Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Gold, I share the concern about the rush through the House of Commons and how the legislation will land here after no review at all there. As we all know, the Senate is often criticized, but we’re now put in a position in which what we call “the other place” — the House of Commons — simply did not do its job. They sent the legislation over here without reviewing it. Now it lands in our chamber. Given that, we may need much more time than we normally would because normally, as you know, we check the transcript and the hearings of the other place. We’re really starting from ground zero here. You would agree that we need more time than normal, I assume.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: My question is along the same lines as the previous questions, Senator Gold.

The Senate has a duty to carefully consider all of these bills, especially those that reverse the burden of proof. Wouldn’t you agree that that burden is even greater today? The House of Commons passed this bill without convening a real committee of the whole. There were no submissions or witnesses, and the bill passed in one day.

In that context, shouldn’t we be a little more thorough and take a bit longer than usual to get written submissions from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Association des avocats de la défense and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is quoted in The Globe and Mail today criticizing the fact that it wasn’t consulted and that it didn’t even have time to prepare?

Shouldn’t we take our time on this? If the House of Commons thought this bill was so urgent, it could have passed it before June 22. They passed it the first day they were back in the House. We could have worked on it over the summer.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Gold, I was invited to attend a brunch with the police association and the premiers on bail reform this summer, and I raised a concern at that time. One of the panellists gave an example of an offender who had stolen a bottle of liquor and, 10 years later, he is a hardened criminal is what she said. Because of the way the system is set up, at that time, we were told that 70% of the people in the provincial jails were Indigenous and the majority had not even been to court.

Indigenous relationship with police administration, police officers and the justice system is already precarious. How will racial profiling and racism be addressed? If they are not, there will be a continuous flow of new criminals, and no law will be able to handle the load, even if additional resources are given. An example I’ll use is 80% of the Indigenous prisoners who are in the pen were children who were apprehended. So we need to look at reducing the flow of child apprehension so we don’t have that flow going in, because we’re not going to change the penitentiary system. How will this be addressed?

One comment that came up was people were so upset in there that they said, “Throw them in jail and throw away the key,” which caused me great concern. Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Gold, thank you for your remarks and for your leadership on an important bill that is being considered by this chamber.

I’m a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where it seems likely this bill will go, so I’ll have a decent number of opportunities to explore the bill, but I did want to ask one, what I would call, institutional question, in your capacity both as sponsor of the bill and as Leader of the Government in the Senate. You made reference to the five-year review and you used, I thought very carefully, the words “reviewed by Parliament.” But I think as you know, the bill calls for a review by the House of Commons.

I have in front of me here the clause, which is clause 2 of the bill, a review on the fifth anniversary to be carried out by a standing committee of the House of Commons.

This strikes me as not entirely respectful of this portion of Parliament, and in light of your endorsement of the confidence you have in the Senate, which I believe was part of your speech, I wonder if you could speak to what I would call an oversight. I would be interested in your view on that, especially since, as I seem to understand, the House of Commons didn’t study it at all in the first go-round.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I wasn’t going to ask a question, but because of the question raised by Senator McCallum I’m happy, frankly, to have this discussion we’re having here right now, both about the process and the need for a robust debate on this important bill and a really thorough study.

Senator McCallum raised an issue that sparked in my mind this question and so much of this is based on reverse onus. This is a deviation from how we normally operate in our justice system in Canada. I am concerned about different groups being disproportionately disadvantaged, as they always have been, but even more so — possibly — under this legislation if the onus is on the person to prove that they deserve bail. That can sometimes be an advantage to someone who has the money and resources to hire good legal talent to help them. Because we haven’t had a thorough study yet — hopefully we will — I’m just curious whether the government has looked at this issue of advantage to those with resources in a situation of reverse onus and what the implications of that would be.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

This bill has followed a somewhat unusual trajectory.

The federal government introduced it with great fanfare at first reading in the House of Commons on May 16, 2023, then stalled on bringing it back for second reading speeches and moving it forward in the House.

However, on September 18, 2023, the bill went through all stages in the House of Commons and the members passed it. The government therefore can’t accuse the opposition of delaying the study of this bill.

Yes, the bill was passed in the House of Commons, and it may pass at second reading today in the Senate, but that doesn’t mean it goes far enough and contains all the necessary measures to fix the problem it seeks to fix. That problem is the need for tougher bail provisions to better protect Canadians against those who commit serious crimes when they are out on bail.

This bill applies to individuals the police haven’t released after their arrest. In these cases, these individuals have to appear before a judge quickly to get a bail hearing.

Bill C-48 proposes adding offences for which an accused must demonstrate to the judge, during this bail hearing, that their release before trial is justified. One of these offences is currently set out in section 95 of the Criminal Code: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. The 13 provincial and territorial premiers unanimously asked Prime Minister Trudeau, in a letter dated January 13, 2023, to place the burden on the accused for this offence.

Their letter reads, and I quote:

A reverse onus on bail must be created for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in s. 95 of the Code. A person accused of a s. 95 offence should have to demonstrate why their detention is not justified when they were alleged to have committed an offence where there was imminent risk to the public, as is already the case with several offences involving firearms. A review of other firearms-related offences is also warranted to determine whether they should also attract a reverse onus on bail.

This is one example of why the bill doesn’t really go far enough. There are a number of serious violent and gun-related offences that aren’t included in Bill C-48.

In other words, these offences, though intrinsically serious, place no burden on the accused to show why they should be released. Some of these offences are: aggravated sexual assault without the use of a firearm; aggravated assault; hostage-taking without the use of a firearm; attempted murder without the use of a firearm; arson with disregard for human life.

I’m also thinking about offences such as manslaughter with a firearm and criminal negligence with a firearm causing death. Both of those offences are punishable by a minimum sentence of four years in prison, and that minimum sentence was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morrisey and R. v. Ferguson.

I’m sure that if we asked Canadians, they would say that people who commit such dangerous crimes must remain behind bars while awaiting trial or, at the very least, have the burden of proving that their release is justified.

Bill C-48 doesn’t remedy that, and I hope that the witnesses who appear before the Senate committee, including those in law enforcement, will speak out about this problem. Right now, there’s a statutory presumption set out in sections 493.1 and 515 of the Criminal Code that ensures that these accused must be released at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, unless the Crown prosecutor can prove to the judge that it is necessary to detain them while awaiting trial or to impose on them onerous conditions of release.

Here’s another example of why Bill C-48 doesn’t go far enough. Bill C-48 proposes placing the onus on a person to justify why they should be released on bail when charged with an offence involving violence and the use of a weapon against a person and convicted of another offence involving violence and the use of a weapon against a person in the five years preceding the date of their indictment for that offence.

In other words, Bill C-48 is for repeat violent offenders. The problem is the five-year maximum between the commission of the two offences. Hypothetically speaking, a person who commits a violent offence with a weapon and would be sentenced to 10 years in prison for having committed the same type of offence isn’t affected by Bill C-48, since more than five years would’ve already gone by between the two offences.

In other words, if that person commits a violent offence with a weapon the day after being released from prison, there’s no legal presumption that they should remain behind bars while awaiting trial for this new offence. Could the federal government have set in Bill C-48 a 10-year limit between the two offences instead of five, or better yet, could it have simply eliminated this five-year threshold between the two offences? The federal government should have thought of that before introducing Bill C-48. That’s why I maintain that Bill C-48 could have gone much further to protect Canadians from repeat offenders.

Basically, this doesn’t necessarily surprise me from this government. This is the same government that proposed Bill C-75 in 2018, with the support of the Bloc. The Conservatives and police forces continue to denounce the bill as lax, because C-75 unduly favoured the release of violent repeat offenders or those who commit serious crimes with handguns.

I would like to quote from a letter dated January 12, 2023, that the Association des directeurs de police du Québec sent to the federal Minister of Public Safety in response to the tragic and preventable death of a fellow police officer, Grzegorz Pierzchala:

We cannot . . . tolerate violent criminals who repeatedly use firearms to endanger the lives of our police officers and Canadian families. These repeat offenders must not be allowed to move freely in our communities. We therefore ask you to reverse your government’s recent decision regarding the release process for violent and repeat offenders charged with firearms-related crimes. . . . Police officers have the right, as does the public, to be protected from the criminal behaviour of violent and repeat offenders, particularly those charged with firearms-related crimes. This right must take precedence when decisions related to release and sentencing are being made.

That being said, despite these serious reservations, I urge you to vote in favour of Bill C-48 at second reading in the Senate so we can continue our study at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I support the bill’s objective. Given the increasing incidence of crimes committed with illegal handguns in major Canadian cities, we must take urgent action to tighten bail rules. We all, including the Quebec Court of Appeal, recognize the dangers associated with this uptick in crime.

In fact, in its 2022 decision in Dallaire v. R., the court stated the following:

Canadian society strongly condemns the use of illegally owned firearms by criminals who use them illegally, dangerously and often fatally. Recent events in Quebec, such as in the Montreal, Montreal North, Longueuil, Laval and Rivière-des-Prairies areas, confirm this very real danger to peoples’ safety and to social peace.

Given the urgency of this problem and the bill’s objective, which is universally supported, I agree that an exception should be made for this bill, that is, that it should pass second reading immediately so it can be referred to the Senate committee immediately for a thorough and in-depth study as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, I’m still disappointed by the lack of strong measures in this bill to protect our fellow Canadians. Thank you, colleagues.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, there is no doubt that the horrifying and egregious acts of violence that led to this bill are just that. However, they were outliers, and they were not the result of an inability to detain; rather, they were primarily the result of the inadequacies and failures of social, housing, economic and health — especially mental health — systems.

At a time when there are crises of mass incarceration — particularly of Indigenous and Black people, as well as those living in poverty with mental health and addiction-related issues linked to the past trauma of abuse — why is this being offered to Canadians?

Provincial jails are already full, as you have heard, with more than 71% of people who are awaiting trial — the majority of whom are there because they are poor, racialized or dealing with past trauma, addiction and mental health issues.

We know that Indigenous women alone represent 50% of those serving federal sentences. Did you know that they represent upward of 75% to 99% — and sometimes even 100% — of those in provincial custody?

When we look at young women and girls, they represent 95% to 100% of those in jails designated for girls and young women in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the North.

Meanwhile, are Indigenous and Black communities provided with the resources they need, if we are to redress that overrepresentation? They’re offered a pittance, perhaps. Instead, they — we — are offered this, which puts the burden on specific accused to prove that they should be released from jail.

It also proposes expanding the use of reverse onus in intimate partner violence cases — without any analysis of the likely impact of this in terms of reducing reporting in an already vastly discriminated against, under-represented and underserved group.

Where is the legislation and policy to shore up the very systems that currently keep victims of intimate partner violence at risk? This includes the economic, housing, social and health supports that truly assist women to escape and be safe.

Where is the action on the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?

Where are the community-based and educational programs to address attitudes and biases that persist about violence against women, intimate partner violence and poverty?

Who will this bill actually end up jailing?

Let’s look at Indigenous women who have experienced violence: We know that when they are trying to escape violence, if they actually do it without grabbing something to help protect themselves, they are more likely to end up dead, quite frankly, than they are to escape.

These women are not who we think of as being a risk to public safety, yet they will face the greatest barriers in lifting a reverse onus. We see this already in the vast numbers who plead guilty, even when they have self-defence or the defence of others, or even when they are not responsible for the death or harm.

Criminal lawyers are already signalling that people of means may be able to meet the new reverse onus by proposing strict supervision and release conditions that they can self-fund, which will deepen the inequities of the legal system.

They and other groups — who are troubled by the other place’s fast-tracking of Bill C-48 — have underscored that “. . . a wealthy white person is able to displace a reverse onus presumption on bail far more easily than a racialized person from an impoverished background.”

This bill undermines Canada’s commitments to a nation-to-nation relationship, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It insists on recriminalizing those already overrepresented in the criminal legal system, instead of addressing those issues in a meaningful way.

We also face the added reality that there is no evidence to back up the assertions that the bill will have the desired effect on public safety. If it’s anything other than political posturing, why hasn’t it been the subject of proper scrutiny in the other place? The public should be horrified by the willingness of elected officials to bypass the usual process of studying a bill and evidence such as what Canadian crime rates actually are, including violent crime rates, and the fact that they continue to be at historic lows.

The rate of individuals being found guilty of a crime and incarcerated has declined, but, while it has declined, the numbers of people in pretrial detention has more than quadrupled in the last 40 years. Bail decision making in Canada has become more restricted and risk averse over time. The only contribution sending an individual to pretrial detention could make to public safety comes from the removing of that person from the broader community for a period of time, but doesn’t focus on what happens when that person returns to the community without access to the very supports that brought them there in the first place.

The only contribution sending an individual to pretrial detention could make to public safety comes from that removal, and, yet, we’re encouraging the increased reliance on pretrial detention, which will make it more likely that an individual will plead guilty just to be released from jail. This raises more concerns about another bill that we’re waiting to see: that of wrongful convictions and how we address them. Tightening the bail system and increasing reliance on pretrial detention will have discriminatory outcomes and undermine efforts to combat systemic discrimination and the legacies of colonialism.

I would argue, colleagues, that it is irresponsible and undemocratic to race this kind of performative legislation through Parliament. The bill facilitates throwing people, especially Indigenous women, into jail without a trial. The parliamentary process mirrors that of the system that already exists. We should be treating people fairly, not hastily. The government’s position is that the bill will address the public’s concerns related to repeat and violent offending, and offences involving firearms and other weapons. The public needs to be provided with meaningful, substantive and accurate information, a Charter and constitutionally compliant system, based on facts and evidence and free from political interference. That, my friends, is what I hope we will contribute through the Legal Committee and debates in this place. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you very much. I appreciate all the contributions, and I think that there are important issues for us to delve into. I particularly appreciate you raising not just specifically Indigenous and Black women, but the gender bias within the justice system.

One thing that I have been aware of from working with women’s organizations that work with women who have experienced intimate domestic violence and/or abuse within the home is the change in the attitude of policing that has gone on over a period of time. I would have thought there would be more sensitivity and a better situation, but the statistics I have seen — and from what I have been told — show that there has been a growth in the number of times in which a woman defending herself will be, in fact, charged and arrested.

I wonder if you have any other specific or general information about that. In particular, at the Legal and Constitutional Committee, I hope that in the study this will be one of the second reading concerns that have been raised that you will look into. You alluded to this in terms of speaking about the added difficulty that women face in these circumstances in having to meet the reverse onus, so I hope that you would undertake to examine that part of it, too.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I note that this item is on day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

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

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario), seconded by the Honourable Senator Busson, for the second reading of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 20, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

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

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-269. Senator Woo was kind enough to point out to me that the live audience for this speech has dwindled to three, but I’m especially pleased that they have hung in here for it.

Two days ago, Senator Marty Deacon laid out the motivation for this bill and the direction it proposes for the regulation of the advertising and promotion of sports betting in Canada. She also spoke extensively about the structure of the bill and its intended objectives. I wish to lend my support to the bill and fully endorse her remarks.

In the interest of trying to make my own comments useful, I will divide my remarks into three parts. To add a bit of spice, maybe for Senator Dalphond, I will try my best to keep your interest by giving each section of my remarks a catchy title.

The first section, reflecting on how we got here initially, is entitled, “How I may have committed crimes before coming to the Senate.” The second section is entitled, somewhat enigmatically, “The elephant,” and the third section is entitled, “What do we do when we come to a fork in the road?”

Here goes — “How I may have committed crimes before coming to the Senate.” I’m kind of hopeful that parliamentary privilege applies to these remarks.

For over a decade before I came to the Senate, I used to teach a course at the law school in Saskatoon and sometimes at Dalhousie University in Halifax entitled, “Sports and the Law.” Students in this course wrote major research papers, and nearly every year, someone opted to write a paper on sports betting and the criminal law of Canada. What I learned from those papers was a bit troubling.

When I’m in Saskatoon on Sunday evenings, we commonly have family dinners. My various nephews attend, and it was not uncommon for family members, including me, to discuss various sports teams and the likely outcomes of the games, prospectively. The purpose of these discussions was for them to make judgments on the teams that they would bet on in those games. Well, what I learned from reading my students’ sports betting papers, at least up until 2021, was this: My nephews were betting on sports games individually and, in doing so, were committing criminal offences. It could be argued, I guess, that my discussing it with them and offering my relatively uninformed opinions amounted to aiding and abetting these crimes — essentially, if I may say so, aiding and abetting betting.

It struck me in those years — and as the motivation of my support for Bill C-218, sponsored in 2021 in this chamber by Senator Wells and passed in that year — that while you might disapprove of betting in any form, it hardly rises to the level of committing a criminal offence to bet on a single sports outcome. Indeed, until the adoption of that bill in 2021, we had the unbelievably incongruous situation where if you bet on three games at once, you were engaged in a perfectly legal activity, but if you bet on one single game, you were committing a crime.

As Senator Deacon noted, that bill brought into the sunlight the issue of sports betting. It achieved at least four positive things: It created a legitimate industry away from the grey or black markets of sports betting; it at least made possible effective regulation of this industry; it brought revenues to public government; and it made possible the adoption of strategies to identify those at risk from sports gambling and to direct revenues to help ameliorate those risks.

I continue to support that initiative — the decriminalization of single-event sports betting. As you know, there was a good deal of background associated with the adoption of that bill, and, as Senator Deacon pointed out, the passing of that bill opened up a whole range of sports-betting opportunities and also, it turns out, an onslaught of advertising and promotion of sports betting. The latter, of course, is the focus of this bill.

But for my part, a confession: I had anticipated we would see a good deal of advertising by betting platforms to attract people to join their websites and place bets through them. It’s not surprising that this would take place since the profitability of betting platforms relies, to a certain degree, on small margins earned through a significant number of bettors placing a significant number of bets. What I had not anticipated — and I think this is also true in England — was the degree to which we have been inundated with advertising to encourage us not just to join the betting platforms but to place bets on ever so many outcomes — and even components of outcomes — to the point where the things that one could bet on have become ridiculous and, in some cases, problematic. The promotion of betting has become overwhelming and, in some cases, offensive.

I read an article last spring about a particular sports broadcaster putting out an apology to this effect: It apologized to viewers for having cut away from a sports-betting ad to return to the live action. The apology was a spoof, but it essentially makes the point I’m trying to make here.

Senator Deacon outlined well the challenges and risks that excessive amounts of sports betting and advertising have generated for us. Now we have the public policy challenge of appropriately reining in this plethora of betting promotion, which brings me to the next section, “The elephant.”

There’s an old story that circulates in the legal field, and it goes like this: Four students — a Canadian, a Brit, a German and an Italian — are taking a writing course. The instructor gives them an assignment, which is to write an essay on the subject of “the elephant.” Having written their essays, they come back to class, and the instructor asks each for the title of their essay. The British student’s response — it could have been a young Tony Dean — is, “The role of the elephant in the history of the British Empire.” The German student — it could have been a young Peter Boehm — said, “How to build a bigger and better elephant.” The Italian student — perhaps a young Tony Loffreda — called his essay, “The love life of the elephant.” The Canadian student — and here I am coming to my point; it could have been a young, nerdy Brent Cotter — titled his essay, “The elephant: a federal or provincial responsibility?”

You might be wondering what that punchline has to do with this bill. Let me get to that point.

Sports betting, and particularly the promotion of sports betting, is a topic like that of the elephant story: its topic is a mishmash of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Senator Dalphond identified this in his dialogue with Senator Deacon on Tuesday. On the subject of sports betting, the federal government has the power to criminalize that activity — which it did for a very long time, until 2021. It could include sports betting as a form of gaming, which it did in the 1980s, and legally transfer the oversight of it to provinces. It delegated authority to the provinces, who undertook the management of gaming, including sports betting. Additionally, Ottawa can regulate communications with respect to sports betting, which are conducted under the regulatory authority of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

The result of all of this essentially constitutional line drawing is that Ottawa has some meaningful authority over sports betting, but much of the regulation of gaming, including sports betting, is in the hands of the provinces. This explains why at least one part of the “gaming elephant,” if I can call it that, is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and why, for example, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario announced that it would no longer be possible for sports-betting agencies to use celebrities in their ads. Similarly, British Columbia’s gaming regulator has taken steps to attach conditions to licences issued to sports betting agencies, which seeks to have a moderating effect on some of the issues that are concerning so many.

As I will mention in the final section of my remarks, there are things that provincial gaming authorities can and should do beyond what has happened so far that are within their and not Ottawa’s authority. But some parts of the gaming elephant are within federal jurisdiction.

Finally, the third section of my remarks: what to do when we come to the fork in the road. Some of you, hearing that phrase, might think of Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken,” but I would like to refer you to someone else. I commend to you today the consideration of a line from another great poet, Yogi Berra, who said — some of you will say it with me here — “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” The fork in the road for me hints at the options for both the federal and provincial regulatory engagements on this issue. The advice, as you can tell from that great poet and constitutional expert Yogi Berra, is take both regulatory forks in the road.

How to get there: There are two federal asks in this bill. One is to direct the CRTC to develop appropriate constraints on advertising and promotion of sports betting in the areas where they possess federal regulatory jurisdiction. The other, led by federal cabinet ministers through widespread consultation, is the development of a national strategy to rein in the advertising and promotion of sports betting across the jurisdictional divide. This must be a wide-ranging project, for example, as Senator Marty Deacon noted, since research has informed us of the risks for vulnerable gamblers and young people, and those risks do not know jurisdictional boundaries.

Some examples of that, as she mentioned, are no advertising just before, during or after sports games; limits or bans on celebrities and athletes as promoters of gambling; no advertising during periods when young people are significant parts of audiences; and no presentation of ads in sports arenas or on players’ uniforms. Various European countries have undertaken variations of this. These approaches are set out in an excellent recent paper on the issue developed by a group led by former mayor of Toronto John Sewell and Dr. Bruce Kidd, a distinguished former Olympian and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. My own research has captured a range of opportunities that are possible as well.

Dealing with the preservation of the integrity of sports, I will just make this one point: This wide-ranging national strategy should and could include an examination of the categories of sports that ought not to be allowed to be bet on, particularly where the athletes themselves are more susceptible to being bribed to throw or fix a game outcome. For example — and this has happened in other jurisdictions — the strategy could include the elimination of betting on amateur sports; no betting on college sports, as a number of U.S. states adopted when they received the authority in 2019 to regulate sports betting; and no betting on Olympic sports, a point that a number of proponents on this issue, including Dr. Kidd, have championed.

The reason for this needed national strategy is that many options are within provincial jurisdiction, a fork in the road that needs to be taken as well but that Ottawa can catalyze.

A broad cross-section of Canadian society wants action, from the deeply concerned parent about whom Senator Deacon spoke on Tuesday to the tens of thousands of viewers — it feels to me like I have heard from all of them — annoyed by the advertising onslaught, to those who have seen first-hand what addiction in any form can do to the lives and families of the vulnerable, to those who have given their lives and careers to sport and who worry that the object of their passion is being besmirched and its essence diminished, to sports ethics organizations like the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, who worry that their commitment to healthy, safe, ethical athletic activity is being excessively and dangerously commercialized. Senator Marty Deacon’s bill gives us the opportunity to martial our resources — not to destroy an industry but to get it on the right path, a wisely nationally regulated path.

I support this bill and encourage you to do the same. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-274, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-274, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day. I want to share with you my experience of oral history among the Denesuline in Brochet and Lac Brochet. The Dene signed their Treaty 10 agreement in 1906, and the Crees moved in in the early 1920s. They lived together in Brochet, Manitoba, where they intermarried and raised families.

Young children who were Dene and Cree from Brochet were sent to the Guy Hill Residential School, where, as students, we did indeed become family. With this closeness, I was privileged to hear the story of Thanadelthur 20 years ago from Ms. Lucy Antsanen, a Dene citizen of Brochet and Lac Brochet who experienced intergenerational residential school trauma. Historically, in their years of oral history, the young Dene have heard and continue to hear about this remarkable young woman through stories passed down from their grandparents and parents.

At the outset, colleagues, I want to inform you that the word “Chipewyan” is used in historical reference. This is a derogatory term, whereas I will use the correct term, “Denesuline,” which means the Original Peoples. The word “Cree” is a colonial term as well. We call ourselves Athinuwick.

Honourable senators, over 20 years ago, Ms. Antsanen, a young Dene woman with her master’s in education and working as a teacher in Lac Brochet, introduced the story of Thanadelthur in the classroom. From that day on, the students wore red on February 5 to commemorate the memory of this young peacemaker, February 5 being the day Thanadelthur journeyed into the Spirit World.

I wear red today and every day for my sisters. Today, I also wear the moccasins given to me in 1979 by Dene Elder St. Pierre.

This story takes place before Canada was reinvented as a nation and before Manitoba became a province. There were no borders, only territorial boundaries of each of the Indigenous nations. This story takes place at the height of the fur trade. Both the Hudson’s Bay Company and the North West Company were trading in the vicinity of York Factory.

Thanadelthur was born in the latter part of the 1600s. Prior to written history and over the ages, the Dene people counted the number of winters from the birth of their children to keep account of age. The reason for bringing this up is because there are varying ages assigned to Thanadelthur in different historical forums, including Hudson’s Bay Company Archives and accounts told by individual historians. Regardless, she was a young girl in her early to mid teens when she arrived at the Hudson’s Bay fort.

Honourable senators, we are hard-pressed in modern times to find the actual names of Indigenous women in history. History has normalized reducing these ethenewuk to “Indian/Aboriginal women.” In our community of Brochet, when the French priest who had lived amongst us for over 50 years wrote his book about our lives in our lands, he referred to the people simply as “Indian” — not even acknowledging our humanity. This is happening in my lifetime.

At a time when Indigenous women rarely made it into history books, we have this remarkable Dene girl whose name, Thanadelthur, is etched into history books for eternity. As such, this information exists as oral history, yes, but it transcends that medium as it is also archived and housed in history books as well as through teaching tools used in schools. Author Rick Book’s publication entitled Blackships/Thanadelthur, which features the life and contributions of this young woman, is being used as a teaching aid in the Northwest Territories.

Colleagues, during Thanadelthur’s life, the Dene and Cree were warring ancient enemies. Dene elders from different Dene communities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan tell of the warring between the two nations. When the Cree came upon a Dene encampment, they killed the majority of the Dene but captured the young girls, as Dene girls were known to be hard workers. Conversely, when the Dene came upon a Cree encampment, they did not take prisoners.

In 1712 to 1713, Thanadelthur’s family was hunting caribou in the area near Arviat, Nunavut, when they were attacked in their encampment and slaughtered by the Cree. Thanadelthur was taken into captivity. The Cree elders called her “Akwakan Iskwew,” which means “slave woman.” The Dene elders say that she survived because she was stunningly beautiful and very skilful.

Thanadelthur was enslaved for over a year, and late in 1714, she and another young woman escaped their Cree captors and headed north to find their people. Without warm food and clothing, they were soon in dire straits. The girls survived on edible plants, berries and small game they snared along the way. It is believed they used their long hair to make snares. During this journey, Thanadelthur’s young companion tragically passed away, forcing Thanadelthur to then abandon her route and make her way to the fort, hoping to encounter the English. Thanadelthur had known of the fort but had never been there.

When she came upon tracks in the snow, she followed them, knowing full well that she could be killed if she came upon the Cree. Yet, she followed the tracks that lead her barely alive — to goose hunters at Ten Shilling Creek, southwest of York Factory. Luckily, William Stuart, an employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company, was among the hunters. The goose hunters brought Thanadelthur back with them to York Fort, which is located near the mouth of the Hayes River in northern Manitoba.

The governing manager of the fort was Governor James Knight, who, a few days prior, had made plans to employ another Dene woman to forge peace between the Dene and the Cree so he could expand the fur trade into the Far North — into Dene country. Sadly, that Dene woman passed away, forcing Governor Knight to explore other options.

According to the Hudson’s Bay journals, Thanadelthur was brought to York Fort — which today is York Factory, Manitoba — on Wednesday, November 24, 1714. Thanadelthur told Governor Knight that her people would trade with the Hudson’s Bay Company. However, that trade was difficult this far south, as the Cree had guns and were known for their attacks on the Dene people.

Both Knight and Stuart were impressed by Thanadelthur’s enthusiasm and intelligence. When she recovered from her harrowing escape, Knight decided to send Thanadelthur and Stuart, with about 150 Cree, on a peace mission to the Dene in late June 1715. He believed that Thanadelthur was the best person to help establish peace between the two nations.

Honourable senators, the party spent most of the year in the tundra, covering hundreds of kilometres, and the long trek took its toll. Food was in short supply, several expedition members fell sick and many turned back. Along the way, Thanadelthur used her extensive knowledge and skills of the northern environment to keep herself and William Stuart alive. She made their winter clothes from animal skins and snowshoes from sticks and animal sinew.

More than once, Thanadelthur saved the expedition from starvation. Hunger was kept at bay by drinking tea and eating soup made only from snow, blackberries and animal hides.

In the end, the party was reduced to Thanadelthur and Stuart, along with the Cree leader and about 10 of his people. Near to their destination, they came across the bodies of nine Dene, apparently killed by the Cree. Afraid they might be blamed for the deaths, Stuart and the Cree refused to go any further.

Thanadelthur asked the party to make camp and wait for 10 days while she went to find her people and bring them back to negotiate peace. She struck out alone over the barrens and within a few days came upon several hundred Dene.

Having earlier been attacked by the Cree, it took much talking for Thanadelthur to convince her people to accompany her to the Cree camp. In the end, more than 100 agreed, and in true epic fashion, she arrived at the Cree camp on the tenth day.

Then the peace negotiations began. Thanadelthur led the talks, haranguing and scolding the parties into making peace. Finally, heading a delegation of 10 Dene, including her brother, she led them back to York Fort in May 1716.

At the post, she quickly became one of Knight’s chief advisers. Seeking her thoughts on a variety of plans, he found her to be one of the most remarkable people he had ever encountered.

In early 1717, Thanadelthur fell ill. Realizing she was dying, she spent hours teaching one of the young Hudson’s Bay Company workers to speak Dene so that he could take her place. She died on February 5, 1717, at the age of about 16.

In the book Muskekowuck Athinuwick: Original People of the Great Swampy Land, author Victor P. Lytwyn gives more detail about this time:

When the HBC re-settled York Factory in 1714, it was anxious to facilitate a peace between the Lowland Cree and the Dene. The company had economic motivations for encouraging such a peace initiative; it planned to establish a trading post at the mouth of the Churchill River to collect furs from the Dene. There were also rumours of precious metals in the Dene territory, and the company wanted to develop a friendly relationship to exploit these mineral resources. The motivation for peace on the part of the Lowland Cree is more difficult to ascertain. There were no obvious economic advantages to be gained by making peace with their traditional enemies. However, the peace initiative does make sense if it is viewed from the perspective of the alliance between the Lowland Cree and the HBC. As allies of the company, the Lowland Cree may have participated in peacemaking with the Dene in order to solidify their relationship with the English traders. A careful examination of the peace mission in 1715-16 clarifies the role of the Lowland Cree in this initiative. This peace mission has been previously analysed by scholars who have been interested in the role of the HBC or the Dene woman who acted as interpreter.

James Knight, through feasts and gifts, persuaded the leader of the Lowland Cree to undertake the peace mission. The Cree leader was followed by 17 men and their families, numbering about 150 people in total. Accompanying this group was William Stuart and Thanadelthur, who had been captured by the Lowland Cree.

They left York Factory on June 27, 1715, and headed north toward the Churchill River. Nothing was heard of the peacemakers until April 13, 1716, when three Lowland Cree arrived at York Factory with news that the party had suffered from a shortage of food and forced to break into four or five smaller groups. According to their report, the Lowland Cree leader had taken four men, along with Stuart and Thanadelthur, in the direction of the Dene winter hunting grounds. Another group of eight Lowland Cree men also continued along a different route toward Dene winter hunting grounds. These men in the party of eight met a group of Dene and killed nine people in self-defence.

These two stories that come from two different archived sources are basically telling the same story.

On May 7, 1716, the Lowland Cree leader returned to York Factory with Stuart, Thanadelthur and four Dene men. The latter had joined the Cree leader as evidence of the peace that had been made between the two groups of Indians. According to Stuart’s report, their party came across the bodies of the Dene who had been slain by the other Lowland Cree. Thanadelthur agreed to go out and bring her people to the camp in order to explain the situation and reach a peace. Within ten days, Thanadelthur returned with 400 Dene, including 160 men. Using Thanadelthur as an interpreter, the Lowland Cree leader explained that they had come in peace and offered his pipe to smoke in friendship. The Dene leaders accepted and after two days of meetings and gift exchanges, they parted company in peace. The Lowland Cree leader took four Dene boys who were “adopted” as a sign of the peace. One of these boys remained with the leader and he was thereafter treated as his own son.

Honourable senators, as I mentioned near the outset of my speech, in the present day, teaching guides are used in the classroom to highlight Thanadelthur’s experiences for teaching and covering sensitive subjects and issues. I will share one example given by Jane Hunt:

Compare the differences between life in the past and present. Discuss how people obtained food (gathering, hunting, farming) as opposed to today’s grocery shopping. What skills were necessary to survive in the wilderness, in small villages or towns? Talk about the realities that people in the past faced on a daily basis for survival. Use other documents and previous knowledge to support the discussion.

Colleagues, on August 13, 2017, a 300-year commemoration took place in Churchill, Manitoba. Many of the Dene and Cree people led by Ms. Lucy Antsanen congregated in Churchill to honour and commemorate Thanadelthur.

Furthermore, for her courage and peacemaking abilities and her contribution to Manitoban and Canadian history, Thanadelthur was commemorated in 2000 as a Person of National Historic Significance and as an Historical Role Model for the Youth in 2002.

In August 2022, I was invited to Churchill by Ms. Antsanen and representatives from the Dene nation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to witness the renaming of Hudson Square to Thanadelthur Square. At that time, I delivered my second apology speech to the Dene for the pain that was inflicted upon them.

Treaty 10 was the treaty signed by the Dene in Brochet, Manitoba. The Crees started to move in in the early 1920s. The relationship between the Crees and Dene in Brochet was violent in many ways, for many years, but there has been intermarriage between the two, and these families have lasted over our lifetime. My aunt is Dene, and my relatives are Dene.

The violence culminated in the act of the Dene moving from their traditional lands and losing the wisdom and historical connection that resides in that place in Brochet for them when they moved to Lac Brochet in 1974. They made that extremely difficult decision and moved to a place where there was no electricity, and through sheer determination they shaped a place for themselves.

In 2009, at the 100-year celebration of the treaty, I gave my first apology speech to the Dene because it was the right thing to do. I remain close friends and an ally to my Dene brothers and sisters and grandmothers and grandfathers. My mom and dad were close to the Dene, and my dad visited the Dene in Lac Brochet and helped them through hard times and celebrated good times with them. I have been told stories of my parents from the Dene. I would not have known about this side of my father if not for the Dene sharing their stories with me. Throughout these years, as Cree and Dene, we have continued to gather and have conversations not only about our shared troubled history but what connects us.

I have always felt like an intruder into another’s territory because we were in historic Dene territory as Cree. In 2005, at our yearly gathering in Brochet, Elder Joe Hyslop said, “This is my land and this is my territory.” I spoke after him and informed the people that it was indeed his land and his territory, but it was also mine. I was born and raised there, and it was the land I was connected to from birth. I knew, as I always knew, that we needed to keep looking for peace because we are family.

You see, we were already making our way to reconciliation even before the word became popular. We were actively working towards it from the time of Thanadelthur.

Colleagues, I would like to share my apology speech to the Dene in Churchill in August 2023.

Thank you to the Dene for inviting and welcoming me to their home territory.

I would like to start with a moment of reflection on the mistreatment of the Dene throughout history and in this instance by the Cree. I want to say how sorry I am for the fear, the pain, the suffering and the indignities suffered while in close contact with the Crees.

I know there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain and hurt you and your ancestors have suffered individually and collectively. But I am extending my hand out to you in the spirit of brotherhood/sisterhood in the hopes of helping to resolve our past and begin a new beginning — one that Thanadelthur strived for and worked on relentlessly.

My parents were Horace McCallum from the Peter Ballantyne First Nation in Saskatchewan and Marie Adele Thomas, whose ancestors were Metis from Selkirk and Metis from Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. They both arrived in Brochet and settled in the Treaty 10 area. I grew up in the trap-line and fish-camp until I was sent to residential school in 1957. Our house in Brochet was on the island across from the Northern Store. The summers were the only time we could come home and as Cree and Dene children we returned from the Guy Hill Residential School.

I remember the drumming and the hand games that the Dene played, and these cultural events remain a cherished part of my memories. When the evenings were calm, you could hear the sound of the drums throughout the whole village. It was the Dene playing their drums. In times of great stress in my life, I sought the sound of drums because it reminded me of my home and kinship in Brochet. The drums continue to remain a very powerful healer for me today. In times of great stress, I have sought the advice and comfort of both my Cree and Dene friends and family. The Dene will always be a strong anchor in my life, and I hope to continue to walk with you during my journey in life.

I remember hearing stories of the trauma that was inflicted upon our Dene brothers and sisters, and how they felt they had to move from Brochet to make the lives of their children safer. Their decision to move was based on great courage to leave their home territory and to make a new life in Lac Brochet. We cannot forget their stories of hurt and trauma that went with the displacement, as well as what the Dene continue to feel as a consequence of the brutal treatment of the Crees. We must face the cold, uncomfortable truth anywhere violence and trauma occur, including Churchill, Brochet and Tadoule; we need to face it and deal with it — let’s start with the historical story of Thanadelthur and, like her, champion justice.

I must also remember the existence of intergenerational trauma. These types of historical injustices, whether in Lac Brochet, Tadoule or Churchill, still continue to exert their impact today on the continuing existence and vitality of their communities, laws and customs, language, land ownership and sovereignty.

I do not know the extent of the horrors that some of the families and individuals went through — not only in Brochet, but also in Churchill. In her book Night Spirits, Ila Bussidor was articulate about many of the harms that occurred, and that continue to occur today.

I understand that the Inuit, Métis, First Nations and non‑Indigenous peoples inflicted trauma on the Dene in Churchill. How do we start that process of reconciliation and/or conciliation with each other? How do we start the conversation to include the federal government who removed the Dene from their nomadic lifestyle and lands, and forcefully placed them in Churchill without any resources, including housing? How does the government acknowledge the harm that these removal policies inflicted on the Dene?

Identifying the impact on communities, as well as individuals, is a powerful way to recognize the foundation of First Nations differences. As you are aware, Thanadelthur, a skilled interpreter and negotiator, played a crucial diplomatic role that led to peace between her people — the Dene — and their traditional enemy, the Cree.

On behalf of the Cree, I acknowledge the hurt that was inflicted on our brothers and sisters — the Dene. The Cree and the Dene have their own unique cultures, and in Brochet, there was a mixing of the two because we lived and loved together. We have families together. The Creator put us together for a reason, and we must honour the unity of the two tribes for that reason. For the sake of our children, we need to find each other again.

My hope is that this acknowledgement and this apology lead to a process of healing — a recognition and an acknowledgement of the Dene’s human worth and dignity. How do we begin to end the cycle of resentment, and of hurt?

I am not expecting forgiveness, and, as an individual, I promise not to repeat any of the trauma you have undergone. I offer my apology in the spirit of healing between the Cree and Dene Nations.

It is important that we do not stay where we are. I acknowledge that the Dene — as sovereign nations — have the power to reject this statement and this apology.

I understand that to allow space for a response is important — and that the response might not be immediate, and, when it comes, it may not be positive. The point is to acknowledge and recognize that injustice did happen. For that, I am truly sorry.

Honourable senators, this July 2023, I went home to Brochet to celebrate the Treaty 10 celebrations, along with the Treaty 10 chiefs from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We revisited and truly celebrated the Dene-Cree kinship we have. The Crees hosted the Dene in their homes, cooked all the traditional foods, played hand games and challenged each other in different competitions. There was dancing, singing, drumming and feasting. I would say it was the best and most collegial gathering that we have ever had in all these years.

Colleagues, I want to end with a quote that Chief Simon Denechezhe, from the Lac Brochet Dene Nation, gave at the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, Annual General Assembly on August 23, 2023, when he addressed the MKO chiefs on a resolution he sponsored regarding national Thanadelthur day. As a strong ally, Cree Councillor Billy Linklater, a proxy for Chief Michael Sewap from the Barren Lands First Nation, was the seconder. This resolution — which calls on the federal government to adopt legislation recognizing February 5 as national Thanadelthur day — was unanimously adopted by the MKO chiefs, with the full support of the Keewatin Tribal Council and their Grand Chief Walter Wastesicoot.

In speaking to this resolution, Chief Denechezhe said:

This is oral history that has been passed on, generation to generation. It happen[ed] in the early 1700s. I heard it orally, too, from my parents and Elders. This is not only recognition, but it[’s] also for the path to truth and reconciliation, and as Nations, we must learn to respect and acknowledge each other. And this is the form of working collectively together with all nations. Truth and Reconciliation; we are on the path now. This needs to be clearly understood and that we need to work Nation to Nation, in th[ese] modern times. I [have] heard it many times that we need to help each other. It seems like we are always at . . . odds, but us around the table, that’s our voice, voices of our Nations, and we need to [be] recognized, too, and be on the path to reconcile. Thank you. Maci-chok!

With that, kinanâskomitin to everyone. Thank you for listening.

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.