Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Seidman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier, for the adoption of the first report of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, entitled Consideration of an Inquiry Report from the Senate Ethics Officer, presented in the Senate on November 21, 2023.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table a petition from the residents of Alberta and Ontario expressing their support of Bill S-280, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, kwe, tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I recognize that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, an act to establish a national council for reconciliation. I support this legislation. I intend to vote in favour of it, and I hope to do so today. I hope Bill C-29 will receive the same unanimous support here as it did in the other place.

I want to acknowledge everyone who supported this bill in committee and participated in debate at each stage. I especially want to thank Senator Audette for her leadership and collaborative approach to shepherding this bill through the Senate.

[English]

Bill C-29 responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 53 to 56, which called for an independent national council empowered to monitor and evaluate government accountability for reconciliation efforts; to establish national action plans in furtherance of this goal; and, in other ways, to promote public dialogue and to foster reconciliation across all levels and sectors of Canadian society.

In his third-reading remarks, Senator Klyne highlighted the urgency and obligation we have to pass this bill into law. He also eloquently touched upon our accountability and responsibility in this chamber. He said:

When it comes to reconciliation, good enough is never good enough. Indigenous nations and federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments and legislatures must constantly be working to strengthen relationships and achieve the best possible results. Honesty, courage and criticism are essential to progress in society . . . .

Good enough is never good enough. In that spirit, I wish to highlight a small but significant issue that merits our attention regarding the distinctions between First Nations and Métis peoples’ historical land use, occupation and governance.

On November 15, a letter written by Grand Chief Cathy Merrick of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was delivered to the Prime Minister. Senators all received a copy of this correspondence, and I will now quote extracts from Grand Chief Merrick’s letter to help explain the amendment that I will propose to you today:

Dear Prime Minister:

On behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, I write to you today to address a concerning misconception amongst Canadian politicians about the distinctions between First Nations and Métis peoples’ land use, occupation and governance. The AMC is aware that an amendment to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, proposed by Senator Mary Jane McCallum in a recent debate of the Senate, failed to pass. The proposed amendment was in reference to the preamble, which states that Indigenous peoples have lived and governed these lands since time immemorial.

Senator McCallum sought to correct an inaccuracy associated with overgeneralization of the term “Indigenous” by replacing it with “First Nations and Inuit peoples” in order to reflect the lived realities of the three distinct groups commonly referred to as “Indigenous.”

The AMC is concerned that the content of the debate, and subsequent failure of the Senate to pass the amendment, reflects a lack of knowledge that Canadian politicians have in regard to the unique histories of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Accordingly, I would like to take the opportunity to provide education on this topic. Out of respect for the multi-juridical nature of Canada and the many legal orders that comprise it, I cite both First Nations and Canadian law in the following explanation.

Prior to European contact, First Nations existed on the lands now known as Canada since time immemorial, with our own unique laws and rights derived from the Creator. This truth is echoed across the sacred creation stories of First Nations in Manitoba, and Canada more broadly. Creation stories have multiple versions, each of which is true. They are passed down over generations by elders who teach us to know who we are and understand our spiritual relationship with the land. For a fulsome example, I refer you to D’Arcy Linklater et al., Ka’esi Wahkotumahk Aski, Our Relations With The Land: Treaty Elders’ Teachings, Volume 2, where Anishinaabe Elder Ken Courchene sets out the origins of Turtle Island. Through this sacred story, he confirms that the Anishinaabe were gifted with their lands and traditional territories by the Creator.

Anishinaabe Elder Donald Catcheway further affirms that the Creator placed the Anishinaabe on the land first and gave them responsibility and stewardship over it. As such, the Anishinaabe have an obligation to care for the land, which is tied to their ability to learn from it and enjoy its gifts.

In more recent history, First Nations have exercised their own sovereignty alongside the Crown’s assumed sovereignty through negotiated treaties and in respect of our sovereign nationhood. In contrast, the Métis people, many of whom are our relatives, arose only after contact with the Europeans. This distinction cannot be overlooked, because it informs the rights and obligations that our people owe and are owed.

In R. v. Desautel, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed:

. . . the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under s. 35(1) are the modern successors of those Aboriginal societies that occupied Canadian territory at the time of European contact . . . .

At the same time, the court clarified that there are distinctions between First Nations and Métis section 35 rights “Because Métis communities arose after contact between our Aboriginal peoples and Europeans . . . .” The court emphasized its previous opinion in R v. van der Peet that:

The manner in which the aboriginal rights of other aboriginal peoples are defined is not necessarily determinative of the manner in which the aboriginal rights of the Métis are defined.

Likewise, in R v. Powley —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Sorry, Senator McPhedran, but there is a buzzing that can be heard every once in a while. Colleagues, could you make sure that your telephones are off? The microphones are picking this up and that’s what we’re hearing every once in a while, especially if it’s near a microphone. Thank you. Please continue, Senator McPhedran.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Senator McPhedran’s amendment to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act.

Colleagues, the term “time immemorial” has been used in many research articles, books and documents; it has been used by First Nations leaders, Elders, knowledge keepers and scholars. In our First Nations ways of being and knowing, it is a tribute to our connection to Creator and in our prayers, in Cree, we say kâkike, kâkike; forever and ever. It is a reminder of our sacred responsibility to the seven generations before us and that these ancestors also had their seven generations before them. It is also a reminder of our responsibility to the generations yet to come, including my grandson’s seven generations.

I now speak to the term “time immemorial” from a Cree perspective. In the book entitled Untuwe Pi Kin He Who We Are: Treaty Elders’ Teachings Volume I, Nisichawayasi Nehetho Nation and Kihche’otthasowewin — the Great Law of the Creator, Elder D’Arcy Linklater shares the great law of the creator from the Nisichawayasi Nehetho perspective. This is comprised of 12 laws of which the fourth states Aski Kanache Pumenikewin, which means that the conduct of a person must be in accordance with the sacred duty to protect N’tuskenan, the land, life, home and spiritual shelter entrusted to us by Kihche’manitou, for our children, michimahch’ohc. That is a different form of time immemorial.

Honourable senators, I spoke yesterday to Elder Claudette Commanda at the installation of the Indigenous Chiropractors Caucus. In her prayers, she said that her ancestors from Kitigan Zibi First Nation have been here since time immemorial and their lands remain unceded today. These are the lands we stand on. The First Nations knowledge of the term “time immemorial” and seven generations is uniquely situated on Turtle Island and keeping the land pristine.

I would like to draw your attention to the April 2019 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples entitled How Did We Get Here? A Concise, Unvarnished Account of the History of the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Canada. This report’s section entitled, “From Sovereign Nations to Wards of the State: The Story of First Nations’ Relationship with the Crown” has a subsection entitled “From Time Immemorial: The Life of First Nations Before the Arrival of Settlers,” where it states:

For thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, First Nations lived on their traditional territories, depending on the lands and waters around them for sustenance. First Nations relationships to the land were a central part of their identity, as reflected in the diversity of cultures, laws, languages, ways of life and forms of governance that flourished across the area that is now Canada. . . .

The report continues:

When newcomers first arrived on the shores of Eastern Canada, they brought with them ideas about the land and the Indigenous inhabitants of the country, embodied in the concepts of terra nullius and the doctrine of discovery. . . . As explained by Elder Fred Kelly, the concept of terra nullius allowed ‘a discoverer ... [to] occupy the land by virtue of the fact that there is nobody there other than the animals’; this essentially allowed a discoverer to overlook the presence of Indigenous Peoples who were living on that land. A related concept, the doctrine of discovery ‘held that the discovery of such lands gave the discovering nation immediate sovereignty and all right and title to it.

In contrast, First Nations relied on the land for their sustenance — hunting, fishing or farming to feed their families and communities. For the Cree, land is ‘not about ownership and money.’ Instead, Cree People have a holistic understanding of land reflected in the concept of uski, which ‘includes all living things, such as the animals, plants, the trees, the fish, the rivers, the lakes and...the rocks...[and] also includes our concept of the sky world.’ The Cree view the land as integral to their culture, language and identity, and recognize that humans ‘are only a small part of our environment and...totally dependent on uski for their survival.’

The Government of Canada website, regarding the UNDRIP, or United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Action Plan, in “Chapter 1: Shared priorities,” states:

As a preliminary note to this Chapter, Canada recognizes that the UN Declaration Act states that “measures to implement the Declaration in Canada must take into account the diversity of Indigenous peoples and, in particular, the diversity of the identities, cultures, languages, customs, practices, rights and legal traditions of First Nations, Inuit and the Métis and of their institutions and governance structures, their relationships to the land and Indigenous knowledge.”

Canada recognizes that while some priorities may be shared among First Nations, Inuit and Métis, adopting a distinctions-based approach requires that Canada’s relationships and engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis include different approaches or actions and result in different outcomes. . . .

Honourable senators, in legal terms, “time immemorial” originated in English common law, where it referred to a legal concept signifying a period way back in time where there is no recollection of record to prove a custom, right or claim.

In the U.K., a statute of the year 1275 said that the time before King Richard I’s reign or 1189 was declared to be time immemorial.

You will see the difference here between how the two define the word.

Colleagues, much of the remaining information I will share is taken from a book published by the Thompson Rivers University entitled Histories of Indigenous Peoples and Canada, which reads:

Canadians — including many Indigenous people — came to understand Indigenous histories as tangential, small, unimportant, and even a blind alley. This kind of thinking enabled Canadian authorities and citizens to regard Indigenous communities as being “without history,” as in, outside of history. And no one outside of history is going to fare very well . . . We — all of us — are those Canadians invited to engage in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Some truths are unknowable but what we can know, what truths we can distill from the past will be essential to the long hard climb toward reconciliation.

One common form of histories across cultures is that they legitimate a society’s claim to be where it is. . . . For millennia, Indigenous history was maintained by many means —

— including oral history.

Privileging the written word, European and Euro-Canadian historians overwhelmingly disregarded and sometimes disparaged the oral tradition. In New France, British North America, and Canada, the colonialist strategy was more subtle: it simply denied the existence of a historic past [of the First Nations]. Since material records by First Nations were dependent on an interpreter, these skills became less common as alien diseases, warfare and relocation interrupted the connection between the past and its heirs and hence the importance of oral history.

The book continues:

A systematic academic archaeological dig that stretched from the 1880s to the 1950s in Marpole Midden, a traditional village and burial site of enormous importance, pointed to occupation that stretched back at least fifteen hundred years and abandonment sometime in the mid-1700s. . . . The Ottawa Citizen newspaper in 1948 took the view that, whoever they were, the people whose remains constitute the Marpole Midden “. . . were not Indians certainly.” This tendency to deny a history before colonization survives in the practice among some scholars and commentators — still found in some quarters today — to refer to the period before the arrival of Europeans as “pre-historic.” This alleged absence . . . allowed newcomers to write their own history over top of Indigenous Histories . . . Europeans in the early contact period might transcribe Indigenous voices, but that is always filtered through the Europeans’ lens of what is important and how they understood the speaker. For example, they were more likely to journal about beaver pelts than . . . Cree moral debates and Ktunaxa understandings of the past.

Honourable senators, we must ensure that, as educated and civilized champions of the marginalized, we do not continue to place First Nations, Métis and Inuit histories into a monolith, and that we do not adopt legislation that, once again, ignores First Nations histories.

We have to ensure that we do the right thing and continue to accurately place First Nations within Canadian history. What remains problematic is the persistent use of the term “Indigenous”; it remains a form of assimilation.

Colleagues, when Bruce Trigger broadened historical approaches now described as ethno-history, he was able to transform understandings of the pre-, proto- and post-contact history of the Wendat.

At first, Western scholars were astonished that Indigenous knowledge included centuries-old elements. One example included:

The Heiltsuk, a.k.a. Bella Bella, people’s history and their insistence that their direct ancestors lived in their region for many millennia; recent archaeological evidence validates this claim back about fourteen thousand years.

“Vindication” may seem like the right word here, but it has been more like an education. Euro-Canadian society as a whole has been slow to grasp the strength and depth of Indigenous historical knowledge . . . Indigenous societies speak of knowledge keepers, not necessarily knowledge providers. Under no obligation to disclose their historical knowledge, Indigenous peoples nevertheless have the right to demand truthfulness in historical studies —

 — and in this case, truthfulness in legislation.

Honourable senators, changing the wording in the amendment — to reflect the truth — is not about denying the status and authority of the Métis. It was never about excluding.

My intention, and the intention of the amendment before us, is in regard to historical accuracy. Such an amendment is not signalling that Métis are of lesser importance. It is a historical fact that they came later in Canadian society because of the Métis shared biology between a First Nations woman and a European man.

Honourable senators, if we deny historical accuracy, then we are facilitating a harmful illusion of Canada’s history that will ultimately have deleterious impacts on First Nations rights, history and culture.

We must be resolute that we approach our work in giving sober second thought with diligence, and that includes ensuring the legislation we pass is fundamentally accurate.

In the book entitled We All Go Back to the Land: The Who, Why, and How of Land Acknowledgements, author Suzanne Keeptwo states:

Although the Land Acknowledgement is perceived as a relatively new phenomenon, it prompts mainstream Canadians to re-imagine an Inhabited world — a world prior to European settlement, that is unlike any other.

The Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-29, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing lines 1 and 2 with the following:

“Whereas, since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator McCallum, I’m sorry, your time for debate has expired.

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

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

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Colleagues, I ask you the following: What is one of the greatest moral failures of the 21st century? My answer today is the opioid crisis. I believe I can safely predict that 50 years from now, Canadians will look back on this era and ask how legislators and policy-makers could have been so blind. How could they have steadfastly carried down a road that was so clearly leading to a dead end? I commend our colleague the Honourable Senator Boniface for putting forward this bill, as she has succinctly and convincingly argued that a national crisis deserves a national response.

Fundamentally, the impact of this national crisis on Canada is clear. The war on drugs is lost, and the cost is the lives of our fellow Canadian citizens.

Between January 1 and November 2 of this year, in my home province of Saskatchewan, the coroner’s office recorded 395 confirmed or suspected drug toxicity deaths. Over 90% of those deaths were related to fentanyl or fentanyl-like substances. As with most provinces, coroners only investigate under specific circumstances and at specific locations. Also, that data doesn’t show any of the people who were thankfully revived by naloxone, or who required an ambulance to an emergency room or hospital stay.

It has been reported that a single overdose can cost as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars, but it can be even more: A long stay in an intensive care unit for an overdose can cost millions of dollars. The costs also say nothing of the personal, familial and community impacts of substance use disorders and drug toxicity deaths. Those impacts reverberate and persist.

Data suggests this assertion. For instance, the 2019 Canadian Alcohol and Drugs Survey — released at the end of 2021 — found that in 2019, 4% of Canadians reported having used at least one illegal drug. Other research found that an estimated 3% of Canadians have used one of five illegal drugs, including cocaine, or crack; ecstasy; speed, or methamphetamine; and hallucinogens. Further, almost 18% of Canadians report that they have used an illegal drug at some point in their lifetime, with hallucinogens being the most used. In 2019, 14% of Canadians reported being harmed in the past year due to someone else’s alcohol use, and 2% reported being harmed due to someone else’s drug use.

While illegal drug use is remarkably indiscriminate as to the lives it touches, some in our country are affected disproportionately through the criminalization of illegal drug use. Earlier this year, I had a discussion with two young doctors — Dr. Shayan Shirazi and Dr. Ryan Krochak — both who are students at the University of Saskatchewan. They spoke of the increased vulnerability to substance use disorders of Indigenous peoples being framed by trauma related to colonization.

Simple possession has led to over-policing and high rates of incarceration of Indigenous peoples. Over 30% of the Canadian federal inmate population is Indigenous, despite comprising approximately 5% of the Canadian population. In 2003, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation reported:

. . . the residential school system contributed to the central risk factor involved, substance abuse, but also to factors shown to be linked to alcohol abuse, such as child and adult physical, emotional and sexual abuse, mental health problems and family dysfunction. The impact of residential schools can also be linked to risk factors for poor pregnancy outcomes among women who abuse alcohol, such as poor overall health, low levels of education and chronic poverty.

I thank Senator Boniface and Senator Pate for exploring this ongoing impact and the disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women.

I reached out to two women from my home province of Saskatchewan this year. These women — both of them mothers — share a bond forged in tragedy. They both lost sons because of tainted drugs. Marie Agioritis lost her son Kelly Best due to a counterfeit OxyContin pill laced with fentanyl in 2015. He was described as living “a life full of fun, love, laughter, plans, dreams, friends, and family . . . .” and had aspirations of becoming an electrician. Kelly was only 19 years of age. Ms. Agioritis pointed out to me that, in war, the first objective of peacekeepers is to deal with trauma. She also told me that there are too many talking points and not enough actions. One all-too-common and painful talking point that she hears about those substance abuse disorders is the old saw, “If you mess with the bull, you’ll get the horns.”

I am told that the youth of today do not believe this and that their perspective is different. I believe that youth are a source of hope; at the same time, they are the low-hanging fruit in a national strategy for education that is evidence-based and not driven by misinformed public opinion or tainted by the “if you mess with the bull, you get the horns” ideology.

Like Ms. Agioritis, Jenny Churchill is a tireless advocate for public education, supports and a medical-model view of substance use disorder. Ms. Churchill lost her son Jordan in 2018 due to a fentanyl overdose.

For her, a successful national strategy will be responsive primarily to the needs of three groups of Canadians: those with substance use disorders, people who use substances recreationally and the youth cohort.

Both Marie and Jenny are members of the Moms Stop the Harm group, a Canada-wide network of moms and families advocating for evidence-based treatment and policy change. They want policies and a national strategy that would do three things effectively: one, save lives; two, reduce health care costs; and three, reduce criminal behaviour on the streets.

A partnership research project with Moms Stop the Harm reported that over 19,355 Canadians died from opiate overdose between January 2016 and September 2020. A unique aspect of this research is that it involved those who had lost a loved one to an opioid overdose, mostly moms, almost half of whom experienced stigma or judgment from their peers after the death of their loved one.

Decriminalization is not a cure-all for that kind of pain or for drug supplies that are increasingly adulterated and contaminated by fentanyl and its analogues.

What decriminalization does is provide a venue for an individual — a person, a Canadian citizen — who uses or may be addicted to illegal drugs to be seen first as an individual, a person and a Canadian citizen.

The Canadian state has a vested interest in the health and well-being of all its citizens. The federal government has a duty and moral obligation to every one of its citizens. This is evident when government agencies work hard to repatriate Canadians stranded because of a global pandemic or conflict and war.

The war on drugs, by most accounts, is either an abject failure or a losing battle. We are losing because the war on drugs is most often a war on people whose lives hang in the balance. A recent study by Scher et al. found that “. . . Canada’s drug laws may shape public attitudes toward people who use drugs . . .” and create the resulting “. . . structural, social and self-stigma experienced by people who use drugs.”

As Dr. Harry Rakowski, a senior cardiologist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre and Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto, asserted, “We keep losing the war on drugs because we are fighting the wrong enemy.” He argues that Canada needs to address the antecedent issues, harms, traumas and root causes. I agree that this is a necessary step. However, without a national conversation and strategy, we will not be able to address the root causes or challenge the concerns of those who argue for continued criminalization — concerns such as an increase in drug use; impacts on public safety, youth and international relations; and limited treatment infrastructure.

A truism about the justice system is that it is inherently reactive and only rarely proactive. I believe that Bill S-232 will create a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances and will be an opportunity to be proactive in stopping the harm created by failed drug policies.

Dr. Shirazi and Dr. Krochak provided me with a well-researched brief in which they stated:

Canada’s drug toxicity crisis is a complex issue with no single or immediate solution; however, it is well established that substance abuse disorders are a medical issue, not a criminal one. Canada is not going to arrest its way out of its drug toxicity crisis. Ultimately, decriminalization is a policy that will save the taxpayer money, fight the drug toxicity crisis and, most importantly, save lives.

Experts have been clear, however, that decriminalization is not an ultimate solution, but may be a necessary step. This bill takes an important and necessary step toward finding solutions. It recognizes that substance abuse disorder is a public health issue and not a criminal justice matter.

Canada has a moral obligation to help individuals and our society through legislation and law, including in regard to offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Five years ago, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police released a statement supporting:

. . . decriminalization strategies such as increasing diversionary opportunities, alternate sanctions and health partnerships, while exploring the evolution of harm-reduction techniques such as safe supply and supervised drug consumption sites.

The national conversation Bill S-232 proposes must consider the research and data that finds decriminalization is a means of harm reduction and, in turn, of enabling positive health outcomes.

Dr. Rebecca Seliga, a member of the University of Ottawa Department of Emergency Medicine, summarized this by stating:

While some may argue that decriminalization is just a buzzword alone, we already know that its counterpart, criminalization, does not work.

Colleagues, it is time for the conversation to begin in earnest; it is time for a national response to a national crisis. I support Bill S-232 and hope it will be sent to the committee as soon as possible. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: I rise today as the critic for Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which was introduced by the Honourable Gwen Boniface.

Honourable colleagues, Bill S-232 addresses an alarming and worrisome public health issue in our country. Drug use continues to kill many Canadians every day, and it impacts the health of thousands more. Some of the deadliest psychoactive substances are the notorious opioid analgesics, such as heroin and fentanyl.

According to the Canadian Alcohol and Drugs Survey, CADS, 4.4 million Canadians aged 15 and up reported having used opioid pain relievers in 2019, up 12% from 2017. Of those 4.4 million people, 269,000 reported problematic use of those drugs. According to the Government of Canada, there were 3,556 opioid-related deaths from January to June 2022, an average of 20 per day. Of those deaths, 76% were caused by fentanyl overdose.

Yes, the opioid crisis in Canada is raging, but we must not lose sight of the impact of other types of illegal drugs on many Canadians. According to CADS, in 2019, 1.1 million Canadians reported having consumed drugs in one of the following six categories: cocaine and crack, speed and methamphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin and salvia. In Quebec, those drugs killed seven times more users than fentanyl from January to April 2022.

Drug use not only kills people, it also has major impacts on the lives and health of drug users. In addition to their harmful mental and physical effects, drugs can insidiously compromise the user’s social, professional, intimate and financial life. For some, life spirals out of control and, sadly, they end up homeless. In 2019, over one million Canadians reported that drugs had negatively impacted their own lives.

Drug use also affects crime rates linked to family violence, theft and sexual assault. Honourable senators, drug use is a serious public health problem in Canada. It deserves more of our attention so that we can come up with constructive solutions to help people struggling with hard drugs and to effectively fight traffickers, who exploit human misery for profit and must be held accountable for the many lives lost.

In Canada, we may need to consider the sale of deadly drugs as nothing less than premeditated murder. Bill S-232 is a legislative response to the substance abuse problem that I just described; according to the critic, it has two objectives.

The first objective is to require the federal government to consult with the provinces and territories in order to present Parliament with a national strategy for the decriminalization of all drugs. The second objective is to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to repeal the provisions that make possession of certain substances an offence. In other words, we are talking about decriminalization from a purely legal point of view.

In my view, a third objective is missing from Bill S-232. It should include a provision requiring the government to develop a concrete public health strategy that provides for detox before decriminalization.

While I applaud Senator Boniface’s useful work and the laudable objectives of her bill, I believe that the approach of outright decriminalization of drugs is premature and that it only partially addresses the problem.

In her speech at second reading, the senator indicated that the part of the bill seeking the total decriminalization of simple possession through the repeal of drug law sections would be done by an order-in-council issued by the Governor in Council, and according to their wishes, after the strategy is finalized so it can be put in place, if this bill passes.

When it comes to public health, it is rare to see anyone want to decriminalize anything while waiting to see what happens later. That is this government’s strategy. Decriminalization for the Trudeau government is not a public health strategy; it is dogma.

The senator’s approach is certainly prudent. However, I would like to state an important caveat on this point: Nothing in the bill states that this strategy, which is apparently complete and takes all challenges and perspectives into account, has to be implemented and analyzed first before the possibility of decriminalizing all drugs can be considered.

I think it is premature and even dangerous to consider passing a bill that proposes repealing sections of the law that criminalize simple drug possession at this stage of the process, when no complete strategy has been implemented, which might well take years to happen.

This is an important point, colleagues, because the bill we are studying does not set any legislative framework to decriminalize drugs. As a result, any possession of any illicit drug for personal use will no longer be considered criminal, regardless of the nature of the substance and the quantity in possession.

It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the bill is to prevent drug overdose deaths, which are largely attributable to a bad supply that is extremely dangerous.

People use illicit drugs without knowing what is in them or where they came from. Often the user is not aware that those drugs may contain all sorts of harmful or deadly substances, such as fentanyl-type opioids or fentanyl analogues. That is especially true of crack.

I would like to share with you a sad incident that occurred last Friday in Laval to demonstrate how dangerous Bill S-232 is and how it could give drug users and the population in general a false sense of security.

I am talking about the murder of 61-year-old Mireille Martin. I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to her family and friends. Mireille Martin led a quiet life in an apartment building near her nephew, Jérôme Frigault, an ordinary young man in his 30s. According to his best friend, Jérôme regularly took methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as speed. Late last Thursday, the Laval police went to Ms. Martin’s address after receiving a complaint about excessive noise coming from her apartment. They left without taking any action. Two hours later, Mireille stumbled out of her apartment bleeding and died on the sidewalk after being stabbed to death by her nephew, who was in a psychotic state.

She was yet another victim, another case of femicide. To date, 2023 has been a record year in Quebec for this type of criminal death. Was this murder preventable? Possibly, given that the police who arrived at the scene two hours prior to the tragedy would have likely noticed the murderer’s agitated state. Why did they not remove him from the building or take him to hospital until he calmed down? The investigation will undoubtedly shed light on this horrible tragedy, or at least I hope it will.

This is a compelling example of why I fear decriminalizing all drugs, especially the deadliest ones. This bill gives drug users and politicians alike a false sense of security. What is more, it throws the door wide open to drug dealers.

It is all the more disturbing to note that the more lethal the drug, the smaller the quantity consumed. Therefore, most of the time, it is difficult to prove that the quantity of drugs seized was for the purpose of trafficking.

I would like to give you another example of how young people interpret the decriminalization of dangerous drugs as normalization. According to today’s edition of La Presse, the number of Quebec teens using illegal vapes to consume cannabis has exploded over the past four years, tripling since 2019. According to doctors, vaping cannabis increases the risk of addiction and mental illness.

According to a 2023 survey of approximately 24,000 adolescents, 12% said they use cannabis, compared to 15% in 2019. However, 66% said they vape cannabis, compared to 20% in 2019. Teens acquire cannabis vapes on the black market because it is illegal to sell them to anyone in Quebec, even adults.

Some of these devices are rechargeable, while others, called wax pens, are disposable. Some schools report students fainting after using them. The fact is, the vape juice these young people are consuming can contain as much as 90% THC, compared to the 30% maximum in products sold by the Société québécoise du cannabis.

This desired decriminalization, regardless of its potentially deadly risks, will undoubtedly lead to the same outcome as the legalization of cannabis, a drug with an illegal market that still controls 50% of sales today. This means that 50% of consumers buy cannabis of uncontrolled quality and origin.

This highly touted decriminalization will have little impact on death tolls or lethal drug trafficking, because, for the past eight years, the federal government has failed to implement any kind of strategy to guide consumers to public health services for detox support, like Portugal did when it introduced a detox strategy prior to decriminalization. Portugal’s strategy was a success. To do otherwise and believe we could achieve the same result is totally irresponsible.

Bill S-232 takes a somewhat simplistic and especially dangerous view of Canada’s illegal drug market. We have a duty to do better. Most importantly, we have an obligation to avoid making the situation worse by putting more lives in danger.

Bill S-232 in no way addresses the issue of minors. I would remind my colleagues that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code apply to anyone aged 12 or over, and that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not contain a specific provision criminalizing drug possession. Without important clarifications, Bill S-232 will allow adolescents to possess any type of psychoactive substance in undefined quantities, without giving the police or judicial authorities any powers to prevent or dissuade teens from using them. This important aspect must not be overlooked, in order to avoid any unintended consequences to Senator Boniface’s desired objective.

Honourable senators, I will quote another passage from Bill S-232, but first I would like to point out that I’m opposed to the very principle of this bill.

In my opinion, the decriminalization of all drugs runs contrary to the balance that is needed between the problem of drug addiction and criminal justice objectives.

Now I’d like to talk about how the justice system has already adopted diversion measures for drug possession over the past 10 years.

Currently, our justice system is adapting more and more to the drug addiction issue. You will recall that Bill C-5, which we passed on November 17, 2022, provides diversion measures for simple drug possession in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Three new paragraphs that came into effect with the passage of Bill C-5 read as follows:

I would also remind senators that the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act already contain provisions granting discretionary power to the justice system to delay sentencing so that a person who has been found guilty of an offence can participate in a drug treatment court program. If that program is successful, the offender may receive a reduced sentence. What is more, if the offence is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, the court is not required to impose that minimum prison sentence.

I would like to quote subsection 10(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which states the following:

Finally, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook already contains directives on how to deal with the opioid overdose issue. Here is one of them:

The Guideline seeks to avoid short durations of incarceration for violation of bail conditions by accused with a substance abuse disorder. This Guideline was created in order to address the epidemic of opioid overdoses through a targeted focus upon the risk of opioid-related overdoses by those with a substance use disorder.

The examples I have just cited demonstrate the pragmatism currently being shown by the Canadian justice system. The balance it has subtly attempted to strike over the years between the problem of drug addiction and the objectives of criminal justice shows a willingness to adapt to the addiction situations experienced by drug users. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to remove the important role played by the justice system and to treat the problem of drug addiction as a public health issue. In fact, this bill is almost a decade behind the Canadian justice system.

Honourable senators, possible exemptions under the current law already exist. These exemptions allow the Minister of Health to identify cases and conditions under which possession of narcotics for personal use can be acceptable in our society. These exemptions help ensure some degree of control, with an opportunity to set guidelines for drug possession, while recognizing specific needs and authorizing the tools and means to support harm reduction among certain populations, for example, by establishing safe injection sites.

These injection sites exist almost everywhere in major Canadian cities. People can show up to these sites and consume narcotics. These centres provide people with a safe place, with sterile consumption equipment, where health professionals are on hand to respond to emergency situations.

The exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act allows the staff to possess small amounts of controlled drugs in the course of their professional activities. Analyses to test the composition of a drug can also be performed before clients of these centres consume their drugs, thus preventing accidental deaths due to the presence of undesirable substances. Some users can also obtain medical prescriptions for the consumption of controlled substances under medical supervision, under this exemption to the law.

That is the approach taken by British Columbia, which requested and obtained an exemption to be able to experiment with the decriminalization of drugs at the provincial level. That exemption is valid until January 31, 2026.

British Columbia is being hard hit by fatal opioid overdoses. Thanks to this exemption, in British Columbia, any adult can possess 2.5 grams of four types of illegal drugs: opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Moreover, this exemption does not apply in certain locations, such as elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, airports and aboard Canadian Coast Guard ships and helicopters.

Honourable senators, given that exemptions already exist in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and that the justice system is adapting each and every year to the problem of addictions, I do not consider it either useful or responsible to remove the role the justice system plays in addressing this problem.

I agree with Senator Boniface that we need a national strategy that provides better social services and more support to users, who should also be offered medical treatment.

Decriminalization could never be the ultimate solution to the drug addiction problem for the reasons I have already outlined.

In my analysis, Bill S-232 in its current form is a far too simple a response to a very complex problematic situation.

Most importantly, it does not include plans for a real public health strategy to combat drug addiction. This bill risks creating even bigger problems if a comprehensive strategy is not developed before we think about decriminalizing drugs.

Decriminalization should only happen if it is truly a desirable solution, after comprehensive studies and analyses have been conducted. That is not yet the case.

Let’s hope we will have the opportunity to address these issues in committee soon. Thank you very much.

[English]

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Would Senator Boisvenu take a question?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Would you take a question, Senator Boisvenu?

The Hon. the Speaker: Would you take a supplementary question, Senator Boisvenu?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Martin. I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, the balance of her time to speak to this item be reserved.