Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 45th Parliament
Volume 154, Issue 5
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker
- SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
- National Sickle Cell Awareness Day Bill
- Food and Drugs Act
- Alcoholic Beverage Promotion Prohibition Bill
- Corrections and Conditional Release Act
- Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Bill
- Ukrainian Heritage Month Bill
- National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Bill
- Constitution Act, 1982
- Business of the Senate
THE SENATE
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
Business of the Senate
Motion to Extend Today’s Senators’ Statements Adopted
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, I move that for today’s sitting, Senators’ Statements be extended by the length of time taken by the candidates for the position of Speaker pro tempore to make their remarks, if any.
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
Speaker pro tempore of the Senate
Candidates’ Remarks
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as announced last Thursday, senators had until yesterday, Monday, June 2, at noon to submit their names as candidates for the position of Speaker pro tempore of the Senate.
Today, during the statements by senators, we will hear from the two candidates: the Honourable René Cormier and the Honourable Pierrette Ringuette.
[Translation]
The order of speakers will be determined by drawing lots.
The first candidate to give their speech will be the Honourable Pierrette Ringuette.
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I, too, want to thank and congratulate the Senate staff, the Speaker and, especially the Usher of the Black Rod, for their outstanding work during the King’s historic visit to deliver the Speech from the Throne. Well done, Mr. Peters, and your team.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: Colleagues, I will be short and to the point. This is the third election for our Speaker pro tempore. Last Thursday, I gave notice of my candidacy to our Clerk. You have also received from me an email outlining my relevant experience for the position, gained during my career. Once again, I ask for your support as I seek another term.
Our constitutional mandate to objectively review legislation calls upon us to debate controversial issues some of the time. As we come from different regions and backgrounds, it is important that all voices be heard and valued. Together, we can navigate challenging issues. We will differ sometimes in perspective. This is normal. However, the expression of opinions must occur respectfully. The success of our efforts and our effectiveness as a Parliament depend upon fair, accurate and decisive arbitration from the Speaker’s chair.
[Translation]
The person sitting in the chair must not only be very familiar with the rules and decorum, but, in my opinion, they must also have a particular vision, which is acquired through experience.
[English]
In my case, my experience and perspective guide me in being respectful, fair and impartial towards all senators. These attributes give you, senators, confidence in the chair and in the process adhered to, generating productive outcomes for the Senate and for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Since 2020, senators have been able to see my professionalism in the chair, and I hope our new senators will be able to benefit from it as well.
[English]
In closing, I would be honoured to serve again as your Speaker pro tempore to guide our deliberations in this new Parliament. Thank you, meegwetch, wela’lioq.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, in the last months, being away from the Senate due to prorogation and the elections was a great opportunity for me to reflect upon the important role of the Senate and the contribution I can make to this institution.
Looking back on my first nine years, I took stock of what I had accomplished and began focusing on the five years ahead, leading up to my retirement.
As most of you know, I have been very present and active in this chamber. In the absence of the Speaker pro tempore, I had the privilege to preside as the Acting Speaker on several occasions. Outside the chamber, I have been involved in parliamentary diplomacy by participating in several missions, and I co-founded two friendship groups.
With the arrival of new senators and the opening of the Forty-fifth Parliament, I reflected deeply on the importance of sharing leadership and making space for others in the different positions I hold.
With that in mind, senators, and if given the opportunity to be elected Speaker pro tempore, I have decided it is time for me to step down from all executive committees and entirely dedicate myself to this chamber.
In my recent conversations with you, I heard that senators would appreciate better respect of the Rules, certainly more respect for decorum and more consideration to ensure equal opportunity for everyone to be recognized, to speak and to be heard in the chamber, no matter where they sit.
If we have the right to speak, colleagues, we also have the responsibility to listen, and that is only possible if we fully respect the decorum, which is a shared responsibility amongst us.
What kind of experience and expertise do I possess to occupy this important function? After nine years, I have a good understanding of the Senate’s operations, its main components and the political dynamics at play. Although mastering the Rules is an ongoing learning process for all of us, I have a good knowledge of them, and I am thankful to the clerks, who offer great support when we hold this position.
My seven years’ experience as a committee chair has confirmed my ability to be efficient, fair and equitable, while respecting the different approaches, viewpoints and diversity of colleagues.
[Translation]
I am known for my willingness to listen, for putting the common good ahead of my own personal beliefs and interests, and for creating a working environment that is conducive to lively, yet constructive and respectful, debate.
[English]
Before joining the Senate, colleagues, I dedicated my whole career to bringing together people from different backgrounds and aspirations around common objectives.
So if you place your trust in me, I pledge to devote all my time, passion and energy to carrying out this mandate.
[Translation]
I will also ensure that all senators can be heard and listened to in the official language of their choice.
Honourable senators, we are stewards of democracy. I wish Senator Ringuette the best of luck, and I thank you for your support and attention.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Hon. the Speaker: As there are only two candidates, ranked ballots will not be necessary. Voting will begin in one hour, at 3:09 p.m., and continue until one hour after the adjournment of the Senate today. Voting will resume tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4, at 11 a.m. (eastern time) and will end one hour after the adjournment of the Senate, provided that any senator who was waiting at that time has had an opportunity to vote.
An email from the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office will be sent to confirm the opening of the polling station today and tomorrow. I remind you, that the polling station will be located in the senators’ workstations next to the reading room. Reminders will be sent periodically during the voting period today and tomorrow.
(1410)
[English]
Canadian Forces Snowbirds
Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, last Sunday was Canadian Armed Forces Day. It is timely to highlight the military contribution to Canada of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan’s own Canadian Forces Snowbirds, also known as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron. I recently had the honour of presenting members of the team with King Charles III Coronation Medals in recognition of their service to Canada and the Crown.
For more than 50 years, the Snowbirds have been an important emblem of Canada’s proud air military tradition. In recent months, as Canadian sovereignty has moved to the forefront of public discourse, so too have issues concerning Canada’s defence and identity. The Snowbirds are a perfect icon of Canadian sovereignty and pride. The squadron is a potent Canadian symbol of hope and freedom. The Snowbirds inspire us with soaring strength and elegance in a wide open Prairie sky.
I can speak to that sense of inspiration personally. In fall 2023, I was beyond thrilled to attend the pre-show Snowbirds team briefing at 15 Wing at their year-end closing show. I felt an almost childlike excitement sitting in that room, listening to the pilots go through flight choreography and aerobatics. It is that sense of wonder that makes the Snowbirds such a powerful military recruitment tool, although I don’t anticipate becoming a pilot anytime soon.
That day Snowbird 2, Captain Caitie Clapp, told me she dreamed of becoming a Snowbird pilot at age 12, inspired by a Snowbirds performance under the leadership of Commanding Officer Maryse Carmichael, the Snowbirds’ first female pilot. How wonderful that these pilots are now, in turn, further inspiration for a whole new generation of Canadian children.
The Snowbirds represent the very best of what it is to be Canadian. When I first told Team Lead Major Brent Handy that I wanted to present these medals to the Snowbirds team, he wondered immediately if there would be enough medals to include the entire larger team because he wanted all those team members who support the pilots so ably to receive recognition too. The flying team is capably assisted by avionics and aviation technicians and safety, logistics and public affairs officials. I regret I had only a very limited number of medals available, but I think Major Handy’s request speaks volumes about how each Snowbirds team member is valued. All the team members serve Canada with distinction.
In addition to Major Handy and Captain Clapp, I presented medals to these Snowbirds pilots: Captain Patrick Charette, Captain Brendan Pellow, Captain Scott Boyd, Captain Kyle Taylor, Captain Thomas Thornton, Captain Marc-André Plante, Captain Patrice Powis-Clement, Captain Richard MacDougall and Public Affairs Officer Captain Philip Rochon. On behalf of all Canadians, thank you to the entire Snowbirds team for inspiring us and for bringing Canadians together in a sense of unity and hope. May the Snowbirds soar high for another 50 years.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Late Rolf Hougen, O.C., O.Y.
Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the Yukon’s nation builders. It is a story of family.
Rolf Hougen’s father, Berent, arrived in the Yukon in 1906 — not on the train from Skagway, Alaska, but walking the White Pass railroad tracks to Whitehorse on a five-day journey. In Whitehorse, he built a log raft and headed down the Yukon River to Dawson, working with the big dredging companies and moving to Cripple Creek, Alaska, where he and a partner operated a hotel. In 1913, he sold out and returned to Norway, then married his wife, Margrethe, and immigrated to Canada a year later. In 1944, Berent and Margrethe returned to the Yukon with the youngest of their seven children, a 14-year-old boy named Rolf. The Alaska Highway was opening, the Yukon was booming and the Hougens opened a small store. Berent worked on the highway, while Margrethe ran the store with young Rolf’s help after school hours.
In 1947, Grade 12 graduate Rolf took over the full-time management, and in 1949, Hougen’s Limited became a real department store. In 1952, Rolf was one of the founders of the Young People’s Association. Three years later, he married Margaret Van Dyke of Edmonton.
The 1950s were a time of change. The isolated Yukon began to take on modern amenities such as cable television, with Rolf Hougen as one of the founding fathers of WHTV. A primitive television operation by any standards, broadcasting on just one black and white channel for four hours a day, the prerecorded programs were six months old. By 1965, the programs, delivered on tape by truck, were only a week old. Very young children — like myself — thought their fathers and brothers were amazing because they already knew the score of that hockey game on TV.
Over the next 20 years, the forward-thinking Rolf invested in the Yukon, developed the Klondike Broadcasting Company, or CKRW, and owned the local Ford dealership and the Arctic Investment Corporation. In 1978, Rolf was the driving force behind Cancom, or Canadian Satellite Communications Inc., that delivers multi-channel radio and television signals to more than 2,000 remote communities throughout Canada. At the time, his proposal to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, involved a whopping $38 million to set up and operate, expecting no profit for the first four years.
Rolf Hougen’s life is measured in more than business success. He was the president and founding member of the Whitehorse Board of Trade and the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous, as well as the founding chairman of the Yukon Foundation. Nationally, he was the former chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Internationally, after spending a year in France with the family to learn French, Rolf served as the Honorary Consul of France for the Yukon. The President of France appointed him an Officer of the ordre national du Mérite.
Marg passed away in 2022 and Rolf Hougen in September of last year. Their family of six children and 18 grandchildren continue the tradition of business and public service to community to this day. Rolf, we are grateful for your dedication to our Yukon and your commitment to Canada.
Thank you. Shä̀w níthän. Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh.
Bridge and Ferry Tolls
Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, I would like to share with you the most wonderful news. The $50 toll to cross the Confederation Bridge connecting Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick will be reduced to $20.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Downe: Both Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised in their election platforms that they would address the regional unfairness of high tolls in Atlantic Canada. In addition, Prime Minister Carney promised that he would reduce by at least half the $91 cost for the seasonal Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, to Caribou, Nova Scotia, ferry as well as the ferry service connecting Souris, Prince Edward Island, to Quebec’s Magdalen Islands, which can cost as much as $220 for a round trip.
In additional good news, the Liberal Party platform contained the same promise regarding the Marine Atlantic service connecting Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and Labrador, which can cost almost $500.
Ten years after Justin Trudeau announced that he would remove the tolls on the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, completely reversing the national user-pay policy for federally owned transportation infrastructure, Prince Edward Islanders and Atlantic Canadians are catching a financial break. Prime Minister Carney is taking action.
Given that both the Champlain Bridge, which cost over $4 billion to build, and the Confederation Bridge, which cost over $1 billion, are owned by the Government of Canada, Prince Edward Islanders have long wondered why this double standard — where some Canadians benefited from a toll-free bridge while others were stuck paying over $50 — was not being corrected and why Prince Edward Islanders were being treated like second-class Canadians. The long-overdue announcement on the reduction of tolls will provide financial relief for Prince Edward Islanders and help reduce trade barriers in Atlantic Canada.
Prince Edward Islanders are not receiving special treatment, only long-overdue results. The reduction in tolls for the year-round Confederation Bridge and the seasonal Wood Islands ferry in eastern Prince Edward Island still means that the annual federal subsidy to support these vital infrastructures will remain less than the federal government support for the Champlain Bridge in Montreal.
Colleagues, I wish to thank my fellow Island senators — Senator Francis, Senator MacAdam and Senator Robinson — for their support, as well as all Prince Edward Islanders who added their voices for Prince Edward Island during this decade-long campaign.
And most of all, I want to thank Prime Minister Carney who decided that he was going to treat all Canadians equally regardless of where they live in Canada.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Expression of Thanks for Party Leaders
Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, as we approach Canada Day and reflect on what we all do in Parliament to improve the lives of Canadians, I want to take a few minutes to thank three political leaders who were in the previous Parliament and have since left the political scene. They are, of course, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, the Honourable Erin O’Toole and Mr. Jagmeet Singh.
Through his years as Liberal leader and the twenty-third Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau’s accomplishments are many. Notably, he successfully renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, with a challenging American administration, and he guided Canada through the COVID-19 pandemic, creating a combination of economic and social policies to help Canadians.
Some of his other signature policies included the Canada Child Benefit, increased attention to reconciliation, the extension of the Canada Pension Plan, the creation of the national child care program, climate change policies, assistance to Ukraine, creation of the Indo-Pacific and Africa strategies, the tightening of gun laws and a gender-equal cabinet.
I am, of course, biased in mentioning his decision to implement the most significant reform of the Senate of Canada since 1867, in only appointing senators to sit as independents. And I will note, of course, that I was appointed to the system by Prime Minister Trudeau.
Mr. Erin O’Toole was leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for a year and a half. He championed some key causes, most notably, the expansion of the Armed Forces and the care and well-being of Canadian veterans.
He pressed for a more aggressive federal housing policy, a GST break over Christmas and an industrial carbon tax policy which, ironically, the Liberal government has subsequently adopted. Notably, he won the popular vote in 2021, albeit not the seat count.
Mr. Jagmeet Singh led his party with energy and conviction for nearly eight years, championing many progressive issues facing working people in Canada. By entering into a governing accord with the minority Liberal government, he was able to ensure two important policies. Just as Canada always associates the name of Tommy Douglas with medicare, history will appropriately record that it was Jagmeet Singh who played the key role in implementing pharmacare and dental care for years to come.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, of all the duties of Parliament, the leadership of a political party is certainly the most difficult. It is rarely free from controversy and opposition, and it is a difficult task for leaders and for their families.
[English]
As we think about Canada Day, and Canada, it’s appropriate we thank Justin Trudeau, Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh, and their families, for their considerable service to this Parliament and to our country. Thank you.
Tilt Cove
Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 87 of “Telling Our Story.” Friends, I am confident that you are all aware that the largest, most populated city in Canada begins with the letter “T” — yes, the big city of Toronto, Ontario, with a population of approximately 6.2 million residents.
But I am not so sure many of you are aware of the fact that the smallest town in Canada also begins with the letter “T” — Tilt Cove is the quaint, picturesque town located in the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a total population of four residents. Yes, you heard me correctly, a population of four.
We have the mayor and his wife, who is the town clerk, and the town clerk’s brother and his wife, who make up the Tilt Cove Town Council. I am thinking on most days that the decision-making process goes much smoother in Tilt Cove than it does here in Ottawa.
But, alas, Tilt Cove did not always hold the title of the smallest town in Canada. It has a long, rich and proud history. Tilt Cove is located in the Notre Dame Bay region of our province and was first settled as a tiny fishing village in 1813 by George and Mary Winsor, who arrived from Plymouth, England.
In 1857, a man by the name of Smith McKay discovered rich deposits of copper ore; in 1864, mining operations began, and people from across Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout other parts of Canada moved to Tilt Cove to take advantage of the numerous employment opportunities which came with the opening of the new mine.
The population increased steadily, and around 1916 peaked at over 1,500 people. During the boom years, the mining company built houses, a recreation centre, a curling rink and a bowling alley. The town had a vibrant social life for families and their kids with community barbecues and Labour Day parades. In the wintertime, the lake would freeze over and the mining company would turn it into a skating rink and place a massive tree in its centre.
The mine closed in 1920 driving the population down to around 100. Shirley Severance was born in 1941 and grew up in Tilt Cove. She watched the mine grow when it re-opened in 1957 and watched it shrink again in 1967 when the mine shut down for good. Her parting words were, “We were truly blessed, all of us, whoever lived in Tilt Cove . . . Everyone was like a big family.”
In 2023, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador approved the financial relocation assistance after the four remaining residents voted 100% in resettling. There was no need for a judicial recount in Tilt Cove.
Realizing Senator McBean’s fondness for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I do not want to disappoint, but I regret to inform her, and all of you, that the four residents of Tilt Cove are not moving to Toronto. They will be taking up residence in another beautiful town called King’s Cove when their new homes are completed.
Colleagues, this is a story of another Newfoundland town with a colourful and rich history that will soon turn out the lights and lock the doors. For many reasons, I understand the decision to leave and relocate, but it is still sad to see another part of the Newfoundland mosaic become a fading memory.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Memorial Cup
Hon. Éric Forest: The Memorial Cup, an exciting, top-notch hockey tournament, has come to an end, and it’s important to take a moment to sincerely thank everyone who made the 2025 tournament such an outstanding event.
Organizing an event of this magnitude takes a tremendous amount of work. To the volunteers who gave of your time, of your energy and of yourselves, thank you. You greeted people, helped out in parking lots and dressing rooms, and provided logistical and team support. You were the silent but essential foundation upon which the success of this memorable 10-day event depended.
I’m also grateful to the organizers, who spent months carefully and professionally orchestrating every detail. Your vision, dedication and love of hockey really put Rimouski on the map for all Canadians.
The success of this year’s tournament is all the more remarkable given how much harder it’s getting to organize this kind of event anywhere other than a major centre because of the fees that have to be paid and the television rights that aren’t controlled by the local organization.
To the sponsors, partners, staff, technical teams, security and maintenance services and local and national media, thank you for your invaluable contribution.
I also want to mention the crucial roles played by Jacques Tanguay, president of the organizing committee, Alexandre Tanguay, president of the Océanic, and Sébastien Noël, general manager of the 2025 Memorial Cup, who made such important contributions to the success of this event.
Finally, I want to thank the junior hockey fans who filled the arena to capacity for their enthusiasm and support. Your presence gave each match a unique and electrifying feel.
The 2025 Memorial Cup will remain etched in our memories not only as a spectacular celebration of junior hockey, but also as a testament to what a united, dedicated community can achieve. Of course, we would have liked Océanic to win, especially for the sake of Océanic fans, but we are proud of their performance and determination just the same.
In closing, the London Knights, who won the one hundred fifth Memorial Cup, also deserve our congratulations.
[English]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
The Senate
Notice of Motion to Affect Senate and Committee Proceedings for Remainder of Current Session
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, for the remainder of the current session:
1.with effect from the time the Senate adopts a report of the Committee of Selection concerning the membership of committees or the adoption of this order, whichever comes later, when the Senate sits on a Wednesday, it adjourn at 4 p.m., as if that were the ordinary time of adjournment provided for in the Rules, unless it has been suspended for the purpose of taking a deferred vote or has earlier adjourned; provided that if a vote is deferred to a Wednesday, or to later that same day on a Wednesday, it take place at 4:15 p.m., with the Speaker interrupting the proceedings immediately prior to any adjournment, but no later than 4 p.m., to suspend the sitting until 4:15 p.m. for the taking of the deferred vote, with the bells to start ringing at 4 p.m.;
2.when the Senate sits on a Thursday, it sit at 1:30 p.m.;
3.the Senate invite any minister of the Crown who is not a member of the Senate to attend the Senate, at least once every second week that the Senate sits, during Question Period at a time and on a date to be determined by the Government Representative in the Senate, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups, and take part in proceedings by responding to questions relating to their ministerial responsibilities, subject to the rules and orders then in force, subject to the following conditions:
(a)neither senators when asking questions, nor the minister when answering, need stand;
(b)the Government Representative in the Senate, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups, determine the minister to appear during such Question Period;
(c)at the beginning of Orders of the Day, the Government Representative in the Senate or the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate inform the Senate, as soon as possible in advance, but no later than the sitting day that would precede the day on which the minister would appear, of the time and date for Question Period with a minister, and the designated minister;
(d)if a standing vote would conflict with the time for Question Period with a minister pursuant to this order, the vote be postponed until immediately after the conclusion of Question Period;
(e)if the bells are ringing for a standing vote at the time for Question Period with a minister pursuant to the terms of this order, they be interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for the balance of any time remaining;
(f)senators be limited to one minute for any main question, ministers have up to one minute and thirty seconds to respond to a main question, senators have up to 45 seconds to ask one supplementary question, and ministers have up to 45 seconds to respond to this supplementary question; and
(g)the Question Period last a maximum of 64 minutes;
4.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;
5.the Committee of Selection be a standing committee;
6.the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be composed of 12 senators, in addition to the ex officio members, provided that if members have been named to the committee before the adoption of this order, the additional members be recommended by the Committee of Selection;
7.without affecting any authority separately granted to a committee to meet while the Senate is sitting:
(a)committees scheduled to meet on a Tuesday be authorized to do so as of 6:30 p.m., even if the Senate is then sitting, provided that the Senate has completed Government Business for the sitting; and
(b)other committees that are meeting on government business be authorized to meet on Tuesdays as of 6:30 p.m. or the end of Government Business, whichever comes later, provided that a majority of the whips and liaisons have given their approval and subject to capacity and the availability of necessary resources; and
(c)for greater certainty, the authority granted to leaders and facilitators, or their designates, under section 3 of Chapter 5:03 of the Senate Administrative Rules be, subject to capacity and the availability of services, unaffected by the provisions of this order;
8.joint committees be authorized, as far as the Senate is concerned, to hold hybrid meetings or meetings entirely by videoconference, with the following provisions applying in relation to any such meeting:
(a)all members participating count towards quorum;
(b)such meetings be considered to be occurring in the parliamentary precinct, irrespective of where participants may be located, subject to subpoint (d)(i);
(c)the committee be directed to approach in camera meetings with the utmost caution and all necessary precautions, taking account of the risks to the confidentiality of in camera proceedings inherent in such technologies; and
(d) subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate in a meeting of the committee by videoconference senators must:
(i)participate from a designated office or designated residence within Canada;
(ii)use a device and a headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate and authorized for videoconferences with interpretation;
(iii)be the only people visible during the videoconference;
(iv)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times, unless the meeting is suspended; and
(v)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat, unless the meeting is suspended;
9.any Senate committee be authorized to appoint senators who are not members of the committee to its subcommittees, other than its Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, provided that, for greater certainty, no member of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight may be appointed to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration under the terms of this order, and vice versa; and
10.the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to appoint the Legislative Deputy of the Government as a non-voting member to its Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, if it has such a subcommittee, without, for greater certainty, the limitation in point 9 applying;
That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament:
1.be authorized to examine and report on the inclusion of provisions relating to Question Period with a minister into the Rules of the Senate, including recommendations for amendments; and
2.submit its final report no later than December 18, 2025; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons in relation to point 8 of the first paragraph of this order, to acquaint that house accordingly.
(1430)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
Bill to Amend—First Reading
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum introduced Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator McCallum, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act
Bill to Amend—First Reading
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum introduced Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator McCallum, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
(1440)
National Thanadelthur Day Bill
First Reading
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum introduced Bill S-225, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator McCallum, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
Gore Mutual Insurance Company
Private Bill—First Reading
Hon. Tony Loffreda introduced Bill S-1001, An Act to authorize Gore Mutual Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator Loffreda, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
Indigenous Peoples
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committees to Study the Need for the Government to Consult and Accommodate First Nations, Inuit and Métis Rights Holders
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on:
(a)the need for the federal government to fulfill their legal obligation in their fiduciary duty to consult and accommodate First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders regarding legislation that impacts their treaty rights, inherent rights and traditional lands; and
(b)the need for the federal government to fulfill their legal obligation in their fiduciary duty to consult and accommodate at all stages of the legislative process, from conceptualization to drafting to implementation and review; and
That the committees submit their final reports no later than December 31, 2025.
Indigenous Peoples
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study How the Forcible Removal of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children from their Families and Cultures Constitutes a Crime Against Humanity and a Genocide
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be authorized to examine and report on how the historical and ongoing forcible removal of First Nations, Inuit and Métis children from their families and cultures, including but not limited to:
(a)removals through the Indian Residential School system;
(b)Indian Day Schools;
(c)the Sixties Scoop;
(d)the epidemic of Indigenous children in care; and
(e)the resultant intergenerational effects of this child apprehension, such as missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples;
constitutes a crime against humanity and a genocide, pursuant to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24, and Articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and in accordance with Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and
That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2025.
QUESTION PERIOD
Justice
Canada Evidence Act
Hon. Fabian Manning: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Leader, victims’ advocates and legal experts are condemning the federal government’s use of national security laws to suppress key evidence in a violent assault case involving a Joint Task Force 2 soldier. Master-Corporal Michael Spence avoided serious charges after the Department of Justice Canada, at the military’s urging, invoked section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act — normally reserved to protect classified information in terrorism cases — to prevent the victim from discussing her abuser’s military role.
Leader, do you believe it is appropriate for the Canadian Armed Forces to use national security laws to shield perpetrators of intimate partner violence, regardless of their status, in an effort to silence victims in Canadian courts?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator.
My understanding is that this government continues to recognize that gender-based intimate partner violence is a scourge — indeed, an epidemic — that requires urgent action. This government is firmly committed to protecting victims of sexual and intimate partner violence through legislation that will be introduced that will make murder motivated by hate, including femicide, a constructive first-degree offence. My understanding is that the government is determined to bring such legislation forward as soon as possible.
With regard to section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, I’m not in a position to — nor would it be appropriate to — comment on individual cases. It is the role of the Attorney General of Canada, as I understand it, to invoke this section of the Canada Evidence Act to protect information that, if disclosed, could be harmful to international relations, national defence or national security. Beyond that, I’m not in a position to comment.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
Retired Major Donna Van Leusden Riguidel, who works with battered military spouses and sexual trauma victims, said the government is sending the signal that it used national security to protect the reputation of Joint Task Force 2. The retired major said:
Somebody who is not able to control themselves and beats their spouse, causing grievous bodily harm, should not be deemed a good soldier and should be dismissed if they can’t control their anger.
Leader, what message does this send to women across Canada, especially those in military families, about whether the justice system will stand with them at a time when they are most vulnerable or whether it will put its efforts into protecting the institutions their abusers serve?
Senator Gold: I understand the importance of this issue and the pain caused, certainly, to the victims and those properly concerned with victims. However, again, the invocation of section 38 by the Attorney General of Canada is something that deals with a specific case, and I’m afraid I am not in a position to comment further. That said, I do understand the preoccupation.
[Translation]
Public Safety
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Hon. Claude Carignan: Leader, in a scathing report by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, an active Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, operation was halted following a political order issued directly by the Prime Minister’s Office in violation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, considering that the decision was not made by the director or the minister, as the act requires.
(1450)
The result is that our agents have been put at risk, and Canada’s reputation with our allies has been seriously compromised.
Leader, how can the Liberal government possibly justify breaking the law, sabotaging an intelligence operation and endangering those who risk their lives to protect our country?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. NSIRA published a report highlighting this situation, and the government appreciates that report.
The agency has committed to reviewing and improving processes related to national security and intelligence in order to better serve and protect Canadians.
The government intends to take this matter seriously. The government is currently reviewing the agency’s recommendations and will respond in due course.
Senator Carignan: Leader, in one case, the government acted outside the law by illegally halting a CSIS operation abroad. In another, it misused a provision meant to protect classified information to silence a victim of domestic violence, preventing her from speaking out about her attacker’s military role.
Senator Gold, how can Canadians trust a government that compromises both the safety of its intelligence officers and the right of victims to be heard?
Senator Gold: As I mentioned earlier, with respect to the second part of your question, I can’t comment on why the Attorney General invoked section 38.
With respect to the recommendations and what happened, which is the subject of the recommendations made by NSIRA — the agency responsible for monitoring these kinds of activities — the government will respond to those recommendations shortly.
[English]
Canadian Heritage
Preservation of Historical Items
Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, my question is directed to Senator Gold.
Sadly, Canada’s oldest corporation, the Hudson’s Bay Company, is facing liquidation and creditor protection proceedings as it closes its operations. The company possesses a vital collection of historical documents and artefacts, which it is preparing to auction off as part of these proceedings. The reported items include a foundational document — the original royal charter issued by the previous King Charles, Charles II, in 1670, granting the company vast trading rights and authority over much of what would become Canada. The charter is regarded as one of the most important documents in Canadian history. Other significant items include Indigenous beadwork, tools, carvings and ceremonial objects, fur trade memorabilia, paper documents, artwork and many others — possibly 4,400 items.
In April, an Ontario court gave the company permission to move forward with a sales process, although the company must return to court at a later date to detail exactly which items it wants to sell and how the process will unfold. There is significant concern from historians and Indigenous groups that these items could end up in private hands, potentially removing them from public access and oversight.
Is the Government of Canada taking specific actions to ensure that these invaluable pieces of Canadian and Indigenous heritage are preserved and remain accessible? What actions have been taken and with what outcomes? Thank you.
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is aware of this situation and is following it closely. My understanding is — and this was shared before the court to which you made reference — that at the moment the government, cautiously, does not oppose the action, because it has not yet been afforded the chance to catalogue the artefacts to know exactly what may be put up for sale. As this is a matter currently before the courts, I’m not in a position to provide any further comment at this time.
Senator Dasko: The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has requested a halt to any auction because it believes the collection includes items of profound cultural, spiritual and historical significance to First Nations people. What measures, if any, are you aware of or are being implemented to ensure that Indigenous communities are actively involved in the decision-making process regarding the future of the cultural heritage items included in the Hudson’s Bay auction? Thank you.
Senator Gold: Thank you for the supplementary question. Again, I’m not in a position to comment. I don’t have an answer to your question, but it is an important one, and I certainly will raise it with the minister at my first opportunity.
Justice
Canada’s Black Justice Strategy
Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate.
I would like to start by welcoming the new members of the African Canadian Senate Group chaired by Senator Moodie. Welcome to Senators Senior, Youance and Ince. I am truly happy that there are now 10 members of that group and a truly encouraging number of Black MPs.
Despite this growing representation in Parliament, I am worried about the limited mention of priorities for Black Canadians from this new government. In the Liberal platform, there are two mentions, but there is none in the mandate letter. I would like to remind the government of the Black Justice Strategy. The African Canadian Senate Group has identified this strategy as a priority. The previous Minister of Justice was tasked with the development of this strategy in late 2022. In 2023, there was extensive consultation, and the road map was published in 2024. In February of this year, an implementation plan was released that outlined a 10-year framework to reduce Black overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
Senator Gold, what is the government’s level of commitment to the Black Justice Strategy?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This government is acutely aware of the systemic discrimination and burdens imposed by many institutions in our country on Black Canadian communities. I want to assure you and this chamber that this government is committed to continuing to implement Canada’s Black Justice Strategy and will have more to say about that in short order.
Senator Clement: At this point, what can we say to the diversity of Black communities in this country which are afraid of losing momentum? What more can this government say at this point to reassure them?
Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. What I can say is that the work the government has begun to do — and is committed to doing — is being done in consultation with members of the community across the country, with communities, their leaders and with experts in the area in order to not only build a more equal and effective justice system but address the even broader systemic issues. That work will continue, and we hope that it will affect transformational change in that regard.
Transport
Bridge Tolls
Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Gold, Liberal MP Robert Morrissey has written to Prime Minister Carney, requesting that the promised reduction of tolls on the Confederation Bridge, connecting Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick, and the Wood Islands ferry between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia be implemented in time for Canada Day on July 1. Reducing tolls by July 1 would allow Prince Edward Islanders, summer visitors, businesses and communities to save money and benefit from reduced trade barriers.
Given that the Confederation Bridge is owned by the Government of Canada and charges over $50 to cross, and that the Champlain Bridge in Montreal is also owned by the Government of Canada but is toll-free, can you confirm that these tolls will be reduced by July 1 to restore fairness for Prince Edward Islanders?
(1500)
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for your unrelenting advocacy on this matter in the interest of Prince Edward Islanders and those who travel to and from there. I have no information with regard to the government’s intentions, legislative or otherwise, between now and Canada Day.
I will raise this question with the minister when I have an opportunity to do so. I look forward to this issue being resolved sooner rather than later.
Senator Downe: Senator Gold, you will be pleased to hear that this is my last question ever on tolls on the Confederation Bridge. For the newer members of the chamber, there have been numerous questions over the years.
Senator Gold, the Prime Minister’s commitment to reduce tolls was not limited to the Confederation Bridge and the Wood Islands ferry. He also promised to reduce by “at least half” the fares charged for the ferry service connecting Souris in Prince Edward Island to the Îles de la Madeleine in Quebec, as well as the Marine Atlantic service connecting Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Can you inquire if these fares will also be reduced by Canada Day? Could you also pass on the thanks and appreciation of Prince Edward Islanders to Prime Minister Carney for finally taking action on the unfair treatment that Islanders have been receiving for the last decade? Thank you.
Senator Gold: I will certainly add that to my representations. Thank you.
Public Safety
Hate Crime in Canada
Hon. Kristopher Wells: Honourable senators, hate continues to be on the rise globally and also here in Canada. Most recently, we have seen the Jewish community become the target of horrendous attacks that took the lives of innocent embassy staff. These atrocities are message crimes designed to instill fear and terror in all minority communities. Action must be taken. Canada should lead by example and protect the most vulnerable.
In the recent federal election, the government promised legislation to protect our critical social infrastructure, which includes schools, hospitals, libraries and government buildings, from hateful protests. This legislation is essential to protect vulnerable communities from fear, intimidation and violence.
To the Government Representative in the Senate, how soon will this government introduce this greatly needed legislation?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the impact of the rise in hate crimes against my community and many others in this country. It is unacceptable that people cannot worship or, indeed, express themselves, live or work without fear for their safety. The government has made a commitment to make it a criminal offence to intentionally and willfully obstruct access to any place of worship, school or community centre and to intentionally and willfully intimidate or threaten those attending services at those locations.
The Prime Minister has been very clear that it is simply unacceptable in this country, although far too common, tragically, for people to feel threatened when they gather within their own communities. This government is determined to stand firmly with Canadians of goodwill and faith, in good faith, against hate.
Having said all of that, I cannot speculate on the timetable for such legislation. We’re at that time of year when the immediate government priorities have now been made public. We will soon have our work cut out for us, but as soon as the government does make its intentions public, I will be sharing it with this chamber, or my successor will.
Senator K. Wells: In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences and create a new offence to further protect Canadians from hate. Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place. In the dying days of the last Parliament, the government signalled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.
Honourable senators, I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country, no matter whom they target.
My question to the Government Representative is this: Does this government remain committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code, as proposed in the previous bill, Bill C-63, and will the Prime Minister commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?
Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and your support for robust legislation to combat hate.
I’m simply not in a position to speculate as to the timetable or, as you all understand, the content of legislation unless and until it has been tabled publicly.
Health
Regulation of Vaping Fluids
Hon. Judith G. Seidman: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, the youth vaping crisis in Canada continues to escalate. In fact, the scale of youth nicotine addiction in Canada is growing much more serious. In their most recent report, Health Canada found that nearly half of teenagers aged 15 to 19 have tried vaping products, with 17% now using these products daily. These are among the highest teen vaping rates in the world.
Experts warn that young vapers are more addicted than cigarette smokers and face significant health risks. Despite publishing draft regulations in 2021 to restrict flavoured vaping products, which are most favoured by these teens, the government has yet to finalize them. The health community is now urging immediate action within the next 100 days.
Senator Gold, it has been over four years. When will this government finally commit to act, finalize the regulations and ban flavoured vaping products across the country?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Before I provide the answer that you might expect, which is that I don’t know and I’m not able to provide the timetable for that, I did want to take this opportunity, colleagues, especially for those of you who were not here when we introduced or amended legislation to legalize, I want to bring to your attention the important work that Senator Seidman did in the study of that bill in the face of enthusiastic support for any measure that would help people get off cigarettes. Vaping seemed to be — may still be — a promising alternative to cigarettes. As a former cigarette smoker, I can speak with some authority as to how hard it was to quit smoking.
Having said that, Senator Seidman pointed out some of the unknowns and the risks early on, and it was sobering, if I can invoke that term. So I just want to congratulate you, Senator Seidman, for your ongoing attention to this matter and for your determination not only to make sure that we’re aware and that the government is aware of the growing body of evidence associated with this practice of vaping but also to hold the government to account.
I will raise this with the minister as well, and I wanted to congratulate you for your advocacy.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Gold, for that unexpected reference to the work that I have done on this issue over the years. Thank you very much.
I was going to say, and you have made reference to this already, that it has been six years since these consultations began on Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non‑smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which we know originated right here in the Senate. The scientific evidence has been building over all these years on a piece of legislation whose objective was said to be harm reduction.
When will the government recognize that action is long overdue and act?
Senator Gold: Again, I don’t have a timetable, at least for the specifics, for the matter of the regulations to which you referred. As you and I both know, coming from Quebec, the provinces have a role to play, and some provinces, like ours, have taken steps for some time now to limit or, in the case of Quebec, to ban flavoured products. But that is not the case, I understand, across the country, so I will raise this with the minister.
Public Safety
Cybersecurity
Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Gold, this past March, over 280,000 Nova Scotia Power customers had their personal data stolen in a major cyberattack, including up to 140,000 social insurance numbers, some of which are now circulating on the dark web. This illustrates how vulnerable our critical infrastructure is, both federal and provincial.
Bill C-26, which could have set federal cybersecurity standards, failed due to the government’s own drafting errors and died with prorogation.
(1510)
Senator Gold, will it take another digital disaster for the government to act, or can we finally bring the provinces and the federal government together to pass a bill that will protect our critical infrastructure?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, thank you for underlining how important it is that we take steps — both legislative and otherwise — to protect our critical infrastructure. My understanding is that the bill to which you referred is something that will be dealt with in this Parliament.
I would encourage those listening to explore the importance, not only for government institutions but for businesses, of taking advantage of the assistance of our world-class institutions — notably Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSE — because as you pointed out, senator, the dangers are enormous. Legislation will be forthcoming to address this.
Senator MacDonald: For the record, colleagues, Canada was the third most targeted country in the world with respect to cyber attacks in 2024. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, there were almost 6 billion intrusion attempts.
The Senate sponsor of Bill C-26 warned that “. . . Without this bill, we do not have the legislative authority to raise the baseline defences of our critical infrastructure. . . .”
Senator Gold, can the Senate be assured that the new bill will be properly drafted this time? Nova Scotians would certainly like to know.
Senator Gold: I can give this chamber every assurance that the bills will be drafted with minute and acute attention to detail.
[Translation]
Finance
Projects of National Significance
Hon. Martine Hébert: My question is for the Government Representative. Senator Gold, as we all know, the Canadian economy is currently going through some very turbulent times. In fact, last week’s Speech from the Throne outlined various strategic commitments for the country’s future.
These include the government’s desire to strengthen the resilience of the Canadian economy, to fast-track major projects of national significance and to become an energy superpower, in terms of both green and conventional energy. At a meeting yesterday on this very topic attended by the Prime Minister and the premiers, the Prime Minister asked the provinces to submit a list of growth-generating projects that meet criteria such as strengthening Canada’s economic autonomy, presenting clear benefits for Canada as well as being a priority for Indigenous communities.
I think that is all fine, but since the devil is in the details, one of the main obstacles to achieving such major projects is the approval and implementation process. In addition to what has already been announced in terms of fast-tracking preliminary studies of these projects, can you tell us if the government intends to adjust these processes, including the tendering process, so that the expressed intentions can turn into quick and effective action?
Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for drawing our attention to the importance of addressing the challenges before us. Thanks also for raising the subject of meetings between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers to discuss ambitious plans to move forward on projects of national significance.
Regarding the process questions, you’re absolutely right that, in many cases, implementation is key to figuring out whether a concept for a project is likely to succeed.
The government will soon be introducing a bill detailing the procedure for projects deemed to be in the national interest. Once the bill is introduced and the details made public, we’ll have an opportunity for more in-depth study.
Senator Hébert: I have a follow-up question, Senator Gold. Will the government be releasing the list of projects submitted by the provinces, or does it have an agreement with the provinces to make only the selected projects public?
Senator Gold: I do not have the answer to your question. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday: It is not a static list. As a first step, he asked for a comprehensive list — I do not want to say a grocery list so as not to minimize the importance of the projects, but there are a lot of projects. As these projects are studied or when the developers present more tangible projects, the list will change. The Prime Minister said that other projects may be proposed when the criteria are better known and defined. More work needs to be done behind the scenes before I can answer your question. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
National Sickle Cell Awareness Day Bill
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie moved second reading of Bill S-201, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-201, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. I’d like to give you a brief background on this bill. In 2011, in the other place, MP Kirsty Duncan tabled Bill C-221, An Act respecting a Comprehensive National Strategy for Sickle Cell Disease and Thalassemic Disorders.
Unfortunately, that bill never made it past first reading. Building on MP Duncan’s commitment, the Honourable Jane Cordy introduced Bill S-211 in this chamber, designating June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. That bill received Royal Assent in December 2017. In November 2023, during the Forty‑fourth Parliament, this bill was introduced in this chamber under number S-280. It reached the committee stage, but unfortunately died on the Order Paper.
[English]
This disease has several names.
[Translation]
In French, it is known as “drépanocytose,” from the Greek word drepanon, meaning “sickle” or “crescent.” In English, the name used is “sickle cell disease” or “sickle cell anemia.” All these diverse terms are commonly used, but for the purposes of my speech, I will use the term “sickle cell disease.”
[English]
What exactly is this disease?
[Translation]
To understand this disease, let me take you on a brief foray into the world of medicine. Don’t worry, I’ll make sure I don’t bombard you with information. This disease has been around since the dawn of time. It was first described in the medical literature in 1910 by the American physician James Herrick, and its genetic basis was established in 1949 by James Neel.
[English]
It is genetic, rare, chronic and multisystemic. It affects quality of life and decreases life expectancy. It’s a death sentence.
[Translation]
I will explain each of these characteristics.
(1520)
First, the genetic aspect. This is a hereditary disease. It can’t be caught like a cold. It is passed down by the parents when the child inherits genes from both parents, hence the importance of universal screening, as set out in clause 4 of the framework. Around 5% of the world’s population carries the gene, also called a “trait.” This percentage can be as high as 25% in some parts of the world.
With respect to prevalence, it affects roughly 6,000 Canadians. Dr. Yves Giguère, director of the Quebec newborn screening program, describes sickle cell disease as a rare disease, occurring in one in every 2,000 births in Quebec.
Sickle cell disease is prevalent in people from Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and South America, but it also occurs in the Middle East, India and the Mediterranean region.
According to a 2023 study by Jacob Pendergrast and his colleagues at the Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, the estimated prevalence of patients with sickle cell disease in Ontario between 2007 and 2017 was one in 4,200, and the number of affected patients requiring hospital care was substantial.
This chronic, multi-systemic disease is present from birth, lasts a lifetime and affects every system in the body. What does it do?
Sickle cell disease is a genetic disorder that affects hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that transports oxygen. Abnormal hemoglobin results in abnormally shaped red blood cells. Red blood cells are usually disc-shaped and flexible, but in people with sickle cell disease, they become crescent- or sickle-shaped, thus the name of the disease.
These sickle-shaped red blood cells are rigid and can block small blood vessels, a condition known as vaso-occlusion. As a further consequence, the lifespan of red blood cells is reduced from 120 to 20 days, causing severe anaemia. Every organ in the body can be affected because they all require adequate blood flow. They are not getting the oxygen they need, which is what causes the various symptoms and complications that I am going to tell you about.
The most common major symptoms are attacks of moderate to severe pain in the chest, bones and joints. These attacks are known as vaso-occlusive pain, and often require frequent hospitalization.
Another potential problem are infections that can lead to sepsis or death, if they are not treated immediately. One of the most common complications of sickle cell disease is stroke. The literature reports that one in ten sickle cell disease patients under the age of 20 have a stroke.
They also suffer from pulmonary hypertension, which means that they need daily oxygen for the rest of their lives. Imagine a young person who has to carry an oxygen tank around with them for the rest of their life. Another possibility is kidney failure, which means the patient will need dialysis. I’m going to stop there, as the list would be too long.
This disease reduces life expectancy. In the 1970s, it was estimated to be between 5 and 10 years. These days, many patients who receive appropriate treatment can live into their sixties, which is still markedly shorter than the general population. This is just an estimate because we don’t have the evidence.
I’m going to share some stories about patients, which I’ve shared with you before. From an educational standpoint, this serves as a reminder, and it means our new colleagues will be hearing them for the first time. Considering that the life expectancy of a person with sickle cell disease is approximately 50 years, Ismaël, a 35-year-old man, tells us with resignation that he has already lived nearly half his life, if nothing changes.
[English]
Why talk about sickle cell disease today?
It’s unknown, underdiagnosed, lacks research funding and causes premature death.
[Translation]
According to the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada, this disease is the most common of all genetic diseases. Nonetheless, it remains relatively unknown to the public and even to health care professionals.
Only the health care teams at specialized centres in Canada’s major cities have professionals who are familiar with the disease and can provide adequate care to patients. This lack of knowledge has many consequences.
The first problem is with the very name of the disease. Some francophone families who only know the disease by the French name “drépanocytose” have had a hard time making themselves understood in English-speaking hospital environments.
Even when families use the correct terms, care providers do not always give them the attention they need, blaming everything on parental anxiety.
Ignorance of the disease’s manifestations also leads to limited access to appropriate care. As soon as their children develop a fever, parents are instructed to take them to hospital immediately, as they are at risk of developing life-threatening sepsis. However, it’s not easy to make this clear to the professionals who receive them in the emergency room. Some of these children are dying, at such a young age.
The excruciating chest, bone and joint pain that I mentioned earlier cannot always be alleviated by regular painkillers, so the use of narcotics such as morphine may be required.
These adolescents are often labelled as “drug addicts” in the emergency room, and pain treatment is then delayed, with the risk of serious complications. For many of our suffering young patients, inadequate care and stigma is their lot in life.
Along with the physical symptoms, their mental wellness is considerably compromised. Repeated hospitalizations and difficulty holding down steady employment take a heavy toll on patients’ self-esteem. Parents are forced to stand by, powerless, as their child experiences angry outbursts and sadness that can morph into depression.
Let me read you a few words from Mamoudou:
My emotional challenge was wondering why I’m not normal and why I’m always in bed. Why do my legs and arms hurt so much? I sometimes spend 18 hours a day crying on and off. Every morning when I wake up, I feel like there’s a cloud hanging over my head, not knowing what’s going to happen to me today or tomorrow.
Ismaël shared these words with us: “It’s hard to plan long term because my life has an all-but-definite expiration date.”
Then, a parent speaking from his own experience testified about the devastating effects this disease can have on daily life and family well-being. He said the following:
The hospital has become our second home, which hinders our ability to plan our work schedule, our vacations, in short, to enjoy a certain quality of life.
Some families have to choose a different career path in order to live near centres where health care professionals know the disease.
[English]
Regarding the lack of research funding —
[Translation]
The Interdisciplinary Centre for Black Health in Ottawa is studying the mental health of patients and their families.
Applications for research grants from hemato-oncology specialists interested in this disease keep being turned down by funding agencies.
Although sickle cell disease was the first genetic disorder to be identified, therapeutic advances have been slow to follow. This is largely due to a lack of research funding. Many specialists compare sickle cell disease and its associated challenges to other genetic disorders, particularly cystic fibrosis. These two diseases do have some similarities.
They are both rare, chronic, multisystemic disorders that reduce life expectancy. However, there are major differences between the two when it comes to the funding allocated for research, a registry and therapeutic advances. The Cystic Fibrosis Canada website shows that scientists receive many research grants, some valued at up to $100,000 a year.
However, the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada website shows that only two small grants are available: two individual grants in the amount of $20,000 per year for up to two years, and two other grants in the amount of up to $5,000 each, also for two years.
(1530)
When will a research chair be created for sickle cell disease in Canada?
Now, let us talk about diagnosis. The key to diagnosis is universal newborn screening involving a simple heel prick. This test, which all parents are familiar with, is administered after the baby is born and is one of several screens administered to identify other metabolic and genetic diseases already part of the provincial screening program. However, Lillie Johnson, a nurse and founder of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario, had to fight for universal newborn screening for sickle cell disease before it was introduced in her province in 2006.
In November 2009, British Columbia followed suit, along with Nova Scotia in 2014. In November 2013, the screen was partially implemented in Quebec and later extended to include the entire province in 2016, through the sheer determination of Wilson Sanon, president of Quebec’s sickle cell disease association. Later, several other provinces signed on. Such screening was just implemented in Manitoba and is under review in Saskatchewan.
Early screening allows health care providers to intervene and create an effective treatment plan with the family. When this kind of response starts in the first few months of life, it helps to reduce the frequency of hospitalization, prevent complications and improve the quality of life of these children and their families.
What about treatment? It is now known that adequate hydration, good lifestyle habits and avoiding exposure to extreme temperatures help prevent complications. Massage therapy and psychosocial support may also be part of the treatment plan.
Despite the fact that sickle cell disease was identified over 100 years ago, treatment is not very advanced at all. For many years, hydroxyurea, a drug originally used to treat cancer, has been used to manage this disease. Other treatment options include blood transfusions and apheresis, a complex technique in which blood is taken, cleaned and then re-transfused. Bone marrow transplant, available since 1980 in Quebec, is the only curative treatment to date. According to Dr. Yvette Bonny, who pioneered this procedure in Canada, this treatment isn’t suitable for everyone because of its complications.
All of these interventions, combined with monitoring by a multidisciplinary team, help improve patients’ quality of life. At this time, three new drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. I’ll spare you their complicated names. Gene therapy offers hope for a cure. All of these treatment options have shown certain benefits. Some reduce both the number and severity of acute pain episodes; others correct the anaemia. Unfortunately, these medications are not suitable for all patients, which is why we need to explore innovative new pathways to developing medicine suitable for a wider range of patients. This will be covered in clauses 2 and 9 of the national framework.
[English]
Here is why you should care about this framework: It will benefit health care professionals’ awareness, and it will facilitate the implementation of a research network, the creation of a national registry, full access to newborn universal screening, public awareness and needed financial support.
[Translation]
What’s in this national framework? Through this national framework, Bill S-201 will provide a nine-point plan.
First, it will help mobilize medical regulatory bodies, nurses and other health care professions to encourage their members to learn more about sickle cell disease. It will also help enlist their participation in launching concrete initiatives that meet the training needs of health care providers to strengthen their skills. This clause should prevent misconceptions about the disease among certain health care professionals.
Second, a fundamental part of the framework will provide for the creation of a national research network dedicated to advancing the understanding of sickle cell disease. The Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada (SCDAC) is actively collaborating with the Canadian Hemoglobinopathy Association (CanHaem) to promote research and facilitate data collection. Some passionate and engaged experts in the field are trying to collect the data of patients monitored at their clinics.
Along the same lines, implementing this framework will help establish a national registry aimed at reducing existing disparities in the knowledge, diagnosis and management of the disease. Dr. Smita Pakhale, Chair in Equity and Patient Engagement in Vulnerable Populations, couldn’t agree more. Dr. Giguère says that one of the many advantages of a registry is that it would make it easier to contact people suffering from the disease, in the event of a cure being discovered.
Third, implementing this framework will help establish evidence-based national standards for the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease. The development of harmonized national guidelines will orient health policy. Based on the best available science and recommendations of experts in the field, these standards would help improve clinical outcomes, reduce preventable deaths and strengthen patient trust in the health care system.
Fourth, establishing this national framework will ensure equal access to universal newborn screening and sickle cell disease diagnosis across Canada. This would ensure that all newborns receive appropriate care from birth.
Fifth, this framework will serve as a lever to support national campaigns aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of sickle cell disease among the general public, and to better support the well-being of families and caregivers of people living with the disease. These public education initiatives by community organizations will help reduce the stigmatization of those suffering from the disease. All of these efforts will also help to encourage blood donation as an essential act of solidarity to improve the quality of life of sufferers, and to create an inclusive support environment for affected individuals and their loved ones.
Sixth, this framework will establish a diversified blood reserve. Diversity is essential to adequately meet the specific needs of certain groups, including people living with sickle cell disease, who require frequent transfusions. By encouraging the participation of under-represented communities in the blood collection system, these measures will help to strengthen transfusion safety and ensure greater equity of access.
Seventh, this framework seeks to explore the feasibility of a tax credit for families of people with the disease. This consideration is especially relevant, since many young adults stricken with the disease have a hard time keeping a job due to repeated hospitalizations and the debilitating chronic fatigue caused by the disease.
Eighth, it will help ensure that sickle cell disease is included in the eligibility criteria for existing disability benefits, thereby recognizing the significant yet often invisible impact this disease has on the fluctuating disability status of those affected. To this end, this framework will promote greater social justice and better support for those affected.
Ninth, this framework will explore the possibility of including essential treatments for sickle cell disease in public drug insurance plans, with a view to health equity. People living with this disease require expensive medications. However, access to these medications varies significantly from province to province, resulting in marked inequalities and significant financial barriers, particularly for already marginalized communities. This would therefore contribute to reducing overall health care costs.
By integrating all of these aspects, we are seeking to develop a comprehensive framework that takes into account not only medical needs, but also the socio-economic challenges faced by individuals and their families.
Honourable senators, establishing a national framework for sickle cell disease responds to a UNESCO resolution adopted in 2007 and a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2008. These resolutions were adopted unanimously and recognized sickle cell disease as a public health issue.
In light of everything I’ve just said, it’s imperative to support the passage of this bill to fill the gaps that exist in terms of awareness, research and the national registry. In response to these challenges, we need to move Bill S-201 quickly through committee.
(1540)
I encourage you to head to YouTube and watch a 15-minute clip from an upcoming documentary called Silent Suffering — Sickle cell disease by Mamoudou Camara, which tells the story of a young man suffering from this disease.
Just as we did with cystic fibrosis, Canada can also show global leadership on all aspects of sickle cell disease.
I would like to thank a few people: the specialists, Dr. Auray-Blais, Dr. Bonny, Dr. Pakhale, Dr. Cénat, Dr. Giguère, Dr. Pastore and Dr. Soulières for their insightful comments. I also want to thank the presidents of the Canadian and Quebec sickle cell disease associations, Ms. Tinga and Mr. Sanon, for the work they do in that capacity and as parents, as well as for their enthusiasm and contagious perseverance in supporting my initiative when I decided to introduce Bill S-201. I want to thank Ms. Mouscardy, Mamoudou and Ismaël, who gave me a glimpse into their home life to help me understand what it is like to be a parent and a young person living with this disease.
It is your turn, honourable senators, to lend your support to Bill S-201 and send it to committee as quickly as possible.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
[English]
Food and Drugs Act
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Patrick Brazeau moved second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
He said: Honourable senators, as our former colleague — former Senator Baker, for those of you who know him — used to say, “I will be brief,” but I actually will be.
We have before us Bill S-202, which is to provide cancer warning labels on alcoholic products. We know that the data and the science have been out there for quite some time. Alcohol consumption causes seven known fatal cancers, including colon cancer when we think about men and breast cancer when we think about women.
This bill in its previous iteration was Bill S-254. Especially for our new colleagues and perhaps as a refresher for those who have been here, Bill S-254 — now Bill S-202 before us — was before committee. Just before Christmas, there was agreement that Bill S-254 would be studied in February by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Unfortunately, however, Parliament was prorogued and, like many other bills and issues, this bill died on the Order Paper, which is why we have to reintroduce it.
I had hoped the bill could go directly to committee because there was agreement to study it there and it was there. I approached all the party leaders, but unfortunately there was not an agreement to send it directly to committee. However, it is my hope that it will be there very soon, because the data is there.
I will provide some additional remarks. I refer you to my June 1, 2023, speech at second reading on Bill S-254, which 100% applies to Bill S-202 before us today. I invite you to look at that.
Even though Parliament was prorogued, my office hosted an online symposium on World Cancer Day. That brought all the Canadian experts and some international experts to the fora to talk about cancer, alcohol and labelling.
At that symposium, we had, for example, Dr. Erin Hobin, Dr. Catherine Paradis, Dr. Robert Cushman and Sheila Gilheany, who is from Ireland. Ireland is supposed to have cancer warning labels on its alcoholic products starting next year, but there is pressure from the alcohol lobby; they are trying their best to prevent cancer warning labels from hitting the shelves. We also had Kathy Unsworth, Dr. Nancy Poole, Dr. Adam Sherk, Dr. Tim Naimi, Dr. Tim Stockwell and Dr. Fawaad Iqbal who joined and were presenters during this symposium.
To make a long story short, this is definitely long overdue — 80% of Canadians consume alcohol but only approximately 25% are aware of the correlation between alcohol consumption and seven fatal cancers.
As a former alcohol consumer, I was once in the 75% of Canadians who are not aware that there is a causal link between alcohol consumption and seven cancers. I personally battled colon cancer several years ago, so much so that when I received treatment, I felt I was being killed inside. I decided to quit treatment — that it was over and done. Then in 2020, I decided to get sober, and I celebrated my fifth year of sobriety while we were prorogued, on March 29, 2025.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Brazeau: That’s why I take personal pride in introducing this bill and the next one, which I will speak on soon — again, very briefly. But it is not about my personal pride or what I or anybody else went through. This is about providing vital, necessary health information to all Canadians, just as we did with tobacco.
We know that tobacco products need cancer warning labels. We know that cannabis products need cancer warning labels — and cannabis companies were not even asked by the Government of Canada to put the labels on their products. They willingly did so.
This bill is strictly about cancer warnings. With everything that we know, the question that needs to be answered — and I still have not received an answer from anybody — is this: If we know that alcohol consumption causes seven fatal cancers, why do alcohol companies get a free pass in Canada? Thank you.
Hon. Peter Harder (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Senator Brazeau, will you accept a question?
Senator Brazeau: Absolutely.
Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Senator Brazeau, do you think the average Canadian is aware of the cancers caused by alcohol? As a non-drinker, I certainly was not. Do you think the average Canadian knows that information is out there?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for the question, and good for you for not drinking alcohol. That should be celebrated a little more than the other way around is. To answer your question, like I said, 80% of Canadians consume alcohol in this country but only approximately 25% — a quarter — are aware that there is a correlation between alcohol consumption and cancer. Providing labels gives all alcohol consumers and every Canadian citizen access to the health information they need.
Alcohol companies are doing exactly the same thing tobacco companies did. I am not reinventing the wheel here. They are using the same arguments that tobacco companies have. This is why it takes 20 to 25 years to pass pieces of legislation like this. I first introduced this in 2023, and here we are. We are not done yet.
Here is a perfect example: the Kirby report on mental health that the Senate produced. The Senate is known for that report. Here is an example where we can show leadership in this country, because elected politicians don’t want to touch this with a 10-foot pole. We know why they don’t want to touch this — because the alcohol companies and the lobby are very, very powerful. But we could take leadership and send a message that we care about the health and well-being of Canadian citizens.
(1550)
The best way to provide this information is through labelling, despite anything the alcohol companies and lobbyists have to say. Whenever they have anything to say — and whenever they come up with their own paid and sponsored health reports — I say don’t listen to them. Their only interest is one thing: sales. They don’t give a rat’s you-know-what about Canadian people’s health and well-being.
Here is our opportunity to show Canada we care. We can send a message and move the yardsticks to change a generation in this country.
Hon. David M. Wells: Senator Brazeau, thank you for reintroducing this; if nothing else, it is an important debate that Canadians should have.
It seems the intent of the bill would be to have the labelling done on each bottle. Is there provision or consideration for venues like bars and restaurants that do not serve the bottle of wine — they may serve a glass of wine or a Scotch and water, not the bottle of Scotch — where the consumer would not necessarily see the warning label?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for that question. Yes. If you take that specific example of inside of bars or areas where they do have liquor sales licences, there is a provision to ensure that even though they may not be within that room on every bottle, there would be warning signs in the establishment so consumers can see them.
Hon. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: Congratulations, Senator Brazeau. Thank you for introducing a piece of legislation that would enable Canadians to make informed decisions about their health.
My question is about the legislation and the health risks related to alcohol. Do you see the labels warning only against cancers, or do you see them being more expansive to list, potentially, other alcohol-related health risks?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for your comments and for the question.
In terms of Bill S-202, it is strictly cancer warnings on the products. Having said that, if you can be patient for another minute or two, we can get into Bill S-203. That may provide a more comprehensive answer in terms of where to go in the future with that. Let’s deal with Bill S-203 first. Thank you.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Alcoholic Beverage Promotion Prohibition Bill
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Patrick Brazeau moved second reading of Bill S-203, An Act to prohibit the promotion of alcoholic beverages.
He said: Honourable senators, my remarks on this bill will be even briefer. I would refer you to the speech I delivered on December 5, 2024, at second reading of Bill S-290, which is the Bill S-203 before us now.
Simply put, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the promotion of alcoholic beverages in Canada, much like we do for tobacco and cannabis products. This is a very simple bill. Bill S-202 would cause warning labels about cancer to be placed on alcoholic beverages. Bill S-203 would prohibit the promotion of alcoholic beverages. Why prohibit it? That ties into the question I got earlier. Bill S-202 is laser-focused on the causal link between alcohol consumption and cancer. However, we haven’t talked about all of the other alcohol-related harms, both direct and indirect, such as death, accidents, injuries, impaired driving, calls to emergency response services and hospital and waiting room visits. We haven’t talked about depression, addiction, suicide, intimate partner violence and other physical and mental health problems. We haven’t connected all of those things to alcohol.
Canada’s trade deficit when it comes to alcohol amounts to $6 billion. When we talk about the promotion of alcoholic beverages, it’s often in terms of provincial sales. However, someone is paying for the negative effects of alcohol use, and that’s the reason for the $6-billion deficit. It leads to higher health costs, legal costs and social costs for taxpayers, whether they drink or not, than the profits generated by alcohol sales in Canada. Knowing this, knowing about the $6 billion deficit involved, and knowing that alcohol is responsible for seven known types of fatal cancers, why do we keep promoting it? The question applies in the context of Bill S-202: Why are Canadian alcohol manufacturers getting a free pass?
We are here precisely to make sure that companies like these don’t get a free pass. That’s our job. I’m submitting Bill S-203 to you for study in committee because the time has come to accept alcohol for what it is: a poison. Thank you.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Kim Pate moved second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg as I reintroduce Tona’s law. The purpose of Tona’s law is to ensure oversight, remedies and alternatives to isolation in federal prisons.
Speaking about human rights today feels somewhat precarious. We teeter from unredressed colonial legacies to attacks on the sovereignty of Canada.
Too many are facing horrendous barriers to securing food, shelter and health care, as well as threats that the “notwithstanding” clause will be used to condone squashing human and Charter rights and securing draconian punishments.
Prisons are full of the people who are failed by every other system: health, social, child welfare, education and income supports. Those most marginalized in Canada — those who are poor, homeless and living with mental health and addiction issues — are being subjected to unthinkably inhumane conditions in federal prisons.
(1600)
The erosion and trampling of human rights in our prisons reflects our wholly inadequate protection of our fundamental values. In societies where rights and freedoms are taken away, those most marginalized are always the first victims. But the abuse never stops there. With “elbows up,” it is time to push back on the normalization of inequality, marginalization and oppression wherever it occurs.
Tona’s law deals with isolation, also known as solitary confinement and segregation.
How can I capture the horror of caging and isolating humans in little more than a concrete closet for hours, days, weeks and even years on end?
If you have witnessed or read the court cases, medical findings or coroners’ inquests on the impact of isolation on the minds and bodies of those who have survived it and have not, you already know that harm begins the minute cell doors clang shut.
Within 48 hours, sensory deprivation and other irreversible harms can take root. After seven days of isolation, brain activity can be permanently altered. As summarized by the Ontario Court of Appeal, isolation is the following:
. . . repeatedly . . . linked to appetite and sleep problems, anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, depersonalization, paranoia, hallucinations, self-mutilation, increased rates of suicide and self-harm . . . .
Internationally, 15 days in isolation is considered as amounting to torture.
Isolation is too often the default means of responding to prisoners whose complex needs — relating to age, disability, mental health, addiction, trauma and the intergenerational impact of colonialism — we have failed.
As calculated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canadians pay millions upon millions each year for isolation — one of the most cruel, ineffective and expensive approaches to our shared goal of improving public safety.
For nearly five decades, I have spent countless hours kneeling on cement floors at little slots or at door hinges, pleading with people — with someone’s children, siblings, parents or partners — to stop smashing their heads, slashing their bodies, tying ligatures around their necks, trying to gouge out their own eyes or otherwise trying to mutilate themselves.
The sounds of torment and despair are indescribable. They will forever haunt me. How can any of us even imagine so craving human contact such that we risk death in order to instigate even a violent human intervention?
In 2019, the government promised that Bill C-83 would eliminate the use of segregation and solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries. Instead, the legislation was aimed at preventing the Supreme Court of Canada from upholding provincial Court of Appeal decisions ruling that segregation and solitary confinement are harmful and unconstitutional. More than five years later, isolation is used more often and with less oversight.
The Senate has repeatedly recognized the need to safeguard the human rights and Charter rights that protect federal prisoners and all Canadians. Colleagues, we have already voted three times in favour of the measures in Tona’s law.
In 2019, the Senate voted to add these measures to Bill C-83 at the recommendation of the Senate Social Affairs Committee. They were short-sightedly removed by the government.
In 2021, this chamber endorsed these measures as part of the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee in its report on the human rights of federally sentenced persons.
Most recently, in December 2024, following robust and multi-year consideration by the Legal Committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and this chamber, Tona’s law was passed and sent to the other place.
The bill before us today is the same one we passed. One lone edit was made to clarify in the text of the bill a point that we had understood in practice when passing the bill: The term “disabling mental health issues” in Tona’s law could be defined using criteria already appearing elsewhere and endorsed by the government in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The election and new Parliament put us back to square one, with years of work at risk of being wiped out. This would be a particularly cruel outcome for those trapped in isolation — souls for whom every day counts.
As I humbly urge that we vote to send this bill back to the House of Commons as soon as possible, I thank colleagues for your continued encouragement and support.
Allow me here to give a shout-out to the collective work of the more than 40 of you who have gone to prisons to meet with those trapped inside as part of the “Senators Go to Jail” initiative.
Back in 2019, within moments of Bill C-83 passing, a number of you, including the sponsor of the government bill in the Senate, proposed that senators work together to visit prisons in order to monitor the implementation of Bill C-83 and particularly its human rights impacts.
I thank all of you who have supported and participated in this initiative.
I am also grateful for the inspiration of Tona Mills. Tona implored the members of the Human Rights Committee to do whatever we could to prevent anyone else from experiencing the horrendous conditions to which she has been subjected, which resulted in her eventual psychiatric diagnosis of isolation-induced schizophrenia. She urged us to end solitary confinement and get others out of prisons and into appropriate mental health services.
I first met Tona three decades ago. I knelt at meal slots of her segregation cells, first at the Prison for Women in Kingston and later in other prisons, including segregated units in prisons for men, as Tona spent nearly every hour of every day for more than 10 years in solitary confinement, sometimes also shackled to beds or floors.
Outside the now-closed Prison for Women, Tona’s cell-sized metal recreation cage still stands. When visiting the site with law students in recent years, one of them asked me if that was where they kept the dogs. You can imagine their horror when I explained that it was constructed to contain Tona for her one hour of fresh air when she received it.
Today, Tona is in the palliative stages of terminal cancer. Her community of caregivers is incredulous at the notion that she could ever have been described as dangerous. They experience her as a witty, kind and generous patient who takes every opportunity to advocate for others.
Since December, when we passed the last iteration of Tona’s law, the need for this law has only increased. In its final act before being disbanded, the independent panel of experts — appointed by the Minister of Public Safety to monitor implementation of Bill C-83 — delivered its final report.
The panel concluded that in the structured intervention unit, or SIU, system created by Bill C-83, “. . . the practice of solitary confinement continues . . .” and oversight of the practice, as highlighted by recent court decisions, is virtually non-existent.
The panel underscored that SIUs are located in what were once called segregation cells, sometimes under a thin coat of paint.
According to the panel, most of those in SIUs continue to experience the conditions of solitary confinement. For the significant proportion whose solitary confinement lasts longer than 15 days:
The Mandela Rules suggest that these prisoners are experiencing conditions . . . amounting to “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” . . . .
The panel emphasized the lack of effective oversight of the SIUs. This reality notwithstanding, Correctional Service Canada repeatedly points to the existence of three SIU oversight bodies: the ministerial advisory panel, the Office of the Correctional Investigator and independent external decision makers, or IEDMs. Yet Correctional Service Canada consistently fails to respond to or recognize the concerns that these bodies raise, when they do.
This already unacceptable situation only became worse with the disbanding of the ministerial advisory panel.
Despite their name, the work of independent external decision makers depends on Correctional Service Canada, the agency whose decisions they review. It is Correctional Service Canada that flags to IEDMs which prisoners may be at risk as a result of correctional decisions.
Despite IEDMs describing themselves as overloaded, last year the Minister of Public Safety decided not to renew contracts of several IEDMs. For months, only 7 of 12 positions were staffed, until more appointments were made late this spring. Those IEDMs whose contracts were not renewed were also those who were least likely to rubber-stamp correctional decisions.
The ministerial advisory panel urged that the government must:
. . . demonstrate it is serious about ensuring [Correctional Service Canada] operations are lawful and Charter compliant. It must demonstrate that it understands that this requires ongoing and focused oversight of isolating conditions of confinement . . . .
The previous Minister of Public Safety repeatedly refused to appear before the Senate Human Rights Committee to discuss these and other concerns about human rights of prisoners. What is more, the government has so far failed to ensure completion of the requisite five-year parliamentary review of SIUs and Bill C-83.
(1610)
The ministerial advisory panel emphasized that those most marginalized — particularly Black and Indigenous people and those with disabling mental health issues — are most likely to be isolated in SIUs.
International and Canadian legal standards prohibit solitary confinement of those with disabling mental health issues, yet corrections’ own data reveals that rates of those with mental health issues are double in SIUs.
Black Canadians account for 4% of the Canadian population, 10% of those in federal prisons and 18% of those in SIUs. Indigenous Peoples make up 5% of the Canadian population, 33% of those in federal prisons and 44% of those in SIUs. Almost all — 96% — of women in SIUs are Indigenous.
It is indeed striking and disturbing that the ministerial advisory panel members reported visiting an SIU where an Indigenous elder working with prisoners “. . . specifically mentioned that SIUs reflect the worst of CSC, meaning there is no treatment, no help, and no hope . . . .”
The oversight mandates of the defunct ministerial advisory panel and the IEDMs focus only on SIUs, leaving every other form of isolation to operate without any oversight at all.
Members of the ministerial advisory panel reported their concerns about non-SIU isolation, such as “. . . an entire unit . . . housing prisoners in what can only be described as solitary confinement.” They were also extremely concerned that within SIUs, they found:
. . . at times there were more prisoners physically in the SIU than showed up in official records of the SIU “count” on the day that they visited. . . .
The final report of the ministerial advisory panel highlights that “SIUs are, arguably, the most surveilled spaces in a Canadian penitentiary.” Yet, with extremely limited oversight, conditions in those units too often amount to torture. If the conditions in SIUs are considered torture, this practice of abuse in plain sight should make us even more urgently concerned about what is happening in other areas of isolation in prisons, since they are subject to no surveillance.
The few cases that make the news give us some sense of the culture of human rights abuses in Canadian prisons. In March, a judge issued a final report in a fatality inquiry regarding the death of a young Indigenous prisoner, Mason Montgrand, at the Edmonton Institution, a federal penitentiary. Twenty-one-year-old Mason died in 2011 after guards let him and another prisoner with a rival gang affiliation out of their cells at the same time. His death was examined as part of a police investigation into a “fight club” at the prison — allegations that prison staff were forcing prisoners in their custody to fight each other, resulting in serious injuries and death. Police strongly recommended charging two correctional officers and a correctional manager with murder and criminal negligence, but prosecutors declined to lay charges.
Nearly a decade and a half later, the judge presiding over the fatality inquiry explained that there was still little transparency from authorities about what happened to Mr. Montgrand and that information was repeatedly withheld from her. She called for a public inquiry to provide further clarity into what she termed “. . . a matter of public concern.”
Around the same time, the Toronto Star published a video of guards committing mass human rights abuses against 200 men at the Maplehurst provincial prison in Ontario. The video shows the jail’s superintendent responding with congratulatory fist bumps for the abusive staff.
The retaliatory mass punishment was apparently the staff response to one prisoner allegedly punching a guard on December 20, 2023. Two days later, the superintendent decided to deploy guards trained to respond to riots on quiet, unsuspecting men, locked in their cells. Guards strip-searched the men, used their thumbs like joysticks to lead them out of cells, breaking at least one man’s thumb and another’s wrist, forcing them to sit facing the wall in their underwear, with weapons trained at their heads. The men were then confined to empty cells as prison authorities blasted cold air onto the range. They were finally provided with clothes on Christmas Eve.
As many as 80% of the men who were abused at Maplehurst were awaiting trials and had not been convicted of a criminal offence. The Toronto Star has confirmed at least 11 cases where sentences were reduced and 1 where charges were stayed altogether, noting that in total more than 100 cases could be affected. As reported by the paper, a Crown attorney in one such case told the court that he agreed to a plea deal for no additional jail time beyond time already served because, while he would have “undeniably . . . sought a significantly higher sentence, . . . there was ’no escaping’ the violation by the jail.”
Through Tona’s law, the federal government could lead by example, making clear that the accountability that Canadians rightly expect from criminal legal and prison systems must flow from and be modelled by the behaviours of those in positions of authority, especially when it comes to the custody and lives of others.
So little has changed since the all too familiar “certain events” at the Prison for Women in Kingston 31 years ago. After women were isolated in segregation and denied access to water, food, clothing and calls to lawyers, on April 26, 1994, an all-male emergency riot squad dragged sleeping women out of their cells to be unlawfully stripped, shackled and left in segregation cells, naked save for flimsy paper gowns tied around their necks. The majority of those women were Indigenous.
Today, the violation of these women’s Charter and human rights is recognized as a travesty and a massive arbitrary display of masculine force exercised in the face of virtually no resistance. When I became the first non-corrections or prison-related person to meet with the women after these events, prison officials advised me that I was misinformed about what had happened. I was counselled, cajoled and then cautioned against being so easily “conned.”
The pressure to recant intensified, and my integrity and employment were repeatedly threatened over the ensuing year, until the eventual airing of the video of those events by “The Fifth Estate.” The videos proved every allegation by the women — and, by extension, me — to be true.
The travesties inside prisons that we hear about are often characterized by correctional authorities as anomalous or exaggerated. Horrifically, they are not.
Because of the closed nature of prisons, most abuses are never revealed to the public. Cultures of systemic human rights violations and oppression are rarely revealed to those of us outside prison walls. Too few have information about what is going on in Canadian prisons. Even fewer are believed if they try to speak out. As many of you know first-hand, even judges and parliamentarians struggle to get answers from those responsible for prisons. Abuse is enabled precisely because of the lack of effective oversight, transparency and accountability.
What would Tona’s law change? First, it would finally implement the court oversight of decisions to isolate prisoners that Louise Arbour recommended nearly three decades ago, following her work presiding over the commission of inquiry in response to the events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.
Tona’s law would require prison authorities to seek approval of a superior court to keep a person in isolation for more than 48 hours. This cap reflects the latest data, acknowledged by the Ontario Court of Appeal, among others, about when irreparable physical, psychological and neurological harms can begin.
Second, if correctional mismanagement has made a person’s sentence more punitive, for example, due to extensive periods of time in isolation, that person can apply to the court that sentenced them for a reduced sentence or parole ineligibility period.
Currently, if abuse occurs before a sentence is issued, as I have already mentioned about Maplehurst, the Criminal Code permits judges to reduce the length of the sentence in response. In the Hills decision in 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada reminded judges that when they order a sentence, they also need to look ahead to what a person will experience in prison, including how factors such as Indigenous status, race, mental and physical health can result in harsher and more punitive conditions.
But what about conditions of isolation that a judge did not foresee? As recommended by Louise Arbour, Tona’s law would fill this gap. It would allow sentences to be adjusted as a remedy when rights are violated in prison. This kind of remedy exists in several Northern European and Western European countries, as well as in our youth system.
Third, because isolation also occurs outside SIUs, Tona’s law would ensure that court oversight and any other applicable safeguards extend to all conditions of isolation — any time a person is in conditions more restrictive than the general population.
When the Senate voted to pass the last iteration of Tona’s law, it did so on the strength of witness testimony in support of court oversight from experts including the Canadian Prison Law Association, BC Civil Liberties Association, The John Howard Society of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the West Coast Prison Justice Society, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, Dr. Adelina Iftene, lawyer Michael Spratt, and Professor Emeritus and prison law expert Michael Jackson.
(1620)
After half a century of working on non-judicial oversight, Professor Jackson concluded that involving the courts is the only way to remedy this wrong. He stated that Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, “. . . has fiercely resisted any independent adjudication of segregation.”
He also said:
. . . in light of the collective experiences — almost 50 years of reports — in which CSC has expressed its resistance, at this point judicial review is the appropriate remedial measure.
When addressing concerns about the capacity of courts to handle a large number of applications, criminal law expert Michael Spratt noted that courts will rise to the challenge, as they do for mechanisms like bail reviews that involve high-volume and time-sensitive applications as part of safeguarding Charter rights.
He added that the requirement to apply to court after 48 hours of isolation will help to deter Correctional Service Canada from unnecessarily keeping people in isolation.
Tona’s law can save resources as well as lives. As acknowledged by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, fewer people in SIUs will save hundreds of thousands of dollars per person per year. Furthermore, the government has paid tens of millions of dollars in damages to those whose rights were violated by its former segregation system, and it is now facing similar class action challenges as its 2019 SIU regime.
In recent months, the Supreme Court of Canada called out unconstitutional, punitive uses of solitary confinement in provincial prisons — a situation that could have been prevented with federal leadership and a provincial version of Tona’s law.
In another case, the court emphasized that the state may be liable for Charter damages if Parliament passes legislation that is clearly unconstitutional.
As we debated Bill C-83 in 2019, experts warned us that the legislation was not Charter compliant. The analysis of government data by the minister’s advisory panel has since confirmed that unconstitutional solitary confinement persists.
In placing limitations on the use of isolation in federal prisons, Tona’s law also proposes crucial alternatives for those most at risk of being placed in SIUs.
For those with disabling mental health issues, Tona’s law would expand existing provisions authorizing Correctional Service Canada to transfer prisoners to provincial-territorial health systems, including for mental health reasons. Notably, the bill would add a requirement to transfer those found to have a disabling mental health issue.
As noted, explicit reference is included in Tona’s law to specify that it is precisely the same criteria established in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provisions on SIUs — in section 37.11 — that would be used to help determine whether a disabling mental health issue exists.
While opportunities to transfer people out of prison have long existed, they have been too rarely used to address mental health issues. Despite much evidence that corrections-based services often defer to security systems, even in the cases where therapeutic needs are identified as a priority, Correctional Service Canada continues to invest resources with the explicit intention of ostensibly providing mental health treatment and then failing to do so within prisons.
When we passed this bill in December, I spoke about an Ontario Superior Court case involving Mr. Warren whose disabling mental health issues led to a series of arson convictions and a dangerous offender designation. Justice Pomerance referenced Tona’s law and ordered that Mr. Warren serve his sentence in a hospital. Mr. Warren faced an indeterminate sentence, and Justice Pomerance recognized that in prison he would be condemned to lifelong isolation with no hope of adequate treatment or any chance of working toward community integration. She ruled that incarceration would violate his Charter rights.
In the year since this court decision, Mr. Warren, like too many others, has languished in conditions of isolation at Millhaven Institution in Kingston. In the meantime, as the government appeals Justice Pomerance’s decision, Correctional Service Canada is effectively defying the order by contacting provincially run forensic hospitals, asking if they have space for a person with a dangerous offender designation and offering no resources to support his treatment. Such transparently irresponsible attempts to undermine Justice Pomerance’s direction are both reprehensible and, unfortunately, predictable.
Meanwhile, we must also examine what Correctional Service Canada has done with the resources it was allocated to contract mental health beds with provinces. In connection with Bill C-83, CSC was provided with at least $74 million tax dollars per year to address the mental health needs of prisoners. Correctional Service Canada testified at the Social Affairs Committee and the Human Rights Committee that some of this funding — at one point, they suggested $9.2 million — was earmarked for contracting access to the very external mental health beds that Mr. Warren and so many others so urgently need. Yet no new beds were, in fact, contracted by CSC. And they have provided inconsistent and misleading responses to requests for information about what they did with this money.
Tona’s law would push CSC to adequately fund and support community-based mental health services. This would not only be more humane and effective for prisoners, but it would also save lives and money. Data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer suggests that due to the tremendous costs of isolation, paying for a bed in a forensic hospital would actually represent savings of around $100,000 per person per year.
By ensuring people receive adequate treatment, these types of measures would also help improve the mental health status of so many and reduce strain on the mental health system in the long term.
In the absence of Tona’s law, Correctional Service Canada is doubling down on costly and ineffective approaches to mental health. Just days after this chamber passed Tona’s law, Correctional Service Canada announced that it would not follow the direction of the courts and countless experts on mental health and accountability. Instead, CSC plans to build what it calls a health centre of excellence at the prison where staff were charged with manslaughter related to the death of a man with mental health issues following “. . . multiple uses of unnecessary and inappropriate physical and chemical force.”
Tona’s law would also breathe life into existing alternatives to isolation for Indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups, recognizing that as a result of systemic discrimination and colonialism, Indigenous women and others most in need of community support and connection too often end up incarcerated, labelled as risks and locked away alone in SIUs.
Tona’s law seeks to expand access to sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which permit prisoners to be transferred and released to the care and custody of Indigenous communities. Those repeatedly calling for this aspect of Tona’s law include commission after commission, including the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, two House of Commons committees, the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Tona’s law also aims to expand use of these provisions, in particular by allowing Correctional Service Canada to enter agreements for community-based care and custody with additional kinds of community groups serving others who are overrepresented in federal prisons as a result of systemic inequality — for example, Black Canadians and 2SLGBTQI+ folks.
When the Senate made the amendments to Bill C-83, which have now become the basis of Tona’s law, our dearly missed colleague, mentor and friend Senator Murray Sinclair shared the following as he explained his support:
. . . during the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we toured as many of the residential schools that were still standing . . . . In every one of them, there was a small room, usually under a staircase, where the residents would be confined if they were not listening to what the teachers were telling them. In each of those little rooms, some of them only two or three feet tall, you could see scratch marks on the wall and sometimes even bloodstains . . . from where . . . children, had tried to claw their way out or leave some kind of evidence of their being there.
This April, I visited the site of the Mush Hole, the Mohawk Institute Residential School at Six Nations. Among other sights that I will carry with me for the rest of my life was the understair isolation cupboard that Senator Sinclair described.
For too many Indigenous children and communities, residential schools were the beginnings of solitary confinement, forced removals and mass institutionalization now perpetrated by child welfare and prison systems.
Tona’s law will help to support the process of transferring individuals, financial resources and the inherent rights of self-determination over criminal justice back to Indigenous communities and nations.
(1630)
Next April will mark the thirtieth anniversary of Justice Louise Arbour’s call for the kind of court oversight of isolation that Tona’s law would finally make a reality. During the Commission of inquiry into certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Justice Arbour insisted that the women she met with be unshackled and participate as fully as possible. She demonstrated the legal and moral imperative of ensuring the recognition of humanity and human rights. By so doing, she also underscored the need for court oversight and the insistence on the application of the rule of law and human rights to prisoners.
As Justice Arbour issued her report on what happened to the women in 1994, one woman was still in isolation. Prison authorities insisted that she needed to be fully shackled or chained to a bed or the floor in order to keep staff safe. They created a special slot in a door through which they would remove her shackles when she met with a woman the Correctional Service Canada called the one “idiot stupid enough to meet with her without her being physically restrained.” The woman in isolation was Tona, and the idiot who insisted on meeting with her unrestrained was me.
The conditions of segregation to which Tona was subjected helped inform Louise Arbour’s findings and recommendations in her report following the Commission of inquiry into certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. More than 30 years later, Tona is still working to end solitary confinement, not for herself but for too many others who have survived — and those who have not.
This is a moment when human rights feel precarious. It is also a moment when we feel their importance more than ever. As numerous Indigenous leaders have so eloquently expressed, this is a moment to look to, learn from, work with and uplift those who have never been able to take these rights for granted and who work constantly to strengthen and protect them.
Nelson Mandela, himself a survivor of solitary confinement, reminded us that “. . . no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails.”
Tona says she often dreams she is still in segregation, so vivid are her memories. My recollections of her torture, as well as that of so many others, mostly leave me vibrating between rage and despair, and then laser focused on taking action. Tona is one of too many I have known who have barely survived, others died subjected to the state-sanctioned torture of segregation and solitary confinement.
Like Ashley Smith, who suffered a homicidal death in a segregation cell in 2007, Tona was driven crazy in prison. Unlike Ashley, she mercifully did not die in segregation in a federal prison, but she did emerge permanently and severely harmed. Tona urged any and all who would listen to “please end segregation for everyone, everywhere.”
Senators listened and introduced Tona’s law. Tona may never see the results of the bill she inspired.
If we build up community with robust social, economic and health systems, we can and must decolonize, decriminalize and decarcerate. Ending the use of isolation is just one step in that direction. Honourable colleagues, let’s work together to pass Tona’s law and return it to the other place. Let’s work in solidarity for a fairer and more just future to which all Canadians can aspire.
Meegwetch, thank you.
Hon. Rosemary Moodie: If the honourable senator will take a question, you have often referred to the need to end mass incarceration of Black Canadians, including their isolation.
Can you expand upon how Tona’s law fits with the goals of Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, please?
Senator Pate: Yes. One of the objectives to end mass incarceration involves building up community. In sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, there are already provisions that would allow them to be applied to not just Indigenous prisoners but to others, Black prisoners among them. Given that the numbers have been going up, many have described the need to look at subsection 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, otherwise referred to as Gladue reports, and look at the kinds of cultural supports that could be available and develop those kinds of models for Black prisoners.
Hon. Bernadette Clement: Thank you, Senator Pate, for your rage and despair, and your work. It is much appreciated.
I read with horror the media reports this week of two former correctional officers taking their own lives after indicating that they had suffered harassment at the federal Joyceville Institution. It’s difficult to imagine that. If correctional officers are suffering from harassment, it is difficult to imagine what incarcerated people are suffering. They have reported to me, as well, that incarcerated people do suffer intimidation and abuse.
I wonder what you have witnessed and how Tona’s law will help staff and incarcerated people in that kind of context?
Senator Pate: Thank you for that question.
Yes, I have received many calls from folks who worked with the two individuals whose suicides have been discussed. One of the things we were not able to report in the Human Rights Committee report is that, in every prison we visited, there were staff who wanted to meet in camera who were fearful of repercussions if it was known they were meeting with us. You have heard about some of them — Edmonton, Millhaven. Every place we went, we had private meetings with staff. We couldn’t report on that because they have to be public meetings to be used as evidence. Many staff, as recently as last week, were calling me and reporting incidents, indicating that if we have some protection for prisoners, it may be that it will be more likely that staff will also treat each other better.
The law itself doesn’t require staff to treat each other better. We presume that will be in place. But that’s certainly what I am hearing from people working in the institutions — that part of it is modelling that behaviour. As I’ve said many times, not necessarily in this chamber but in other public spaces, you can only imagine, if that’s how staff are treating each other, how they are treating the prisoners.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Pate, thank you for your speech. As someone who is not a big fan of Senate public bills, thank you for your bill on Tona’s law. I don’t see another path forward for something you have been fighting for over a long time. Any of us who are in favour of appropriate, effective and cost-efficient public policy care about this.
I just have two questions. You may answer briefly or otherwise.
What percentage of those who are inmates in our federal penitentiary system eventually get released? My sense is that it is 99% or something of that order. Therefore, what we do in there eventually comes out here. That’s really what I want to look at.
Second, from a process management standpoint, how many things have gone wrong in the process to the point where you are having to put somebody in solitary confinement? Whether it is named strategic intervention units or solitary confinement, it is solitary confinement. There must have been so many points where a different decision could have been made from a process management standpoint to not end up there. Could you speak about that as well?
Senator Pate: Yes, the vast majority of prisoners do return to the community — not all of them; we probably know and can count on our fingers the names of those who will never see the light of day, even though they might, on paper, be eligible for release at some point — and in fact, during the pandemic, Dr. Tony Doob — who was initially the chair and then, later, one of the members of the disbanded ministerial advisory panel — talked about the fact that, in any month, there are at least 5,000 prisoners released in Canada. When we know those figures, and we know that doesn’t result in the types of crime waves that we are often encouraged to think about, we know that many people go on to integrate back into the community.
But to your point, which is the issue of how people end up in isolation, I wish we could say it is a clear trajectory, but it is not. When we look at the classification scheme, what kinds of supports are in place and the kind of evidence put before a court, those can very much determine what the treatment is once someone gets into prison. Someone with mental health issues almost always ends up in segregation, usually not because of ill-willed staff — sometimes that is the reason, but it’s not the predominant one. The predominant reason is that it is the easiest place to watch people. I have many staff who will call and say, “Can you think of anything else we could be doing right now?” And we often can.
In fact, just before I joined the Senate, we were working with the Human Rights Commission on a plan to desegregate all the institutions where women were housed. We were down to five women. The plan was that the minute they thought they needed to isolate someone, there would be a notification, and the Native Women’s Association, sometimes the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada, as well as our organization — I was with the Elizabeth Fry Societies at the time — and the Human Rights Commission would intervene to come up with an individualized plan.
(1640)
We also know that when the Ontario government introduced the legislation that has not been enacted yet — under the previous provincial government — they planned to initially start with at least four provincial jails that would have no segregation units, because they knew from what they had learned from the youth system that if you disallow it, then you actually create alternatives.
We do not know the extent of the creativity that is possible if we push for people to not necessarily have this as the first tool that they can utilize. Again, they utilize it not for nefarious reasons but because they are truly concerned that people may harm or hurt themselves. You have heard me talk about examples of guards saying to me, if I had my now-adult daughter strapped in a sling and something was happening in the prison, “Why don’t you go down and visit? We hear they really like the baby.” Meanwhile, they were contemplating putting that group of women in isolation by bringing in an emergency response team — basically a riot squad — to quell them. So even in those instances, if they don’t see that they have other options available, it is very difficult for them to utilize those options. That was a moment when it became very clear to all of us how little it took to take a different tack sometimes — but also how challenging that is when that’s not what you are encouraged to do or those are not the tools available to you.
Hon. Marty Klyne: Will the Honourable Senator Pate take a question?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Senator Klyne: As I recall, Bill C-83 was fundamentally rather sound in its aims and objective. It was the vision that would be conjured up, if you followed the path — a necessary improvement of the segregation conditions that were there before they introduced Bill C-83. I remember that during the final round of questioning of the expert witnesses, we had the commissioner there, and it dawned on me that every good plan needs to be implemented and executed as planned with the resources provided for it, and then you need to continue to follow that up and make sure the culture and the strategy will support it.
To our disappointment, when we visited, what we imagined to be happening was not happening. We didn’t see the resources that were supposed to be applied to it. It was a culture and a structure or strategy that were not supporting it.
Here we are now. Again, there were amendments to Bill C-83. Then there were other amendments, and now we are going to add another one. This has to lie at the feet of whoever is in charge of that — the commissioner — and whoever ensures those support services are there and that they are actually following through on the programs. Too many of these people would like to be in the programs but are not getting in. So with this bill that you are introducing, how can we make people accountable from the top level down, and what are the penalties? There have to be consequences for them not following through on it.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Pate, the time allowed for debate has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer Senator Klyne’s question?
Senator Pate: I would ask for more time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Klyne, for that question. Thank you for all the work you did on the bill but also, really importantly, ensuring and monitoring what happened afterwards and that your staff were made available. In fact, your former staff member was in touch with me last night about this very bill.
I think Professor Emeritus Michael Jackson probably put it best when he said that for 50 years, he tried to figure out ways to help reform corrections and put in place, within corrections policies, mechanisms that would encourage the kind of culture change that happened. In many of our experiences, mine included, in any institution — including prisons — sometimes you will see a champion who will change something for a period of time. Madam Justice Louise Arbour made that recommendation 30 years ago now. She recognized it was one of the few ways to force a change to happen. As lawyers have pointed out and as others will know, part of what Corrections was trying to do was avoid the oversight and the decision being taken by the Supreme Court of Canada that would actually address some of the issues that Tona’s law is trying to address. If you have judicial oversight, it is one of the ways to get the record public. Right now, we rely on corrections to produce it. I was heartbroken to read that the justice who is doing that fatality inquiry still cannot get documents almost 15 years after the young man’s death. We hear that all the time.
I was in a courtroom last week. The Crown was asking where I got access to documents that the Crown should have had access to. So I think one of the few ways to change it is to insist that we have that judicial oversight and that it goes before the courts, as well as to provide potential remedies for those who are wronged. Thank you.
(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Bill
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved second reading of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of a bill I that I’ve been sponsoring in Parliament for over four and a half years: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, whose current number is S-209. This initiative, designed to protect children, has died on the Order Paper twice already. At the time of prorogation last January, my bill had almost reached the finish line, at report stage, just before its third reading in the House of Commons. It had support from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and this chamber twice in a row, including once without opposition.
Many parents, groups and pediatricians were bitterly disappointed.
A year ago, 77% of Canadians surveyed by Leger supported the idea of an age-verification method to block access by children to online pornographic material. They are the reason why I keep going, to make their voices heard in Parliament.
I’m back at it again because the status quo is untenable: eight- and twelve-year-old children have unrestricted access to millions of hardcore porn videos, many of them violent and traumatizing.
The average age of first exposure is 11. The reality of online porn changed around 15 years ago, when platforms changed their business model to enable anyone at all to upload videos to their sites and make that content free and available to everyone. All barriers to access have disappeared.
The Canadian government has allowed this to happen despite research showing worrying correlations between porn use among minors and harmful sexual beliefs and behaviours, an erroneous belief that women and girls are always sexually available, harmful attitudes and beliefs about sexual consent and normalization of violent behaviour.
(1650)
What’s more, according to the renowned Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the viewing of pornography by minors normalizes these images in their eyes, making children more likely to fall victim to online predators. Here is a disturbing example. Half the girls and boys aged 16 to 21 surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner for England say that girls expect sex to include physical aggression such as choking or slapping.
In a French documentary on problematic pornography use, a young woman recounts the following:
When I was nine years old, I could definitively say that I watched porn every day. . . . Since my father didn’t love me . . . I came to the point where I realized that I felt loved when I watched pornographic videos.
One young man added that, from the age of 14, he took pleasure in watching things that disgusted him.
In a shocking interview in 2021, American singer Billie Eilish recounted how she started watching porn at age 11, and it disturbed her so much that she didn’t dare say no to certain sexual practices in her first romantic relationships. “Porn really destroyed my brain,” she concluded.
Perhaps this is the saddest part: Young people are being robbed of discovering their sexuality because they’re being inundated with unrealistic and often unhealthy displays that they perceive as normal. Frequent viewing of pornography can generate fear and anxiety in young people, damage their self-esteem by distorting their perception of their own bodies and lead to symptoms of depression.
Quebec sexologist Marie-Christine Pinel also made troubling observations about young people in her practice. She said:
I am facing emerging and disastrous phenomena: a resurgence of domination, performance anxiety that generates pain on penetration and erectile dysfunction, an explosion of requests for cosmetic genital surgery; all linked to the influence of pornography.
This is a real public health issue that is not discussed enough because of the taboos surrounding pornography. The idea that only parents can control their children’s screens is completely outdated since the advent of smart phones. On this point, I would like to quote the recent comprehensive report by the Select Committee on the Impacts of Screens and Social Media on Young People’s Health and Development. This Quebec committee unreservedly recommends that pornographic websites be required to implement reliable age verification measures that respect privacy and cannot be circumvented.
Over the past four years, there has been progress on this issue almost everywhere except Canada. Technological advances have lowered the risks to clients’ privacy. The harms of pornography on children have been well documented. Many governments, including those of Great Britain, France, the European Union and 20 or so U.S. states, have taken action. I have taken note of the suggestions and criticisms made during the lengthy legislative process for Bill S-210.
On that, I want to thank Law Clerk Marc-André Roy for helping me to rework and clarify the wording and for taking the time to talk it over. I’ve been benefiting from his invaluable help for four and a half years now.
[English]
In politics, perceptions often trump reality. Although I am a feminist, a progressive and an advocate for solid sex education, I was accused of trying to censor scenes of nudity in shows streamed on platforms like Netflix or HBO. This criticism arose because I was introducing a criminal offence that mirrored the Criminal Code’s definition of sexually explicit material.
To defuse controversy, in this version of Bill S-209, I chose a clearer, less ambiguous term, namely, “pornographic material” rather than “sexually explicit material.” The bill defines this new term as follows, using the most relevant portion of the current Criminal Code definition:
pornographic material means any photographic, film, video or other visual representation . . . the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a person’s genital organs or anal region or, if the person is female, her breasts, but does not include child pornography . . . .
It’s important to understand that the phrase “ . . . for a sexual purpose . . .” is key. We’re not talking about simple scenes of nudity.
It’s also essential to remember that from the outset, the bill includes an exception for pornographic materials used for legitimate purposes related to science, medicine, education or the arts, like a series on HBO, for example.
It’s not a question of censorship but of protection of children in the same way a society does for alcohol and drugs, by requiring retailers to verify the age of the purchasers.
Let’s be clear: Bill S-209 will have no impact on adults’ ability to access pornography. It is not an attack on the freedom of expression, as some have claimed. In Europe, porn sites that have challenged age verification laws have lost their cases every step of the way. In the United States, a country renowned for its strong protection of free speech, porn sites have challenged state laws and have been unsuccessful to date. We are currently awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The second major change in Bill S-209 concerns verifying a user’s age, made possible by recent technological advances. The previous version of the bill required age verification, which meant checking the customer’s identity. It did raise privacy concerns.
To address this, we followed the example set by the United Kingdom by authorizing provisions for age estimation. I say here “age estimation” and not “age verification.”
In recent years, facial age estimation, powered by artificial intelligence, has become much more accurate, with a significantly reduced margin of error. This technique doesn’t require proof of identity, meaning far less personal data is collected. Moreover, a new French technology can estimate a person’s age using only a video of a moving hand, further reducing privacy risks.
Yes, technology is evolving. It’s a bit scary sometimes.
These are just a few examples of the progress being made. To be clear, the legislation only outlines broad categories of methods of age verification and age estimation. It does not specify which exact mechanism will be authorized. We are leaving those decisions to government during the regulatory phase, which is the appropriate time to assess the technical details. Other jurisdictions take the same approach, recognizing the need to adapt to ongoing technological advancements and make necessary adjustments.
Another concern that has been raised is how this bill will ensure the personal information of pornography viewers will be well protected and destroyed as soon as possible.
We drew inspiration from the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Philippe Dufresne, before the House committee to strengthen and clarify the guiding principles, as outlined in clause 12 (2) of the bill.
Before selecting an appropriate mechanism during the regulatory phase:
. . . the Governor in Council must ensure —
— instead of “must consider,” so it is stronger language —
— that the method
(a) is highly effective —
— before it was only reliable —
— (b) is operated by a third-party organization that deals at arm’s length from any organization making pornographic material available on the Internet for commercial purposes . . . .
Further, it:
(e) limits the collection of personal information to what is strictly necessary for the age verification or age estimation . . . .
I would point out that before his testimony last spring at the House of Commons committee, Commissioner Dufresne launched a national consultation in Canada on age verification and has been participating in an international working group on this issue. He is, therefore, well informed.
Beyond those changes, the essence of the bill remains, especially the criminal offence set out in the bill in clause 5:
Any organization that, for commercial purposes, makes available pornographic material on the Internet to a young person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, (a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $250,000 . . . .
(1700)
In practice, however, it’s unlikely that such a fine would be imposed, as most porn sites are based outside of Canada.
For this reason, Bill S-209 also spells out an administrative process. A designated body would be able to request the federal court to order the blocking of non-compliant sites in Canada. This procedure would only be applied after a notice has been issued, and a 20-day period has passed.
This means that non-compliant pornographic sites could be blocked even if they are based abroad.
It’s important to note that the bill targets organizations only and not individuals.
[Translation]
The bill contains another improvement: We added two clauses to clarify its scope. Clause 6 excludes organizations that only transmit pornographic material incidentally or unintentionally. This would mean, for example, that internet service providers like Videotron or Bell would not be covered by the act.
The bill’s scope is a legitimate concern considering that a growing number of social media platforms, apart from porn platforms, now allow the distribution of pornographic material on their subscribers’ accounts. This includes X, formerly known as Twitter, 13% of which is estimated to consist of pornographic content. There are many others, and the research shows that minors are consuming as much if not more porn on social networks than on giant porn platforms like Pornhub.
Technically, it’s entirely possible to estimate the age of clients on social media porn accounts without denying customers open access to other content on these platforms. Why? Because the porn content has already been identified. Social networks automatically add a home page indicating that the material in question is suitable for adults only. Age estimation would therefore be targeted.
In their online harms legislation, the British require age verification for all accounts that distribute porn, whether on social media or on porn sites, in order to protect children from online porn wherever it is distributed. That makes sense. However determining the precise scope of the bill in its actual operation is a delicate task.
We chose to give the government a lot of room to manoeuvre. Paragraph 12(1)(a) indicates that the Governor in Council has the power to specify the circumstances in which pornographic material is or is not to be regarded as made available for commercial purposes. Once again this is dealt with at the regulation stage because the internet is a space that is constantly evolving.
Senate public bills serve to lay bare the government’s blind spots, among other things. To be perfectly honest, I thought that in 2024, the last government’s broad bill on online harms, Bill C-63, would include a requirement for pornography sites to verify the age of their clients. However, it did not, which is obviously the government’s prerogative. All that is mentioned in the legislative text that died on the Order Paper, in vague terms, is that site operators must protect children with age-appropriate design features. That is vague. A commission was supposed to decide what would happen next. Having followed the debates in other countries, it seems to me that political will must be clearly expressed at the bill stage, rather than leaving difficult choices to the regulatory bodies. That is because the opponents, particularly the porn industry, hold a lot of power.
Let’s look at the European Union, for example. Its regulators have just opened an investigation into Pornhub, Stripchat, XVideos and XNXX because these sites are suspected of failing to block access to minors, despite the fact that a law banning access to porn by those under 18 has been in force for two years. Just today — because this war continues — Pornhub and other websites owned by Ethical Capital Partners, an Ottawa-based company, announced that they are ceasing operations in France precisely because they’re being forced to verify the age of their customers. According to the French minister responsible for digital technologies, Clara Chappaz, it is nothing short of a lie and an attempt at a shakedown to claim that French age verification mechanisms don’t guarantee privacy. It is true that France worked for several years on what is known as double anonymity to ensure that what it was asking porn sites to do made sense. I find this attitude — that is, pulling out of a country because of a dislike of the laws passed by a democratic government — a little difficult to accept.
It has to be said that the porn industry has never seen fit to self-regulate. According to the first in-depth investigative report, L’empire du sexe, which was published recently in Quebec, the former bosses of Pornhub stopped at nothing to attract customers. They chose catchy titles, implied that videos featured underage girls, turned a blind eye to videos depicting the sexual exploitation of underage girls, and were slow to scrub such videos from the site.
As long as there is no sexual exploitation of children, pornography is perfectly legal adult entertainment. That’s not the battle I’m fighting. However, when consumed by children, these millions of hardcore scenes can destroy their intimate lives and, by extension, their perception of equality between men and women. Of course, people have different ideas about how to protect children from these harms. School-based sex ed and parents certainly play an essential role, but they are not enough to stem the tide of pornographic images, which take up one-third of internet bandwidth.
I hope that the legislative process now under way will enable us to improve this legislation, but the real challenge, in my opinion, will be to find the political will to act, even if the law is imperfect, and to protect our children. That is what parents want us to do. Other countries like ours have done it.
[English]
Hon. Denise Batters: As you may remember, I supported this bill in the last Parliament, and that was prior to it going over to the House of Commons — I understand that some changes were made there at committee stage. Thank you very much for giving a comprehensive speech outlining the issues that we’re looking at here. Were any of the changes you mentioned in your speech today that have been made to the new version of your bill a result of the House of Commons changes or are these additional to that?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If I may, I will answer in French because it’s a bit technical.
[Translation]
We didn’t reach the amendment stage at the House of Commons committee. In fact, the debate was very short and objections were raised. You know, the House of Commons has a 90-day time limit; its timelines are very prescriptive. When these timelines are exceeded, bills immediately proceed to report stage and third reading. Unfortunately, that is what happened to mine.
Nevertheless, the changes I made took account of the brief speeches given in the House of Commons as well as certain suggestions made by the various political parties. In this new version, I really tried to take concerns into account.
The privacy issue, for example, is a legitimate concern and I understand that. However, look at what’s going on right now in France. The Pornhub company said that no solution is acceptable as far as it’s concerned because of the privacy problem. This attitude only amplifies the distrust of different systems. Technology is advancing and these kinds of checks are increasingly possible with the least amount of information possible. I’m not saying that it’s fail-safe.
(1710)
No technology is 100% safe, but I would say that we have to consider the gap between protecting children and the idea that anyone can enter a porn site without taking 10 or 20 seconds to identify themselves. To me this is not a matter of freedom of expression and I think that we have a choice to make as a society.
The previous federal government was against this bill. I am calling for this particularly serious issue to be addressed and for something to be done about it. Whether through a private bill, a government bill or something else, I think we need to move forward on this.
[English]
Senator Batters: I have one further question. I agree with you, yes, we need to make sure there is considerable action taken on such a serious issue. In that respect, I also appreciated the part of your speech when you were speaking about the government’s previous Bill C-63 — the online harms act I think they called it. That bill never did come to the Senate, it died in the House of Commons with prorogation and then dissolution.
I’m wondering, in the recent election campaign, did the Liberal Party — which is now in government — make any promises about anything to do with this or was this the subject of any part of their election campaign platform?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m sorry to say no, but I realize the government was extremely busy with other crises — economic crises and the relationship with our neighbour. I just hope that, even if we have a lot of priorities, that this one — which is really one that is for the protection of our children — is seen and considered, and if another bill on online harms is introduced, that this particular issue is included there. Thank you.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Let me begin by acknowledging the undeniable courage and tenacity that you are bringing to this issue, and to thank you for not being prepared to be intimidated and to not give up.
The points that you’re making today about changes that you agree to make to this bill seem to me to not in any way take away from the fact that this is a bill about assaulting and damaging children. It may not be in the typical line of a physical assault, but nevertheless, it is an assault.
I wanted to ask if you could share with us the kind of opposition that you didn’t mention in your speech, which you have had to navigate as someone who will not give up on this issue.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
Pornography is obviously a controversial subject. I’ve been criticized by many on the internet. Many of my critics were not particularly polite or cordial. I’ve often been described as a prude, and people have tried to link me to American evangelical Christians who, for all kinds of reasons, don’t like pornography. It has also been suggested that I was being manipulated by other people.
I believe that the quality of this bill will enable it to win the support of people in both conservative and more progressive camps, but it won’t ever have unanimous support. I’ve noticed that those in political circles consider any move to prevent children from watching porn to be an attack on sexual freedom. I find that deeply offensive, because the two are not the same. I often respond to such parliamentarians by asking them if they’ve looked at these porn platforms. I’m not talking about magazines like Playboy or Penthouse. I’m talking about material that’s hard to watch. Having drafted this bill and watched a ton of material, I still have images stuck in my head, and I’m an adult, so imagine what it does to kids. One woman actually wrote to me today to tell me that her child became totally aggressive after watching porn and attacked his brothers and sisters.
So we shouldn’t pretend that it never happens, that it’s all just anecdotal. I know that more research needs to be done on this issue. It’s not like we can sit children down, expose them to pornographic images and then measure its impact on them. All we can do is draw correlations. At this point, there are so many indicators connecting harm and addiction to the consumption of pornography in childhood that we have no choice but to take action. Naturally, we don’t hear about it every day because a lot of us are grandparents. For parents, however, the internet as a whole is a problem, and what I’m talking to you about today is an even bigger problem.
So, yes, I have had to deal with arguments and criticism that have left me completely flabbergasted, but that is par for the course when introducing many kinds of bills, so I’m not complaining and my work for and on behalf of children carries on.
[English]
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I just want to say, as the friendly critic, I support this bill. You gave a very good speech today, and our colleagues have asked good questions, so I hope that the chamber will be willing to — in whatever way — expedite the process because this is a very important and serious issue. I promise to speak quickly on this.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
Ukrainian Heritage Month Bill
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Stan Kutcher moved second reading of Bill S-210, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-210, an act respecting Ukrainian heritage month. When passed, it will designate September of every year as Ukrainian heritage month across Canada, celebrating the contributions that Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry have made to our country.
This bill is identical to the one that this chamber passed in November 2024. It made it to the House, but was caught there. This bill already has a sponsor in the House, and based on the messages of support for Ukraine that we have heard from our colleagues there, I am hopeful that expeditious passage in this chamber can encourage our friends in the other place to act swiftly.
Acting swiftly is important because, as we know, Russia’s genocidal war on a sovereign and democratic Ukraine is now entering a more vicious phase. Russia is not just fighting on the front, it is attacking innocent civilians, killing them at schools, in their places of business, on the street, in their homes, in hospitals and in places of worship. Russia is stealing Ukrainian children from their communities, placing them in gulags, forcefully eliminating their ethnocultural identity and even indoctrinating some to attack their own kith and kin. It is destroying the environment, planting hundreds of thousands of mines in fields that are essential for growing the world’s grain, blowing up religious and cultural sites and creating hell for people who only want to go about their lives in peace.
This genocidal war is taking its toll. An entire generation of young people has been traumatized. Thousands have lost their lives. Many more thousands have lost their limbs or their livelihoods. The damage is unimaginable. And for what purpose? So that Russia can dream of empire yet again?
(1720)
The soft-pedalling approach of graduated containment promoted under the Bush administration — letting Ukraine bleed but not completely bleed out — has been made even worse by the inept and corrupt Trump group. Ukraine — and, indeed, Europe — is now fighting for its survival. It is a fight of democracy against tyranny, a fight of hope against despair, a fight for what is right instead of what is might.
This bill celebrates Ukrainian heritage in Canada. It reminds us about what people who identify as Ukrainian Canadians have contributed to the making of our country. As such, it is the same as many other bills that we have passed acknowledging the important contributions of all those people whose hands have built this place.
We know that “heritage” means all that we have gathered from the past, those things that we value and enjoy in the present and that which we strive to preserve and pass on to future generations. Our heritage is a celebration of who we are, what we aspire to be and the glue that binds us to each other.
I am also bringing forward this bill to honour my Ukrainian heritage, with the support and encouragement of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian diaspora and recently arrived Ukrainians seeking refuge here. As I do this, I want to acknowledge to each member of this chamber that I also want to learn more about your heritage, for in that mutual journey of discovery, we can hope to better understand each other and, by so doing, together define and develop a better tomorrow.
However, I am also bringing forth this bill again now because I am sure that all freedom-loving people who believe in the rule of law, democracy and the sovereignty of states are appalled by what is happening in Ukraine. I am bringing the bill forward again because we, in this chamber, by the small act of passing this legislation, can demonstrate to Ukraine, to Canada and to the rest of the freedom-loving world that we stand for what is right, that we care what happens, that we abhor tyranny and that we want to maintain what is just.
Colleagues, times are tough in Ukraine, and times are tough for all of us who have family in or ties to Ukraine. Friends, every morning when I wake up, the first thing I do is check my WhatsApp to see if my family there has survived the night. I am hopeful that this bill will be a boost that tells the people of Ukraine that we have their backs and encourages those people here in Canada who support Ukraine to not give up and to continue the fight as long as is necessary.
I am privileged to stand here to share with you the story of my parents and grandparents. They came to this country from Ukraine, having lost all of their property, most of their friends and most members of their families to Russian and Nazi forces. They were amongst the numerous Ukrainians who sought refuge in Canada following World War II. They found a safe landing for their families so that they could live in peace, without fear, and flourish for generations to come.
Once here, they became part of a greater Ukrainian diaspora that traces its roots to the call from Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior in the Laurier government, who chose to welcome Eastern Europeans to Canada as an immigration strategy to settle the West. What Sifton wanted was “. . . a stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations . . . .”
Thousands living in what is now Western Canada answered this call, and by their sweat and toil, helped turn Canada into the agricultural powerhouse that it is today. Indeed, some members of this chamber can trace their family stories back to this time.
The bond between Canada and Ukraine has been forged over tens of decades and is still being moulded. Since February 2022, many Canadians have become more aware of these bonds and the history that underlies them. Indeed, colleagues, this is a history that both defines Ukrainian Canadians and binds us to others living in this country whose heritage includes similar horrific memories. It is a history with deep and tragic roots, including about 4 million deaths during Holodomor, the Stalin-imposed famine, and between 8 million and 14 million killed in World War II. All Canadians whose families have suffered similar circumstances, wherever in the world those occurred, understand this.
There are now more than 1.4 million people of Ukrainian heritage living in Canada, close to about 4% of our population. My family is counted among those numbers, beginning with my maternal grandparents, my parents, myself, my two brothers and then our children and nine grandchildren.
As a boy, I didn’t speak English until I started elementary school. As was the case in many refugee homes, the mother tongue was the language of the household. Since my grandparents never learned to speak English, Ukrainian was the only language that bound me to them. The years passed, and I became more and more removed from my language of origin. My familiarity with the language left. My baba and dido — grandma and grandpa — were the only people whom I spoke Ukrainian to, and after they died, I just stopped speaking the language because I had nobody in my life that I needed to use my mother tongue with anymore.
Since the genocidal war on Ukraine began and Canada started to welcome newly displaced Ukrainians, I have been privileged to meet many people from my homeland. I have come to know a number of these recent arrivals, and this has encouraged me to renew my cultural ties. I have even begun to relearn my mother tongue. I’m improving weekly — thank you, Duolingo — and soon hope to be able to speak Ukrainian at the age of 73 as well as I spoke it when I was 6.
September is a notable month for Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, as it was in September more than 125 years ago when it is believed the first Ukrainians arrived in Canada. Many of these settled in the Prairies and farmed. There are stories of these early Prairie settlers being helped by their Indigenous neighbours. Indeed, these bonds between Indigenous and Ukrainian communities are symbolized by the kokum design. Actually, the tie I am wearing today is a kokum design.
There are countless Canadians of Ukrainian heritage who have made contributions to our country. I will take a moment to highlight only a few. Roberta Bondar, the first Canadian woman and second Canadian in space, was a neurologist who is a pioneer in space medicine research.
Sylvia Fedoruk was also a medical pioneer, working with radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment. She became the first woman Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan and was inducted into Canada’s Curling Hall of Fame. She became the Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan in 1988.
Ray Hnatyshyn’s father was Canada’s first Ukrainian-born senator. Ray served as a member of the House of Commons, in the cabinets of both Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. In January 1990, he was sworn into office as Canada’s Governor General, where he coined the phrase, “. . . the governor general belongs to the people of Canada.”
For decades, Canadian households tuned in to test their knowledge with “Jeopardy!” host Alex Trebek, whose father was born in Ukraine. There are many athletes of Ukrainian descent, including NHL players such as Wayne Gretzky and my own cousin Mark Osborne. Mark is much less known than Mr. Gretzky. Sadly, Mark spent more than a decade playing for the Toronto Maple Leafs. I saw a sign the other day that said, “Spring is here and the Leafs are out.”
Senators, this chamber currently has members of Ukrainian descent. We have had senators of Ukrainian descent for quite a while. One such distinguished senator was Paul Yuzyk who has been called the “father of multiculturalism.” He insisted that all ethnic groups deserve to be recognized as partners in the Canadian mosaic. In his speech of March 3, 1964, entitled “Canada: A Multicultural Nation,” he pointed out that Indigenous peoples were in Canada long before the coming of French and English settlers. He saw our multicultural reality as “unity in our diversity” and challenged our nation to embrace and celebrate that reality.
(1730)
I hope that all of us in this chamber recognize the value of unity in our diversity. Our task is to better learn how we can harness the good in the ties that bind us while avoiding the incitements of those who would use our diversity as an excuse to rend us asunder.
Senators, we are living in a time that calls for more celebration of the things that bind us together in the face of the things that pull us apart. We are living in a time that calls for us to bolster the people of Ukraine and those Canadians who value those ties. This is why I am seeking your support to move this bill celebrating Ukrainian heritage quickly through this chamber and over to the other place.
D’akuju. Thank you. Wela’lioq.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Kutcher, first of all, I have to mention my mom who is actually a Leafs fan. However, for a very smart reason, she always says the Leafs know when it is time to stop playing hockey. When it gets warm, they should be done. I mention my mom because she is also the keeper of Ukrainian heritage in our family, and she can cross-stitch a blouse like there’s no tomorrow, probably because she has four daughters for whom she had to make blouses for Ukrainian dancing.
Thank you very much for your speech. As you know, I was the friendly critic of this bill last time, and I believe I will be again. I will have to pull out my Ukrainian blouse, as I did last time, to make a significant speech on this.
I have one question for you, though. I compared this bill to your previous one. You mentioned in your speech that it’s exactly the same, and I noticed it is exactly the same. In my previous second reading speech, I made a comment that I was surprised you didn’t include the word “freedom” in your preamble when you talked about the bonds of Ukraine and Canada and the commitment to the universal values of human rights, democracy and respect for international law. You did say “freedom-loving” in your speech a couple of times today, which I was glad to hear because I didn’t hear that last year. But why did you not include the definitely universally shared value of freedom in your preamble as a common, shared bond between Canada and Ukraine?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that, Senator Batters, and if it is any consolation, my mother was also a Leafs fan.
Your point is well taken, and I tried to put that phrase in the speech today. I think the issue that you raised for all of us to ponder — and I thank you for raising it — is that the values shared between these two countries have many components: freedom, respect, wanting to do the best that we can do and hard work. My goodness, if somebody had told us in February 2022 that Ukraine would be blowing up jets in Russia by hiding drones in the roofs of houses that took them a year and a half to develop — and yesterday blew the bottom out of a Kursk bridge — we would have said, “There’s something wrong with you because that will never happen.”
Thank you for raising the point that we have many values in common. We have a lot in common, and we have a lot of work to do, so thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: To follow up on that, I would have thought it extremely possible for Ukrainians to do that. As I said in my speech, I have a T-shirt inspired by President Zelenskyy that says “Fight Like Ukrainians.” That’s what they do, and that’s what they have always been known for doing. They took that expression — which was well applied by Churchill to the Greeks — and applied it to the Ukrainians, so I was not surprised to see that.
There’s another issue that I will be raising in my speech. A lot of people know very well about Ukrainian heritage, but to give it better flavour perhaps, I will examine some of the actual issues of Ukrainian heritage and provide examples of how Ukrainians celebrate their heritage in Canada. One I find important — which has existed during the lengthy time that Ukrainians have been in Canada throughout the decades — is that many Ukrainians left Ukraine because they wanted freedom of religion. They had been persecuted by the Russians and later by the communist Soviet Union. That’s an issue that Ukrainians have found to be extremely important throughout the decades. And that’s something that I will try to explore, perhaps with examples. There are many new colleagues here who maybe didn’t hear the speeches that we delivered last time, so I may do that.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that, Senator Batters. In the previous speech you made, you did speak about the religious issues and how important they are. I am glad that you will take the time in your speech to educate all of us about that.
On a more personal note about that, my grandparents — are you ready for this? — were Baptists. There was actually a tiny group of evangelical-type Baptists in Ukraine who came to Canada and set up the first Baptist church in Toronto on Tecumseth Street, where I used to have to go as a little kid, and I would sit on these very hard pews for hours and hours. The good fortune in that was that Fortune Bakery was right next door. I would sneak out and go through the back entrance of Fortune Bakery, and they would feed me doughnuts. We have much to celebrate and much to share with each other, and I thank you for continuing to celebrate the culture that you and I both share.
Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: I have information that the senator perhaps would have liked to put in his speech but overlooked. The first Ukrainian cabinet minister in this country was Michael Starr who was the former mayor of Oshawa from 1949 to 1952 ; he was re-elected six times and was the Minister of Labour in John Diefenbaker’s government but lost to Ed Broadbent by 15 votes in 1968. He had a great career and many honours afterwards, and I’m sure you would have included him if you had thought of him, so I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. Michael Starr was a star, but I couldn’t include everybody. There are so many people, and I just chose a couple. Thank you for bringing that to all of our attention.
(On motion of Senator Batters, debate adjourned.)
National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Bill
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Marty Deacon moved second reading of Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising.
She said: Thank you, first, to Senator Kutcher for sharing your stories of Ukraine with us. It was fascinating to hear that this afternoon.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising. I am, of course, disappointed to be back here at square one. This is the same bill as Bill S-269 — a bill the Senate passed on to the other place unamended just half a year ago. Many of you spoke in favour of it at the time, and while I will do my best not to rehash my earlier comments, we have met and made many new colleagues who could benefit from receiving a quick lay of the land and hearing why this legislation needs to be passed quickly to try to tackle a problem that has shown no sign of abating.
(1740)
Having looked over my speech at second reading from 2023, it’s staggering how little has changed in sports betting promotion, right down to the Maple Leafs exiting the second round of the NHL playoffs at the hands of the Florida Panthers. The Leafs are getting a bit of a beating today.
Back then, anyone who watched that series on TV was privy to nine minutes of gambling ads during each game. While I don’t have the numbers for this year’s matchup, anyone who watched knows this issue is still ongoing, if not worse. In addition to the commercial breaks, viewers are encouraged to bet during intermissions, when panellists — often household names — give betting odds on who will score and when. There are also ads for various gambling brands superimposed onto the arena boards for the TV viewers.
Even those watching in person aren’t spared from the onslaught, encouraged to get their parlays in over the arena loudspeaker. This bombardment of promotion plays a direct role in putting Canadians at risk of gambling addiction.
Case in point — the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health reports a spike in calls to its gambling addiction helpline during the opening of the NHL playoffs every year since this betting was legalized.
Colleagues, given its scope and scale — and the slew of ads we face every day — it’s easy to forget that this is still a relatively recent problem. It was only in 2021 that Parliament passed Bill C-218, which amended the Criminal Code by removing the long-standing prohibition on betting on the outcome of any race or fight or on a single sports event or athletic contest. That bill was many years in the making, though. Prior iterations included Bill C-290, introduced in 2011 — 14 years ago — which made it to third reading in the Senate before Parliament was prorogued in the fall of 2013.
Two other iterations of the bill were brought forward in the House, with elections hampering the journey of one when it made it to the Senate. It’s also worth noting that the Trudeau government introduced their own single-event sports betting legislation in 2020 — you may recall Bill C-13. Given its similarities to Bill C-218, which was introduced first, the government withdrew the bill.
Why have there been so many efforts to make single-event sports betting legal? The argument was that in the illicit underground markets, many of which were offshore, this was happening anyway, so why not regulate it and bring it into the light of day? A majority of us at the time agreed and voted in favour of Bill C-218, including myself. I supported this bill and still do, so far anyway. This is because my life outside the Senate was informing me. In my international work, I had been exposed to the dark side of amateur sport.
That was match fixing, which we now all call match manipulation. The 2012 Olympics in London exposed this live on television. Athletes were told to fix matches by their coaches. This runs deep in other parts of the world; it is a huge business and also has a growing presence in Canada.
When I became a senator in 2018, I carried out an obligation to host my final world championship in Canada with 60 countries and 800 athletes. We worked with the International Olympic Committee on a sport integrity program, and on Canadian soil and with our Canadian values, an athlete could not step onto the field of play in Markham, Ontario, unless they completed the program that focused on match manipulation and anti-doping.
During that time, I also learned quite a bit about athlete grooming. Athletes are lured into manipulating matches or being part of a taker on a winning bet. I knew I had to turn over every stone I possibly could on this.
The rationale was that through legalizing single-sports betting in Canada, honest, regulated actors would be above match fixing; there’s far too much to lose if you get caught. This is an industry, after all, that made $3.2 billion in profits last year, an almost 200% increase since Ontario’s iGaming business opened just two years ago.
The saturation of ads, however, was an issue that should have been dealt with from the start. For instance, Bill C-45, the bill that legalized cannabis, had a provision that banned advertising outright. I regret something similar was not included when single-sports betting was legalized. Perhaps it was the narrow nature of Bill C-218, which simply removed a line from the Criminal Code, that deterred us from thinking bigger at the time.
In any event, much to my own regret, advertising and promotion was not addressed in any meaningful way, and we now see a sporting industry very much intertwined with gambling companies and sports broadcasters, some of which have betting companies of their own. As a result, I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that today in Canada, it is impossible to watch a sporting event without being encouraged to gamble at moments.
On this, the scientific literature demonstrates clear and consistent evidence that sports gambling advertising causes significant harm at both the individual and population levels, with particularly severe impacts on vulnerable groups, including youth.
We have learned a lot on this since the last bill was presented. Here are some examples:
A 2014 literature review conducted at the University of Gothenburg found that children have high recall of gambling advertising and brands. Children and young people were most aware of advertising linked with sports, which is seen to normalize gambling.
A 2023 study done by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that young people were more likely to bet on impulse or increase their betting after seeing these gambling ads.
A 2023 literature review conducted by the Journal of Public Health found that there is evidence of a “dose-response” effect, meaning greater advertising exposure increases participation, which leads to a greater risk of harm, with trends for this stronger among children and young people and those already at risk from current gambling activity.
As a last example, a 2025 study out of Spain reported that among individuals with a verified gambling disorder, there is a relationship between gambling advertising and gambling severity, and that regulators have an empirical basis on which to restrict the exposure to gambling advertising among these vulnerable groups.
During hearings on the former Bill S-269 at committee, we heard from numerous witnesses who referenced these studies and others. According to Raffaello Rossi, a lecturer in marketing at the University of Bristol who appeared before our committee, research that he did at the University of Bristol in partnership with the CBC found that viewers are subject to three gambling ads a minute when watching sports on television.
This has not gone unnoticed by Canadians, and it hasn’t taken long for them to get sick and tired of these ads. A survey conducted by Maru Group in February of last year found that 75% of Canadians said there is a need to protect children and youth from sports betting ads; 66% said that those commercials should not be allowed during live broadcasts; and 59% believe a nationwide ban on the ads should be implemented immediately.
We also have the matter of the entire country — the whole of Canada — being subject to the whims of advertising from just one province. I remind you, colleagues, that, thus far, single-game sports betting within the confines of a legal private sector only exists in Ontario. Ads for these private companies that you see in Alberta, British Columbia or Newfoundland are technically illegal, as those who live there cannot legally bet with them. This creates a lot of problems.
Will Hill — whom we’ve met — the executive director of the Canadian Lottery Coalition, told the committee during the study of Bill S-269 that:
When a player in a different province than Ontario sees one of these ads on Hockey Night in Canada during one of the intermissions and then goes to log on their computer, and on their sports news website of choice there’s a digital banner with an operator, they actually develop the perception that it must be legal. If I’ve seen it on TV and I see it there on my computer while I’m sitting here in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or elsewhere, if it’s coming to me, then there must be some legitimacy to it. There’s a sheen of legality and authenticity implied by advertising that goes beyond Ontario.
(1750)
Colleagues, why should — arguably — permissive advertising regulations in one province subject the rest of the country to these ads when their own provinces have decided, quite rightly, that they can be harmful?
Colleagues, we know where we are and how we got here. Now let’s get into what this bill will and will not do to tackle the problem.
Let’s start with what this legislation will not do. It will not completely ban gambling ads. After a great deal — many months and probably a few more grey hairs — of consultation with the Law Clerk’s office, reviewing cases and listening to constitutional experts like our retired colleague Senator Cotter, with whom I worked closely on this bill, it was decided that the harm of gambling ads may not reach the threshold of harm that we see with cigarettes, for instance, which, after decades of court battles, were effectively banned from advertising.
That’s the bar a gambling ad would have to clear before the Supreme Court of Canada. And while a ban was my initial aspiration, approach and dream, we decided it was prudent here to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: to ask for reasonable guardrails rather than seeking a ban that could lead to years of court battles. All the while, these companies would be free to advertise unabated and likely win the argument that a ban is an infringement on their free speech.
So what does this bill do instead? As with Bill S-269, Bill S-211 will require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop a national framework on the advertising of sports betting. The minister must:
. . . identify measures to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting the number, scope or location — or a combination of these — of the advertisements or to limiting or banning the participation of celebrities and athletes in the promotion of sports betting;
Also, they must:
. . . identify measures to promote research and intergovernmental information-sharing related both to the prevention and diagnosis of minors involved in harmful gambling activities and to support measures for persons who are impacted by it; and . . .
— of course —
. . . set out national standards for the prevention and diagnosis of harmful gambling and addiction and for support measures for persons who are impacted by it.
In doing this, you must remember the minister must consult with:
. . . the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Employment and Social Development, the Minister responsible for mental health and addictions, the Minister of Indigenous Services, and any other ministers who, in the Minister’s opinion, have relevant responsibilities;
At that time, they must consult “. . . representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, including those responsible for consumer affairs, health, mental health and addictions;”
They must also consult with “relevant stakeholders —”
— and we learned about many —
— including self-advocates, service providers and representatives from the medical and research communities and from organizations within the advertising and gambling industries whom the Minister considers as having relevant experience . . . .
Last, this legislation also refers to the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Clause 6 states that the CRTC:
. . . must review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.
When we look at accountability, the commission must report its conclusions and recommendations to the minister no later than the first anniversary of the day on which this act receives Royal Assent. In turn:
The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Minister receives it.
I could go on, colleagues, on the issues we will see in this country if we do not better regulate this advertising.
I could reference more research, but, in the interests of getting this bill to the next stage quickly, as is my hope, I will leave you with the words of Lord Michael Grade, a witness on Bill S-269, who chaired a House of Lords committee on problem gambling in the U.K. and was the former chair of the BBC. He told us, “With the knowledge that you — ”
— Canada —
— have of what has gone on around the world, most particularly in the U.K., Australia and other places, you would be in dereliction of duty, if I may be so bold, if you ignore this problem now that you have legalized it in the way that you have. There is a serious problem of regulation that you must address. There are many case studies and case histories that will inform and help you to draw the line between restriction and freedom to gamble. . . . you are lucky in one respect that you have all of this case law and history from around the world that will help you to make the right decisions for Canada.
That’s it, colleagues. We have the benefit of foresight here. We know the problem we are rushing headlong into. Our current approach is reactive at best and permissive at worst. We have a chance to fix something here in this chamber. We let companies find creative ways to get around provincial regulations as they appear. As other provinces allow for their own private markets, which seems inevitable, Canadians will be presented with a patchwork of regulation that will only be as good as its weakest denominator, given, as we have already seen, that the ads on the airwaves care little for provincial boundaries.
We must strike early and while the iron is hot or “hot-ish.” As we all know, there is a renewed sense of provincial and federal cooperation as we face an ever-changing geopolitical landscape. Cooperation is in the air with federal leadership at the fore. There is no better time to try and harmonize national advertising standards as there are with marijuana and alcohol. Why would we shrug our shoulders at gambling addiction, which, as I have noted, has very real individual- and societal-level harms?
We also have some international drivers to take a hard look at this policy with the upcoming G7 meeting here in Canada. The global forum on responsible gaming and gambling policy, which is part of the G7 Canada Brain Economy Summit, is scheduled to take place in Calgary on June 13 to 14 — next week.
This initiative is formally aligned with the United Nations General Assembly and with G7 Canada, G20 South Africa and the World Economic Forum Brain Economy Action Forum and priorities around brain health, human capital and economic resilience. Canada can show it can take a leadership role in this area only when it starts to deal with the scale of the problem here at home.
Colleagues, with that in mind, I would like to ask your indulgence in getting this legislation passed quickly and back into the other house so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are one step closer to protection from the proven harms of gambling promotion at the scale we are seeing it today.
Thank you.
Hon. David M. Wells: Senator Deacon will you take a question, please?
Senator M. Deacon: I will.
Senator D. M. Wells: You will know, obviously, that I was heavily involved as the sponsor in the Senate of the sports betting bill when it came here a number of years ago. I appreciate you putting forth this bill again. I like it. I think it’s necessary, but I also recognize that it is a framework and doesn’t take action on things that would go into legislation, which is currently provincial.
What are some of the measures that would you like to eventually see implemented that would provide the protections that you are seeking and that, I think we would all agree, are required?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Wells, for the important question.
We are learning domestically, internationally, and from so many parents who are beside themselves, what it is that we can look at and improve to pull the reins in tighter.
One of the suggestions is no advertising five minutes before the start of a bell or a whistle at a game and until five minutes after a game. Another piece might be the time of day: The advertising would not start until after 9 or 10 p.m. These are some of the basic pieces that would signify a start. There are other examples like that.
In the consultation process, like meeting with 43 countries in person at Lac-Leamy, we talk about this issue and what they are doing to address it. We have heard a number of suggestions and strategies.
We would love a full ban, but we don’t see it as realistic at this moment. So how do we take this and minimize the exposure? As you heard me say in my speech about the bill, some of it is the education piece. I have a spreadsheet on what has been earned in this province — what sort of money is coming out of this — to better understand where that is going to help address some of those issues and what I’m talking about today.
It’s not an easy conversation to have, because a lot of money is at stake. Companies are making money, but they are also at the table.
Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Would Senator Deacon take a question?
(1800)
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Senator Housakos: Thank you. Thank you for bringing back this important bill. We also had the privilege of studying it a little bit together at the Transport and Communications Committee in the last Parliament.
I have to admit, I’m a little less preoccupied about the fact that single sports betting has become a nuisance for all of us that are watching a Blue Jays game or Stanley Cup game and we’re bombarded with these ads. Canadians will overcome that, I think, over time.
I am more concerned by the fact that there are many people, particularly young people, that are falling into addiction, and it’s a terrible affliction that leads to social and economic challenges.
So the question I have for you, is this bill in any way going to impact or does it threaten to impact a media that is in decline, a media that needs revenue — money — in a serious way, and they depend on these oversaturated advertising dollars to help out with what we all agree has become a challenge in the mainstream media market?
What kind of an impact will this have as well when it comes to impacting institutions like the CFL, which is so important in Canada, without the ad dollars coming in from television and radio for professional sports organization like the CFL and others? Have we looked at all those implications?
My other question, I’ll sneak it in as well, the most important one: Have we gotten any data of what percentage, what number of Canadians are actually participating in online sports betting? And I know it’s difficult, but have we gotten any data that shows what percentage fall into this terrible affliction of gambling habits and addiction?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for the question. I will count to three on that, I think it is.
The first part you said is anecdotal about it being kind of a pain, the Jays game and these different things going on and just sort of a distraction. And I just want to stop there for one quick second and say absolutely, our demographic, it just bothers us. It’s just a pain. It’s just a distraction and you want it gone.
That younger group, I have to tell you, and this gentleman at the University of Toronto, his name is Dr. Steve Joordens, is learning about the psychology and the impact, and how this impacts one person that also impacts eight bodies around them in that younger demographic — it is really quite fascinating.
In committee or in the meetings I’ve been in, learning how this brain is functioning for younger people has been a sidebar of this learning. Those two areas, the demographic that is more mature and the young and the difference in the impact, number one.
Number two, I’m going to call it the money piece, the generation of revenue, the generation of income. I think when we talk to the folks that are the revenue makers and the conversation we have is a reminder that we’re not banning the gambling and not banning the advertising. When they’re looking at the numbers and the dent this is going to make in their revenue, this is not wiping out these organizations or influencing their bottom dollar as much as one might think.
Now, for Senator Housakos’ question, we don’t have the exact data in numbers. What we’re saying, and what we’re being told, is by what you’re looking at pulling the reins in, these companies are still going to make big bucks. And we have been talking about that both in Canada and internationally.
One of the reasons it’s a big topic — and we have 43 countries sitting in Lac-Leamy represented — is because of the upcoming World Cup. So the World Cup — football, soccer — they’re really trying to understand the impact around the world on this and what these bottom-line dollars are that you’re asking about today.
The one about data and how many Canadians, what is the percentage? We are getting in Canada, and in parts of Canada, more and more data. One of the things about proroguing has been bringing more and more data forward. The two things that have been coming forward are sort of the percentage that I talked about in the speech through the Maru study on the percentage of Canadians and the time that we’re getting the advertising showing on different mediums that are not decreasing and increasing.
So when we get into committee, I think by the time this happens, there will be four more rounds of Canadian data that makes this very compelling, that the situation is not stabilized, not declining but continuing. Thank you.
Hon. Pat Duncan: Would Senator Deacon take another question?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Senator Duncan: First of all, I would like to say thank you very much for bringing forward this bill, again.
I think it’s very important.
I would like to follow up on some of the data that you have spoken about and ask if it could be made available.
When Diamond Tooth Gerties, the first licensed gambling hall in all of Canada, was licensed in Dawson City, Yukon, the requirement of their licence was money had to go back to the community. And my concern is following the money. Where is the money from online gambling in Canada really going? Do you have the breakdown by province, territory, jurisdiction?
I heard you buy time, that time zone is a real factor in all of this as well. So, if you have that information would you share it, please?
Senator M. Deacon: I will not share, line-by-line, the chart today with you, but we did spend quite a bit of time pulling together a spreadsheet on what this is from coast to coast. So you have that information available, in that respect.
The other piece that you were looking at, that data, and you were also looking at —
Senator Duncan: Where does it go?
Senator M. Deacon: Right, yes. And I have asked that question so many times. That’s a difficult feedback piece for us to get right now, but we have asked for it. We have what I would call some skeletal feedback from Ontario, some sort of basic feedback. But there is also an accountability piece there that needs to be much stronger.
And I would say to you, and I would be candid in saying, we talk sometimes about lack of services, support, health, activities, sport. What do we do with some of these revenues, the percentage on the revenues or the GST, whatever it is? There are some very worthwhile lanes this could be used for provincially because that’s where it is. We have to remember the jurisdictional challenge here — this is provincial — and how it could be much more transparent. That’s our challenge. We’ve asked the question, “Can you give us the return?” It’s been tough to get. Thank you.
Hon. Denise Batters: Just a brief question. Earlier Senator Housakos was referencing the CFL and any impact on that. But, as I understand it, I don’t think the CFL actually receives revenue from these types of gambling ads. I believe that the revenues simply go to TSN, CTV occasionally, those broadcasters who are broadcasting the CFL, is that correct?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the question. So just to clarify, we’re looking at the advertising and money generated from advertising.
If the CFL — and maybe you know, Senator Batters, better than I do what that is on their helmet or on a hockey helmet? Clearly, there are logos all over the place. Those are logos of advertising that are going between the sponsors and that sports body, right?
These are really good questions because there are a million different business models like this. And I’ve had to maybe grow a little bit stronger shoulders because I’ve had some really interesting, informative, but also some pretty scary conversations on what this looks like from company to company and within the media.
We can say, “Oh, they shouldn’t be doing that.” Well, we have to take a close look on some of these, I’m going to call them, media conglomerates who own this company, which owns this and what they’re doing in this lane.
This is why those folks too with really different perspectives have to be part of that stakeholder consultation in pulling this framework together.
(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)
(1810)
Constitution Act, 1982
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Peter Harder moved second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 (notwithstanding clause).
He said: Honourable senators, it is a touch poetic that these walls, once privy to the negotiations to patriate the Canadian Constitution, will once again hear debate to restrict one of the defining compromises that brought that repatriation to life.
This Senate of Canada Building was once the Government Conference Centre, where political stalwarts gathered to discuss a plethora of ideas spearheaded by the federal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
The patriation package, as it is known, transferred the British North America Act, renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 — the nation’s highest law — from the authority of the British Parliament. Beyond removing the grasp of British institutions on our national dealings, the package sought to introduce amendment formulas to alter the Constitution here at home.
No idea was larger or more influential than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No compromise was discussed in greater detail than the acceptance of section 33 of the Charter, known as the “notwithstanding” clause.
What was the compromise? The federal government would get their constitutional package, forever changing our rights landscape in Canada, and the provinces — which asked for the “notwithstanding” clause — would ensure their legislative supremacy over the courts when there was seen to be an important conflict of rights.
For the purposes of my remarks, I will use the terms “’notwithstanding’ clause,” “section 33,” and “override” interchangeably.
Prime minister Pierre Trudeau found no joy by including the “notwithstanding” clause and made it clear during and after the patriation of the Charter. Jean Chrétien, Attorney General at the time, wrote in his book My Stories, My Times:
After 1982, whenever I met Pierre Elliot Trudeau, he rarely missed an opportunity to express his frustration at having been forced to accept section 33.
Why was this? Well, Trudeau regretted the Charter was not fully entrenched because governments could still diminish rights by using the “notwithstanding” clause. Yet, it is precisely because of this compromise that we have the Charter today. Those who attended the constitutional discussions agree that without section 33 there would have been no Charter.
Compromise is a cornerstone of a functional democracy. Voters may choose and compromise their choice in elected representatives for what they view to be a greater benefit. Governments may compromise to pass platform commitments, especially minority governments. Even we, as senators, have compromised to move business forward or to simply agree on a committee report. It’s a notifiable way to ensure that viewpoints encompass all that we hear.
But compromise can be tricky, as evidenced by the constitutional negotiations of the early 1980s. It can also be hard work.
It has become apparent to me that, increasingly, populist governments would rather avoid compromise when it comes to the Charter of Rights of Canadians by invoking the “notwithstanding” clause. Oftentimes, it is done pre-emptively, going against all intentions of the provincial representatives who originally fought for it.
This was summed up brilliantly by Thomas Axworthy when he stated:
Today, with polarization and partisanship expanding exponentially, compromise seems to be out of favour when compared to the delights of single-issue fervour.
Politics have turned into a blood sport. The rhetoric and histrionics used by political parties — some more than others — seek to divide and create an “us versus them” mentality. Where the party goes, the base blindly follows, and facts, logic and reason hold no persuasion.
Compromise becomes futile because there is no talking with the perceived enemy. Not everyone encourages or follows this approach, but there’s enough of it to be damaging to our political institutions.
While it has been the provinces which have engaged in what I would call misuses of the “notwithstanding” clause, the then Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, not so subtly hinted at its use for certain criminal justice reforms in remarks he gave to the Canadian Police Association, or CPA, in April 2024.
This year, on April 15, during the campaign, Mr. Poilievre went further and explicitly stated a Conservative government’s intention to invoke the “notwithstanding” clause for consecutive sentencing. This is an example of that single-issue fervour noted by Mr. Axworthy.
At the time of the CPA speech, it seemed a Conservative majority government was a sure thing, which surely played into the calculus of the then party leader. The “notwithstanding” clause has never been used federally, and Mr. Poilievre’s announcement worried me a great deal.
The “notwithstanding” clause has lain in abeyance for 43 years, and yet no prime minister has clarified the federal government’s position on its use. It has now taken the threat of a federal provocation for Parliament to wake up and consider how best to deal with such a case should it appear, including us in the Senate. How do we rationalize its use when considering our constitutional duties in this chamber?
Stemming from the motion I introduced last spring, I’ve decided to turn that discussion into action. For those who weren’t here at the time or don’t remember my motion, it called on the Senate to express the view that it should not adopt any bill containing a declaration pursuant to section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the “notwithstanding” clause.
I encourage you to read my speech but, more importantly, those of Senator Ringuette, Senator Cotter and Senator Simons, who also participated in the debate. For what it’s worth, my speech to that motion provides the context as to why I introduced Bill S-218. The wording of the motion was meant to be provocative to inspire discussion and debate. Similarly, you will find that Bill S-218 is equally, if not more, provocative; it seeks to amend our Constitution.
Could this have been a stand-alone bill? Of course it could. However, I didn’t pursue a stand-alone bill for a couple of reasons. First, seeking to alter how the federal government approaches fundamental rights and freedoms in this country — especially ones of this magnitude — should be advanced in an equally serious way.
Second, a constitutional amendment attracts prominence. The point is to be provocative, ensuring robust debate and study on something consequential.
A stand-alone piece of legislation restricting the use of section 33 is constitutional-amendment-adjacent. I want to be direct in stating that the intention is to amend the Constitution, not to appear to be doing so from a distance.
Amending the Constitution isn’t easy because of the constitutional amending formula attributed at the same time as our Charter. However, the amending formula under section 44, dealing with federal, unilateral amendments to the Constitution, may be of service.
Our former colleague Senator Cotter acknowledged this could be the case when speaking to my motion. I would hope that Senator Gold has a similar reading. I look forward to his participation in this debate.
As a reminder to others, the section 44 unilateral amending formula reads as follows, under the heading “Amendments by Parliament”:
Subject to sections 41 and 42 —
— that is, the amendment by unanimous consent formula and the amendment by general procedure —
— Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
This formula is one of the most easily achievable and has been used in the past to increase seats in the House of Commons and to provide representation to Nunavut here in the Senate after its formation in 1999.
Bill S-218 is a more creative use of this amending formula, though one that I believe captures its nature. It does not disturb other amending formulas or the underlying architecture of the Constitution as described by the Supreme Court in its reference on Senate reform in 2014.
This is a relatively simple amendment to a federal use of the section. Bill S-218 is entitled “An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 (notwithstanding clause)” and amends the Constitution to insert section 33.1 after section 33, which deals with the override.
(1820)
The first provision of this bill, proposed subsection 33.1(1), falls under the heading “Application.” This makes it very clear that the bill affects only the federal Parliament and leaves the provinces out. Provincial inclusion would require a different amending formula with the necessary consultation. That isn’t viable as a Senate public bill. Also, senators may notice that the wording of this provision is taken almost verbatim from paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Charter, which speaks to the application of the Charter as a whole. This ensures continuity with the wording of that proposed subsection while confirming its inapplicability to the provinces.
The next provision, proposed subsection 33.1(2), introduces terminology for the purposes of this bill. The first is “declaration,” referring to a “notwithstanding” clause declaration made under section 33 of the Charter that any act or provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. These sections pertain to our fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights.
The second term is “infringing bill.” An infringing bill refers to any bill containing a declaration. These terms are found within the bill, and it is helpful to understand their meaning.
Proposed subsection 33.1(3) is simple. It delineates that an infringing bill must be introduced by a minister in the House of Commons. While the government may, in some instances, opt to initiate the legislative process for their bill in the Senate for efficiency or to get a sense of where the Senate is on a particular bill, under this paragraph of Bill S-218, an infringing bill must begin in the House of Commons, much like appropriations and tax bills.
I decided to approach an infringing bill in this way because the current protections built into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding a use of the “notwithstanding” clause and the compromise made between the federal government and the provinces to ensure its patriation require an informed and engaged electorate to keep governments’ feet to the fire. This is found under current subsections 33(3) to 33(5) of the Charter, imposing a five-year sunset clause on a use of the “notwithstanding” clause and a requirement to re-enact a declaration for its continuance. Five years would normally encapsulate an election period, and this would ensure that the electorate had the ability to toss out the government should they discover rights violations stemming from the use of the override to be a final straw.
I argued in my motion speech that I don’t feel this is protection enough against rights violations. It is also for this reason that an infringing bill must begin in the House of Commons with elected representatives. We are not elected and are, therefore, the illegitimate starting point for such a debate.
The next provision deals with prior rulings. This is an exceptionally important part of Bill S-218 because it removes a federal government’s ability to pre-emptively use the “notwithstanding” clause. The pre-emptive use is at the root of recent provincial abuses and has offered telling conclusions as to why it should be removed altogether, federally. The compromise to incorporate the clause in the Charter never included the invocation of the clause prior to the judiciary having their say.
During Doug Ford’s first intended pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause in 2018, to reduce the size of Toronto’s city council, Jean Chrétien, Roy Romanow and Roy McMurtry came out against its use, saying it was against the spirit of the compromise. That is very important, because they are the three so-called kitchen cabinet who thought up the “notwithstanding” clause compromise which made patriation successful.
For the purposes of this bill, there are two avenues ensuring the judiciary has their say. The first is if the Supreme Court has been referred a bill or a provision thereof under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act and has found that bill or provision to be unconstitutional. The second is by the usual process of an outside party challenging the constitutionality of a law or a provision thereof and having it work its way to the Supreme Court as the court of final appeal, which then finds it to be unconstitutional. Either way, unconstitutionality would have to be in relation to section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter as a proper invocation of section 33 currently dictates.
Should our highest court find unconstitutionality, the minister could then introduce an infringing bill, but the language of the bill would have to match that of the court-tested unconstitutional provisions. If the language changes from that which has already been tested, it could nullify the process of an infringing bill. We all know that language matters when drafting laws.
Further to this, as Sujit Choudhry and George Anderson wrote for a symposium honouring Peter Hogg:
. . . prohibiting the preemptive use . . . increases the political costs and reduces the likelihood of its use by forcing a government to confront a judgment finding a law unconstitutional. . . .
It adds to proper discourse between the courts and the executive and legislative branches, as originally intended.
The next four provisions of Bill S-218 attempt to guarantee there is proper public disclosure and awareness as to what the rights violations are and the government’s rationale for pursuing a “notwithstanding” override with an infringing bill. The first includes a preamble within an infringing bill incorporating the reasons for the declaration. Preambles are common course in legislative drafting.
The next provision, proposed subsection 33.1(6), requires that a Charter statement be tabled with the infringing bill speaking to the potential effects on rights under section 2 and sections 7 to 15, along with the reasons why an infringement of those rights can’t be justified using section 1 of the Charter alone. This proposed section allows governments to infringe Charter rights subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. The government must detail why it chose to invoke the “notwithstanding” clause rather than utilize the well-known test for complying with section 1.
As stated by Senator Cotter during his speech last Halloween, the “notwithstanding” clause:
. . . pre-emptively delegitimizes many rights and, implicitly, the value of section 1 — the rights-limiting clause — and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada in crafting a sophisticated approach to section 1.
The government should have to explain its position in advance.
The subsequent provision falls under the heading of “Time allocation.” Simply, it removes the ability to curtail debate on an infringing bill. It applies to both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is vital to ensuring that such important matters be considered fully before any potential vote occurs.
Proposed subsection 33.1(8) of Bill S-218 is similar to that of the previous provision but relates to Committees of the Whole in both chambers. Should an infringing bill receive a positive vote moving it to committee stage, a Committee of the Whole cannot be used to expedite study. Committee study is the most important work MPs and senators undertake, and it is where in-depth analysis takes place and expert opinions are heard. We use the information to supplement our thinking as lawmakers and offer potential solutions or compromises. Eliminating the committee process on such a fundamental issue as Charter rights is neglectful and uncaring, especially for minority populations who are most frequently at the wrong end of rights abuses.
I hope these four provisions will work to better inform Canadians of legislation that fundamentally affects their constitutional rights so that the so-called five-year sunset already found within the Charter can operate as intended. The “notwithstanding” clause is meant to check the courts, and the people are meant to check the government, but what checks an uninformed populace? If Canadians aren’t aware that their rights are being abused, the five-year sunset clause is impotent. Populist governments will take the easy path to achieve their ends, as we have seen provincially. Guardrails are needed.
The final provision would change voting requirements in the House of Commons. Under this proposal, any motion to read an infringing bill for a third time will require a supermajority of 66% of votes in the House from the entire membership. That is 227 votes in favour out of 343. Further, should a majority government have more than 227 seats, there is a requirement that another recognized party support the infringing bill.
This would only apply to the House of Commons, not the Senate. The elected chamber should have the weightier decision-making duty. The Senate will contemplate the same in due course but with consideration to the decision of the elected chamber. This is an accountability and transparency measure that I hope the chamber would agree with.
(1830)
Make no mistake, these proposed amendments intend to make a federal invocation of section 33 more difficult but not impossible. I believe these amendments run parallel to the original intentions of the drafters of this clause more than four decades ago. In 2025, this is more important than ever. Today, Canadians often don’t understand Charter rights or what they mean, and they are largely ignorant of the “notwithstanding” clause. This can be explained by the simple passage of time as well as the clause’s relative disuse until 2018. But it’s also because of the way many Canadians receive information and distrust institutions and authority figures generally. Properly informing Canadians of their rights and what an override may do to them is the very purpose of this bill.
Let’s remove the shortcuts, slow down the process and ensure that Canadians know what’s at stake before there’s a federal abuse of section 33. This is why a full judicial appeal process must be standard before the introduction of an infringing bill and why unfettered debate should be encouraged. If a government wants to override our rights, it should explain itself by meeting these criteria.
Colleagues, these conditions are not all my own. I spoke to the Peter Lougheed principles during my motion speech. Lougheed, the premier of Alberta at the time of the constitutional negotiations, along with Sterling Lyon of Manitoba and Allan Blakeney of Saskatchewan were adamant defenders of the idea of the “notwithstanding” clause.
Lougheed spoke to the “notwithstanding” clause and its inclusion in the Charter at the University of Calgary during a very famous lecture in 1991. I wish to quote from it where he said:
The purpose of the override is to provide an opportunity for the responsible and accountable public discussion of rights issues, and this might be undermined if legislators are free to use the override without open discussion and deliberation of the specifics of its use. There is little room to doubt that, when defying the Supreme Court, as well as overriding a pronounced right, a legislature should consider the importance of the right involved, the objective of the stricken legislation, the availability of other, less intrusive, means of reaching the same policy objective, and a host of other issues. It should not . . . be the responsibility of the Courts [said Lougheed] to determine whether a limit is reasonable or demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. . . .
Having witnessed the uses of the “notwithstanding” clause in Quebec which applied it writ large to their laws in protest of being the only province not to sign the Charter, and in Saskatchewan which used it pre-emptively in a labour relations bill, Lougheed concluded that the original purpose of the clause wasn’t being respected nor was it providing an opportunity for responsible and accountable public discussion of rights issues.
After nine years of thinking about the “notwithstanding” clause, Lougheed — in this very same lecture — proposed three amendments to the section.
The first is that Parliament or a legislature be required to spell out the purpose of any legislation disallowing standard form overrides of rights. This was a proposal from the 1985 Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, also known as the Macdonald royal commission. The commission’s recommendation reads as follows:
The Charter’s general override provision should contribute to public awareness of legislation limiting the constitutional rights of citizens in Canada.
Overriding legislation should include a declaration of intent to legislate, notwithstanding a provision of the Charter, and should include not only reference to the specific rights being overridden, but also an indication of the purpose of such legislative action.
Such a statement would help the courts to ensure that limitations do not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objective; it could also be a useful reference point in discussions on whether to extend the override after the five-year period.
This approach is covered to some extent in Bill S-218.
The second Lougheed amendment would require a supermajority of 60%. He argues that invoking the “notwithstanding” clause is too substantive an action by the elected body and requires a higher level of authorization than a simple majority. This is consistent with a 1991 proposal paper offered by the Government of Canada, entitled “Shaping Canada’s Future Together,” which proposed a 60% supermajority. I agree and I have insisted instead on a two-thirds majority consisting of two recognized parties, ensuring dialogue and compromise.
Lougheed’s last amendment proposal ensures the “notwithstanding” clause is never invoked pre-emptively.
He states:
In my mind, such an action is undemocratic in that the purpose of section 33 was ultimate supremacy of Parliament over the judiciary not domination over or exclusion of the judiciary’s role in interpreting the relevant sections of the Charter of Rights.
He anticipated that all rights of appeal be exhausted before an invocation, which you will find under the “Prior ruling” subheading in Bill S-218, though I have proposed that a reference to the Supreme Court would also be action-provoking.
I have tried to incorporate Lougheed’s principles into my own bill because I believe, as he did, that they are pragmatic amendments preventing the abusive nature of section 33.
Some of Canada’s major law associations have also called for versions of Lougheed’s proposal to safeguard or limit the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. In a letter entitled “Establishing Guidelines Concerning Use of the Notwithstanding Clause” to then-Minister of Justice and Attorney General Arif Virani, the Canadian Bar Association proposed four guidelines which include: barring the pre-emptive use of section 33; requiring a two-thirds majority vote in a legislature or Parliament; a requirement of meaningful and transparent public consultation before invocation; and preambular statements as to why it has been considered necessary to invoke the clause.
These proposed guidelines are all found within Bill S-218.
In December 2024, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, also wrote to then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a letter entitled “Misuses of the Notwithstanding Clause Are a Threat to Our Charter.” The CCLA recommends three limitations, two of which we know well: disallowing pre-emptive use of the clause and a supermajority requirement when voting. This builds on their Save Our Charter campaign, which can be found on their website, and it speaks to the damages of recent uses at the provincial level.
The third limitation in their letter would allow courts to review uses of the “notwithstanding” clause. This, in my opinion, may be a bridge too far considering the original purpose of the inclusion of section 33 by the provinces. If public consultation is part and parcel of the “notwithstanding” clause process, this should suffice in allaying fears of its misuse. Put another way, if the populace is determined to be the final arbiter of rights issues, let them be informed of the trade-offs before the federal executive can ascertain the ability to invoke.
A question can be asked here: How is it possible to legislate these guidelines when we are not able to legislate in a restrictive way for future governments? I would say that there is a difference between legislating substantive issues and legislating procedural requirements. Bill S-218 does the latter; it places self-imposed procedural restraints on the enactment of federal bills invoking the “notwithstanding” clause. These are also known as manner and form requirements.
Professor Craig Scott from Osgoode Hall Law School stated manner and form requirements are the following:
. . . statutory requirements that one legislature seeks to impose on future legislatures in the form of either inhibitory preconditions or facilitative permissions for the enactment, amendment or repeal of statutes or provisions within statutes. . . .
The manner-and-form requirement of Bill S-218 would be an inhibitory precondition for the enactment of laws containing the “notwithstanding” clause.
While Bill S-218 legislates in a restrictive way by implementing a manner-and-form requirement, it does not withhold the ability of federal governments to invoke the “notwithstanding” clause, nor are these amendments immune from repeal. They would be difficult to repeal, however, based on these grounds and on what is being protected. One of Canada’s foremost constitutional experts the late Peter Hogg was confident that manner-and-form amendments are appropriate in Canada’s legal structure.
(1840)
Coming from his authoritative constitutional text Constitutional Law of Canada, he wrote:
While a legislative body is not bound by self-imposed restraints as to the content, substance or policy of its enactments, it is reasonably clear that a legislative body may be bound by self-imposed procedural (or manner and form) restraints on its enactments.
He then wrote:
Would the Parliament or a Legislature be bound by self-imposed rules as to the “manner and form” in which statutes were to be enacted? The answer, in my view, is yes.
If Bill S-218 makes its way through Parliament to receive Royal Assent, it would be a self-imposed law: Parliament would have agreed to the restrictions it is placing on itself.
Manner-and-form restrictions aren’t without precedent. For example, provinces abolished their upper houses using ordinary legislation, making them unicameral. This is manner-and-form legislation. Parliament or legislatures could add other elements to their legislative processes for all laws, or for particular kinds, as long as their ability to do so isn’t usurped by a constitutional amending formula. Yes, I am using a constitutional amending formula, but the federal unilateral amending formula — not one that requires consultations and the amending formula involving provincial governments.
While this bill seeks to make legislating the use of the “notwithstanding” clause more onerous, both Peter Hogg and Craig Scott bring up the example from Westminster, which used manner-and-form requirements to make legislating easier. The British Parliament Act, 1911, was enacted by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It provided that a bill could be become an act of Parliament without the consent of the Lords if it were passed by the Commons and rejected by the Lords in three consecutive sessions of Parliament over a period of not less than two years.
The Commons then used this manner-and-form procedure in 1949, without consent of the Lords, to add further leniency to the same provisions, increasing the power of the Commons by delaying the Lords’ delaying power to two sessions and one year.
The manner-and-form requirement initially established with the Lords was subsequently used against them.
Hogg indicates in his manner-and-form chapter in Constitutional Law of Canada that in order for a manner-and-form provision to be fully effective in law it must also apply to itself. This is called being “doubly entrenched” or “self-referencing.” Essentially, manner and form must not only apply to the protected category of laws — in this case, federal laws that invoke the “notwithstanding” clause — but it must also apply to laws that seek to amend or repeal the manner-and-form provision itself. If we were to follow his recommendation, the criteria I have provided allowing for an invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause would also apply to amendments to, or the repealing of, this bill. I decided against the double entrenching of this provision, and I am glad to see Senator Gold nodding in approval.
The fact that a constitutional amendment is being sought should be enough to deter future governments from trying to repeal it altogether. It wouldn’t be a winning strategy to attempt to reduce those rights we are trying to protect through the outright repeal of Bill S-218.
It is by amending the Constitution that the manner-and-form requirements gain credence. In amending the Constitution for these purposes, it, too, will form part of our supreme law.
A standalone bill attempting to do the same wouldn’t have the same gravitas or deter abuses. It’s another reason why I felt it appropriate to amend the Constitution itself rather than taking an outside-looking-in method of a standalone bill.
Taking the arduous path here is the right approach. It displays the federal government’s leadership and the importance it places on protecting fundamental rights. If the federal government implements restrictions on the use of the override through a constitutional amendment, perhaps the provinces will be inspired to do the same. My hope is that provinces will see the benefits of being self-limiting and reduce the tyranny of the majority in its use.
An argument could be made that the “notwithstanding” clause has fallen into disuse since it has not been used federally in 43 years. As a result, restricting its use is easier for the federal government than for the provinces.
As such, a constitutional convention of disuse may now exist. This is an opinion also shared by Senator Cotter, who, in the same speech I referenced earlier, said:
. . . we have matured as a nation . . . with the assistance of the Supreme Court of Canada and its own articulation of rights and their limitations. We have matured in our understanding of basic rights and their boundaries to the extent that parliamentary interference to negate those rights is no longer needed — hence a convention, at least with respect to Parliament, that the notwithstanding clause is inoperative.
He goes on to say that this maturation:
. . . has taken us to a place where as citizens, we recognize as a matter of principle that it is no longer wise to preserve parliamentary supremacy in ways that can deny . . . human rights. . . .
He continues:
. . . we are in a new era in which the preservation of certain rights, those captured in the Charter, adequately defined and circumscribed, ought not to be exposed to the vagaries of parliamentary supremacy.
This was my thought process when first hearing the then-Leader of the Opposition imply his intended use of the “notwithstanding” clause. But this begs the questions: What if provinces continue to disobey the spirit of the 1982 compromise by continuing use of the clause? When does the federal government step in or do they at all?
An employable tool remains in place for the federal government: disallowance. Found in section 90 of our Constitution, disallowance would essentially allow federal cabinet to remove provincial laws from the books.
The last use of the disallowance power came in 1943, so it can be argued that a constitutional convention exists in its disuse as well.
If a perpetuation of rights violations exists provincially, could we see a federal government blow the dust off this provision? It would likely cause joint crises in constitutionalism and federalism and likely wouldn’t be worth the political costs, so calm down. A convention of disuse of section 33 federally, and a convention of disuse of disallowance should be respected. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I introduced Bill S-218 with the original drafters of the “notwithstanding” clause in mind, and their commitment to compromise. This bill itself is a compromise: while I’d rather see it completely removed, I am proposing safeguards instead. They don’t block its use, and they don’t disrespect parliamentary supremacy. They do, however, restrict its use federally by ensuring that proper conversations occur to inform Canadians, the ultimate arbiters of rights, where their rights stand.
While Mr. Poilievre initially hinted at the use of the clause to the CPA, he removed subtlety altogether during the election campaign by stating that he would impose the “notwithstanding” clause for consecutive sentencing. This is perhaps a not-so-shocking appeal, but keep in mind that this is the first time it has been promised federally.
To borrow an analogy from Benjamin Perrin, Prime Minister Harper’s former legal adviser, the “notwithstanding” clause is part of the Charter like an:
. . . emergency-exit door is part of an airplane: you’d better have a very good reason to use it and be prepared to explain yourself if you do so.
I note that the use of the clause was nowhere in the written Conservative Party platform. This tells me that Mr. Poilievre cares more about politics than the Constitution, and that an abuse of power is worth reaching for as a means to a political end.
He’s also following the provincial movement by attempting to equate democratic legitimacy with rights abuses.
The democratic legitimacy approach is a weak argument, especially when the necessary public discourse is all but avoided. Perhaps more disturbing is that the Conservative Party seemingly supports such an abuse of power overall, as Mr. Poilievre’s remarks speak to larger capital-C Conservative policy on justice reforms.
While an immediate threat of the use of section 33 federally has subsided in the recent election, I would argue that ensuring restrictions prior to a future threat is even more necessary in this Parliament. Political winds shift, and we must be prepared.
I ask that we move this bill to committee for study, where we can call upon experts who are eager to participate.
Rights determinations were always envisaged to be a dialogue between governments and the courts after the courts have spoken. Removing the courts reduces rights to a monologue — an elected, majoritarian soliloquy. It is time to insist on constitutional supremacy.
Thank you.
(1850)
Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Harder, in your speech today, you said the House of Commons should have the weightier decision-making ability for these types of bills. You also called the Senate unelected and stated that it was, therefore, an “. . . illegitimate starting point . . .” for such a bill, which uses section 33 of the Canadian Constitution.
If the Senate, in your words, is an “illegitimate starting point” for such a bill using a section of the Constitution, then why isn’t the Senate also an “illegitimate starting point” for your bill, which seeks to prevent using a section of the Constitution?
Senator Harder: That’s a very good question. I thought of that myself, and I thought we have to start somewhere. I would have gladly endorsed a government bill or a bill in the House of Commons, but let’s start here and engage the other house.
Senator Batters: That’s quite an answer. You spent quite a bit of time — both in your speech today and in the previous speech that you made on the motion earlier — talking about the use of the “notwithstanding” clause by “populist governments.” Saskatchewan’s NDP government under former premier Allan Blakeney — had it not been for Allan Blakeney, I am sure you would concede we would not have the “notwithstanding” clause as part of the Constitution; that was his demand to get the Charter repatriated. Premier Allan Blakeney was a Rhodes Scholar and a long-standing constitutional law scholar. Yet, the “notwithstanding” clause, the use of it and not limiting it to provinces, but also having the possibility of it being used by the federal government, was included in the Canadian Constitution as part of that balancing of rights. I also don’t believe that the former Saskatchewan NDP premier Allan Blakeney would have called himself a populist, ever.
In the Charter’s earlier years, the Quebec provincial government used the “notwithstanding” clause pre-emptively basically every single time they brought a piece of legislation forward. Given that, would you not acknowledge that it is not just populist governments that have considered the “notwithstanding” clause to be the better way to balance rights?
Senator Harder: Just a point on Premier Blakeney first: You are right — he was a constitutional scholar; he was well educated and a Dalhousie graduate, I believe. His Attorney General, Roy Romanow, signed the letter that I referenced earlier saying it was never their intention to use it pre-emptively. That was, I believe, the curse of the use of the “notwithstanding” clause as was experienced in various provincial jurisdictions. I think Mr. Blakeney would share his Attorney General’s interpretation of the pre-emptive use.
As to my reference to populist governments, you’re right; it has not been just populist governments, although populist governments have championed it for very specific targeted groups. We could have that debate; I am happy to have that debate.
Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Harder, you rightly point out that if it had not been for section 33 and the “notwithstanding” clause, the Constitution would not have been repatriated and there would be no Charter of Rights. It is quite similar to the Charlottetown Conference in 1864, when over half the time was spent deciding on the composition of the Senate and whether or not there would be a Senate. The argument at the time was basically “no Senate, no Canada.” So there are compromises made when we are approaching a constitutional issue.
An Hon. Senator: Thank God.
Senator MacDonald: You mention the abusive nature of section 33. Do you consider the use of section 33 by the governments of Quebec and Saskatchewan to be an abuse?
Senator Harder: Let me comment first on your broader point that it was a necessary compromise. Absolutely; I referenced that. That is why I’m not saying that we should abolish the “notwithstanding” clause — or the Senate for that matter — but I would note that at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, Prime Minister Mulroney was a huge critic of the “notwithstanding” clause. His amendments in Charlottetown and Meech Lake were designed to reverse that process and, in a sense, obviate that compromise to provide for a whole new set of inclusions in the Constitution that would have had at least the Government of Quebec’s support.
I think it is important to be clear that federal leadership, from Pierre Elliott Trudeau to Mulroney, Chrétien, Harper and Justin Trudeau, have all been supportive of not invoking the “notwithstanding” clause federally. After 43 years, no government of Canada has ever invoked the “notwithstanding” clause.
You asked about the provincial invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause. I made a statement in the house on Bill C-21, expressing my concerns about its abuse, but this bill does not deal with the provincial use of the “notwithstanding” clause and seeks to set a higher standard for its use at the federal level. Hopefully, it can be a guide and an inspiration to provincial governments and civil society.
The Hon. the Speaker: The time for debate has expired.
Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): I am wondering if Senator Harder would ask for more time so I could ask a question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Harder, are you asking for more time?
Senator Harder: Only if Senator Housakos has questions.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Housakos: I am a little perplexed because I always thought that this institution’s job was to be the custodian of the Charter of Rights and our Constitution. We have provinces; we have elected national assemblies. We have the Parliament of Canada, and we have an amending formula when it comes to amending the Constitution. This is at the core of our Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Would you not think that it would be far more appropriate that this be left in the elected arena for those who have the direct and legitimate right to amend the Constitution and the Charter, and that the adequate place is not this place to start such a debate?
Senator Harder: On the contrary, senator. First of all, this is not an amendment of the Constitution that falls within the broader amending formula. It falls narrowly within the Parliament of Canada prerogatives, and, as I indicated, the bill itself gives greater authority or greater weight to the considerations of the House of Commons. I do believe that a manner-and-form amendment is, quite properly, part of the consideration of this chamber. Hopefully, we will send it to the other chamber, and they will deliberate as well.
Again, this is not about the amending formula writ large, nor the use or abuse of the “notwithstanding” clause by provinces. It is about how the Parliament of Canada will deal with it should a “notwithstanding” clause bill come to us and the manner and form in which we as a legislative chamber, both the House of Commons and Senate, would deal with it. I think it is just good policy hygiene to do so.
Senator Housakos: Amending? We have a tradition in this place of not infringing upon money bills, yet here we are infringing upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution and dictating to a future prime minister or the current prime minister how they can use what is legitimately constitutional within the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. I think a lot of people in the other place and, more importantly, in the Prime Minister’s Office and those sitting in government would find that quite offensive.
Senator Harder: Then let’s agree on sending it there for their deliberation and consideration. As the Senate, let’s deal with it quickly and get it over to the chamber that you referenced and have them deal with this.
Again, the amending of the Constitution that this bill purports is in the manner and form with which Parliament would deal with — should it ever receive one — a bill using the “notwithstanding” clause. I think that you are right. Let’s get this over to the House of Commons because it would be worthy of a debate.
(1900)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is seven o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.
Is it agreed to not see the clock?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.
I want to clarify something, Senator Harder. When you asked for more time, was it to answer Senator Housakos’ question, or were you asking for five more minutes?
Senator Harder: I’m happy to answer questions from Senator Housakos, but I’m also happy to have the room have their dinner.
Senator Housakos: Senator Harder, obviously the chamber will indulge your bill, but one thing that I think all colleagues will agree on is that something of such importance as the Charter of Rights and the Constitution should be indulged, but not quickly — thoroughly, but not quickly.
Senator Harder: Government is slow until it’s fast, and the Senate certainly abides by that principle. I do hope that we can get it to committee and hear from witnesses, because I think that would inform our collective understanding and, perhaps, help in a broader public discourse with interested parties.
I’m not, by any means, suggesting that we rush headlong into this but that we advance it sufficiently so that appropriate in‑depth study at committee can be part of our early agenda.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Harder, there are two more senators wishing to ask questions. Are you asking for more time?
Senator Harder: Sure, and I don’t even know who they are. Absolutely.
The Hon. the Speaker: Do you agree, honourable senators, to allow another five minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: Senator Harder, when you speak about what would be required for such an “infringing bill” to pass the House of Commons, that would be a bill that includes the “notwithstanding” clause use, and that requires two thirds of the membership of the House of Commons as well as members from at least two groups comprised solely of members who are members of the same recognized party.
As an example so that people realize what we are dealing with here and how onerous this is — and, frankly, it feels a little bit like it’s meant to never happen — the current House of Commons has 343 members now. It would require 228 House of Commons members to vote for this, which means, since they have to come from at least two different groups, the only two groups that could actually achieve that would be the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Are you meaning it to be such an onerous step that such a “notwithstanding” clause use would be meant to never pass?
Senator Harder: Senator, Peter Lougheed had the idea first, and I would think that as one of the founders of the constitutional argument and, indeed, the compromise of the “notwithstanding” clause, we should pay attention to him because of his worry about its abuse.
Am I trying to make it more difficult? Absolutely, I’m trying to make it more difficult, because we’re talking about infringing constitutionally enshrined rights. So yes, let’s make it more difficult.
Hon. Scott Tannas: One last question, Senator Harder. I’m going to show my ignorance; I’m not a lawyer.
If some future government decided they wanted to pass something changing the Criminal Code in a bill, like you referenced — it would have to be a bill — couldn’t they just throw in the language to undo what you were proposing be done in the same bill and drive on? Is there any protection that you have wired into this that would protect your bill from a simple majority vote sometime in the future in the House of Commons to unwind it?
My worry is that we have seen this with labour law. Unions have to have secret ballot, and then it’s, no, they can come to your house and make you join, back and forth, back and forth. Since I’ve been here, it has been three different ways.
Is this what we’re going to do to the Constitution now is just have it so that every government changes it, and are you worried that could dilute the sanctity of the Constitution as it stands now?
Senator Harder: Senator, remember, this is a manner and form bill, so it doesn’t change the protections of the Charter. It simply entrenches the process by which a bill using the “notwithstanding” clause has to proceed.
Now, I did not entrench the manner and form amendment, and I spoke about why. However, a government that was determined to advance a bill in violation of the manner and form that we could have introduced would have to first have a piece of legislation revoking that manner and form before they could advance their piece of legislation.
I’m counting on the intelligent debate of parliamentarians and senators of civil society to engage a government that was proposing to do that in a more serious level of discussion on what our Charter rights and freedoms are and what does an infringement of them mean? It would be more complex than worthy of the double entrenchment, if I could put it that way, that you alluded to.
I have deliberately decided to go — if I could say — light on manner and form, but it is a constitutional amendment. I’m not amending the amending formula with the manner and form.
(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)
Business of the Senate
The Hon. the Speaker: I would like to remind all honourable senators that the vote for the election of the Speaker pro tempore is underway in the senators’ workstations and will continue until one hour after the adjournment of the Senate today.
Voting will resume tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4, at 11 a.m. (eastern time) and will end one hour after the adjournment of the Senate, provided that any senator who was waiting at that time has had an opportunity to vote.
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(At 7:08 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)