Hon. Gwen Boniface: Senator McCallum, thank you very much for explaining the bill. I wanted to bring something to your attention and ask you a question related to a discussion we had yesterday.

In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, policing would be done by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec in many of the northern communities, as well as by First Nation police services. In Northern Ontario, it’s the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service or the Treaty Three Police Service.

How will the amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act impact those? Because that would maybe mean provincial — or, in the case of tripartite agreements, between the federal and provincial — interplay with stand-alone police services in First Nation communities.

Is there a mechanism that will allow that to take place or will that need further legislation? Is that something the committee should look at?

Senator McCallum: I made a statement about how it doesn’t affect all the communities across Canada because some of them have their own agreements. It excludes them.

These are specifically for a certain group of people. I did ask that question because I was working with lawyers. I made a statement in there that it doesn’t involve the ones that already have their own ways of dealing with the issues. There are some bands in B.C. that have already dealt with this through a tripartite agreement. It doesn’t include them.

When this bill goes to committee, we will invite the groups that have their own agreements to tell us what works and what doesn’t in order to inform parliamentarians about any concerns we should have.

(On motion of Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Senator Boniface: May I have five more minutes if the chamber permits?

Senator Boniface: So much depends on the specifics of what they find and what they do. One important piece — and I mentioned it in my speech — is if it comes to the point of a criminal investigation, such as the one you refer to, that would normally be referred to a different area. The material would be held — the phone — and then they would send it over for an investigation, which would likely then go to the local police to lay the charge.

The distinction is what the device initially is looking for is regulatory contraventions under the regime of the customs legislation. I should have mentioned it at some other point, but they have 90 different pieces of legislation that are covered under the contraventions. The criminal piece is normally done by the local police service, so it would be a connection then. Then they do a criminal investigation that’s separate and apart from it. That’s normally how the process would work locally.

Senator Boniface: The question you ask is so specific that I would request that you ask it of the CBSA officers when they come before us. In fairness, I have not stood in their shoes to know exactly the step-by-step process. For me, that is how I best understand it. I would suggest that you put the question on the step-by-step process. You raise a fair question in terms of to what extent they have to inform. I think that when you learn how they walk through it in practice, that might be much better than any answer I could give you.

Senator Boniface: Yes, of course.

Senator Boniface: They said it would be somewhere in between. It is novel. However, when you refer to other countries, let me also say that in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Australia, the threshold is actually lower than what Canada is putting in here in its place. When we compare this to some of our like jurisdictions, this is actually a higher standard than exists in other jurisdictions.

That is an important question and that is why I said at the end of my speech that the committee that has the privilege to look at this bill needs to ask these questions. It is a unique circumstance at the border. Devices are unique in terms of the time frame that border officers have to look at them and to make their decisions. I think how they built in some of the accountability for officers is an important mechanism that helps us flesh it out. There is no doubt that the courts will have to look at this at some point; it will be challenged, and they will have to look at it. I am extremely hopeful that we will be in a position where we recognize the balance that must be taken in this case. I encourage those at the committee that sees this to make sure you ask those questions.

Senator Boniface: Senator Yussuff, thank you very much for the question. As indicated in the briefing that I received, as well as the briefing that was available to senators this morning, discussions have been ongoing with the Privacy Commissioner over some period of time. On this topic specifically, they haven’t yet had a conclusive discussion with the Privacy Commissioner. However, I would encourage the committee — whichever committee it is decided this goes to — to invite the Privacy Commissioner for those discussions and views. I would expect, as we do in this chamber all the time, that everyone will be open to amendments, and certainly the Privacy Commissioner’s voice is an important one to hear.

Senator Boniface: I can’t fully answer the question, Senator McCallum, but I would be happy to send you a response that will hopefully help answer your question. I do know that the racial profiling issue will be an important question to be answered at committee.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Woo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Senator Boniface: Thank you for the question, Senator Simons. How Canfield was interpreted — and I hope I spoke clearly on it — was that the court recognized there would be something between what would be the routine check and the reasonable grounds. I will send you the paragraph number to be clear.

Senator Boniface: Thank you very much, Senator Wells, for your question, which very much aligns with Senator Omidvar’s question. I want to be clear that the “reasonable general concern” is legislated but not as high as “reasonable grounds.” To be clear, that is the difference. In fact, prior to Canfield, there was no threshold requirement; it was part of a routine search. I want to make sure that is clear.

You raise the same question that Senator Omidvar spoke to on the indicators. As I said, this is the work that CBSA officers do every day. They may ask you a question, not knowing you are Senator Wells, such as, “What do you have with you? What’s on your phone?” for instance. You may indicate, “nothing.” Then they will question further to see if they can get some indicators. They look for issues like avoidance in answering the questions. They look for people who are nervous.

It is important to remember that they work in this environment every day, so they take into consideration whether you have an explanation for the way you are acting or the way that you appear. They are professional in what they do. They are trained to look for this type of thing. The fact that they have to make notes around the personal devices is an important step in terms of any challenges they may have but also to ensure that, as they do this over time — which isn’t that often, as you can tell from the statistics — they will become very good at it. It is important to remember that this is what they do every day; it is not unique to this.

Senator Boniface: Thank you, Senator Busson, for the question. Let me also say that, as someone who shared a career with you, these concerns were mine as well when I first looked at the bill.

What know as a result of the Canfield decision in Alberta that the court has left the CBSA with the options of creating something less than the threshold that they are living with now, which is actually a higher threshold in Alberta and Ontario, which I spoke about.

For CBSA, I think it is an obligation on which they have little choice, and I think they have shown to be particularly adept at shifting and moving into what will be this legislative model. They’ve also started to think particularly about how they will do their training. I think all of that convinces me, and I’m certainly convinced from our discussions with them — I hope the committee feels the same way — that they are prepared for the shift and that it will be very much a reflection of the policy that they’ve been working under since 2019.

Senator Boniface: Thank you for the question. From the briefings I’ve had with CBSA, they are working on the regulations already. They are very aware that the regulations and the legislation will best serve the officers and the community as they move forward in having them as closely aligned as possible. That was a question raised during the briefing by one of our colleagues, and he was reassured that is, in fact, their goal. As you know, and as you said, regulations tend to drag. I think they are very cognizant of that. I will reiterate that back to Canada Border Services Agency. I expect our colleagues on the committee to which this is referred will be looking for that level of reassurance as well.

Senator Boniface: Thank you for the question, Senator Woo. The discussions with the U.S. government have already taken place. They already understand. Of course, because they operate in our state, in Canada, they already have to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently, they are well versed on this already and are prepared to move forward.

Senator Boniface: They have such a unique role and they have such a short interaction. In fact, this is what they do every day. This is how they are trained. With every person they meet, they are making an assessment of what that interaction means and what the indicators are.

As they move on issues regarding personal devices, they would be sent to secondary for that examination to take place. You would have the interaction of more than one person as well. But this is what customs officers do every day. They make those assessments based on the questions they ask and based on the types of behavioural things that they observe. Like the rest of people in those fields, they are tested on their accuracy. I just want to draw to your attention, again on the personal devices — what we would call the hit rate — the fact that 27% of them are actually finding contraband on those, which tells me that they are actually doing quite well when you compare it to any other area of work like that. They are very focused and looking for the right stuff.

Senator Boniface: I am happy to continue answering questions if the chamber is agreed.

Senator Boniface: I am at the mercy of the chamber. I would be happy to take Senator Wells’s and Senator McCallum’s questions, and perhaps we can agree to call it there.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, this reasonable general concern examination authority includes specific purpose limitations, ensuring that the examination must be regulatory in nature, and will be limited to what is stored on a device at the time of border crossing. Of equal importance, however, is that the officer’s concerns must be reasonable, insofar as they can be objectively identified and meaningfully reviewed, akin to what CBSA is already doing.

This, combined with new legally binding controls to be included in regulations, would guide the conduct of the examination. These controls are intended to create the appropriate limits on the examination and would include specific note-taking requirements and restrictions around accessing documents stored only on the device itself, and not on “the cloud.” Again, that is something the CBSA is already doing internally.

Colleagues, in a world of ubiquitous smartphones and constantly evolving hand-held technology, this legislative change is necessary to maintain the integrity of our border and keep Canadians safe, while demonstrating the ongoing commitment to respecting traveller privacy. While, yes, this is a novel approach, it is one that has been carefully developed, having regard to the uniqueness of both personal digital devices and the border regulatory context.

As with many legislative amendments, it is likely that there will be other challenges in charting this new ground. That said, the approach laid out for this bill responds to the legal concerns the court identified in Canfield, and now the Ontario cases, and preserves operational integrity for the CBSA, which should be vitally important to all Canadians.

The changes in this bill will ensure that the CBSA continues to fulfill its mandate to protect and secure Canada’s borders, while at the same time respecting the privacy rights of travellers. It will also align the examination authorities of CBSA officers and U.S. pre-clearance officers, both of which are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my view, it is a necessary and measured balance between privacy and security.

Practically speaking, what do you think these amendments mean for the average traveller? Frankly, colleagues, I don’t think we will notice much of a difference in processing when we return to Canada from our voyages. As mentioned, much of what is being legislated in Bill S-7 is already being done. This bill isn’t creating substantial new authorities for CBSA officers. It is, in fact, limiting those authorities found to be unconstitutional, authorities which the CBSA itself has already limited in its internal policies and operations for inbound travellers. But don’t misconstrue this bill as being any less important because of this.

Senators, the suspension of constitutional invalidity was originally for one year only, which put us to last October. The government applied for, and received, a six-month extension on that suspension. The extension is now set to expire today as the court refused a further extension. Beginning tomorrow, we will have two regimes in this country. Alberta and Ontario will be required to use subsection 99(1)(e) of the Customs Act, which obligates border officers to suspect on reasonable grounds that a contravention has occurred to examine personal digital devices, while everywhere else in the country can continue to use subsection 99(1)(a) as they have since the Simmons ruling. The higher bar of reasonable grounds to suspect is detrimental to the mandate of our border officers and detrimental to the public safety of our nation. Suspicion on reasonable grounds is harder to determine than using a multiplicity of indicators pointing to a contravention, which border officers currently use.

It is imperative that we take this incongruity seriously in the meantime. I implore you, colleagues, not as the sponsor of this bill, but someone who was involved in law enforcement for a long time, to prioritize Bill S-7 for our consideration. We can’t let this incongruity stand for a day longer than necessary for two reasons. First, training modules can’t occur for CBSA officers until the finalized version, and the finalized wording, of the bill passes through Parliament. Second, and most importantly, each day that passes from here on out can be used by those actors seeking to import obscene materials, such as child pornography, into Canada. Starting tomorrow, it will be much easier to do so through Alberta and Ontario. Because of this, let’s be prudent, let’s be efficient, but let’s also be critical because this bill is seeking to implement a new evidentiary threshold for our ports of entry.

And let us ensure that we consider this bill, keeping in mind what is good for our borders and what is good for our communities.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Gwen Boniface moved second reading of 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.

She said: Honourable senators, the mechanics and much rationale for this bill were previously described in my remarks to Bill S-229, the current bill’s predecessor. Please regard my remarks today as an extension or second chapter of that speech.

I think it is most appropriate to begin second reading of Bill S-232, the Health-Centred Approach to Substance Use Act, from where I left off with Bill S-229: with the headlines. I will restrict these headlines to only the beginning of 2022.

“Saskatchewan sees record high overdose deaths in 2021;” “I watched the opioid crisis from the front lines. I’m glad I’m leaving;” “Paramedics in B.C. responded to nearly 100 overdoses a day in 2021;” ”Half of people who died from opioids in 2020 sought health care in the month before;” “Yukon declares substance use health emergency after 4 deaths in 1st week of January;” “Sudbury area continues to deal with an increase in opioid overdoses and deaths;” And finally, just from today: “Three drug overdoses reported within an hour in Mississauga.”

Senators, this issue isn’t going away. Since I last spoke on this in May, the numbers of overdoses and deaths we are seeing in this country are getting higher. We have seen some progress. There was some movement in party platforms during the election: the NDP has long called for decriminalization; Conservatives pledged funding for a thousand residential drug treatment beds and promised to treat the opioid epidemic as a health issue; the governing Liberals have promised a comprehensive strategy addressing problematic substance use, which is akin to what can be found in Bill S-232.

This strategy can also be found in the new portfolio of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions mandate letter, though there is no mention of decriminalization. Addictions generally were only mentioned in passing in the Speech from the Throne, which is worrisome. Though progress is being made, these are, in my estimation, baby steps rather than the much-needed strident steps.

Bill S-232 contains two notable advancements from Bill S-229: the inclusion of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in the consultation process, and a reference to the unanimous recommendation to decriminalize personal possession of substances from the Expert Task Force on Substance Use.

As a reminder, Bill S-232 does namely two things. It mandates conversations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories and other stakeholders so that the federal government can report to Parliament with a national strategy as to how best tackle the epidemic of substance use. The second thing it does is remove the criminal sanctions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession, also known as decriminalization.

It is important to remember this: The way the bill is drafted, decriminalization comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council. If this bill receives Royal Assent, decriminalization will not suddenly become the law of the land. As stated in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police report of 2020:

It will be key in a Canadian context that treatment facilities are established and operational ahead of decriminalization and have the capacity to take in individuals diverted through police contact.

It would be prudent to ensure that the national strategy is completed and reported to Parliament before decriminalization takes place. The supports need to be in place first, then decriminalization can happen. Bold actions need to be taken. Honourable colleagues, this is about saving lives. I would submit that most every senator in this chamber has been affected by addiction, be it a family member, a friend or a colleague. If not, you know someone who has.

Colleagues, there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization. I want to be very clear on this point. They must not be used interchangeably. Legalization is the removal of all penalties for possession and personal use of substances, which are replaced by a regulated government regime to access and use said substances. Decriminalization removes only the criminal penalties for possession and use, but other administrative penalties may still apply. With decriminalization, all other substance-related criminal penalties, such as drug trafficking, would still be fully enforced under the criminal law.

Polling out of the Angus Reid Institute released in February 2021 shows that support for decriminalization is trending upward. Across the provinces, there is 59% support for such a proposal. The majority in all provinces except Saskatchewan and New Brunswick were supportive of these measures, but even those two provinces were close to 50% in favour. Interestingly, the results also show that those 55 years or older were likely to support a tough approach, while those 18 to 34 were more supportive of decriminalizing all illegal drugs and least likely to support the tough approach.

This discrepancy is easily explained. In 1966 — 55 years ago — the popularization of the War on Drugs approach of the Nixon era picked up steam beginning in the 1970s.

Over time, “the war on drugs” approach has been dying out; it has been labelled a failure and that a new approach is needed. That is what our younger generation is picking up on instead.

The rising support from the younger generation means that decriminalization will eventually become public policy. The purpose of Bill S-232 is to ensure that necessary steps are in place before decriminalization occurs. A strategy, with the full collaboration of provinces and territories, would ensure a smooth process with significant supports in place to address this epidemic.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged publicly that experts on these issues have been calling for decriminalization and that the government is looking at “where to do that, if to do that, and how to do that in partnership with the provinces” and also that:

It’s not going to be the federal government doing something without making sure that there are the supports on the ground in municipalities [and] in the provinces.

A national strategy outlining a consultative process with provinces is what is before you today, colleagues.

It is prudent that the Prime Minister mentioned municipalities. Municipalities are creatures of the province, and more often than not, it’s the municipalities bearing the brunt of the current epidemic. It’s the community perspective that is shining light on these issues.

When you picture a substance-use disorder, do you think about Toronto or the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver? What if I told you that some of the highest per capita numbers for drug-toxicity deaths take place in my health unit of Simcoe Muskoka — yes, honourable colleagues, beautiful and serene Muskoka — or that Timmins, Sudbury and Dryden, Ontario, are experiencing the worst numbers of opioid overdoses and deaths they have ever seen? Those are the types of communities now being affected by the rampant abuse of fentanyl and the more potent carfentanil. This is no longer just a big-city problem.

Data collected by the Chief Coroner of Ontario show a rising number of opioid-related deaths in northern Ontario. Public Health Sudbury & Districts reported 105 deaths in 2020. Algoma Public Health, which includes Thunder Bay, totalled 53 opioid-related deaths, up from 17 in 2019. Data from last May suggest that:

Sudbury’s per capita deaths by opioid is the highest in Ontario, with over 50 per 100,000, with North Bay, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie close to, or over 40 deaths per 100,000.

Christian Provenzano, the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie was quoted in a CBC article saying:

The reality of my community and many communities in northern Ontario, is that the health care infrastructure does not exist and is not being invested in by our other levels of government.

He continued by saying:

We can’t continue to rely on the health care infrastructure that addressed mental health and addiction issues five years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago.

In Timmins, the 2019 death rate from opioids was second to Sudbury at almost 47 per 100,000, four times the Ontario average and twice as high as the City of Vancouver. Long-term emergency room doctor at the Timmins hospital Dr. Chris Loreto had this to say about services to treat people with substance use:

We didn’t have a formalized way of treating people with substance abuse. We termed them ’addicts,’ and we just sort of said there were no resources available for their treatment.

So we just sort of babysat them, gave them something for their anxieties, and then sent them on their way.

Unfortunately, a lack of treatment options is commonplace in Ontario’s north for those in need of help. As of January 2020, there wasn’t a single detox bed at the Timmins hospital. Fortunately, there are now two beds, thanks to persuasion of Dr. Louisa Marion-Bellemare. She and her colleague Dr. Julie Samson started a treatment strategy in Timmins involving active engagement in the community, with outreach workers offering services to people who use drugs. The doctors will pick up and drive them to the hospital to administer Sublocade, a treatment to control the intense cravings experienced by opioid users. Sublocade is a monthly injection that delivers extended release of buprenorphine, which reduces withdrawal symptoms without causing euphoria or sleepiness. The normal protocol is a daily, non-injectable dose of buprenorphine for a week or more and then start them on the injectables, but patients would not wait the week and would drop out of the program. Beginning with the injectable Sublocade is a first in Canada and has helped 130 patients in one year.

Even Dryden, Ontario’s smallest city, isn’t immune. With a population of only 8,000, Dryden’s homeless population reached almost 70 in 2018. There is no homeless shelter, no safe consumption site, no detox centre and no permanent cooling and warming spaces. Police Chief Doug Palson said that people were in the streets at all hours, whether it’s 30 degrees in the summer or -30 degrees in the winter. Since no residential treatment centre exists in Dryden, any treatment referral for someone wanting help means travelling hundreds of kilometres away, the closest place being in Thunder Bay or Winnipeg. This presents barriers to access, including transportation, long wait lists and severing the support network somebody may have in the community.

In the past five years, calls for emergency medical services have increased 25%, and there has been a 60% increase in mental-health and addiction-related calls. Dryden had one third of all overdoses reported in the Kenora District last year, despite having only one tenth of the region’s population.

Chief Palson admits that:

The majority of these issues are not crime issues. . . . They’re not even something that police should be directly involved in, unless there’s a safety issue.

In Dryden, the police are the only social service response available 24-7. Dryden does have a mobile crisis team, but it is unable to operate on a 24-7 basis.

Sarah Kennell, the National Director of Public Policy with the Canadian Mental Health Association, has said that the Dryden story is one she hears all the time and that it is a story being experienced in towns and cities right across our country. This, along with the pandemic, also adds to burnout, anxiety and depression, leading to many health care workers leaving the profession altogether.

I read a great piece in The Manitoulin Expositor entitled “Out of the Shadows: An in-depth look at Manitoulin’s opioid crisis.” I recommend this piece to anyone interested in this issue, especially at the community level. Opioid-related deaths on Manitoulin Island, which has a population 14,000, have more than tripled during the pandemic compared to 2018-19 data, from two deaths to seven in 2020. Paramedics on the island fear that the death statistics may even be higher, including cases where opioids contributed but were not necessarily the main cause.

Paul Myre, the Chief of Paramedic Services with Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB, confirms this. He stated for The Expositor:

(Our statistics are) not the total picture, as there are several sudden cardiac arrests that cannot be 100 percent attributed to an overdose as the cause due to a number of variables, but would be considered highly suspicious. Sadly, my assumption would be that the picture is much more grim than the one painted below with that specific data set. The (younger) age of some of the sudden cardiac arrest patients leads me to suspect something other than a cardiac event . . . .

In the Sudbury and Manitoulin areas from 2020 to 2021, there were four times more drug-related deaths than deaths caused by COVID-19, without adjusting for the potential opioid deaths Mr. Myre suspects.

Just like smaller communities, Indigenous communities have been experiencing much the same. Six Nations in Ontario, for example, saw over 50 suspected overdoses in 2020, resulting in three deaths. There has also been a “noticeable increase of fentanyl and methamphetamines,” and overdoses, generally, were up in 2021 compared to the preceding two years.

Opioid-related deaths among Ontario’s First Nation people jumped 132% during the pandemic alone. British Columbia’s First Nations Health Authority reported that Indigenous people accounted for nearly 15% of all drug toxicity deaths in 2020, although they represent only 3.3% of the province’s total population. Over 250 Indigenous people died in 2020, a 120% increase from 2019.

In Alberta, the Kainai Nation, also known as the Blood Tribe, reported 117 opioid poisonings in their community in just the first eight months of 2021. Provincial government data in 2020 identified that First Nations people represented 22% of all opioid-related deaths, despite only making up around 6% of the population of Alberta.

While this issue is not just a big-city problem — smaller communities and Indigenous communities are feeling its effects — big cities are reeling with tragedies every day because of the opioid epidemic. Ontario’s Big City Mayors — a collective of Ontario’s 29 mayors with populations of 100,000 or more and representing nearly 70% of Ontario’s population — released a policy paper recommending decriminalization of simple possession as a main takeaway. The paper was unanimously backed by the 21 mayors who voted on it.

I had a conversation with Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward on the issue and this report. Mayor Meed Ward was a co‑chair of the Big City Mayors Mental Health Working Committee that helped to shape the policy paper. She told me:

Addiction is a mental health and public health issue, not a criminal one. We will not solve these challenges through the criminal justice system. Our residents who struggle with addiction deserve treatment, not jail time and a record. We can take a step toward acknowledging that reality through decriminalization. That, in turn, allows us to focus our resources and efforts on solutions to the actual problem we are dealing with.

Mayor Jeff Lehman of Barrie, Chair of Ontario’s Big City Mayors, was also supportive of this policy paper. In our exchange, he stated:

The opioid crisis is in many ways as severe a public health emergency as COVID-19. Residents of my city and of communities across the country are struggling and dying, and our municipal resources can’t begin to keep up with the number of people who need help. This is a national emergency and it requires a shift in our thinking as a country and as a society . . .

Municipalities are doing the groundwork in this losing battle. They see the crisis at eye level, and they know the people involved — both the people who use drugs and the caregivers. I always pay attention when the community perspective is on the table. They understand the issues intimately. It’s best if we don’t ignore their call.

Colleagues, I focus on Ontario to shine a light on the province I represent, but the issue of substance use is certainly not geographically isolated. It is prevalent in every province and territory from coast to coast to coast.

British Columbia, and Vancouver specifically, are often seen as the epicentres of substance use and overdoses in Canada. B.C. is experiencing new records in emergency services calls and overdose numbers. The BC Coroners Service reported that in October 2021, 201 deaths were related to substances — the highest of any month on record — and that there were more deaths in the first 10 months of 2021 than in all of 2020.

Deaths occurred in all age groups and in every local health area in the province. This is not just a Downtown Eastside issue in Vancouver. Honourable senators, we are talking about an average of six deaths per day in British Columbia. Approximately 8,500 deaths have occurred in B.C. since the province declared a public health emergency in 2016. Toxic drugs are now the most common cause of unnatural death in the province, and the leading cause of death among those aged 19 to 39. The problem in British Columbia is only getting worse with inconsistent de facto decriminalization and a meager safe supply program.

The Prairies have also seen an upswing in drug toxicity deaths. Alberta set a new record in 2021 for substance-related deaths. In 2020 they saw a total of 1,351 deaths — a record at the time — and the first 10 months of 2021 surpassed that total by over 20. September and October each saw 150 deaths.

Saskatchewan has also seen new record highs for substance-related deaths in 2021, eclipsing 2020 numbers. The Saskatchewan Coroners Service has counted 464 deaths that are either confirmed or suspected. A suspected death is a death where the evidence points to an overdose, but a toxicology report or autopsy hasn’t yet been completed. Considering the 2020 numbers stood at just under 330 deaths, we can predict that 2021 was the worst year on record for Saskatchewan.

The trend of record-breaking death rates continues with Manitoba with an 87% increase between 2019 and 2020. If that isn’t telling enough, there was a 44% increase in substance-related deaths in the first six months of 2021 than the same period of 2020. While the data has yet to be finalized, Manitoba is on pace to break that 2020 record in 2021.

For quite some time, Quebec was an anomaly in Canada as far as opioid-related deaths were concerned. In 2018, Quebec ranked second from the bottom among Canadian provinces and American states — only 2.5 per 100,000, or roughly 200 deaths in total. In 2019, this number doubled to over 400 deaths, and 2020 saw nearly 550 deaths. Montreal saw a 50% increase in opioid-related deaths from 2019 to 2020. I have been unable so far to locate 2021 numbers at this time, but, if the previous three years are any indication, Quebec may be trending in the same direction as all the provinces to its west.

East of Quebec, however, is not seeing the same dramatic upward trends at this time, although the outlook is not optimistic either. Nova Scotia, for example, saw the highest number of opioid-related deaths back in 2012 with 67, while 2021 has only seen 45. The years in between have been up and down, depending on the year. The data for all substance-related deaths, not just opioids, has been steady since 2018 at nearly 100 deaths per year.

New Brunswick saw 82 substance-related overdoses in 2020 — 19 more than in 2019. In both years, over 50% of those deaths were opioid related. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2020, they reported 16 deaths, which is the highest number in a single quarter and more than double the quarterly averages from 2016 to 2019. The first overdose prevention site in Moncton, named ENSEMBLE, had 200 visits in its first 18 days of operation. This is a place where people’s drugs can be tested and used in a safe environment and where conversations around detoxification, rehabilitation and health care can be initiated with the staff.

Colleagues, this overdose prevention site was needed, as evidenced by the number of visits: 200 visits represent 200 potential lives saved.

It wasn’t until late 2018 that Prince Edward Island emergency departments could even screen for fentanyl. Accidental opioid-related deaths in 2019 numbered five, and none of those deaths involved fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue. On the other hand, 2020 saw eight accidental opioid-related deaths, with half of those involving fentanyl.

While these numbers may seem low at first blush, this is a statistically substantial increase from 2019 to 2020. Unfortunately, 2021 data on opioid-related deaths isn’t available at this point. What we do know is that fentanyl has made its way to the Island.

Newfoundland and Labrador doesn’t have much information to draw from — or at least that we were able to find for 2021 — but in the first three months of last year, the province had five apparent opioid deaths. In comparison, 2020 had 24 and 2019 had 18. Just this past December, there were three overdoses in a short span in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. Front-line workers are worried this trend will continue as fentanyl trickles into the province.

Honourable senators, I have spoken in detail to some of the challenges Ontario municipalities face, but what about our territories? Is there solace in the North? Fortunately, Nunavut cases are so low at this point that the data is suppressed. In the Northwest Territories, government data indicates there is only one apparent opioid-related death in 2019, three in 2020 and two in the first six months of 2021.

Yukon, on the other hand, is facing immense challenges. Their opioid-related death rate is one of the highest in the nation at 48 per 100,000, according to their chief coroner Heather Jones. This is two and a half times greater than the national average. There were 21 opioid-related deaths in the first 11 months of 2021, which amounts to more than 1 in 5 deaths investigated by the Yukon Coroner’s Service. Most frightening is that each of these 21 deaths involved opioids and various forms of fentanyl.

Colleagues, the devastation appears to be inescapable. This isn’t just a West Coast problem anymore. It has reached the East Coast, the North Coast and everywhere in between. Now is the time to address this problem as it hits so close to home — so close, in fact, that it’s in each of our backyards.

Our dedicated first responders have certainly noticed the uptick in calls related to drug toxicity and it’s wearing them out. While it’s generally the paramedics or police people think of as responders to a substance overdose response, it’s increasingly the fire departments having to respond.

I read a very interesting first-person submission to the CBC last month which detailed former Calgary firefighter Dan Scheuerman’s experience dealing with opioids. He had to learn how to administer NARCAN — a type of nasally administered Naloxone — in the off chance of coming into contact with those who are experiencing an overdose.

As he explains it, in the beginning:

After the patient was handed off to EMS we’d return back to the firehall, waiting for a big fire or other “real firefighter” emergency where the cavalry was needed.

Firefighters did not see this as a substantial part of their duties.

As Mr. Scheuerman goes on to explain, “. . . overdoses became an increasingly significant part of the job.” Accidental exposure to the substances became an increasing concern.

He tells of a particular incident where his team responded to a call and found a lifeless body at the bottom of a public stairwell surrounded by needles. He and his partner had to contort themselves to lift the person, trying to avoid an accidental puncture from the needles.

Once the paramedics arrived and administered Naloxone, the person came to, but having heard the sounds of sirens in the distance, the individual leaped up and sprinted off for fear of reprisal. If a person refuses treatment, there’s nothing they can do.

Mr. Scheuerman signs off the article by stating:

As I retire after 13 years of service and pivot into a new career, there is plenty I’ll miss about firefighting. All the crews. Firehall life. Being at the centre of catastrophic events and feeling like our interventions were meaningful.

But leaving the front lines of the opioid epidemic is one of the things I’m most looking forward to.

Senators, I bring this first-hand account to you to demonstrate that the epidemic has far-reaching consequences. It’s not only those who use substances who are feeling the effect, but also those people whose job it is to help them.

The work of our EMS and police during these trying times has been very challenging. According to The Globe and Mail, paramedics and medical dispatchers in British Columbia responded to over 35,500 overdose calls in 2021 alone, a record; this is a 31% increase over 2020. Senators, that’s 97 overdose calls on average each and every day.

The president of Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, Troy Clifford, acknowledges that they knew the numbers were going up because paramedics would see it on every shift, but they didn’t realize the extent. He also raises another important issue facing paramedics. He states that the opioid epidemic takes a heavy toll on them, that:

The numbers of our members off and in treatment because of psychological injuries is incredible, and the opioid epidemic is definitely a significant part of that.

Colleagues, if our first responders aren’t optimally able to help those they serve due to psychological injuries, how can we expect those in need to fare any better? Anxiety, depression and burnout are becoming more commonplace amongst first responders, especially with the perpetuation of the pandemic.

The current obstacles are Sisyphean without the necessary plateaus and perches to stop that rock from rolling back down the hill.

I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the effects of the opioid epidemic on policing. In many instances it is the police who are the first contact of those in a crisis situation involving substances. I’m sure every former officer in this chamber has their own stories of devastation. I know I do.

It isn’t easy to police substance use and people who use drugs. Officers want to help those in trouble but at the same time have to balance the needs of the community. As the presence of substances increases in a community, so do community safety risks.

Our colleague Senator White had a column in the Ottawa Citizen last fall in which he wrote:

When I worked as the police chief in Ottawa, I saw first‑hand the impact the illegal drug trade had on the community — not just the drug trafficking itself but the impact of that drug trade on the community as those affected by addiction participated in ever-increasing criminal activity to address their dependent substance use. Often their offences were considered minor — by the police and the community — but as the drug trade grew so did the number of offences and community impact.

Senators, these minor offences are largely property crimes like theft. What they gain from stealing can be used or sold to obtain more substances, and the cycle continues.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada established a directive in the summer of 2020 that alternatives to criminal prosecution for simple possession be sought in all but the most serious instances. And while I applaud the PPSC for making reference to the health effects of substance use in its directive, this form of de facto decriminalization hasn’t found the balance between protecting those who use drugs and community safety.

I understand the reasoning behind the directive, and much of it has to do with the significant delays in the court system. It’s an attempt to move more serious and violent crimes through the system in a timely manner while weeding out the non-violent and petty crimes. In fact, 85% of drug possession charges in Ontario were either withdrawn or stayed in the year after the directive was put in place.

Of course, prosecutorial discretion plays into this process, but so does police discretion. Even before a charge moves before the court, the police will determine, based on evidence and circumstances, whether to even proceed with the charge.

Unfortunately, this high level of withdrawal or staying of charges by the prosecution communicates to the officers that their efforts are unnecessary and perhaps their efforts are better focused elsewhere; after all, police use their discretion based on the law and the guidance from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to determine which cases to move to the next stage of the judicial process.

Without the proper diversions from the criminal justice system to actually help people who want and need it, we are doing nothing but preserving the status quo.

Dropping charges for simple possession on people who rely on non-violent petty thefts to feed their substance addiction does not make a community feel safer and does a disservice to the trust in policing. It’s a revolving door.

Chief Constable Mike Serr of the Abbotsford Police Department has indicated that someone whose drug habits cost them $100 a day would need upwards of $1,000 worth of goods to sustain that habit. A better avenue would be community supports and treatment programs for diversion purposes, including safe supply, all of which could be discussed in a national strategy consultation.

Senators, I am encouraged by the increasing support across the country to move on a health-centred approach to substance use. We have heard the numerous medical and health associations and organizations call for a health approach and decriminalization.

But more recently a prominent Canadian leader in addictions and mental health has joined the call. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, released a statement on September 29, 2021, calling for the complete decriminalization of currently illegal substances.

Policing has come around to the idea of decriminalization, which was previously a hard sell. Not only has the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police come out in favour of decriminalization, but so have many provincial cohorts, including British Columbia and Ontario.

There is expert support for decriminalization in Canada, and progress is being made at different jurisdictional levels as evidenced by the applications for exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act submitted by both British Columbia and Toronto.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada directive and Bill C-5 before the House of Commons both include a de facto decriminalization regime federally. But none of these are enough to combat the substance-related death rate we are currently seeing.

A comprehensive federal approach is absolutely necessary. The piecemeal approach won’t solve a pan-Canadian problem. A national crisis deserves a national response. Federal legislation is required to eliminate the criminality attached to substance use.

The Mayor of Chatham-Kent, Darrin Canniff, understands the importance of a federal approach. Mayor Canniff is a proponent of decriminalization and the second co-chair of the Ontario’s Big City Mayors Mental Health Working Committee.

About the importance of a national strategy, here is what he said to me:

(Municipalities) desperately need federal guidance and funding to bring the issue under control. It will take the full weight of the federal government to bring resources and expertise to this issue. Expecting municipalities to deal with and solve something of this nature without significant federal assistance is unrealistic. We need a national strategy to bring a unified approach using the most comprehensive knowledge base, expertise and funding available We’re willing to be on the front lines in this battle but, without the support of Ottawa, it’s a fight we can’t win.

He calls for a “unified approach,” senators. This is a baseline of necessity in each province, territory and municipality. Not all jurisdictions’ strategies will look the same, nor should they. Needs differ depending on where you are.

But setting a federal baseline and unifying the strategy interprovincially, rather than provinces and municipalities going at it alone, just makes good sense. This call has been echoed by other municipalities. Mayor Lehman of Barrie, while working at the community level, has an innate ability to see the big picture. He said:

Every progressive change that has built a more just society in Canada has ultimately happened only because of leadership from Ottawa. Canadians need our parliament to be our moral compass and change the way we treat addiction in our society — from treating it as a crime to treating it as an illness.

Honourable senators, treating substance use as an illness rather than a crime brings much-needed humanity to this issue. After all, each one of these deaths is more than a mere statistic. These are people. There are thousands of lives lost every year. This translates into tens of thousands of relationships — family, friends, partners — who are themselves caught in a whirlwind of despair.

At the introduction of my remarks today, I suggested that every senator in this chamber has likely been affected by addiction or knows of someone who has been affected. I know this to be true because you all know me, and I have felt that despair of losing a loved one, and I promise there are others.

Senators, recall my analogy to Sisyphus. It’s not only people using drugs struggling to push the rock up that hill any longer. There are extra hands pushing from all sectors of society. The effort is getting a little bit easier with each set of hands, but it is imperative to keep the momentum going for the rock to climb. All they can do is continue to push. Fortunately, we, as legislators, don’t have to push the rock from underneath. Instead, we have the tools to keep the rock from tumbling back down the hill altogether.

Because you see, honourable senators, ultimately we create that hill and we can shorten that hill, for that hill is Parliament. Thank you, meegwetch.