Hon. Michèle Audette: I will be brief.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

We are on the unceded territory of several nations who speak the language of the Innu, the Atikamekw, the Maliseet, the Abenaki, the Wendat and the Wolastoqey.

Thank you very much, Senator Cormier, for talking about the importance of Indigenous languages. The recognition of these languages is a principle of reconciliation. Given that these are founding languages, how could we make sure to include the nations in your beautiful region, the Wolastoquey and the Maliseet and, of course, the Mi’kmaq, in this bill? I invite everyone to join the conversation, to consult and to debate this issue because, in many generations, you and I will be proud of the fact that we finally acknowledged that Canada has many other important languages, in particular the languages of the First Peoples.

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your comment and question, Senator Audette.

The answer to your question is both simple and complex, and it obviously lies in dialogue. I firmly believe, as I mentioned at the end of my speech, that this dialogue among all those who speak both Indigenous and official languages must occur in an atmosphere of joint reflection on our past and our future.

What I mean by that is that, as Canadians, we are currently living in a context where, thanks to our Constitution, we have two official languages and a law on Indigenous languages. I believe that we have tools that should not divide but rather serve to bring us closer together. It is obvious that this dialogue could continue in New Brunswick, senator.

My answer is both vague and specific. Why vague? I guess it is because I believe that this answer needs to come from both a francophone living in a minority community, like me, and from the Indigenous people who have been living on this land for millennia. It is my greatest wish that we can have an open and transparent dialogue while thinking about and showing respect for all of the languages of this country.

[English]

Senator Moncion: Absolutely. This has been going on for a long time. Education in francophone minority communities is underfunded. There are no equivalents, including when it comes to infrastructure.

Earlier I talked about research laboratories. There is not a lot of funding for specific research in French. It is a poor community. Post-secondary institutions that provide education in French or have a French campus have been getting by with very little for a long time. They perform miracles, as far as I am concerned, since they continue to offer top-notch courses. They have few resources for expanding and gaining the recognition of major universities. They are the poor relations of education.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

Hon. Percy Mockler: First, Senator Cormier, coming as you do from New Brunswick, you have given an excellent presentation of the challenges we face today, and I congratulate you on your fine speech.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge Senator Audette’s comments on another chapter for improving the lives of Canadians.

My question is about the bill in question, and I need your help here, Senator Cormier. What vehicle would be the best and most appropriate way to move forward on such an issue with greater clarity?

For instance, should we refer it to committee, or should we wait until the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is introduced and include it in another debate? This might allow us to more fully examine some of what Senator Audette raised as well as some of the things in your presentation.

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Francophone immigration to minority communities;

That, given that the federal government plans to develop an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy, the committee be authorized to:

a)review the progress on the target for French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec;

b)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of French-speaking immigrants to settle in Francophone minority communities;

c)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of Canada’s current immigration programs and measures to maintain the demographic weight of the French-speaking population;

d)study the measures and programs implemented by the Government of Canada to recruit, welcome and integrate French-speaking immigrants, refugees and foreign students;

e)study the impact of these measures and programs on the development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec; and

f)identify ways to increase support for this sector and to ensure that the Government of Canada’s objectives can be met; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Cormier: Thank you for the question, senator.

Possibly, and why not? I do not actually have a clear answer for you on this.

To be very honest with you, addressing these functions is an issue that is fundamental to our country. This is a matter that affects the Constitution of Canada and forces us to ask where the Constitution of Canada stands today and how it reflects current affairs and today’s Canada.

I do not have a specific answer for you, but I believe that this could be studied under different angles. I believe that the bill raises constitutional questions, as I was saying, but that may also be broader in scope and invite us to question ourselves about the state of Canada today and how that is reflected in the uppermost functions of the state.

Regarding New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, I sincerely believe that the people of New Brunswick want the person filling this position to be able to communicate in both official languages and to reach the entire population of New Brunswick

That is my answer to you, Senator Dupuis. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post‑pandemic economic and social policy to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality, when and if the committee is formed;

That, given recent calls for action from Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, the committee examine in particular potential national approaches to interjurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Hon. Tony Dean, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic, including Canada’s military infrastructure and security capabilities; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I speak to you today from Mi’kma’ki, the unceded territories of our Mi’kmaq people. I rise today in the first week of our 2022 Senate proceedings to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion, which calls on us to recognize that climate change is an urgent crisis, that the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency and that we commit to urgent action on mitigation and adaptation.

Senator Galvez’s motion also asks us to recognize that we, humans, are responsible for the warming of the lands, the oceans and the atmosphere that is causing the climate problems; to recognize that if we fail to address climate change, there will be catastrophic consequences; and to recognize that climate change is having a negative impact on our health and safety, along with the financial stability of our country, Canada.

Colleagues, as I said, I’m here to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion and, hopefully, to move this debate closer to a vote. But I want you to know that I honestly had no intention of speaking to this motion. As Senator Galvez can attest, I had expressed some hesitation about introducing this motion in the first place.

My concern was not at all about the validity of the evidence behind the assertions articulated by the motion. There is overwhelmingly reliable, scientific evidence to back the fact that we are in a climate emergency and that it is only going to get worse. We’ve heard our colleagues debating this motion outline that evidence in detail. My concern was also not about the fact that urgent action is required and that, in fact, the costs of inaction will be much higher than those of action.

My hesitation, really, was about the potential impact of the motion itself. I hesitated because I wasn’t sure the motion would have its intended effects. Would it or could it draw our collective attention as members of Canada’s upper house to the importance of the climate challenge? Could it signal to the government and the people of all ages, especially youth, in our respective regions that senators take climate change seriously? Finally, could this motion help to motivate us as senators to come together to better understand the climate challenge, to collectively appreciate the urgency to take action and to encourage us to seek solutions and hold the government to account on its promises?

Well, colleagues, I believe it could. That is why I am here today speaking in favour of this motion, adding my voice to those of Senators Miville-Dechêne, Forest, Griffin, Black, Dasko, McPhedran and Galvez. We know a motion declaring a climate emergency in the other place was passed almost three years ago on June 17, 2019. We know many jurisdictions and institutions — some 2,000 plus across Canada and throughout the world — have passed motions declaring climate emergencies.

Of course, the Canadian Senate doesn’t just want to jump on any fast-moving bandwagon. We are the chamber of sober second thought, after all. At the same time, we know we must always be alert to matters of critical importance and make sure that we play our role, as trusted parliamentarians, in guiding Canada in the right direction for the well-being of our citizens.

Colleagues, an assessment of the United Kingdom’s motion on climate concluded:

The declaration . . . has the potential to unify and coordinate action at a national scale. . . . Its weakness currently is the uncertain relationship between rhetoric and action. . . .

Government inaction reduces its credibility . . . .

That’s about the U.K. motion.

As I looked deeper into the literature on the challenges for inspiring action on climate, five main challenges kept coming up. Those challenges are skepticism; complexity; uncertainty; the sheer scale of it; and, of course, emotion. These challenges are real and should never be dismissed. In order to bring people together and make progress, those issues need to be fully addressed.

Because we don’t yet have a clear idea of all the specific actions, their sequence and pace that Canada and other jurisdictions and actors will have to take to deal with our climate challenges, it is understandable that Canadians feel unsettled and are concerned about a whole variety of issues. Of course we worry about being able to maintain our standard of living. We worry about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over our heads. We worry about overall economic insecurity in our communities and our nation; the reliability of our energy supply; and the possible disparagement and disadvantaging of certain groups of workers, industries or regions. We worry about our personal health and safety, about the myriad of impacts of extreme weather events, the melting of the Arctic sea ice and permafrost, and sea levels rising. We worry about what kind of a world and what challenges we will leave behind for our children, our grandchildren and future generations.

Colleagues, as we know, these concerns and fears are naturally heightened at this time of the global COVID pandemic, which has been so hard on so many. Former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, Mark Carney, is on record as saying:

When you look at climate change from a human mortality perspective, it will be the equivalent of a coronavirus crisis every year from the middle of this century, and every year . . . .

It’s hard to imagine living with the level of devastation experienced throughout the pandemic every year. Colleagues, are we late to the table with this climate motion or are there very good reasons to embrace this motion right now?

Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips, in recounting the 2021 extremes of heat domes, wildfires, droughts, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes in Canada, said:

This year showed how climate change can exaggerate and extenuate the normal extremes of Canadian weather into dangerous and destructive events.

He went on to say:

What I’m hopeful for is that it becomes the turning point and confirmation for the majority of Canadians that there’s clear and present danger to climate change and extreme weather. This year has really woken people up to that fact.

Honourable colleagues, let me repeat his words: “This year has really woken people up.” He hopes it becomes a turning point.

Colleagues, the year is 2022. Canadians are more awake than ever to the perils of climate change, for many because it is actually nipping right at their heels. It is eight short years until 2030, an important milestone in Canada’s climate commitments and those of our international counterparts. Next month, we will see the government release its emissions reduction plan showing how Canada will meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% by the year 2030. This is a requirement of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act we passed in this chamber in June of last year. Also required is the inclusion of an interim emissions target for 2026, just four years down the road.

In the fall of this year, the government will also release its first national adaptation strategy, establishing a vision and direction for climate resilience in Canada.

So, yes, colleagues, I believe it is a good time for us to pass this motion in the Senate of Canada. I believe it’s time to demonstrate our unity on this critical matter and encourage all Canadians to do the same thing. With our independence as senators, our connections to our regions and our ability to see and act beyond electoral cycles, the Senate of Canada is uniquely positioned to respond.

I hope we will soon vote on this motion. I believe the time has come to place our Senate stake in the ground on this critical issue of climate. It is also time to make sure Canada moves swiftly and with clear evidence to find the best solutions and to act on them. This will reinforce the credibility of this motion and our credibility as engaged parliamentarians.

Colleagues, as I move toward the conclusion of my remarks, I also want to emphasize that I believe that Canada’s imperative to act on climate is also its opportunity. This is something we know we will have a chance to delve into during this Parliament.

Honourable senators, it’s time to demonstrate leadership. That word, “leadership,” is so important: Leaders see and pursue opportunity when that is the right thing to do. I believe that passing this motion at this time is the right thing to do. It is one of the actions we can take among many.

Colleagues, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, in speaking to her fellow world leaders at COP26 in Glasgow in November, asked the following:

Will we act in the interest of our people who are depending on us or will we allow the path of greed and selfishness to sow the seeds of our common destruction?

Leaders today, not leaders in 2030 or 2050, must make this choice.

It is in our hands. Our people and our planet need it.

Honourable colleagues, as leaders today, let’s seize this moment and come together in unity in this chamber to pass this motion for the sake of our people and our planet. Let’s show them they can count on us and then let’s get on with the work.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I speak today from the unceded territory of Mi’kma’ki, the traditional land of Mi’kmaq people.

I stand in support of Senator McCallum’s Motion No. 11, calling on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act. The existing five pillars do not adequately protect racialized Canadians. Indigenous and Black people in Canada experience health inequities and report experiences of racism within the current medical system. Adding antiracism as a pillar would lay the foundation for much-needed systemic change.

In short, honourable colleagues, racism is bad for health. According to the Black Health Alliance, Black people in Canada are more likely to live in poverty and are subject to more health disparities than the rest of Canadians, including chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes and issues related to mental health.

During the study of forced and coerced sterilization of persons in Canada, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights heard many accounts of racism and mistreatment within the medical system, resulting in forced and coerced sterilization. Dr. Josephine Etowa stated:

As is the case for Indigenous communities, a history of structural racism, discrimination and exclusion in Canada has created inequities in the health and well-being of African Canadians.

When race intersects with gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, sexual identity or immigration status, we can see even more barriers that the default policies and practices cannot reach, and at times seem invisible.

Honourable colleagues, I invite you to be a “story catcher” today as I take on the role of storyteller. Imagine you are walking to work and you slip on a patch of ice. Later that night, you wait in the emergency room with searing pain in your hip and shoulder. After waiting for 10 hours, barely seen by any medical staff, you are sent for X-rays. When the attending physician finally appears, they do not actually examine you. They simply read your X-rays, say nothing is broken and they prescribe a treatment of ice, ibuprofen and acetaminophen. They say you should be feeling better in a few days. After you leave the hospital, you realize then that the doctor never even asked to rank your pain on a scale of 1 to 10, and you realize it is a 12. You continue to move through the pain because you were told to return to work. Eventually the pain is so unbearable that you cannot dress yourself. Two weeks later, you are correctly diagnosed with a shoulder fracture. However, the initial misdiagnosis and lack of treatment have aggravated the fracture and led to multiple other injuries to your shoulder.

Three years later, you still feel that pain in your shoulder and each day are reminded of being dismissed and misdiagnosed. You feel anger, rage and helplessness because a slip on some ice should not have led to years of pain, medical appointments and now possibly surgery. What if this had been a life-threatening illness with no time to get a second opinion?

Honourable colleagues, my story catchers, this story is not fiction. This happened to me in April of 2019, and it continues to impact my life every single day. My experience is not an isolated incident. When I share my story with other African-Canadians, they nod, understanding my experience because they too have experienced the racism and discrimination in the Canadian medical system.

I have witnessed the similar treatment of my spouse, other family members and community, across the country with different conditions, different health care providers, but the same medical system that dismisses our pain.

A study conducted in 2016 in the United States showed the presence of racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment by medical doctors. Racial bias and false beliefs, originating with slavery times, impact the way Black patients are treated by medical professionals.

Hopefully, with the collection of more disaggregated data in Canada, we can see how Canada compares for systematically untreated pain. My prediction is that our experience is similar. These types of experiences are too common for Indigenous and Black people, especially those of us who live with intersecting oppression.

In November of 2021, Nova Scotia witnessed a groundbreaking dialogue during the Desmond inquiry about the connection between race and health. Lionel Desmond was a young, Black man who served in Afghanistan and was suffering from PTSD. When he sensed his mental health was declining, he sought medical attention. The day after he was discharged, he ended his own life after fatally shooting his wife Shanna, their 10-year-old child Aaliyah and his mother Brenda. Leading up to this tragedy, the Desmond family must have been in a crisis. A Black veteran dealing with PTSD was not able to find the help he needed at the time he needed it the most.

During the inquiry there has been a glaring absence of recognition of the systemic racism faced by Lionel Desmond in the lead up to the murder-suicide. That is until the landmark testimony presented by a panel of representatives from the Health Association of African Canadians. They identified the crucial need to address race and racism in this inquiry and, indeed, in the health system in Nova Scotia.

In theory, antiracism should be woven throughout the other five pillars, but as my story and the Lionel Desmond story highlight, the existing pillars do not always “protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being” as they are meant to.

Honourable senators, we cannot afford to wait for another tragedy before making serious changes to the federal health system. It is time for us to be bold for change. Including antiracism as a pillar is about ensuring health equity for those who are victims of systemic racism. Health equity is a way of recognizing and accounting for the barriers that exist and working towards removing those barriers. Accessibility and universality, two of the five existing pillars, are not guaranteed for people on the margins. As Senator McCallum asked:

How can health care be accessible and universal when people are afraid to go to the health centres because of racism?

Until we get to a place where universality and accessibility are a reality, it must be a conscious decision and deliberate action.

Honourable colleagues, Indigenous and Black people do not feel safe in the current medical system. In this chamber, we make evidence-based decisions, and we consider the experiences of marginalized Canadians. Accordingly, I support Motion No. 11, and I thank Senator McCallum for bringing it forward again. This motion will lay the foundation for a future in which equitable access to safe and culturally responsible health services is truly available to all Canadians.

Passing this motion enables us to be bold for change, and to lead the changes we want to see in the health care system. Asante. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to proceed to Motions, Order Nos. 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in accordance with rule 12-7(4), be authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2025.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

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

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne, for Senator Housakos, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report on matters relating to transport and communications generally, including:

(a)transport and communications by any means;

(b)tourist traffic;

(c)common carriers; and

(d)navigation, shipping and navigable waters; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than September 30, 2025, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.