Senator Patterson: Senator Cordy, you asked why we should not follow the House of Commons in continuing hybrid until the end of June. I would say to you that the problem we have in the Senate is that, unlike the House of Commons, we clearly do not have the adequate resources to support our committees while we’re in the hybrid mode. You understand that those resources are interpreters, technical operators and camera operators. That limits us to one committee meeting per week.

So I would like to ask you this: Would you agree that until we get adequate resources to allow our committees to do the important work that Senate committees do, we should not be embracing the hybrid motion because it’s crippling our ability to do our committee work?

Senator Patterson: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which Senator Dalphond, as sponsor of the bill, has clearly outlined its main provisions and urged that it be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for detailed study.

Senator Dalphond clearly outlined the main provisions of the bill, and he pointed out that since the bill is not a money bill and has been first introduced in the Senate, we have the freedom to make amendments if they seem appropriate. This is more freedom now than if the bill had originated in the other place. I believe that introducing government bills in the Senate is good practice for a government that says it wants thoughtful advice and constructive criticism from the Senate on legislation but often gives us very little time to do this important work. Such review of legislation in a less partisan atmosphere than in the other place is to the benefit of all Canadians.

I wanted to speak to this bill because, as Senator Dalphond said, the bill is about making the justice system more efficient using available technologies. Perhaps nowhere in this great country are there greater challenges of remoteness, adverse weather and air travel than in Nunavut’s 25 isolated, off-road communities in the largest jurisdiction in Canada.

In its first iteration, this bill was introduced in the House of Commons at least in part as a response to COVID; it was an attempt to minimize in-person contacts wherever possible in the justice system. The Nunavut Court of Justice, out of necessity, has always been on the forefront of trying to utilize technology to facilitate remote appearances because of the huge distances and costs resulting from our remote community locations across three time zones in an area covering one fifth the land mass of Canada.

The Nunavut Court of Justice is fundamentally a circuit court. The court travels to all of Nunavut’s communities, multiple times each year, to ensure Nunavummiut have meaningful access to justice at their doorsteps. There is a long tradition in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut of bringing justice to communities, beginning with legendary flying circuit court judges Sissons and Morrow. As a legal aid defence lawyer, I was privileged to travel on the circuit with Judge Morrow. This tradition is honoured today by judges, lawyers, prosecutors and court officers who travel courageously in challenging weather and small planes to bring justice to people’s doors.

Some observers of the Nunavut justice system are concerned that the ability of technology to facilitate remote appearances could have the unintended consequence of diminishing the public’s confidence in the administration of justice in Nunavut if the public sees the court as a purely Iqaluit-based or southern institution. It is seen as essential that lawyers be on the ground meeting and developing relationships with their clients who have matters before the court.

In Nunavut, where severe lockdowns and strict limitations on travel between communities were put in place by public health authorities, COVID shone a light on how valuable technology can be in enabling courts to proceed when personal appearances are not possible, which was very important during the pandemic. Additionally, increasing ways in which certain court appearances can be made without incurring expensive travel costs, which this bill allows, has obvious benefits.

However, a preliminary survey of individuals who work in the criminal justice system in Nunavut suggests that support for the efficient mechanisms offered by the bill still need to be viewed with caution. It was emphasized to me that, as good as the technology is — or can be — it should not be a replacement for in-person appearances when and where possible. This principle will require that attention be paid to the adequacy of safeguards around the use of technology for court appearances. As Senator Dalphond noted, trials and preliminary inquiries will be held only with consent of the accused, and the same safeguard of requiring the accused’s consent will apply to sentencing or pleas by teleconference.

While Bill S-4 is clear about the requirement of consent by both parties for the exercise of its provisions for virtual proceedings, obtaining true, informed consent from people in custody, or indeed anyone, may be made difficult by language and cultural barriers amongst our high-majority Inuit population. I would note that many lawyers for both the Crown and defence are based in Southern Canada and are non-Inuit, non-Inuktitut speakers.

These difficulties of communication are not resolved simply by face-to-face encounters between lawyers, clients and witnesses. Addressing the language and cultural challenges requires significant investment in interpreters and translators, as well as court workers.

Interpreters and court workers have been a mainstay of the system in Nunavut courts since the earliest days. It is encouraging that increasing numbers of young Inuit are entering the legal profession in Nunavut, but many more professionals are needed.

There is a fear that has been expressed about this bill that, without proper safeguards, technology has the potential to turn the court system in Nunavut into a satellite operation where counsel practice remotely in the territory from locations mainly based in southern Canada. This would have a negative impact on access to justice as vulnerable clients would miss out on personal interactions with counsel.

The other important reality that must be recognized in Nunavut is the limitations of the currently available communications technology. One experienced northern lawyer wrote to me saying:

We do want to share that we think Parliament should be wary of passing legislation that depends on technology that is not realistically available in every jurisdiction impacted by the new law.

Colleagues, you have heard me speak on the issue of unreliable connectivity in Nunavut several times, and I will definitely be speaking about this reality many more times. This past weekend, for example, when I went to buy gas and at a local store, the businesses were requiring cash only, since cash machines depending on the internet were either inoperative or painfully slow.

That the internet in Nunavut is not reliable is only one part of the problem. Experienced practitioners in Nunavut observe that we also operate in a jurisdiction that lacks sufficiently sophisticated expertise to deal with technical issues that arise, is disjointed in its technological rollout and generally apathetic about the impact of technological failure on the rights of individuals or the fairness of proceedings.

One practitioner said:

There is a very real risk associated with the new wording of s.650 that people will acquiesce to being physically absent for meaningful parts of their trial because they are (a) disengaged from and indifferent to the process and/or (b) believe that it will lead to expediency — a fast, if not fair, trial.

In this connection, the importance of language and cultural sensitivities is once again brought to the fore. It is notable that, despite two successful iterations of the Akitsiraq law program, which has graduated two cohorts of mostly Inuit lawyers, the defence bar has unfortunately attracted few Inuit lawyers. There is none at present.

It is said that some of those who have tried this work have found the experience triggering. Probably all of these young lawyers will have experienced or witnessed the traumas that lay behind so much of what ends up in court.

In closing, I’d like to express my thanks to Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik legal aid clinic and the defence bar of the Law Society of Nunavut for their preliminary advice on this bill, which is so relevant in Nunavut, and to express the hope that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will seek their input and advice in its study of Bill S-4.

I support sending the bill for study by that committee.

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I would like to ask Senator Cordy a question, if she’d take one.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question. The agreement exists in the context of hybrid meetings and it disadvantages us because of the demands on staff of hybrid meetings. I believe that, through these debates, our Committee on Internal Economy will be inspired to utilize some of the available resources from savings resulting from hybrid sessions to provide our committees with the necessary resources so that they can continue to do the work, notwithstanding the limits of the service agreement with the House of Commons.

All I am saying is that since there appears to be a movement to continue hybrid even beyond April, let’s get our committees working adequately to address this problem within the Senate’s own resources and not rely on the service agreement. Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to give voice to concerns that I know many senators in this chamber have. I have always said that the Senate does its best work in committee. However, our good work is being hampered by the continuation of the hybrid format.

This was the crux of my question to Senator Marwah last week. I’m sure that many a steering committee has also been frustrated by the lack of resources causing severe limitations on timing and committee schedules.

I have the privilege of sitting on two steering committees, and I know well that my steering committee colleagues share my frustration.

I know that this motion will pass today, but as the leaders of the various groups debate whether we will further extend it past April 30, I want to put some important points on the record that I hope will help with our deliberations.

Today alone, 13 committees are meeting in the other place, colleagues. The Senate had three committees meeting today.

While the other place has been able to add meetings and even create two new committees, we are lucky if we get one meeting each week. Why is there such a gap between the resources available in the House versus the Senate?

Well, the first issue we must confront is that some of the much-needed resources we use every day during our committee meetings are not Senate resources but resources from the other place, with whom we have a memorandum of understanding to borrow staff, such as TV booth operators, multimedia system operators and interpreters.

According to the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, CAPE, which is the union representing interpreters, we have 25% less translation capacity than we did pre-pandemic. The main reason for this is stress and illness.

Both CAPE and the International Association of Conference Interpreters have called for a return to in-person meetings in order to safeguard the safety of interpreters. Despite best efforts — and I think we’ve all experienced this — jarring jumps in volume for remote participants in meetings has led to hundreds of injuries since the start of the pandemic, with at least one interpreter suffering an auditory concussion. I have to admit that I had never heard of that particular injury before.

During a March 3, 2022, committee meeting of the House Board of Internal Economy, Translation Bureau Chief Executive Officer Lucie Séguin and House Chief Information Officer Stéphan Aubé both reaffirmed the negative impact that hybrid sittings have on translation staff. Mr. Aubé was clear that, “the more participants are in person, you’ll see a reduction of incidents.”

With the shortage of translators, Senate committees are placed lower in the priority list as, according to the MOU, preference must go to the House. This affects not only those translators who provide simultaneous translation, but also translators in our Translation Bureau. The result — and I think we are all familiar with this in our committee work — has been massive delays in our ability to translate transcripts and written submissions, which has the domino effect of delaying the ability of the Library of Parliament to deliver on briefing notes and reports. It has also forced committees to place word limitations on written submissions, which I think is patently unfair to witnesses who are now faced with condensing their submissions at the expense of important testimony for committee consideration.

The delay in translation of transcripts and written submissions is unacceptable. It either results in senators needing to wait an inordinate amount of time before receiving critical information, particularly when it relates to consideration of a bill, or it forces a situation where senators must first receive the submission in its original language in order to have it considered as part of the testimony. In some cases, the translated version is not received until days later. Colleagues, this is an infringement on every senator’s right to conduct business in their official language of choice.

Leaving aside translation troubles for a moment, when reviewing the Senate Committees Directorate Activities and Expenditures Annual Report 2020-21, I was shocked to learn about the savings that hybrid has provided for committees.

Where we once used to pay up to $5,000 for witnesses appearing by teleconference, which often requires renting a studio, we discovered Zoom as a way to have witnesses appear remotely for the cost of a $100 headset. Remote participation also saves us the need to pay for travel, lodging and per diems of witnesses. It is estimated that this has resulted in savings of at least $450,000 over the past year.

Why, then, honourable senators, are we not using that money to hire our own TV booth operators and multimedia operators? Why are we not putting that money towards more interpreters?

With the greatest of respect, I believe that the statement of the Chair of the Internal Economy Committee, the Honourable Senator Marwah, in answer to my question on this same issue last week — namely, that these vital services are, as he put it, in the purview of the other place — is not acceptable.

Let the Senate be the master of its own house. We must proactively seek ways to ensure that the important work of our committees is not hampered. We need to ensure that our committees are properly resourced. At the very least, I submit that we should be redirecting the money that we save on in‑person witnesses and senators’ travel to ensure that we have the necessary staff in‑house to hold meetings more than once a week. We need to eliminate the limitation that we can have only two committees sitting at a time.

Finally, colleagues, I want to talk about the impact that hybrid has on our privileges. Poor connectivity and strict time limitations have led to no time for senators to ask questions and to some witnesses needing to be cut short in both their presentations and answers to senators. Where we once could count on a potential second round, senators are lucky if they get a single question on the record.

When I moved an amendment in committee relating to Bill C-12, connectivity problems resulted in my not being able to complete the defence of my amendment within the limited time available to the committee. This cannot be allowed to continue.

If we do decide to extend hybrid beyond the end of April, I contend that we must only do so if we have worked and made progress to address the significant concerns I have identified here today. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 14, Senator Kutcher’s motion regarding further study of the federal government’s Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention.

While I applaud the intent, I do have concerns with about this motion. Suicide is a very important issue, but I am wary of yet another study. My constituents in Nunavut, who are dealing with suicide and its impacts every day, need action instead of more studies. We now face a plethora of strategies: the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, the National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy, the First Nations Mental Wellness Continuum Framework, Changing Directions, Changing Lives: The Mental Health Strategy for Canada, and so forth. Many of these frameworks, strategies and studies are designed by southern non-Inuit.

The actions that my constituents in Nunavut need include multi-year, flexible federal funding and a whole-of-government approach. I would rather hear more about the specifics of what they need so that we know exactly what to push the government for. It removes the subjective markers of what is counted as progress and what isn’t. Instead, the question is: Did you deliver the funding or the programs that people are clamouring for?

I wish to thank the Senate for allowing me to speak to my constituents in their first language, no doubt haltingly. I will now speak in Inuktitut. There is an interpreter here. I thank the Senate for arranging that.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Patterson spoke in Inuktitut — translation follows.]

I will be speaking to what is being done in Nunavut. We don’t just want more studies. We want our knowledge. We have lost our own loved ones to suicide, and some people whom we know. This has been happening for a long time now. There are many people from Nunavut who have experienced suicide. There are many reasons why people commit suicide, and I, along with all the people of Nunavut, am affected negatively when a suicide happens.

People have come to me and asked for help to prevent more suicides. There are many reasons behind a suicide, but we do not really know what triggers a suicide. One of the many reasons is trauma. Other reasons are residential schools, the relocation of people, the massacre of dogs, tuberculosis and other things such as mental illness and the banning of the seal skins by people such as Greenpeace. These have greatly affected the lives of Inuit. Those are just some of the reasons. Another factor is a lack of housing and other major gaps in the quality of living that we endure daily.

Since the root cause of most suicides among Inuit is trauma, the best programs to deal with the loss, anger and harm it causes to Inuit are programs led by Inuit.

The Inuit should be involved in administering programs or delivering programs based on their knowledge, based on Inuit knowledge, because they know their land and their environment best.

Longtime northerners know what those programs should be because we have heard the decades of discussions and read many studies that all say the same thing. Nunavummiut need programs that help them learn cultural skills and get them back on the land. They need supports to continue learning vital cultural skills, like sewing, sealskin preparation and hunting. They need to learn about the manufacture and maintenance of hunting equipment.

They need to learn cultural skills, a large part of their culture and hunting skills. These are the skills that sustain the lives of Inuit and have sustained the lives of Inuit, for they are survival skills. While this may not seem connected to suicide prevention, it is important to know that all these skills are ennobling and uplifting. A deeper connection to one’s culture gives strength and stability. Trades and hobbies give purpose, as opposed to folks seeking to fill the void with drugs and alcohol.

[English]

Additionally, high unemployment and overcrowded housing means that people are simply surviving instead of living. If we’re able to tackle these issues, it gives people space to then focus on healing and wellness. Programs must be delivered in Inuktitut so that people can speak with their hearts as opposed to trying to explain complex feelings and thoughts across a language and cultural barrier.

Training and involving Inuit in the delivery of these programs is necessary. When you are at rock bottom, you need people who will provide support and walk with you, guiding you along the way. When you’re disconnected, it can be quite confusing. We need people there in communities and available 24/7. We need to acknowledge that our elders are our knowledge keepers and they know what community members are experiencing. Our 25 communities hold people who can do this work with training and support.

I will close in Inuktitut with some comments from an elder.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Patterson spoke in Inuktitut — interpretation follows.]

An elder has said to me that we need to start using our cultural perspectives again to help prevent more suicides. We need to stand on what we know as Inuit, to stand up again.

[English]

So when we call on our Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee to study a subject as important as preventing soul-destroying suicide, I think we need to keep in mind that the review of programs and initiatives must include a Northern Canadian lens and may need to be expanded to other programs and initiatives that southerners may not classify as related but that Inuit would certainly view as integral to fighting the suicide epidemic we face in the North.

I would close by flagging that what Senator Kutcher has proposed is a thorough, academic fact-based study of the federal approach to suicide prevention and review of 20 years’ worth of programs. At least that’s how I see it. If followed to the letter, however, it would take up a significant amount of time in a committee that, like all committees, currently meets only once a week and will likely be bogged down with legislation in the foreseeable future. I would caution against spending an inordinate amount of time studying something that people need action on now.

In Nunavut, we cannot wait for more recommendations. Every year without action is another year of lost lives and pain. Qujannamiik. Taima.

(On motion of Senator Brazeau, debate adjourned.)

(At 7:08 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on March 31, 2022, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at 2 p.m.)