerns of victims of crime. In the past, we’ve seen public outcry about comments and attitudes of some judges toward victims of crime, especially complainants in sexual assault cases. You may recall such scenarios that led my former Conservative caucus colleague and interim Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose to bring forward her bill to improve judicial training in that area, an initiative which I am now proud to say is the law in Canada.

Yet, we see in the consultations on Bill C-9 that the Trudeau government has once again omitted the voices of crime victims from the process. It should be an automatic reflex to include victims of crime in consultations on matters so impacting the criminal justice system. Clearly, for this government, it is not. How victims of crime are treated in the courtroom and throughout their interaction with the legal system has a direct and important impact on the public’s confidence in our justice system.

Of course, I simply can’t let the opportunity slide by to discuss another factor that undermines public faith in our legal system: the Trudeau government’s ongoing failure to appoint judges in a timely manner. This has a huge impact on delays in the criminal justice system, which, after the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan ruling in 2016, has led to serious criminal charges being thrown out in some cases of lengthy court delays.

Last October, I asked Justice Minister Lametti about the astonishing 89 judicial vacancies he had at that time. He tried to brush off the criticism, stating, “. . . we’re appointing judges at a faster pace, and there will be more appointments forthcoming soon.” But by March 1, five months after I asked him about this, the number is virtually unchanged. There are still 86 judicial vacancies across Canada.

Judicial appointments are the one factor of court delays over which the federal government has complete control. The Trudeau government’s utter negligence in this regard has very real impacts on the Canadian public. As I mentioned, we have seen serious criminal cases thrown out because of significant court delays. But without judges in courtrooms, there is also additional uncertainty created in the lives of Canadians dealing with legal matters in non-criminal courts — in family law custody cases, insurance disputes or any other legal conflicts where the circumstances of their lives — their families, their homes, their jobs and their health — may hang in the balance. Court delays increase costs and prevent Canadians involved with the legal system from moving forward with their lives. This Trudeau government’s failure to appoint judges undermines Canadians’ belief in a fair system of justice.

At the end of the day, honourable senators, Canadians need to have faith in our legal system. Canadian judges rightfully have a reputation as some of the best jurists in the world. We need to support them by modernizing our judicial conduct system, thereby ensuring a just, more accountable and more transparent process for all involved. I look forward to studying this bill further at committee so we can get that work under way and have important questions answered. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, which, as you know, has unanimously passed through the House of Commons and is now before us for second reading in the Senate.

In speaking to this bill, I first want to pay tribute to Noah Papatsie, father and grandfather and a former video journalist from Iqaluit, Nunavut, who lost his sight in 1999 when video lights blew up in his face. Despite several attempts to save his eyesight, Papatsie became legally blind.

Noah has been an advocate for the disabled in Nunavut ever since. He is a former city councillor and President of the Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society, the only cross-disability organization in Nunavut, which he was pivotal in founding. NDMS reaches out to communities across Nunavut, with community consultations on disability, accessibility and inclusion, on-the-land activities and job readiness, amongst other activities. He has also been a board member of Inclusion Canada since 2009.

It has been a real challenge for him to navigate in Iqaluit with its inclement climate and lack of sidewalks, so it was a great triumph for him when, in 2014, he acquired Xeno, Nunavut’s first guide dog, after a four-month period in Ottawa where Noah and Xeno learned to work together. Unfortunately, Xeno had to retire recently due to issues with his paws, no doubt exacerbated by the challenges of Nunavut’s harsh winter climate.

Noah is an eloquent spokesperson for the differently abled all across Nunavut, where a high proportion of the population have disabilities, and 80% of the population, he told me, suffer from hearing impairment, for example. Nunavummiut also face many barriers, including a lack of accessibility in public spaces and a lack of accessible vehicles.

Noah has been the foremost spokesperson for the differently abled in Nunavut, and he told me that he is eager to see Bill C-22 referred to our committee and expeditiously given third reading, subject, of course, to careful review in our committee. The other place passed several amendments that I believe have strengthened the bill, and now the Senate has an important role to play in transforming the lives of people with disabilities living in poverty.

I believe that your committee, in studying the bill, will hear that many in the disability community are supportive of moving the legislation to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. This will allow Bill C-22 to become law and for the government, in collaboration with the disability community, to get to work on the collaborative co-creation of Bill C-22’s regulations.

I understand that many in the community — no doubt not all — are also well pleased that in the other place an amendment was passed that commits the government to working directly with them on the development of the regulations and requires the government to report back to Parliament within six months of the bill being passed on how this was done.

The legislation now says:

Within six months . . . the Minister must table in the House of Commons a report that sets out the manner in which the obligation to engage and collaborate with the disability community in relation to the development of regulations has been implemented.

I have some experience of how not to undertake co‑development in relation to Indigenous issues. The UNDRIP bill, the Indigenous languages bill and Bill C-29 readily come to mind. But I am hearing good things about the approach Minister Qualtrough — the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion — and her officials have taken so far with the disability community. I’m therefore optimistic that this process can and will be based on mutual respect for the often-lauded but not-always-honoured principle “Nothing About Us Without Us.”

And while I’m often hesitant to leave important public policy decisions to the regulatory process, I believe that the commitment to having the disability community involved in the co-creation of regulations in this situation is the right approach. This commitment is the right approach only if it is done properly. The government has committed to such a process and, I fully expect, will be held to this commitment by the passionate, caring folks in the disability community in this country who have waited so long for progress and recognition.

My view is that the quicker Bill C-22 can pass the legislative process in Parliament, the sooner work can begin on the details of the design and regulations and serious negotiations with provinces and territories can begin.

There have been concerns expressed about timelines for implementing this long-overdue regime, but the reality is that it will take time for the regulations to be worked out, drafted and for systems to be in place to administer the benefit. In this connection, I believe that on timing the bill has been strengthened by the amendments passed in the other place. There is now a provision that requires the minister to, within one year, table a report in Parliament on progress made in the regulatory process. In addition, an amendment was passed which provides further clarity on when the act comes into force that states:

This Act comes into force no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.

I believe that one year is a reasonable time frame which will see the act in force as reasonably quickly as possible.

In this connection, it is encouraging that in the other place amendments were passed to also accelerate the timeline for a full parliamentary review of the Canada disability act from the third and fifth anniversary of its passing to its first and third anniversary. The existing federal, provincial and territorial programs will need to be reviewed and studied carefully to make sure all programs can work together to achieve no clawbacks to existing benefits and supports.

I know this is a very important and very challenging issue in our federation. Frankly, I’m not sure what can be put in this federal legislation to prevent the dreaded clawbacks from provinces and territories. Perhaps the only way is to negotiate on this very important issue with provinces and territories.

Existing federal, provincial and territorial programs will need to be reviewed and studied carefully to make sure all programs can work together to achieve no clawbacks to existing benefits and supports, and all levels of government must work together. Frankly, I’m not sure how the Senate can do more with this legislation to enable this to happen.

I understand that discussions have already taken place with the levels of government on this issue and, as well, for further transparency, I am encouraged with the amendment that was passed in the other place which “ensures agreements with the provinces and territories are made public.” Perhaps Canada could insist that those agreements could include commitments to no clawbacks.

I think that, to be realistic, this amendment may be as far as a federal parliament can go toward dealing with the issue of avoiding clawbacks in provinces and territories, though this issue will no doubt be an important matter for our capable Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee to study.

Another important issue is the amount of the benefit. I expect that the committee will hear concerns in its study about not knowing the amount of the ultimate benefit as we consider this important bill. But I cannot see how this amount can be spelled out in legislation, which is difficult to amend and adjust. At least other amendments in the other place spell out that the amount of the benefit must be adequate and the method for determining the amount must take into consideration the official poverty line.

It was also encouraging to see that another amendment made in the other place will require the Canada disability benefit to be indexed to inflation. I know there have been concerns also expressed that the bill should set out specifics regarding eligibility and not save this for the regulations. But with the strong commitment now in the bill to involve the disability community in developing the regulations, I believe that complex discussions about eligibility, the application process, amounts or the appeal processes are actually best left to the regulation process, where the disability community can have a seat at the table and be involved in decision making within these complex areas that will take some time to debate and agree upon.

In this connection, I think it is helpful that amendments passed in the other place have offered clarity on certain items whereby: one, the definition of disability now is to have the same meaning as defined in the Accessible Canada Act; two, it must take into consideration the official poverty line and be indexed to inflation. I trust that will be the floor.

Let’s trust the disability community and the government to work out these important details in an atmosphere of respect, collaboration and compromise. With that, I support giving second reading to this bill promptly and sending it to committee with the hope that the committee can complete its work and report back well before our summer adjournment. Thank you, qujannamiik.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, the debate around Bill C-18, the online news act, pivoted on February 22. That day, Google confirmed that they were conducting tests to “limit the visibility of Canadian and international news to varying degrees.”

In response to questions about its actions, Google assured us that less than 4% of Canadian users will be impacted by this random testing. Given that an estimated 92% of Canadians use Google and the average user conducts three to four searches a day, Google’s assurance — or threat — implies that over 1 million Canadians have or will have reduced access to Canadian news several times per day for the duration of this test. Which million Canadians, I wonder.

I can’t figure out why Google did this. Second reading debate had just begun. Concern about the effectiveness of this legislation was raised in the earliest speeches. Rather than constructively contributing to the debate, Google fired a shot across the bow of Canada’s legislative process and, I would argue, our sovereignty. If this is how Google negotiates with a G7 country, I can only imagine how they negotiate with our diminishing and steadily weakening news outlets. At the very least, Google just demonstrated that under Canada’s existing legislation and regulations it is free to manipulate what Canadians see when they use Google to access information and news. But, of course, they are. That’s true for all algorithm-based services.

Quite recently in this chamber, a colleague argued that:

Algorithms, as they’re being used by platforms, are a form of computation. What algorithms do is they follow our habits, and they push up — on their algorithm system — what we want to see.

Google just invalidated that assertion, quite effectively. Canadians, like all other users of these big tech platforms, see the content that the platforms want us to see. To think that the visibility of content is not throttled up or down, or substituted, based on how profitable that content is to the platform would be naive. These platforms are doing exactly what they should be doing for their shareholders — they are maximizing the value of their assets. These are commercial entities, not public services. Their job is not to serve the public. Their job is to provide a service that is valued by the public and then extract as much revenue as possible from it. These platforms are doing their job.

Now, our job, on the other hand, is to make sure that the public well-being and utility are maximized and to minimize any resulting individual or collective harms.

Google just showcased why a piecemeal approach to preventing harm and creating opportunity in the digital era is not sufficient. Google showcased why a whole-of-government approach is urgently needed if Canadians are to thrive in the digital era. Our structural legislation, like privacy and competition law, and countless regulations and policies across government were designed in and for the analogue world. They are no longer fit for purpose as the world races ahead in the digital era.

In the absence of these structural changes, Bill C-18 is an imperfect solution, but it may help in the short- to medium-term, akin to providing a pair of crutches to someone who has a broken leg. The job is not done until the leg is reset in a cast and can heal.

I’m leaning towards supporting Bill C-18 as a useful short-term measure that may slow the collapse and, perhaps, even plateau the viability of news media in Canada, but I’m not convinced that it offers anything close to a permanent solution where journalism can thrive once again.

To make my point as to why Bill C-18 on its own is likely not sufficient, I decided to explore competition in the digital era. Let’s consider the concept of “abuse of dominance.” This is when a dominant business engages in an activity that stops or substantially reduces competition in a given market. It can be predatory in nature, designed to create short-term losses or harms; exclusionary, designed to prevent a competitor from operating in a market; or disciplinary, designed to punish a competitor. Abuse of dominance is but one example of anti‑competitive behaviour.

Just over a year ago, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada — ISED — released a report summarizing the strategies and tactics that are increasingly utilized by data‑intensive tech platforms in order to obtain and maintain dominance. It’s called Study of Competition Issues in Data‑Driven Markets in Canada.

Specifically the authors examined how data-intensive tech platforms obtain, control and then leverage data to increase profits and protect against competition. The report took a case‑study approach to consider whether specific digital business behaviours are sufficiently captured under Canada’s Competition Act.

The short answer was, “No, they are not.” That is why the Budget 2022 commitment to modernize the Competition Act is so important, as is ISED’s ongoing public consultation on competition policy reform.

The nine behaviours examined by the report included concepts like “gatekeeping,” where a platform decides what users see or do not see on their platforms — this is what Google is doing right now — or “self-preferencing,” where a platform prioritizes its own content or products over that of others on the platform, or “copycatting,” where a platform uses data under their control to identify content or products that it might want to mimic.

Let’s take a closer look at gatekeeping by platforms. As it stands today, platforms are free to engage in gatekeeping that disadvantages or exploits third-party users. Google just demonstrated that as the gatekeeper. It can throttle up or down the visibility of content. If, as Bill C-18 proposes, a platform is required to pay a news media platform a fee every time a specific content is viewed, Google just demonstrated that they can — and perhaps intend to — limit the extent to which that content is viewed. Of course they can. Consider the fact that businesses that want to reach more of their followers already have the opportunity to pay Facebook for the right to do so. How does this happen?

Let’s say a news outlet has 100,000 followers, but their posts are only being viewed by a maximum of 800 of those followers. They begin to receive notifications from Facebook offering them the opportunity to pay a specific amount to achieve a given number of additional views. My question is this: Given that digital platforms can throttle access to content either up or down, why would we continue to allow them to gatekeep accurate, factual news content in the first place?

In retrospect, it is easy to see why in 2020 the Australian government directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to investigate markets affected by the supply of digital platform services and, importantly, required the ACCC to report back every six months for the next three years. They are taking this issue very seriously.

The Australian Digital Platforms Inquiry found that Google’s and Facebook’s market dominance had distorted the ability of news businesses to compete, and that was the premise of building Australia’s code.

Australia’s strategic use of the ACCC — their version of our Competition Bureau — is a great lesson for Canada. They use it to engage deeply in many issues central to their economy, society and democracy. They do their homework.

Conversely, Canadian Heritage consulted with the Competition Bureau but focused only on the bureau’s inquiry into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of Google between 2013 and 2016. A much broader, deeper and ongoing consultative approach would have been very helpful, especially considering Google’s most recent actions.

I truly hope that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will invite experts in competition law to testify in the study of Bill C-18, particularly competition law as it is applied in digital markets.

I also wondered how Bill C-18 might impact the scrappy online news outlets that have been growing. What pro- or anti-competitive effects might Bill C-18 have on those news outlets that have carved out economically viable models, despite the odds?

I looked at allNovaScotia, a subscription-based online business and political news outlet with a hard paywall. That means they do not share any of their information on social media. They’ve grown over 20 years and now operate in four provinces. Bill C-18 will not help them and it could bring them harm, because none of their news stories are shared beyond their subscribers.

How about BetaKit or The Logic? Different risks and realities face these two entities, but both have been growing as traditional news outlets have been shrinking. There are many lessons to be learned here. How about Canadaland with its podcast-only format?

Understanding how Bill C-18 will affect these innovative, growing online news outlets will, in my opinion, be crucial to the committee’s study. My questions include the following: What are the unintended consequences of Bill C-18 as it related to these innovators? Does the government commit to extend the journalism labour tax credits, even with the passage of Bill C-18? Are the qualifying criteria for Bill C-18 and the journalism labour tax credits sufficiently inclusive to encourage innovative news outlets that serve a diversity of communities?

Let me drill into this last point. If the criteria for an eligible news outlet are looked at through the traditional news lens, most emerging news outlets risk being disqualified. For example, supported news must be of general interest and about current events. Traditional media cover everything from sports to weather. Online outlets ignore that news because it can be sourced more easily elsewhere. This requirement could cause an online news outlet to water down the quality and depth of reporting in our complex world so that they can become more general interest and qualify for the support.

How about the fact that industry-specific news is not supported? Some argue that technology news is industry specific, despite the fact that technology permeates every aspect of our lives across every public and business sector, even the news sector. A traditional news media lens could potentially deem many innovative, independent, original content news outlets ineligible.

Additionally, unlike traditional media, online news outlets attract audiences that are dispersed across the country. They are not limited to a specific major urban area, often despite being based in one.

As I conclude, I will peer over the horizon — or try to, at least — past the harm already done to see what we might do to prevent future harms and even unlock more opportunities for Canadians.

Last November, OpenAI launched a generative AI platform called ChatGPT. In its first three months, ChatGPT became the fastest-growing consumer app in history, acquiring over 100 million users. Why?

Generative AI is a big deal because generative AI can create its own outputs. Until now, humans pretty much had that market cornered — the market of creating. That world is no longer. Increasingly, we will find that AI can also generate content, only much, much faster than we humans.

How does this relate to Bill C-18? To find out, I asked ChatGPT if generative artificial intelligence, or AI, could be used to create news stories. I instantly received a clearly written response that confirmed that it can create a news story, but was cautioned that the story will only be as good as the data that ChatGPT is trained upon — that biased or inaccurate data will generate stories that are also biased or inaccurate.

As a side note, I will go a bit further. AI can scale inequity and misinformation at warp speed.

ChatGPT also provided a bit of advice: It is important to inform readers that AI was used to create the story.

Given technology advancements that have just emerged in the last three months, it is now easy to see a future where general news content is repackaged into news stories at virtually no cost to large technology platforms. How might this impact our democracy? I hope that the committee will consider whether Bill C-18 is future-proof in any way, including how we might prevent chat bots like ChatGPT from further eroding the remunerability of quality journalism and whether Bill C-18 will create a sustainable, pro-competitive environment for journalism in Canada.

As the committee does its work, I ask members to remember how Google chose to negotiate with a G7 country. Their actions suggest that you might want to understand whether witnesses before the committee are constrained because they are under a confidentiality agreement, conflicted because they have already negotiated a deal or are testifying under pressure or fear that their posts or information will be throttled up or down based upon their testimony.

Whether Bill C-18 is passed in its current or amended form, I continue to wonder if it is capable of moving fast enough to save Canada’s remaining legacy news outlets. The bill’s timeline would still enable digital platforms to slow walk the process for eight months after coming into force. I do wonder whether any resulting funds will actually go to support journalists and journalism.

Colleagues, the Washington Post’s simple refrain that “Democracy Dies in Darkness” needs to be top of mind in the examination of Bill C-18. The catastrophic collapse of journalism and print media is undermining access to accurate information and insights in Canada.

That is the problem: Financially unsustainable media ultimately puts our democracy at risk.

Is Bill C-18 at least part of an appropriate response? I think so. Will Bill C-18 help to minimize future harm while we search for more sustainable solutions? I hope so.

I very much look forward to tracking the work of the committee. Thank you, colleagues.