Hon. Brian Francis: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

The Île-à-la-Crosse residential school in Saskatchewan operated from 1860 to 1976 and was attended largely by Métis students. However, this institution was excluded from both the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the day school settlement agreement. As a result, survivors from the Île‑à-la-Crosse residential school have yet to receive acknowledgement or compensation for the harms and abuses they endured. After many years of failed attempts to negotiate a resolution, proposed class action has been brought forward against the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan, which funded the institution at different points. In the aftermath of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I ask: What is the Government of Canada doing to ensure that the survivors of the Île-à-la-Crosse residential school finally receive recognition and compensation?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, my question concerns the aftermath of the serious and embarrassing incident that took place in the House of Commons during the visit of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who is leading his country through war. The Royal Canadian Legion said last week that it expects to see measures put into place to ensure that a shocking scenario like this does not occur again.

Leader, have any measures been taken? If so, what are they? Why haven’t Canadians been informed what those measures are? And if no measures have been put into place, isn’t that yet another great failure of leadership and responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and, on this day, for underlining how much work still needs to be done to provide justice to those who suffered under the oppressive regime to which you referred.

I have every confidence that Minister Anandasangaree and the department are working in good faith to address the many challenges. It’s regrettable that attempts to negotiate a settlement were not fruitful. That is a preferred approach rather than forcing folks to litigate. If there is litigation going on, you’ll understand that I cannot comment on it.

This government remains committed to doing what it can to provide justice to those — and their families and communities — who suffered the indignity and the wrongdoing that the residential schools imposed upon them.

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: This is a question for the Government Representative, Senator Gold.

Senator, the Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair, has announced a $1-billion cut to Canada’s defence budget. The minister assures Canadians that the cut will impact the bureaucracy and not hit the Canadian Armed Forces’ capabilities. Yet, on September 28 in a committee in the other place, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Deputy Minister of National Defence stated that a cut of this magnitude will impact operational capability.

To be clear, capability is more than just a frigate, a fighter jet or an armoured personnel carrier. Capabilities include the well‑trained people of Canada’s military, the programs that support them, their families and the places they work and live and, of course, our participation in international alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. All those who serve have faith not just in the equipment but also in the support from their government. The bottom line up front is that you cannot seek peace by neglecting the first line of defence against a threat.

My question is as follows: What bureaucracy is the government going to cut? Will it be programs that support Canadian Armed Forces member training, health and welfare, programs for their families, our international alliances and partnerships such as NORAD and NATO or our commitment to Latvia and Ukraine?

Hon. Paula Simons: My question is for the Government Representative. Since 2009, Canada has been a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Members of the alliance are required by terms of the Stockholm Declaration to take all necessary steps to open their archives to researchers who are studying the history of the Holocaust. Canada, however, has not yet done so, despite repeated requests from B’nai Brith Canada and others. Indeed, some of these records are not just inaccessible; they remain confidential.

Given that we have all been freshly reminded of the need to remember the history of the Holocaust, will your government commit to amending the Access to Information Act to mandate the disclosure of all Holocaust-related records in its possession?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister indicated — as a prudent minister would — that:

The fiscal environment in Canada right now requires that when we are spending Canadian taxpayer dollars that we do it carefully and thoughtfully.

The government will approach this announced spending cut thoughtfully and prudently.

The global situation has changed so rapidly. Canada is constantly re-evaluating its responsibilities in that regard. I think it is premature to assume that the government knows exactly where that $1-billion cut may come from, but I have every confidence that it will be done both with the needs of the military and the security not only of Canadians but of the world, of which we are an important part, top of mind.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me answer the first part of your question because it’s easier for me to answer. Yes, I will raise it with the government again. I confess that I don’t know the internal processes. In that regard — to the second part of your question, Senator Marshall — I’m just not able to give you a date. However, I will certainly raise it again, as you’ve requested.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The process for appointing senators is one which is in the prerogative of the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, as we all know, has taken a particular approach to Senate appointments and to the project of the Senate becoming more modern and less partisan so that it truly adds value to the legislative process rather than being an echo chamber of the other place, where talking points are transmitted from one caucus to another.

I choose not to comment on who will be appointed from Alberta or indeed from any other province. I think all of us are eager and anxious to see the vacancies filled. When they are filled, I have every confidence they will be exemplary Canadians, such as all of us honourable senators who sit in this place.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for reminding me of the question that you asked, senator. Without data, we really can’t tell how well we’re doing, so you’re quite right to underline that point.

I will certainly raise this with the relevant minister, and I hope to have more information the next time you ask me the question.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I’m returning to the question that I asked of you, Senator Gold, back in June — a long way back. My question referenced how in 2018 Bill C-65 brought in new reporting requirements in the Canada Labour Code, such as tracking occurrences of sexual harassment in federally regulated workplaces, including this place, for the first time. I noted the dearth of Canadian data on workplace harassment and violence and the severe impact on affected workers — disproportionately women, members of racialized minorities, persons with disabilities and gender-diverse folks — and I noted how annual employer monitoring and reporting was delayed nearly three years after Bill C-65 became law.

My question today is on the Labour Code requirement that the minister review the violence and harassment provisions of Bill C-65 every five years, relying on annual reporting and monitoring by employers.

Senator Gold, does the government intend to launch this process in time, as mandated, for the law’s five-year anniversary, and how does it intend to measure the effectiveness of these provisions given the delayed employer-reported data?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, two years ago the people of Alberta elected three people to be their nominees for appointment to the Senate: Pam Davidson, Erika Barootes and Mykhailo Martyniouk. Over a million Albertans voted. This is truly an independent advisory board. There are currently two Senate vacancies from Alberta.

Senator Gold, when will the Prime Minister appoint two of the elected nominees to the Senate and respect the democratic will of Alberta?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, during the 2015 federal election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that his Liberal government would:

Inventory all available federal lands and buildings to see what could be repurposed, and make it available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need . . . .

Last month, a response to a written question tabled in the House of Commons revealed how many houses have been built through this initiative. The answer, Senator Gold, was 12. That’s it — 12 houses built in eight long years. With a track record like that, it’s no wonder the Trudeau government is unable to fix Canada’s housing crisis.

Leader, how can you honestly continue to say your government is showing any type of leadership on housing?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I’m not aware of what other measures may have been put in place. Respectfully, let me remind this chamber of how things work in matters of protocol and security for events such as what occurred last week. Here I can do no better than quoting from the former Chief of Protocol, Mr. Roy Norton, who was talking about the event and its immediate aftermath — a most unfortunate, embarrassing event.

Let me quote for the record. I’m giving information based upon a former chief of protocol:

This event is happening in Parliament because the Speaker has agreed on behalf of parliamentarians to let it proceed. Parliamentary protocol, who report to the two Speakers — both the Speaker of the House and the Senate — would determine who was going to be invited.

. . . the government would have had zero role in inviting Mr. Hunka or, for that matter, most of the people who sat in the gallery.

So I raise that for the benefit of this chamber to advise you that whatever steps are being taken will involve in some cases the Speaker, whether of the other place or here, and I’m not aware at this juncture of what changes, if any, are being contemplated.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, the housing crisis that is affecting Canadians is a matter with which all levels of government are seized. This government along with provincial governments and territorial governments and municipal governments, in partnership with the development community and others, all have a part to play. This government is taking an important step forward in the measures that have been announced more recently. Further measures are under review.

In this regard, the government is not making an idle claim — and it never did claim — that it can solve the problem, nor does this government accept the proposition that it is responsible for the problem. But it is seized with it and it is addressing it responsibly, along with its partners at all levels of government and the private sector.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing the words “December 7, 2021,” by the following:

“December 7, 2021:

(a)the duration of Question Period be extended from 60 to 64 minutes; and

(b)”.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to lend my voice in support of Bill S-232. I want to start by reminding honourable colleagues about a public health emergency that has been with us for seven years and which shows no sign of abating. I am referring to the public health emergency on toxic drugs declared by British Columbia in 2016, a year in which there were 19,275 overdose or poisoning calls in my province.

Sadly, the declaration of a public health emergency was prescient. The number of overdose/poisoning calls went up to 23,441 in 2017, to 23,662 in 2018, to 24,166 in 2019 and, just to skip a few years, to 33,654 in 2022. There was a 5% drop in overdose/poisoning calls between 2021 and 2022, but I think you will agree that having over 30,000 such incidents in a year is shocking and unacceptable.

At the start of this year, Health Canada granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to the Province of B.C. from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026, for adults in the province to not be subject to criminal charges for the personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal drugs. According to the British Columbian government, decriminalization is not associated with increased rates of substance use. It is, however, expected to help reduce the barriers and stigma that prevent people from accessing life-saving supports and services.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in B.C. has said that there is no evidence suggesting decriminalization of possession of up to 2.5 grams of illicit drugs for adults 18 or older has led to an increase of the consumption of illicit drugs in public spaces.

As I mentioned earlier, this exemption came into effect at the end of January this year and will last for three years. It is this example from my province of British Columbia that persuades me to support Senator Boniface’s bill on a framework for decriminalization of certain illegal substances. But I would stress that the decriminalization of such substances cannot be undertaken in isolation. It has to be accompanied by support structures as well as a safe supply of drugs so that those who use them are not left hanging.

Much has been said about how severe this crisis is, not only in my home province of British Columbia and in the major cities of this country — particularly Vancouver and Toronto — but, as Senator Boniface has reminded us, also in small towns across the country and, indeed, all regions of Canada. I would just underscore that substance use disorder is a public health issue. It is not a criminal justice issue.

The Expert Task Force on Substance Use has unanimously recommended an end to criminal sanctions related to simple possession of controlled substances. We should build on this expert recommendation to encourage the government to further develop this framework. There is evidence — as was found in British Columbia — that decriminalization for simple possession is an effective way to reduce the public health and public safety harms associated with substance use.

There is, however, a need for alternatives to criminal sanctions, which require integrated partnerships and access to diversion measures. Diversion approaches:

. . . provide opportunities to make positive community impacts, including reducing recidivism, reducing ancillary crimes and improving health and safety outcomes for individuals who use illegal substances . . .

What I’ve just recited is the preamble to Senator Boniface’s bill, and I agree wholeheartedly with all of these propositions.

We’ve had this bill on our Order Paper since 2021. There have been four or five speakers already. It is high time that we send this to committee for detailed study.

Colleagues, there is a public health emergency in our country right now. It is not going away and will not be wished away. We need to take concrete actions that allow us to come up with new approaches to addressing this diabolical problem.

With that, Your Honour, I conclude my short speech and encourage us all to consider sending this to committee as soon as possible. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 26, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, for the remainder of the current session:

1.during Question Period with any minister of the Crown as provided for in the order of December 7, 2021, in addition to the times provided for in that order, senators have up to 45 seconds to ask a supplementary question and ministers have up to 45 seconds to respond to this supplementary question; and

2.during any other Question Period, main questions and responses be limited to one minute each, followed by a maximum of one supplementary question per main question, with these supplementary questions and responses being limited to a maximum of 30 seconds each.

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