Senator Martin: It’s actually quite unfathomable that four years’ worth of emails are missing. That’s a lot. Four years, leader. It is ironic, to say the least, that the former CBSA official at the centre of the deleted “ArriveScam” emails is currently the Chief Technology Officer for the entire Government of Canada.

Since it learned of the allegations that four years’ worth of his emails were deleted, what has the Trudeau government done to recover them? Has it done anything?

Senator Gold: I’m not in a position to answer the question of what steps have been taken. I will certainly raise that with the minister at my earliest possible opportunity.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: The United Kingdom, France, Germany and the European Union have adopted age verification laws to access online porn. They have safeguards to ensure privacy of data, like Bill S-210. Why not look at these examples instead of deciding to allow children to freely access the porn sites?

Senator Gold: Again, senator, there’s no question that the experiences of other jurisdictions have been taken into account by policy-makers in the drafting of this bill. I look forward to these questions being asked in the other place when it becomes a subject of debate on the floor, in committee and certainly when it comes here. I think the ministers and the officials will be in a better position to answer the questions than I am — at least on this first day that the bill was tabled.

Hon. Joan Kingston: Honourable senators, I rise before you today to draw your attention to a very important issue that is the subject of the final report of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, which was released on February 13, entitled Upholding dignity and human rights: the Federal Housing Advocate’s review of homeless encampments. The report outlines specific calls to action to address ongoing homeless encampments across Canada, including a national response plan.

Encampments, or tent cities, are established by people who are sleeping rough, usually on public property or privately owned land, and often without permission. According to the final report, an estimated 20% to 25% of homeless people across the country live in tent encampments, affecting not just big cities but also rural regions, including northern Saskatchewan, Labrador, Nunavut and the communities in my home province of New Brunswick. This percentage is consistent with our experience in the Fredericton area.

While encampments have been a feature of homelessness in Canada for many years, even in less populous areas like New Brunswick, since the COVID-19 pandemic, encampments have become more numerous, more densely populated and more visible across the country. The absence of effective coordination between the many non-profit agencies, departments and jurisdictions involved limits the effectiveness of responses to the homelessness crisis. Provinces and territories must work closely with municipalities and First Nation communities, and the federal government must play a leadership role.

As the Federal Housing Advocate points out:

. . . the encampments exist only because of a larger, systemic failure to uphold the right of all people to adequate housing without discrimination. . . .

Forced encampment evictions make people more unsafe and expose them to a greater risk of harm and violence. . . .

Shelters are important. They’re there for emergencies; they’re not a place for people to live. What people experiencing homelessness want is their own door that locks and a place where they can feel safe.

Without proper housing supports in place, mental health and addictions can create significant barriers to finding and maintaining housing. At the same time, the circumstances of sleeping rough make mental health and addictions challenges impossible to overcome. Physical environment and social supports are important social determinants of health.

Greater integration and coordination are needed between community-based housing and homelessness services and mental health and addictions support. This should include the creation of integrated response teams, including clinical supports made available to individuals living in encampments and those accessing the 24/7 year-round drop-in centres recommended by the federal advocate.

A harm-reduction approach, coupled with low barriers to accessing services, is key. The report states that:

In the absence of available adequate housing, all governments and service providers must work to address the structural barriers that result in existing emergency shelters not being accessible or appropriate for all people who might choose to use them.

I echo the federal advocate’s advice:

Change depends on all of us working at all levels, starting in our own communities.

Thank you, woliwon.

Senator McPhedran: NDAs are tools intended to protect proprietary trade secrets, not to hide illegal wrongdoing. What is this government doing to protect employees from misuse of non‑disclosure agreements like we heard from testimony of employees of Sustainable Development Technology Canada when they addressed Parliament?

Senator Black: Senator Gold, could you elaborate on any specific short-term measures being considered to address the imminent workforce challenges facing the agricultural industry particularly in light of the projected retirements and persistent labour shortages that I’ve mentioned earlier?

Senator Martin: As I said, with the letters from the territories and the provinces and with the provincial counterparts who are working tirelessly on assessing the readiness — on a personal level, I have my own examples of why allowing MAID for people with mental illness as a sole underlying condition is frightening to me. But in terms of the readiness, I do believe that we must listen to the provinces and territories. That’s why we have this three-year extension. I can’t say when that will be. I will leave it to the experts and those in charge of assessing the readiness to tell us when they are ready.

Senator Plett: You provide information that isn’t correct, it’s misinformation, leader. You are constantly lecturing us here about misinformation — the Conservatives — but here we have a blatant example of misrepresentation, mismanagement and secrecy, leader. The Trudeau government is not worth the cost and will never fix our budget.

What is the current total of these contracts now, leader? Is it more than $208 million?

Senator Gold: I don’t have a figure that I can provide by way of an answer, senator, but thank you for your question.

Senator Gold: I will certainly add those to my inquiries. Thank you for the question.

Senator Kutcher: For the purposes of everyone being exhausted and tired tonight, the last thing people want is for me to repeat that question. Thank you.

Senator Martin: I am not quite sure what you are asking, senator, but I know you bring expertise from your profession, and on this, we do disagree. However, the fact that we heard from various experts who have such differing opinions is what, I think, made me and other parliamentarians pause as to when, because when we do go forward, it needs to be at the right time for our nation.

In terms of your question, I didn’t quite understand. You can repeat it if you like, but I don’t know if you want to ask it again.

Senator Kutcher: In three years, we will be back at the point of hearing, “Nine people say we’re ready, one says we’re not ready; therefore we’re not ready.”

These are the reasons I do not support this bill. I hope you will consider all of the evidence before we move forward with what, in my opinion, is a discriminatory piece of legislation that violates our Charter and ignores provincial legal precedent. Thank you, wela’lioq.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I will have to go reread my speech. I’m not sure I cited that issue as the central reason as to why, in fact, there is not a consensus within the communities of physicians, regulators, health care ministers and the like. Nor am I in a position to competently predict what kind of consensus may emerge among assessors — psychiatrists, notably, but others — because other health care professionals are involved in the process.

Work is being done on that, to be sure, and one of the reasons that has been cited for needing more time is to translate the fairly general practice guidelines into more specific guidance for those in the assessment process, within individual institutions, individual provinces or across this country.

Hansard will reveal what I said, but the purpose was not to zero in on that specific issue.

The government is confident that three years is a reasonable time. It’s a clear target as opposed to an indeterminate one, and, therefore, the system will be sufficiently ready so that MAID can be administered more consistently and safely across this country.

Senator Woo: I won’t put words in your mouth, but irremediability is, of course, at the heart of the legislation, because it is the triggering criteria for MAID of any kind to be offered.

If, in fact, after three years, the practitioners are unable to come to a consensus on what is irremediable in MAID MD‑SUMC, is it not the case, then, that someone seeking MAID MD‑SUMC would simply have to find the right practitioner who is willing to offer it because of a diagnosis of irremediability?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Honestly, no, I wasn’t aware of that. That was in one of the briefs submitted to Quebec’s commission on end-of-life care. They discuss the situation in Belgium and in the Netherlands. It’s a bit different. All right, then, I’ll take you at your word.

But there is certainly more than one expert who’s uncertain about the irremediability of psychiatric disorders. It’s a difficult debate. You mention evidence and the fact that it’s beyond dispute, but I think that the Council of Canadian Academies, a respected scientific organization, also reached similar findings on the issue of irremediability. These are professionals, but not physicians only. From what I understand, they are also scientists from various backgrounds. That, too, is not insignificant. It is a social debate. Yes, physicians are very important, but I think the debate is broader than that.

[English]

Senator Kutcher: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that answer, Senator Gold. I think it’s pretty clear that 2% and 2% are the same number.

The issue here also is that people who have a mental disorder but have a concurrent physical illness are now eligible, even if it’s the mental disorder that is the primary reason for their request. There doesn’t seem to be a problem currently in providing the kind of comprehensive approach and support and everything else that your government is talking about necessarily having for people who have just a sole mental disorder.

Help us understand why this is not discriminatory. If you have a mental illness and a physical illness, it’s okay, but if you just have a mental illness, it’s not okay.