Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with regard to this message, this is a message that in my humble opinion is a respectful message from the House, one that values and validates the important and good work that we did in this chamber to improve the bill.

In my remarks earlier this evening, I spoke to some of the amendments that were accepted that strengthened the commitment in the bill — for the first time in an environmental bill — to the right to a healthy environment. I spoke about how the amendments that we introduced that were accepted by the House advance further our important progress to advance reconciliation, how our Senate amendments strengthen the provisions of the bill to reduce our reliance upon animal testing and, of course, how the bill also very importantly modernizes the regime for managing both the risk assessment and the risk management of toxic chemicals, which has been at the heart of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, since its inception.

That now brings me to my closing remarks.

Colleagues, Bill S-5 has been strengthened by the rigorous study by both chambers and by the participation of Canadians in this legislative process. These proposed amendments to CEPA will provide Canadians with an environmental protection law that confronts 21st-century issues with 21st-century science and, I should add, 21st-century commitments to transparency, oversight and review.

The timing of two very important components of Bill S-5, the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment and the plan of chemicals management priorities, is dependent on the date of Royal Assent and must be completed within two years of that date.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage you all to agree to the message on Bill S-5 so that we can begin the important work of implementing it. Thank you.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the concurrence of Bill S-5, which modernizes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA.

When I last spoke to you regarding this bill, it was during third reading here in the Senate this time last year. The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources had just reported it back with significant amendments that strengthened many aspects of the bill and, in some cases, introduced new elements into it. Similarly, our colleagues in the other place critically studied the bill and also strengthened it. The Senate and our colleagues in the other place have worked together to ensure the bill provides for a higher level of environmental and health protection for Canadians, especially those who are most at risk.

I am proud to support this bill and urge all senators to vote to adopt it, in the form passed by the other place, without delay. The government can then begin the important work of implementing it in collaboration with key partners, the public and stakeholders. I would like to address several areas which received significant attention during the Senate’s study of Bill S-5.

While discussion was not limited to these areas, it was evident that senators were concerned with the following: first, ensuring that the right to a healthy environment was meaningful; second, reducing reliance on animal testing; third, increasing openness and transparency; and last, but certainly not least, advancing Indigenous reconciliation.

The Senate also observed that for this bill to be operationally successful, the government needs to invest in building a more robust environmental research capacity in Canada so that the scientific work required to support the goals of the bill would be there to do that.

With regard to the right to a healthy environment, amendments adopted in the Senate replaced language around balancing the right with more familiar language of making the right “subject to any reasonable limits.” The implementation framework for the right must elaborate on these limits, as well as intergenerational equity and on the mechanisms needed to support the protection of that right.

Regarding the implementation framework — which, as you may recall, must be developed within two years of Royal Assent and set out how the right will be considered in the administration of the act — our colleagues in the other place made additional amendments, for example, to define the principle of intergenerational equity as meeting “the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and to specify that a healthy environment means an environment that is “clean, healthy and sustainable.”

These valuable additions build on the work of senators and provide a clear direction for the implementation framework to expand upon. Amendments in both places will help ensure the right is meaningful to decision making under CEPA and that it will be developed in a way that provides greater certainty.

Another area where the Senate focused its attention was on reducing reliance on animal testing. The Senate Energy Committee added several new provisions aimed at replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals in toxicity testing.

Our colleagues in the other place maintained the essence of these valuable amendments and made some minor adjustments to ensure these provisions can be implemented in a manner that reflects and accounts for the broader work under way across government on this important issue. For example, the plan of chemicals management priorities must include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals. Our colleagues in the other place made amendments to clarify that this strategy may apply more broadly than CEPA and include activities and initiatives under other federal laws, such as the Food and Drugs Act, for example.

Since I last spoke to this, the government reaffirmed its commitment to end cosmetics testing on animals in the 2023 federal budget through amendments to the Food and Drugs Act tabled in Bill C-47, so that is something that could feature in this strategy.

Colleagues, the amendments to the bill on this matter clarify that the government’s priority is to replace vertebrate animal testing altogether as soon as practicable and where scientifically justified alternative methods are available. In cases where the science is not yet advanced enough to fully replace vertebrate animal testing, we would reduce the number of animals being tested as well as refine our testing methods to minimize the pain and suffering of these animals.

I will turn now to the plan of chemicals management priorities, which, as you will recall, is a key amendment in Bill S-5 and aims to modernize Canada’s approach to chemicals management. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health must develop this plan in consultation with stakeholders within two years of Royal Assent. It will set out a multi-year integrated plan for chemicals risk assessments, risk management actions, supporting research and information gathering, among other activities and initiatives.

Regarding this plan, amendments were adopted here in this chamber to clarify the advantages of class-based approaches to assessing chemicals, namely as a means of avoiding cases of “regrettable substitutions,” that is, where one chemical is banned, only to be replaced with another chemical — just as harmful or potentially worse. Class-based assessment approaches help mitigate against this, and I understand the government has recently published a draft report and proposed risk management options for a class of over 4,700 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly referred to as PFAS.

Our colleagues in the other place made some additional amendments to the plan, importantly, to require that it include reporting timelines and that it be reviewed every eight years.

Another major theme that has been considered in both chambers relates to increasing openness and transparency in respect of environmental and health protection. I am pleased to see that changes have been adopted here and in the other place to help achieve this under CEPA. Working together, we have created a more open and transparent regime for the treatment of confidential business information under the act. Here in the Senate we removed an exception provided for in the bill that could have been used to stand down the requirement for persons to substantiate their claims for confidentiality under the act.

Additional amendments were tabled, but not ultimately adopted here in the Senate. However, our colleagues in the other place picked up on some of these and adopted amendments of their own. These require that claimants justify their confidentiality requests based on Access to Information Act criteria and that the minister review and validate a statistically representative sample of confidentiality requests submitted under the act and report annually on the results of this work. These are important changes.

Lastly, we heard significant concerns in the Senate regarding the continued hardships Indigenous peoples experience with pollution as well as the need to consider obligations related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and the government’s commitment to reconciliation. I am proud to say that amendments were adopted here and confirmed in the other place to add references to “free, prior and informed consent” within the context of UNDRIP to confirm the role of Indigenous knowledge in decision making and to require annual reporting on the operation and administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, in relation to Indigenous peoples and governments, which should incent a more holistic understanding of how reconciliation is advancing under all the programs enabled by CEPA.

Now, since I last addressed this chamber, there have been some unfortunate events at the Kearl oil sands mine in Alberta, which underscore the importance of amendments that were adopted by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources but were then undone during the committee stage in the other place. These amendments added explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing to the list of matters and activities in respect of which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may collect and report information on. These changes would ensure that the minister could compel people to provide information regarding tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to announce that our colleagues in the other place had a sober second thought of their own on this important matter and voted to reinstate these amendments during report stage. As you will see, the version of the bill before you today will add these new paragraphs under subsection 46(1) of CEPA.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, important work will start once Bill S-5 receives Royal Assent to ensure it is fully implemented. This work will include, among other things, developing the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment under CEPA and developing a plan of chemicals management priorities in consultation with Canadians. Once this bill receives Royal Assent, the government will be in a position to advise partners, stakeholders and the public on how they can participate in these important processes.

However, more work needs to be done to ensure that Canada has the scientific research capacity needed to support these amendments to CEPA. Specifically, we need to substantially enhance our capacity for biomonitoring and toxicity assessment, including toxicogenomics. We need large, disaggregated and population-based longitudinal studies to determine health impacts of chemicals across the lifespan. We need well-functioning biobanks to be able to determine the cumulative effects of substances over time as well as large data sets and the complex analyses of them to allow for causal inferences to be drawn.

All these necessities for environmental research enhancement must be appropriately cited and managed properly, funded and created in collaboration with our academic and Indigenous communities. This work needs to begin as soon as the bill receives Royal Assent.

The discussions that have taken place throughout the parliamentary process have been instrumental and have resulted in a strengthened bill. I would like to thank senators and our colleagues in the other place for this valuable work. I am proud to support the bill, and urge senators to vote to pass it now so that it may receive Royal Assent without delay.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: I woke up this morning, and I couldn’t remember where I left off yesterday. Then on my way over here, I did remember.

I’m sure my friend Senator Plett can’t wait for me to finish my speech.

Let me be clear, there is no obligation for victims to use this law. This was in the section read, in the yellow flag provisions in the legislation. They will be there to offer additional protection.

I would like to share a few more important statistics today. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicide and suicide. Handguns are the most commonly used firearm in homicide. Suicide by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearms deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. During this period, some 11,000 individuals took their lives.

Since 2010, we’ve seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada. Reducing the number of handguns and assault-style firearms in our community will result in reducing the number of victims of gun violence.

I hope we can get an agreement on one other important measure of this bill that I would like to talk about now, and that is what it will do to curb firearm smuggling and trafficking.

The smuggling of firearms into Canada remains an important threat to the safety of Canadians and directly impacts the firearms-related violence that has been felt in communities across the country. In 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, seized more than 1,100 firearms, more than double the number from 2020, including the seizure of 66 prohibited firearms at the Blue Water Bridge port of entry in Sarnia, Ontario, one of the largest single firearms seizures in the southern Ontario region in recent history.

More recently, the CBSA worked with partners to seize some 46 prohibited or restricted firearms at a highway stop in Cornwall, Ontario.

Bill C-21 will address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing the maximum criminal penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking from 10 years to 14 years, as well as by providing more tools to law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthen border security measures.

Increasing the maximum penalty for smuggling and trafficking offences will be a message to criminals and, just as importantly, to courts that Parliament unequivocally denounces these crimes.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, supported these measures when they appeared during the study of the bill at committee in the other place. They said:

With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

That brings me back to the recently introduced amendments to Bill C-21. They were adopted at committee stage in the other place, including a new prospective definition for characteristics of assault-type firearms and recognizing and respecting Aboriginal treaty rights of Indigenous people. These have been informed by discussions with stakeholders across the country. They include hunters and trappers, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, rural and northern residents, target shooters and others.

Honourable colleagues, it doesn’t matter where you go in this country, in every corner from coast to coast, you will find skilled, experienced hunters who are happy to chat with you for hours about how it is more than just a hobby for them, how it has been passed down through generations and how it forms a key part of their culture and way of life.

That’s why these latest amendments, I think, provide clarity and protections around responsible gun ownership.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder if the senator would take a couple of questions.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for sponsoring this bill.

I want to ask you about the last round of amendments that the government brought in. There were certainly advocates for stronger gun laws who felt that the government had watered down the legislation more than they expected and more than they were pleased to see. What is your response to those who feel that the bill, as it stands, is not strong enough?

Hon. Tony Dean: Senator Yussuff, I, too, would be concerned if sport shooters were impacted negatively by legislation of this sort. But if I have my initial reading of the legislation correct, sport shooters who are part of sporting federations would be unaffected in the sense that they would be exempted from the requirements in this legislation with respect to handguns and other guns if they were in a program of training and exercises that led towards regional, national or international competitions. I’m just checking on that.

Secondly, I know a number of us were alarmed last weekend to learn of a tragic shooting in Ontario — I believe it was in Hamilton — in which a Canadian landlord gunned down two of his tenants as they fled from the rental home after a dispute over property. Police said that witnesses saw a young couple, both in their mid-20s, fleeing from their Hamilton, Ontario home. Following the killings, the gunman barricaded himself in the apartment and there was more tragedy involved because the gunman himself ended up dying in an altercation with police.

The point here is that we learned from reading about this that the killer was a gun owner, and several handguns and rifles were found in the home. Furthermore, they were registered to that user. In addition to the first question, would you have any comment on the second one?

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, specifically on an important topic that this bill may impact on but that has not been really addressed to date; that is, what the impact of this bill will be on suicide rates in Canada. My hope is that, by raising this issue, when the bill is referred to committee, the committee will seek input from expert witnesses on suicide prevention and gun control legislation.

Colleagues, before proceeding I would like to acknowledge that the material and the subject of my intervention can be very difficult for some people. It deals with life and death issues. It will touch on mental illness and self-harm. I would encourage any of our colleagues and anyone who is listening or watching this debate to know that if you are having difficulties or thoughts of self-harm, please seek help. Asking for help is a sign of strength, and there are many avenues for help and support.

The importance of suicide prevention is well known in this chamber. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will soon be tabling its report on the study of the effectiveness of the national Suicide Prevention Framework in decreasing rates of suicide in Canada. Numerous senators have spoken to the importance of suicide prevention during our debate on the motion for said study, as well as debates on recent legislation in which the topic of suicide prevention was raised.

I think we can safely say that our debates were very much in support of effective measures to reduce suicide rates in Canada. The most effective public health measure for suicide prevention is means restriction, such as better controls around gun availability.

Suicide disproportionately impacts men. About 75% of those who die by suicide in Canada are men, and suicide is three times as common in men compared to women. The statistics related to suicide and guns are disheartening. Many studies have noted that firearms play a significant role in completed suicides, especially in men.

The accessibility of lethal means such as guns during times of despair can swiftly transform impulsive thought into irreversible action.

In Canada, in the five years between 2016 and 2020, 2,777 men died from firearm suicide. Over that same period, 82 women died by similar means. That is a ratio of about 33 to 1 — 10 times greater than the overall male-to-female suicide ratio.

For additional context, when all fatal firearm injuries for that period are considered, about 70% were suicides — not homicides, colleagues, suicides. Of gun-related deaths in Canada, 70% are suicides.

A recent study in Ontario found that over two thirds of firearm-related deaths were suicides, mostly men and mostly in rural areas. On average, during that period in Canada, about 550 men died by gun-related suicide per year. Compare that to a rate of less than 50 deaths per year from testicular cancer. And merely owning a handgun is associated with much higher rates of suicide.

A recent study of about 26 million people followed for a period of 12 years noted:

Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn’t to kill themselves with a gun.

As policy-makers who are truly concerned about suicide prevention, we bear the responsibility of recognizing this relationship between firearm ownership and suicide and the need to take decisive action to address it. By acknowledging the connection between firearm ownership and suicide risk, we have the power to save lives and create a safer environment for all.

Today, I would like to empathize the need for your support of a bill that limits access to firearms. By so doing, we may be able to reduce impulsive acts of self-harm that have a high probability of resulting in death. Robust research consistently demonstrates that when individuals in crisis face restricted access to lethal means, the likelihood of suicide diminishes. One of the best public health strategies for suicide prevention in males is limiting access to guns.

It is important to acknowledge that many different concerns regarding this bill — other than suicide prevention — have been raised. We have seen some of the discussion between Senator Plett and Senator Yussuff addressing those important issues.

We must address those concerns and seek common ground. Balancing responsible firearms access and suicide prevention related to firearms can be an attainable goal — one that respects the rights of gun owners while prioritizing public safety and the preservation of lives.

Effective implementation requires collaboration, open dialogue and a willingness to find innovative solutions. We must draw upon the expertise of various stakeholders, including gun owners, mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies and advocacy organizations. Enacting well-informed firearms legislation that recognizes these complexities should be our goal.

We have an opportunity through our study of Bill C-21 to better understand how legislative interventions can be implemented to achieve the goal of means restricted suicide prevention as it applies to firearms in Canada.

Some studies of the impact of Bill C-51, Canada’s Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, have suggested that legislation may have had an impact in decreasing gun-related suicide. Other studies of the impact of that legislation and other bills — Bill C-17 in 1991 and Bill C-68 in 1995 — suggested more nuanced outcomes.

Realizing that not all legislation related to firearms restrictions is the same, I hope that the committee studying Bill C-21 considers how to encourage the government to conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of this bill on firearm suicide rates in males in Canada. We need to know that information. The committee could make a point of calling witnesses who can help us understand that and how that works in Canada.

Colleagues, as we critically study this legislation, we need to address the multitude of issues that it touches upon. Like you, I have been made aware of numerous concerns — reasonable and good concerns — about Bill C-21 raised by many Canadians. Although I have waded through countless emails and letters, I have not seen anyone raise this issue — that is, the relationship between male suicide rates and gun ownership in the Canadian context.

Thank you for allowing me to raise it here. I hope the committee will consider calling witnesses who can speak to this issue in more depth, and that we all keep this important association in mind as we ponder how we move this legislation forward. Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, introduced by my friend and colleague the Honourable Mobina Jaffer.

I want to begin by stating that I will be supporting this bill. As a country, we must judge ourselves by how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

As Senator Jaffer mentioned in her speech, in 2017, I had the opportunity to introduce an amendment to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, to ensure equitable access to citizenship for individuals under the age of 18. Today, I remain proud to have played a small role in advancing the rights of non‑citizen children, including those in care.

That being said, I knew then — and I know now — how much more work is needed. I commend Senator Jaffer for introducing this legislation, and I commit to working with her to secure its passage.

This bill aims to amend both the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to support some of most vulnerable members in our society — non-citizens involved in the child welfare system.

In essence, this bill ensures that young people can obtain citizenship while in care. Failure to obtain this status before transitioning into adulthood can significantly impact the outcomes of this population, including limiting their access to federally or provincially funded health services, post-secondary educational opportunities and employment prospects. It can also jeopardize their ability to stay in Canada.

If passed, this bill would help fill some of the current gaps found at the intersection of the child welfare system, which is a provincial responsibility, and the citizenship and immigration system, which is a federal responsibility. It is time for both sides to work together for the benefit of non-citizen children.

There are multiple reasons why children in care might not have citizenship. Some might have arrived in the country with parents or relatives, while others did so on their own as unaccompanied minors. They might have lived here for years, or they might have only just arrived. Some might be permanent residents but lack documentation or be parents who are facing deportation due to the rejection of a refugee claim. Others might be in the process of applying for compassionate consideration or be victims of human trafficking.

In all circumstances, these young people have come into the care of the state because they are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. Once a child is placed in the care of the state, it is our responsibility to support their long-term safety and well-being. No one should be left in limbo without the full rights and protection that citizenship entails.

As it stands, non-citizen children and youth are protected while in the care of the child welfare system, but what happens once they transition into adulthood and become involved with the criminal justice system?

Youth who leave care without citizenship and receive a criminal conviction in an adult court risk being deported. As many such youth have lived in Canada for most of their lives, they have no family, friends or connections in their country of origin. They might, in fact, no longer be familiar with their birth language or culture. Could you imagine being forced to leave everything you know and everyone you love, and having to adapt and live in a country that is no longer yours?

Let us not forget that some of these individuals will have fled political unrest, civil war or political oppression. As a result of these or other traumatic experiences, this population might grapple with mental health issues and traumas.

Why is Canada leaving these vulnerable young people at risk of deportation and other adverse outcomes in adulthood? This population is in dire need of long-term protection and support. Many of these young people have been raised in Canada and feel a strong sense of belonging and attachment. They cannot imagine living anywhere else.

Over the years, many stories have been shared with me of young people stunned to find out that they were not legal citizens. I have also met many who, as a result of the previous amendment, have been able to become citizens. How many more lives could we change with this bill?

Senators, citizenship is more than just about being able to vote, accessing consular services or having legal rights. It is about belonging, and feeling secure and protected in the land that you consider home. I believe that these young people are every bit as Canadian as you and me.

I believe this bill will provide a pathway to citizenship for these vulnerable young people as they transition out of care and grant them the same rights and opportunities that their peers in the general population enjoy. I believe we have a legal and moral obligation to support these children and youth who are living among us and who are in need of our care. That is why I support this bill.

Colleagues, now you know why I’m a friendly critic. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024;

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 31, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos, and I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, it be re-adjourned in Senator Housakos’s name for the balance of his time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.)

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: So ordered. On debate, Senator Omidvar.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic — albeit a rather friendly one — of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. I first spoke to this bill on October 16, 2018, after its original introduction. We thank Senator Manning for all of his work on this — in collaboration with and inspired by the indomitable Georgina McGrath.

Bill S-249 focuses on the too-often irreparable harm caused by violence against women. It calls upon the federal government — in consultation with federal ministers and representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, as well as other relevant groups that provide services to survivors — to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence. Particularly in light of the horrific realities exposed by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, it is imperative that Indigenous women leaders and governance bodies be included.

The need for a comprehensive and holistic national action plan was highlighted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, following her visit to Canada in 2018. Significantly, her findings have been underscored by too many inquests, investigations and inquiries — most recently, the Mass Casualty Commission.

Violence against women and intimate partner violence are pervasive, and we have consistently failed to offer adequate support to those in danger. The strategy proposed by Bill S-249 must interrogate the status quo, including economic, social, legal and health realities that facilitate continued victimization.

Honourable senators, if this initiative is to be more than well intentioned and informative, we will need to act with intention.

Thirty years ago, in 1993, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, or NAC — the largest national feminist organization of its time, with over 700 affiliated groups — formulated the 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women. NAC recognized that violence against women is fundamentally and inextricably rooted in women’s substantive inequality. The strategy recognized that poor women, women with disabilities, women of colour, and Indigenous women:

. . . are more likely to be victim of assault, we seem to have difficulty seeing the advantage men have over these women and how those legal, social and economic advantages become part of the weaponry of violent attacks. Every kind of entrenched advantage (whether because he is of the dominant race or because he is a professional) is too often used to harm women. No program to end violence against women can be effective if it does not disrupt and transform those power relations toward equality.

These are true words 30 years later.

Today, we have the assessments of the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia and the inquest recommendations from the Renfrew County triple murder, or femicide — which is also the subject of the inquiry launched by Senator Boniface — as well as the May-Iles and countless other investigations and inquests.

Commissions and front-line, grassroots organizations agree that intimate partner violence and violence against women are, fundamentally, an issue of equality. The reissued call for a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence, coordinated by Women’s Shelters Canada and released in 2020, states that:

Violence against women (VAW) and gender-based violence (GBV) are not only stand-alone harms. They both express and re-enforce inequality; this is a crucial factor in how to anticipate, combat, and prevent violence against women and gender-based violence, namely, through holistic law and policy.

Senator Manning described violence against women as an urgent and widespread public health issue. Violence against women is also, fundamentally, a crisis of equality that manifests itself and is perpetuated in multiple spheres.

It follows that crime prevention or public health models alone are not sufficient. Upholding substantive equality requires reducing the costs and barriers associated with leaving abusive relationships.

Senator Manning also noted that violence against women is perhaps the most pervasive form of human rights abuse, knowing no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. This is true. We also know that violence against women disproportionately, and too often fatally, impacts Indigenous women, women with disabilities, women of colour, 2SLGBTQIA+ folks and, most particularly, women living in poverty and women who are marginalized and oppressed, primarily through men using and abusing power.

We must situate intimate partner violence and violence against women in the broader power structures and systems that enable ongoing violence against the most marginalized and vulnerable. We must move beyond temporary, targeted and restrictive solutions, and we must recognize the systemic inequalities that affect an individual’s ability to avoid or survive intimate partner violence.

We must also acknowledge the difficult truth that those who perpetrate violence are often themselves victims of abuse. A holistic strategy must ensure that survivors receive support as a means to disrupt intergenerational patterns of abuse.

As Senator Dalphond reminded us, in 2018, this bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, where it died because of the subsequent election. The reintroduction of Bill S-249 allows us to consider what has changed since 2018 and, tragically, what has remained the same or become worse.

Between 2018 and 2021 — unfortunately, these are the most recent statistics available — at least 251 people living in Canada were killed by an intimate partner. According to the 2019 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, “Approximately every 2.5 days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner.” This, colleagues, is femicide.

Those killed were predominantly women, and devastatingly, they were disproportionately Indigenous women. Indigenous women account for approximately 5% of women in Canada, but approximately 20% of women killed by an intimate partner. Worse yet, 12% of unsolved homicides involve non-Indigenous women victims, but 40% involve Indigenous women.

A strategy to address violence against women must reflect commitments by Canada to implement the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including vital economic, social, health, legal and governance reforms. The National Inquiry was our country’s response to the “. . . staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people,” and recognizes this violence as no less than genocide.

The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated inequality, and so, horrifically but not surprisingly, worsened violence against women. It became known as the “shadow pandemic,” a term that was adopted to capture this intensification of violence against women through a perfect storm of conditions perpetuating abuse, such as stay-at-home orders and closures increasing both the rate and severity of intimate partner violence, increased circumstances of isolation, intensified economic and other stressors and made services of support increasingly difficult to access.

A Toronto-based support group called Women at the Centre reported a 9,000% increase in calls for help by the end of 2021. A national strategy must account for the increased demand for support services in the years to come, the systemic gaps in support laid bare and exacerbated by the pandemic and the spectre of future public health and other emergencies.

Researchers at York University have also identified that the “pre-pandemic tendency of decision makers to focus on incident‑based physical violence instead of patterns of coercive control” heightens the risk posed to survivors by making it more difficult to prove the existence of violence in court:

Limited access to medical, counselling, mental health, and other services during COVID-19 negatively impacted women’s ability to prove domestic violence to the satisfaction of decision makers. . . .

A national strategy must re-evaluate what is needed to provide meaningful access to justice and safety for women and children.

A national strategy must also address social assistance, family law, child welfare, criminal law and civil protection orders — the domains of state action with which survivors of domestic violence most frequently engage — and must demonstrate sensitivity to the unique ways in which violence manifests in the aftermath of the shadow pandemic.

To seek help, survivors must be confident that social, financial and legal support is not only available, but also accessible. As the Mass Casualty Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and countless research works underscore, the shadow pandemic also exposed particularly insidious new tactics of monitoring and coercive control, which have been evolving with technology.

A national strategy must account for the duality of technology, simultaneously offering a lifeline to individuals in need of support and a new sphere for violence and abuse that constitutes an additional barrier to survivors’ ability to escape.

In 2021, police in Canada reported 114,132 victims of intimate partner violence — this exceeds the population of St. John’s, Newfoundland — and 2021 marked the seventh consecutive year that intimate partner violence increased in prevalence.

It is no accident that, at the same time, and as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls underscored, the incarceration rate of Indigenous women continues to escalate. Indigenous women are too often jailed for incidents of personal violence, predominantly in response to or to prevent violence being perpetrated against them or others for whom they are responsible.

We know this, and we know that approximately 70% of incidents of domestic violence and 81% of incidents of spousal violence are never reported to the police. This is especially true for Indigenous women, who learn early on that the legal systems are unlikely to protect them. They are, consequently, essentially deputized to protect themselves. This reality also needs to be part of the development of a comprehensive plan to address violence against women.

We must also remember that statistics do not come close to painting the whole picture. The nature of intimate partner violence is such that it is too often hidden from view. It is covert. It is coercive. It is deplorable.

In exploring how intimate partner violence has continued to increase, both in prevalence and intensity, we must ask another difficult question: Why?

Senator Manning noted that those unfamiliar with power dynamics surrounding abuse may wonder why women do not simply leave these abusive partners. Those unfamiliar with racism or immigration insecurity may fail to understand the pressure on women in communities to not report for fear of the potential negative impact on victims and entire families. Those unfamiliar with poverty too often make similar assessments. Economic insecurity routinely and systematically restricts the choices of those who lack financial security and directly and negatively impacts equality.

The feminization of poverty is a devastating and compounding risk factor for individuals who are already subject to violence at the highest rates. As Senator Manning mentioned, Statistics Canada found that:

Indigenous women experience violent victimization at a rate . . . 2.7 times higher than that reported by non-[Indigenous] females.

Indeed, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls revealed, Indigenous women and girls are more likely than other women to experience violence and poverty. Indigenous women were also more financially impacted by COVID-19 than other Canadians, with 46% of Indigenous women reporting a moderate or major financial impact, relative to 34% of the broader Canadian population.

As the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls identified, in order to achieve substantive equality, we must provide guaranteed livable incomes to allow women and gender-diverse individuals to move out of poverty. The inadequacy and uncertainty of social assistance schemes were brought into plain sight as we recently debated the Canada disability benefit act.

This inadequacy must be part of the issues examined at committee review of this bill.

A 2012 study reported that over 80% of the costs of intimate partner violence in Canada — an estimated $6 billion per year — are borne by victims themselves in the form of medical interventions, lost wages, lost education, stolen or damaged property and pain and suffering.

According to a 2021 study by the Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment, 80% of survivors of intimate partner violence surveyed in the National Capital Region reported that their partner displayed more controlling and coercive behaviours related to their finances and economic stability during the pandemic. Horrifically, a striking 10% returned to their partners because of financial constraints.

Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women’s 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women noted:

Federal government initiatives must reflect the current facts that it is the vulnerability of women and children, particularly [Indigenous] women, women of colour, women trapped in poverty and women with disabilities that are the definitive factor in preventing this type of crime. Therefore, monies should be allocated directly to ameliorating those conditions. Monies must not be directed to police, jails, deputising the community, social worker programs, research on these vulnerable groups, or new bureaucratic bodies. Those measures do not reduce violent crime . . . .

This was reiterated at a public hearing of the Mass Casualty Commission by Professor Isabel Grant, who noted that “economic self-sufficiency for every woman in this country” is a vital part “of facilitating women’s abilities to escape both physical and sexual violence.” This perspective was reiterated today by anti-violence workers at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Liberation from abuse requires choice. Poverty is antithetical to choice.

In addition to incorporating the findings of far too many commissions, investigations, inquiries and inquests, the strategy proposed by Senator Manning must account for the need to provide women and victims with financial autonomy and stability. A national strategy must acknowledge the inadequacies of existing social supports and assistance that underscore the need for measures like guaranteed livable incomes, health care, housing options, universal child care — ameliorative approaches that provide increased options for women to leave abusers.

Along with financial concerns, we must recognize the role of the housing crisis, homelessness and shelters with respect to violence against women and intimate partner violence. As Senator Manning noted, on any given night, 4,600 women and their 3,600 children are forced to sleep in emergency shelters as a result of violence. On a single day, 379 women and 215 children are turned away from shelters in Canada, usually because the shelters are full to capacity.

Women’s Shelters Canada reports that:

The lack of adequate shelter and housing options is one of the most significant barriers preventing women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals being able to leave situations of violence and rebuild their lives.

. . . Across Canada, 13% of homelessness shelter beds are dedicated to women, while 68% are co-ed or dedicated to men.

The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls noted that within Canada, “the lack of adequate services to welcome women victims of violence with their children,” especially Indigenous women, leads to concerns about losing custody of their children when seeking protection.

Of the 215 shelters that responded to the 2018 “Shelter voices” survey, 47 per cent declared that they had no space available, which resulted in 75 per cent of requests for residential services not being accommodated.

Furthermore:

Of the 552 shelters for victims of abuse operating in Canada in 2017-2018, just 6 per cent served women and children in indigenous communities.

Women and gender-diverse individuals — everyone — attempting to leave abusive relationships should have the power to do so. But they need the means to do so, and they need somewhere to go. The lack of accessible and affordable housing units makes people more vulnerable to precarious living arrangements and more susceptible to abuse.

Women with disabilities are at particular risk in Canada. As articulated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur:

Because there is a lack of accessible and affordable housing, women with disabilities are forced into institutions and become even more vulnerable to abuse.

Women with disabilities are twice as likely as women without disabilities to be victims of violent crime and to be sexually assaulted.

A national strategy must recognize affordable and accessible housing as an economic priority for the government to ensure that women and gender-diverse persons, particularly those with disabilities and particularly those who are racialized, are not subject to further abuse.

Another element that demands our attention is the role of the criminal legal system in worsening circumstances for survivors and rendering victims more susceptible to further violence. Far too often, the risk factors for victimizing go hand in hand with the risk factors for criminalization, as 91% of Indigenous women and 87% of women overall in federal prisons have histories of physical or sexual abuse. For most, this underlying and unresolved trauma had a significant role to play in their criminalization, whether due to the lack of support from health and social services prior to being in crisis or as a result of being charged with a crime while defending themselves or their children from an abuser.

According to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, within Canada:

Indigenous women and girls . . . are three times more likely to be victimized by violence, including intimate partner violence . . . .

They are also approximately six times more likely to be a victim of homicide — also known as femicide, as I’ve already discussed — relative to the Canadian population. Of the incarcerated women in federal custody, 50% — and growing — are Indigenous.

The UN Special Rapporteur documented several additional patterns following her visit to Canada, namely, the victimization of women who request state protection against violence; the tendency of the best interests of the child when determining issues, including custody and access to be considered in isolation from abusive circumstances; and the lack of accessibility and inadequacy of legal aid services.

Furthermore, UN Special Rapporteur emphasized provisions in the Criminal Code requiring that judges consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment. She also noted that sections from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act designed to allow people to serve sentences in the community exist, but, unfortunately, this legislation is both underutilized and underfunded and often not communicated to the very women it is aimed at assisting.

As emphasized by the Special Rapporteur, there is an urgent need to provide alternatives to imprisonment and incarceration as a response to women with mental health conditions, especially those related to past trauma, and that incarcerating them actually violates international human rights standards. A national strategy must acknowledge the ongoing role of the criminal legal and prison systems in inadequate interventions to address the perpetration of violence, inadequate intervention to prevent violence and the worsening effects of abuse and violence for those who are victimized.

Furthermore, while abortion is not criminalized within Canada, there are both a lack of access to safe abortion services and ongoing instances of forced sterilization of Indigenous women, as we know well from our colleague Senator Boyer. Reproductive and sexual health should be part of a holistic strategy to address violence against women. The UN Special Rapporteur recognized these as part of the ongoing violence occasioned against women and girls within Canada, especially in the context of systemic discrimination, most particularly, against Indigenous women.

While international attention has been drawn to Canada’s ongoing epidemic of violence and abuse against women and girls, we have long had local voices, incidents and inquests alerting us to such danger. We need to listen to them. Following the coroner’s inquest into the triple murders of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk in 2015, Renfrew County named femicide as an epidemic and highlighted the urgent and irrefutable need for an all-of-government and all‑of‑system approach to end the violence against women.

Neighbouring Renfrew County, Lanark’s campaign is “See it. Name it. Change it.” It recognizes that when violence is seen, it must be named in order to create change.

We see it all the time. In the 52 weeks preceding Lanark’s declaration of an epidemic, 52 women within Ontario alone were killed — 52 femicides.

Honourable colleagues, let’s all insist on naming and changing these realities if we truly wish to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence and violence against women.

The Mass Casualty Commission reiterated the need for all levels of government to “declare gender-based, intimate partner, and family violence to be an epidemic” and the corresponding need for a “society-wide response” supported by “epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions.” The report illustrates the central purpose underlying multiple proposals: the elimination of gender-based violence based in a commitment to equality, commencing with recognition of the underlying structural and systemic forces that enabled domestic and intimate partner violence to persist.

Let us take this opportunity to lay the foundation for a national strategy that is inclusive in its recognition of victims and survivors of gendered violence and specific in its identification of forces that must be dismantled to allow for substantive equality. Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women recognized that ending violence against women required disrupting power relations towards equality.

Today, the message remains the same. The National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence: Reissued Call and, this year, the Mass Casualty Commission renewed this call for substantive equality. Thirty years from now I hope we, or those who are here following us, can reflect back on this national strategy as the start of a monumental shift in our approach to gendered violence. Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages), introduced by our honourable colleague Senator Brazeau.

I appreciate his initiative and offer my deepest respects to all of my colleagues who have shared their personal stories. I honour you for sharing your personal journey in a very public way.

Gùnáłchîsh, mähsi’cho. Thank you. I’m grateful to all senators for your presence and commitment to this debate and to Canadians.

Honourable senators have on several occasions mentioned the Yukon experience with labelling on alcohol. I believe sharing the full story and the Yukon experience will foster and contribute to the fulsome review of this bill as it moves to committee for further study.

As a sidebar, senators may be aware that on June 13 we will celebrate the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act. Senators may not be aware that part of the impetus for this act of Parliament was to regulate and collect taxes on alcohol in the Yukon Territory.

Yukon has a high rate of alcohol consumption to this day. It was also the high consumption of alcohol that prompted the territory to begin labelling alcohol more than 25 years ago.

Since 1991, liquor sold in the Yukon has had a warning label that drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects. I mentioned during my second reading speech on Bill S-253, the national framework on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder act, that Yukon legislators and Yukoners have been dedicated for many years — decades — to the message that abstinence during pregnancy is best.

The Yukon Liquor Corporation has long advocated, as have many provinces, for a responsible approach beyond the labelling initiative with the Be A Responsible Server, or BARS, program.

Honourable senators, the mandate letter given in January 2017 to the then-minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation, John Streicker, required him to consult the Yukon Liquor Board, business community, consumers and civil society organizations to assess whether the Yukon’s Liquor Act met current needs and provided an appropriate balance between economic opportunities and social responsibility.

The Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, an initiative of the University of Victoria, including researchers from Public Health Ontario, was developed and proposed in 2014. The study outline was to focus on the effectiveness of alcohol warning labels while also providing an opportunity to raise awareness about low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines, standard drink information and public health warnings.

Honourable senators, the preliminary survey of residents supporting the work of the study was conducted at both the Whitehorse, Yukon and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories liquor stores. The Northwest Territories had also been using warning labels regarding the risks of drinking during pregnancy for some time.

In the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, the Northwest Territories was the control case and the Yukon was the test case. The study began upon receiving funding from Health Canada in 2017.

In November 2017, Yukoners were advised there would be new warning labels on alcohol in the Whitehorse liquor store. Information about the support campaign for the research study indicated it included information about Canada’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines, standard drink measurements and how to reduce alcohol-related harms.

The media release about the warning labels quoted lead investigator Dr. Erin Hobin, who said, “Many Canadians remain largely unaware of the link between alcohol use and serious health risks including cancer.”

It also quoted Yukon Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Brendan Hanley, who stated that:

Having the Yukon Liquor Corporation participate in this study is an opportunity to learn more about our citizens’ consumption and how we might help them further enjoy healthier lifestyle choices.

Dr. Hanley is now Yukon’s Member of Parliament.

About a month later, the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study was suspended to evaluate the scope and messaging of the labels applied during the study.

Honourable senators, in February 2018, after discussions with the researchers, national brand representatives and other stakeholders, the Government of Yukon resumed the study. The study now used two labels to educate consumers, one that shows a standard drink size and a second that provided low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines. The health warning label about cancer was no longer part of the study.

The Yukon has a relatively small budget, few members in its legislative assembly and cabinet ministers usually have several portfolios. One subtle yet important difference between Yukon and the other territories and provinces is that the minister responsible for the sale of liquor in the provinces isn’t necessarily present at the cabinet table like they are in the Yukon. How does the Yukon cabinet minister responsible for the liquor corporation persuade cabinet colleagues to engage in litigation with a major Canadian industry rather than spend the territorial budget on health care, education or repairing highways damaged by melting permafrost? Although the health warnings about cancer were no longer an element of the study, the research work is of real value in assessing whether warning labels are effective.

In his speech earlier this week, Senator Plett made it clear that there are conflicting findings and opinions on warning labels, and the honourable Leader of the Opposition made some valid points. In my region, we saw the effectiveness of warning labels. From the study, I note that people remember what the labels said, people talked about the labels and people drank less. From the study:

Brightly coloured alcohol warning labels with a cancer warning, national drinking guidelines, and standard drink information help consumers make more informed and safer alcohol choices.

This is why I support the adoption of this bill at second reading and referring it to committee. Senator Plett and I are in agreement on that. Obtaining a consensus on the science, as was suggested, before we adopt the bill and send it to the other place is absolutely essential. Scientists tend to find points of contention on most issues, not unlike lawyers, economists and parliamentarians. By including diverging opinions and research findings in the examination of the bill, I’m confident that the committee will find an acceptable way.

The Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study is one of the scientific studies that absolutely should be considered, along with the experiences of the Yukon government.

I note that Senator Brazeau, in recent media discussions of this bill, had a can of corn in his hand, pointing to the label on it. As a regular visitor to the grocery stores in Ottawa and in Whitehorse, I read the labels, and I witness many individuals doing the same. We want to know just how much sugar, fat, fibre and sodium is in the food we consume. We all are, or should be, acutely aware of the warning labels on the cleaning products we use. We are advised to safely store the brightly coloured detergent pods as they are dangerous if swallowed, not to mention the warnings on and banning of gardening products like pesticides and herbicides that are known to be carcinogens. Canada announced yesterday that warning labels will now be affixed to individual cigarettes.

Honourable senators, clear, science-based, peer-reviewed evidence supports the link between the consumption of alcohol, be it wine or beer, and cancer. This bill calls upon Canada to have a warning label that clearly states that alcohol is a known carcinogen. I trust that the committee that receives this bill will have a thorough review of it. The urgency with which this study should begin has been noted by Senator Mégie and others.

I strongly recommend the committee consider the information obtained through the Northern Territories Alcohol Label Studies and the Yukon experience. I look forward to offering my support to the committee’s work, and, once the standing committee has done their due diligence, to send this bill to the other place for their support on this very important initiative. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you, gùnáłchîsh, mähsi’cho.