Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, I’m honoured to speak today to Senator McCallum’s motion, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of First Nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada.

Today I speak in full support of this important motion, which will certainly help move reconciliation forward in this country. In preparing to speak on this motion, I thought to myself, “how can I ensure my speech has an impact? What can I do to help advance the voices of those who have suffered deeply and continue to do so at the hands of this country’s government?”

As I thought about this, the answer became clear in my mind. I wanted to bring a voice into this chamber that for so long had been ignored and even barred from speaking here.

Today, I give my voice to a dear friend, respected Elder and residential school survivor, Garnet Angeconeb.

Garnet Angeconeb is an Anishinaabe man who has survived a long journey. He grew up on his family’s traditional territory until the age of seven when he was forced by the Government of Canada to go to Pelican Lake Indian Residential School. Garnet suffered many negative effects of government policies in the decades that followed. Despite those personal hardships, he became a journalist, a community leader and a respected elder in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.

Honourable senators, it is now my honour to share Garnet’s words with you.

Senators: I am so honoured to speak to you through Senator Yvonne Boyer inside this Chamber of honour and privilege. I acknowledge the Algonquin Anishinaabe people whose traditional lands the Red Chamber is located.

Today, I speak to you in the spirit of truth. The Elders teach us to speak the truth and so with this sacred teaching, I will speak firsthand about lived experiences of Indian residential schools.

I presently live in Sioux Lookout in northwestern Ontario and I am a proud member of the Lac Seul First Nation. We live in the traditional territory of Treaty #3, an area which encompasses 55,000 square miles of land; an area surrounded with beautiful lakes and forests.

Treaty #3 is a living document which is the foundation of our relationship with Canada. Not only that, but Treaty #3 binds the region together with the Anishinaabe people; politically, economically and socially.

Treaty #3 was signed in 1873. However, Lac Seul First Nation signed onto the Treaty with an adhesion in 1874. Our people continue to honour the Treaty, a treaty that is viewed as a sacred covenant of co-existence.

Upon signing the Treaty #3 adhesion in 1874 on behalf of the Lac Seul Anishinaabe, Chief Sakatcheway so eloquently said, “If you give what I ask, the time may come when I will ask you to lend me one of your daughters and one of your sons to live with us; and in return I will lend you one of my daughters and one of my sons for you to teach what is good and after they have learned, to teach us. If you grant us what I ask, although I do not know you, I will shake hands with you.”

So upon signing this Treaty, you can see that that started a long relationship of coexistence, a relationship that still exists to this day and is recognized under the 1982 Constitution Act of Canada.

However, from time to time, the relationship has hit bumpy spots and trying times along the way. Chief Sakatcheway’s vision of coexistence, to “teach” and “learn” from each other, has not always been practiced, nor honoured.”

No matter the issue, we need to continue to walk together on the path of learning. Learning more about residential schools is no exception. As a survivor of the Indian residential schools system, I continue learn about it. There is so much to learn about the post residential school era: the impacts, historic trauma, transgenerational anger, healing, reconciliation and so much more.

Let me try and explain what I mean so that we can all learn from each other.

In March 2017, A Senator speaking in the Red Chamber made less than distinguished comments about the “good” of Canada’s Indian Residential Schools system and the “well-intentioned” staff that worked within the schools. Her comments are contrary to the lived experiences of survivors and the findings of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

As a survivor of the Indian residential school system myself and to my family and community, the Senator’s remarks, vile views, and her subsequent actions remain hurtful and deeply offensive. I also submit to you that her negative actions and tune go against the country’s move toward true reconciliation. Many people, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, remain offended.

After being released from the confines of the residential school system with a wounded spirit, I didn’t want to listen to anyone. No one. The residential school system had made too angry.

I was bitter — very bitter. I was angry at myself. I was angry at my parents for allowing me to attend, but little did I realize it was the law of the state and role of the churches that separated me from my family. Dare I say it, I was even angry at God my Creator. Simply put, as a confused young man, I was mad at the world.

However, on the positive side, and through my personal healing journey, I was able to cope and I learned to control my anger. I found the strength to not let the anger control my life.

Why am I telling you this, you might ask?

You see, it was like this.

When I first heard and learned about the comments embraced by this Senator, I was puzzled. I felt the need to rise up to the challenge that we — the collective — still had a lot of work to educate each other about our shared history.

However, as more comments and actions were spewed out, I could feel the remnants of the Indian residential school anger rearing its ugliness.

Try as we did, in July 2017, a number of residential school survivors met face-to-face with this Senator, to seek more understanding of the effects of the legacy. This meeting failed. Following this meeting, it became obvious that the meeting was a meeting of convenience for the Senator; portraying a message that everything was well. Things actually got worse which led to this Senators exclusion from her political party not to mention her two suspensions from this Chamber.

Without malice, I found the Senator’s responses and actions to be condescending. She may have listened to our stories but somehow it appeared she didn’t hear our message. I ascertain that she was not engaged in a meaningful conversation of the healing of relations.

And so, given this ongoing matter, I hope you can see why some old wounds can be easily reopened. This is why I speak about anger stemming from historic trauma and that the effects of historic trauma are sadly transgenerational. This anger — a lingering effect of the system — certainly resurfaced in this situation.

Racism.

Like opening the wounds inflicted by the residential school system, the veneer is so thin that the embers of racism can be easily reignited. Certainly the words and actions of this Senator reignited the flames of racism in this country.

In the 1960s and 70s, as a young Anishinaabe man growing up in northwestern Ontario, I lived through very turbulent times dealing with overt racism including the impacts of systemic racism. Those living in northern Ontario can understand the threat of raging forest fires. In the era I speak about, racism in the north was ablaze. Although some fires have subsided, embers still smolder away and racism is still easily ignitable.

At least with raging forest fires, they can be extinguished with a lot of effort and firefighting equipment. But the raging fires of racism are not that easily extinguished. In this country, racism is on the rise. Northwestern Ontario is not free of racism. We still need collective effort and proper tools to fight racism.

Move Toward Healing and Reconciliation.

Senators, it is my belief that the healing of relationships is in order. Healing efforts through dialogue will lead all of us to meaningful reconciliation. But in saying this, healing must happen first before reconciliation efforts take shape.

In conclusion, let us move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. Let us talk to each other in a good way. Let us talk in a responsible way until every ounce of pain caused by the Indian residential schools system has dissipated.

My friends, the time is here. The time is now to listen to the wisdom of leaders past, for their guidance lives in each one of us today. Let us be guided by the spirit of leaders like Chief Sakatcheway.

And so what is this all about? This is about our children and our grandchildren and those yet to be born. Whenever I look into the eyes of my beautiful children, I cannot help but tell them: This is for you and the future of our country.

I have spoken the truth. Through truth, we will understand. Through understanding, there is hope. Through hope, there is healing. Through healing, there is reconciliation. Through reconciliation, there is forgiveness. Through forgiveness, there is peace.

Miigwetch, for listening.

Thank you, Garnet, my dear friend, for your powerful words. And thank you, colleagues, for listening with an open heart.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Senator Marshall: Yes, of course.

Senator Marshall: Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Galvez, for that question. My personal preference would be to reinstate the estimates reform project. When Minister Brison was there, for two consecutive years he had tried two different things. While they weren’t perfect, they were helpful. I did find that, while we are struggling to try to make sense of the estimates, when we had those two years where we were trying something new, it was really motivational. I found that Minister Brison was very receptive; he appeared many times before our Finance Committee and he was really engaged. That would be number one.

I would like to sneak in item number two. I think the government should put a bigger effort into providing financial information. Sometimes, I get the feeling they are withholding it for a purpose, like they don’t want to give us the information. So we are not able to track it. If they don’t give us the information, all I can say is that I don’t have the information. If they gave me the public accounts I could probably come up with 500 questions, but right now all I can say is, “where are the public accounts?” We do have them, but our review is done. We are going to discuss our report tomorrow. So it’s not a good situation.

Senator Galvez, I’m used to working with numbers, so the government documents don’t intimidate me. But as I said to the President of the Treasury Board the other day, when I review Supplementary Estimates (B), I almost need a calculator, pen and paper as I’m trying to go back and forth because the government won’t provide the information.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dupuis, we are having audio problems and, therefore, there was no interpretation. We are truly sorry for this technical problem, but it seems that the interpreters cannot hear you and provide the English interpretation. Therefore, Senator Marshall cannot answer your question.

However, you could ask your question at third reading stage, if you wish. Perhaps the technical difficulties will be resolved by then.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It seems, Senator Dupuis, that that will not be possible.

Senator Dupuis: Would you like me to put the question in the chat of the Senate hybrid session?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you.

[English]

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

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.)

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-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Ngo for bringing this motion forward. The issue, both in the context of the Journey to Freedom Day Act of 2015 and the application of the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, and its protocols, known as the Paris Peace Accords of 1975, is of great concern to our colleague and, indeed, to many Canadians of Vietnamese origin — as well it should be.

Indeed, countless people like Senator Ngo and thousands of Vietnamese first came to our shores fleeing conflict and/or persecution. The reasons to leave were traumatic enough, to say nothing of the journey to a new land and ultimately arriving in a strange new place to call home, where refugees face new challenges.

My parents faced a similar situation in losing their land, property and possessions during World War II, after which they came to Canada as refugees. We are all touched by such stories; they are integral to the fabric and the folk memory of so many Canadians.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the spirit of this motion, I oppose its passage. I will explain why.

Colleagues, this motion calls upon the Government of Canada to reconvene a meeting of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to discuss events that took place 45 years ago, within the framework of that treaty, and of that conference that is just as old. Further, some of the members with which Canada worked at the time, such as Hungary and Poland, were then part of the Soviet bloc. Things have changed somewhat in 45 years, including the fall of the U.S.S.R., which among other points, resulted in these countries completely changing their constitutions and systems of government.

It is not clear to me why Canada should expend great energy, not to mention international political capital, to re-engage in a discussion for which, in my view, there would not be much appetite from other parties to reopen. Also, I do not know what will be included in the government’s forthcoming Indo-Pacific strategy, but I would wager that reconvening the International Conference on Viet-Nam will not be in it, and I am not a betting man.

In bilateral terms — that is, the relationship between Canada and Vietnam — I am convinced that this motion would be seen in a negative light by Vietnam, a country with which Canada has enjoyed friendship and cooperation for many decades. That is no small thing, colleagues. Vietnam is a member of the ASEAN group with which both the government of Prime Minister Harper and the current government have sought to achieve closer ties. Vietnam, along with Canada, is a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, that is already showing positive signs for both countries and, indeed, all members. Our two-way trade last year was nearly $9 billion, making Vietnam Canada’s largest trading partner among ASEAN countries.

Would it not be more constructive for Canada to focus on developing our positive relationship with Vietnam within the framework of the Canada-Vietnam partnership, where there can be engagement on a comprehensive agenda that could, and in fact does, include economic and political reforms?

Symbolic gestures — and this motion represents just that — can have negative consequences. I have made this important point in the chamber before, colleagues.

I would also note that our dialogue with the government of Vietnam includes larger geostrategic questions, military cooperation that concerns Vietnam, scientific and academic cooperation, clean technologies and cooperation on the Green Climate Fund. It also includes discussions about the ASEAN countries, large neighbouring countries and the wider Pacific region.

We need to work with friends and allies all over the world, the Indo-Pacific region being no exception, particularly when we see ourselves aggrieved or unfairly treated by other countries. Canada has had some recent experience in this regard.

In his speech supporting the motion, our colleague Senator Patterson referred to the international rules-based order. We have had one since 1945 through the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions, and it has changed and expanded over the years with decolonization; the development of regional groupings and alliances, in many of which Canada enjoys membership; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the development of the European Union; regular global and regional summits; and the list goes on.

The end of the Vietnam War falls into that rubric.

There are international norms and rules that are set out that should be followed by all countries. We all know this is not always the case.

I recognize that the concern expressed by Senators Ngo and Patterson revolve around human rights and the development of Vietnam since the peace treaty was signed. Various Canadian governments have, in the interval, raised these issues with the government since 1975, in bilateral terms. But what I consider very important is the multilateral element, as shown in the Universal Periodic Review that Canada had undertaken in the UN system to assess Vietnam’s efforts on human rights and the harmonization of its laws with international standards. That is the development in the UN system that has also occurred since 1975, when the peace treaties were signed.

In the last round in 2019, Canada recommended that Vietnam revise its penal code and cybersecurity laws to align with international standards for freedom of expression, association and assembly; to ensure due process rights and the right to a fair trial; to allow religious groups to practise freely; and to allow for the establishment of independent labour unions and gender-equality issues.

That is the way to achieve progress, colleagues: peer review and multilateral engagement, the push that the CPTPP brings today for all parties to step up and continue bilateral dialogue. The solution is not to return to an instrument from 45 years ago, regardless of any perceived symbolic value or reassurance and hope it might provide to our valued and respected community of Vietnamese Canadians, of which our dear colleague is an illustrious member.

Honourable senators, the chances of getting six parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reopen the conference are well nigh impossible.

As I have said before with respect to motions on international affairs in this chamber, we must keep in mind that the management of Canada’s international affairs falls within the Royal Prerogative. While the Senate and the House of Commons can certainly provide indications of what should be done, what actually can be done resides solely with the government of the day.

If we pass motions, they need to be realistic and reflect well on our institution — the Senate of Canada. I don’t think this one does.

In my view, our government would need to think long and hard before committing its international political capital toward returning to an issue that, for many people and countries, was settled long ago.

It is for those reasons that, with the greatest respect for our colleague Senator Ngo, I oppose this motion.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I am speaking on behalf of the Wa Ni Ska Tan Alliance of Hydro-Impacted Communities in Manitoba.

We welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and offer insights into emerging urgencies and new threats, such as climate change, while also warning of the dangers posed by blindly accepting large-scale hydroelectric projects as a route towards the future reliance on renewable energy. Though the climate crisis offers a very real danger to all peoples of the world, promoted solutions must be founded in principles of justice and avoid the sacrifice of communities for the benefit of others.

The people who comprise our research partnership include grassroots individuals from a number of hydro-impacted First Nations in northern Manitoba who have expressed concern about the history and expansion of hydro power in their respective territories. Our alliance also includes researchers and academics from nine universities, as well as members of several local NGOs.

Northern Manitoba is home to many freshwater lakes and tributaries, some of which were critical to the earliest encounters and commercial activities that would eventually influence the settlement of Canada. Scholars have clearly documented the historic importance of several ancient tributaries such as the Churchill, the Nelson and the Saskatchewan rivers. For Ithiniwuk (the Cree), these tributaries sustained their ancestors and their communities for millennia. Beginning in the mid 1960s, however, a new industrial presence would irreversibly alter landscapes and reverse waterways.

During this time Manitoba, together with the federal government, embarked on a joint study which examined, in part, the feasibility of large-scale hydropower in the north. Not long after the completion of the study, Manitoba’s public utility ambitiously set out to “harness” the power of the waters in the region. Mega projects followed and in what would become known as the Churchill River Diversion and Lake Winnipeg Regulation projects, massive diversion channels were excavated en masse so water flows could be rerouted. The purpose for the dams along the Nelson River was originally to save money on electricity production for Winnipeg and other communities in Southern Manitoba, not for any environmental reasons. The public discourse on climate change and its connection with fossil fuels did not enter public discourse until much later.

The Churchill River Diversion affects the flow of the Churchill River which historically and naturally flowed into Hudson Bay. This river was, by the mid 1970s, intentionally and artificially rerouted via the Missi Falls Control Structure at the outlet of South Indian Lake. Its new path now flows through the Rat and Burntwood Rivers and eventually into the Nelson River system. The Province of Manitoba writes that “CRD is used for the generating stations on the Nelson River, which account for about 75% of power generation in Manitoba.”

Large-scale hydro projects like the CRD in Manitoba were made possible by a series of agreements and deal making spanning more than 30 years, affecting four generations, and counting, in numerous Indigenous communities. Dam building for commercial purposes, and export, was ushered in with the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement in 1977. While this agreement involved the Province of Manitoba, the Board of Manitoba Hydro, the federal government, and five First Nation communities collectively represented by the Northern Flood Committee, it was effectively triggered by the resistance of the Cree whose reserve lands would be flooded as a result of Hydro’s CRD and Lake Winnipeg Regulation projects. This agreement, which has been acknowledged as a treaty, was meant to mitigate a broad range of adverse impacts, the scope of which were not entirely known at the time of its signing.

The CRD has directly impacted more than 8,000 kilometres of shoreline. This is a conservative estimate based on available data sets from publications of shorelines around South Indian Lake, but the true numbers are difficult to calculate due to the inaccessible nature of supposedly public information. . . . Both the Manitoba government and public have to rely on the information provided by Manitoba Hydro, because they fund the vast majority of scientific studies on their projects and utilize strategies of divide and conquer when signing agreements with communities.

The South Indian Lake community and its people were self-sufficient, thriving and even prosperous, before the CRD project came to fruition, not having to rely on government intervention or support. The South Indian Lake Commercial Fishery was the third largest lake whitefish fishery in North America. South Indian Lake had an average annual income approximately seven times that of other Northern communities, because they were mainly reliant on fishing and trapping activities. Scientific reports on potential adverse impacts of the project were ignored by authorities and licences were granted for the Crown corporation to legally proceed.

The hydroelectric energy produced by these megadams has long enjoyed an undeserved reputation as “clean” and “renewable” energy. In the move towards addressing climate change through electrification, “greenwashing” of hydro power poses an emerging threat of ideological proportions. Ongoing dysfunctional and deep-rooted colonial structures, including jurisdictional gaps, also strain existing power imbalances in the region. This ecological footprint has resulted in impacts that have yet to receive due environmental consideration. Entire islands have been swallowed up. Historic and commercial fisheries have been decimated. Thousands of people and entire communities have been flooded, displaced and dispossessed.

Emissions from hydro dams are produced through the flooding of shorelines and forests, which introduces organic matter into the water that then decomposes, producing carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Flooding in northern Manitoba was not restricted to a single project or event. In the areas impacted by hydro operations, the water levels and flows are raised or lowered based on the demand for power. This results in ongoing inundation and/or de-watering of tributaries and produces greenhouse gas emissions on an ongoing basis. Hydroelectric reservoirs are a source of greenhouse gases and in individual cases can reach the same emission rates as thermal power plants. Independent scientific studies have shown emissions related to hydroelectricity to be severely undercounted. Rigorous monitoring of individual reservoirs is desperately needed, in order to ensure that they are not contributing significantly to climate change.

The shorelines of several historic tributaries throughout this region contain two histories and two competing narratives: one before hydro and the other after hydro. The former, life before hydro, represented an era where the people moved with the ebbs and flows of the land and waters, were independent, and sustained themselves on the very land and waters that have become critical to hydropower and its operations. Before hydro, the land and waters were pristine. Today these same lands, and the communities who relied on them, carry the cultural, social, environmental, and economic scars of a fairly recent and ongoing colonial encounter. The danger of marketing this energy as responsible, green, and clean, must be avoided; this energy is not without consequence and we have yet to measure the full scale and scope of its environmental footprint in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, its cumulative environmental impacts, or the ways it can exacerbate the climate crisis.

Renewable energy projects are desperately needed in the face of the climate crisis, but they must not be undertaken in a way that repeats the mistakes of the past. The hydro dams in Manitoba were developed in a colonial manner that did not prioritize collaboration with Indigenous Peoples or minimize environmental harm. Future energy projects should focus on renewable energies such as wind and solar that can be built closer to urban centres such as Winnipeg — reducing the amount of necessary infrastructure and fuel. These energies will also be less susceptible to future changes in our climate, unlike the susceptibility of hydroelectricity to a drought, such as we are currently experiencing in Manitoba. Northern Canada is also predicted to experience greater warming than the global average, signalling another reason to focus efforts on resilient solutions. We call upon governments and industry to seize the opportunity to develop innovative solutions to our energy needs and in a manner that does not contribute to additional environmental, socio-economic, and cultural degradation.

Today we are witnessing, across Canada, a shift in how the public views megadam projects. From Site C in British Columbia, to Keeyask in Manitoba and Muskrat Falls in Labrador, the cost overruns and unnecessary environmental harms are being weighed against the supposedly cheap electricity that they will produce. Indigenous communities have always been voicing their opposition to these projects, but the non-Indigenous public is finally starting to listen. We recommend that all public utilities and Provincial Governments in Canada collaborate meaningfully, in good faith, with hydro-impacted communities in order to receive consent on all existing and planned energy projects. We also recommend that an immediate moratorium be placed on all megadam construction. This moratorium should be maintained until proper research has been done into all aspects of hydro’s impact on climate change, including greenhouse gas production, release of sequestered carbon, and all other effects of hydro that worsen climate change.

Today, the very waters and lands that gave the region and the original peoples of that land life and meaning have been disrupted and destroyed, displacing many Indigenous communities. In this era of reconciliation, we offer you a brief glimpse of one more history, and one more story, that requires a reckoning and redress of sorts: it is the story of hydropower in Manitoba. Four generations have already been affected by large-scale hydro development. As we find ourselves amid a rapidly evolving climate crisis, the cautionary tales to be gleaned are many, so too are possibilities and opportunities. We need to keep the next generations in mind as we move forward towards a more just and sustainable future.

We thank Senator Galvez for raising this very important issue, and we also thank the Senate. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Tannas, for Senator Black, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That the Senate of Canada:

(a)acknowledge that racism, in all its forms, was a cornerstone upon which the residential school system was created;

(b)acknowledge that racism, discrimination and abuse were rampant within the residential school system;

(c)acknowledge that the residential school system, created for the malevolent purpose of assimilation, has had profound and continuing negative impacts on Indigenous lives, cultures and languages; and

(d)apologize unreservedly for Canada’s role in the establishment of the residential school system, as well as its resulting adverse impacts, the effects of which are still seen and felt by countless Indigenous peoples and communities today.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-211, short titled “Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.”

I would like to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for reintroducing this important human rights bill. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

This bill lifts the veil on the prevalence of modern slavery around the world, impacting at least 90 million children and adults.

Canada is far behind in terms of forced labour legislation. If we are to uphold our standing as a champion of human rights, we must keep pace with countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which have already passed legislation requiring their companies to investigate and report on the risk of forced labour in their supply chains.

With this bill, we would uphold Canada’s international commitment to contribute to the fight against forced and child labour.

Modern slavery is the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain, which encompasses many forms of exploitation, such as human trafficking, descent-based slavery, forced and early marriage, as well as forced and child labour.

The latter is particularly troubling and is defined as work that is mentally, physically, socially and morally harmful to children, and it interferes with their ability to receive an education. Yet, one in four victims of modern slavery is a child.

We know the major factor in child labour is poverty, as children work for their survival and that of their family. This is part of a vicious cycle where education is seen as secondary to earning an income, which in turn prevents child workers from escaping poverty once they reach adulthood.

Of course, this bill cannot solve these root issues alone, but it can force private sector entities and government institutions to take steps to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable.

One of the key steps outlined in this bill is the requirement for large entities and government institutions to submit an annual report outlining steps taken to curtail forced or child labour; additionally, any training provided to employees on the prevention of modern slavery in any step of the production of goods produced, purchased or distributed.

Education is a vital step because many of us are too far removed from the goods we purchase and consume. Personally, I had the unique opportunity to visit the site of the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh. I arrived only three months after the eight-storey building collapsed, killing over 1,100 people and injuring countless individuals. I witnessed first-hand the cost of cheap fast fashion. These poorly paid workers had been forced to keep producing clothes even after police had ordered the evacuation of the building due to deep visible cracks in the walls.

It is time for Canada to implement legislation to curtail forced and child labour around the world.

As critic of the bill, I do have to point out some potential concerns that should be reviewed at committee. Some of you raised excellent questions last week. Senator Black questioned the broad definition of child labour and Senator Omidvar had concerns regarding the ramifications for children who rely on employment for survival. This is not a simple bill nor is it comprehensive in addressing forced labour.

Discussions will need to take place regarding the additional responsibilities provided to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; the broad powers allotted to designated persons in enforcing mandates outlined in the bill; and legal considerations of holding executive members, employees and/or agents liable for any discrepancies in the annual report.

It is also important to hear from witnesses at committee to ensure that this bill is as strong as possible.

With further input, we can eliminate corruption and shine a light on forced labour through transparency. I hope you support me in sending Bill S-211 to committee so it can be thoroughly reviewed. Thank you.

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

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, I want to congratulate Prime Minister Trudeau for appointing Mary May Simon as Governor General, notwithstanding the criticism he knew he would be facing.

Prime Minister Trudeau recognized that, as we all travel the road of understanding, it was time to seize the opportunity and appoint a Canadian of Indigenous heritage as Governor General. Mary May Simon is not just any Canadian but someone who is highly qualified, a leader of her community for decades, a former Canadian ambassador to Denmark, a recognized expert on Arctic issues — the list of her accomplishments goes on and on.

As to the language issue, I think we have to step back and ask ourselves if the policy of our two official languages is a carryover from our colonial past. Prior to francophones or anglophones arriving in this part of North America, there were many Indigenous languages already spoken here.

Colleagues, is it not better to reflect on the true history of Canada and recognize that we may have many Indigenous languages as founding languages? Can the Senate play a major role and also seize this historic opportunity of the first Indigenous Governor General and show leadership by giving our current Language Committee the official mandate and special emphasis on how we can protect these numerous Indigenous languages? Maybe there could be a renamed Senate committee that is focused on founding and official languages.

Colleagues, let us embrace the new Canada. Let us embrace the future rather than resisting change and fighting for the status quo.

As an English-speaking Canadian, I would not object to a francophone who spoke an Indigenous language and who promised to learn English being appointed to a senior position. Colleagues, that is the price we pay to help correct historical wrongs.

We owe it to the Indigenous community to embrace the new Canada we are building together. The old Canada thinking in this bill is partly the result of the distorted history we all studied when we were in school and the massive gaps in our knowledge of the Indigenous community, their customs and their society.

As I personally educate myself on the true history of Canada, I remember the treaties I studied, but there was never any mention in my history books in Prince Edward Island about the treaties signed by the Mi’kmaq of Atlantic Canada with the Crown, the Peace and Friendship Treaty. They were never mentioned.

This absence of knowledge in Canadian society about our Indigenous history is slowly ending, and the appointment of Mary May Simon as Governor General is important both as a symbol and as substance.

Colleagues, Mary May Simon is Governor General and the Governor General is Indigenous and I think that is wonderful. May there be many more appointments where Indigenous languages are given equal treatment to English and French. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The vote will be at 5:22.

Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to and report adopted on the following division:

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. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 7 moved by Senator Galvez.

This motion calls on the Senate of Canada to recognize that climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response. Honourable colleagues, as you know, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, moved a similar motion at the other place on May 16, 2019.

At the time, the minister’s motion noted the impacts of climate change, such as flooding, wildfires, heat waves and other extreme weather events, as well as other concerns, such as the fact that climate change impacts communities across Canada, with coastal, northern and Indigenous communities particularly vulnerable to its effects.

The disastrous flooding in British Columbia should serve a reminder that climate change is real and that governments around the world must act quickly and decisively. Inaction is no longer acceptable.

As the new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, said, Canada is doing its part and has taken the following measures.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government put a price on carbon pollution and set a price trajectory out to 2030 that is one of the most ambitious in the world.

The government is also offering support to help homeowners improve their home’s energy efficiency and help drivers buy zero-emission vehicles.

The government is accelerating its plan to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity generation and is offering industries incentives to decarbonize and develop clean tech. The government also introduced regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and it is committed to doing the same for the entire Canadian economy.

Alongside that, the government is committed to protecting 25% of our land and oceans by 2025. That is why it earmarked $4 billion to support natural climate solutions, which include an initiative to plant 2 billion trees over the next 10 years.

[English]

Honourable senators, finding ways to speed up climate change action can be a frustrating experience for many of us.

As early as 1973, when many of us might have been learning of ecological problems for the first time, in his classic work Small is Beautiful, E.F. Schumacher wrote of:

An attitude to life which seeks fulfilment in the single-minded pursuit of wealth — in short, materialism — does not fit into this world, because it contains within itself no limiting principle, while the environment in which it is placed is strictly limited. Already the environment is trying to tell us that certain stresses are becoming excessive.

Nearly 50 years later, these environmental stresses have only increased. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change constantly reminds us — and more recently at COP26 — we are now reaching points of ecological exhaustion in several areas.

Before concluding, I want to commend Senator Galvez for tabling this motion and for her relentless climate change advocacy.

Here at the Senate, as elsewhere, we need to tackle climate change on a number of fronts. We are up against a problem of titanic proportions that requires all hands on deck if we are to avoid the proverbial iceberg that is now well within sight.

Senator Galvez’s motion is an important action but, of course, more needs to be done. In this chamber, in committees and individually, we need to be creative and innovative in contemplating how we can act to increase greater climate action for today and tomorrow.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 7 moved by Senator Galvez that aims to recognize the urgency for action on climate change.

The responsibility is in our hands, colleagues, and we must take the lead so that all our legislative actions can contribute to finding appropriate solutions.

A few years ago, as a private citizen, my understanding of environmental protection was limited to reducing the use of plastic bags and bottles, reducing harmful emissions from vehicles and industry, and reversing the effects of holes in the ozone layer caused by chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. This concept has evolved over time, with media coverage and speeches by politicians on the subject. In the Senate, my conversations with Senator Galvez and the reading of her white paper convinced me of the urgency to act.

In medicine, we use the word “emergency” when a patient’s life is in danger and they require immediate care. Today, this is true of our planet, which supports life. It can’t wait any longer for us to act. It needs intensive care without further delay.

Honourable senators, I would like to focus on the importance of part (d) of the motion, which reads as follows: “climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians.”

In medical practice, the questionnaire on a patient’s environment includes questions about their home and workplace.

For example, if a person suffers from chronic lung problems and there are questions about why they have been repeatedly hospitalized despite using medication appropriately, a home visit may sometimes reveal a damp basement and signs of mould.

At work, if a person has an asthma attack or presents with skin lesions and itching as soon as they set foot in their office, this can be a sign of mould in the walls or poor air quality.

Two updates were published by the American Heart Association, in 2004 and 2010. They clearly established that air pollution is a risk factor and a cause of heart attacks and strokes.

In his article on the impact of atmospheric pollution on the health of Quebecers and Canadians, Dr. François Reeves, interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, pointed out the following:

Extensive use of fossil fuels affects human health in two ways: through direct toxicity and through climate events. The environmental impact on our health is highly significant: air pollution is the leading global cause of death . . . .

It causes more than 8 million excess deaths a year, which is more than tobacco or COVID-19.

In 2019, the Public Health Agency of Canada reported that air pollution accounts for C$114 billion a year in health and disability costs.

Hussein Wazneh, a researcher at Quebec’s centre for research and innovation in civil security, said the following:

Heat waves have significant health implications in Quebec and elsewhere in the world. For example, a five-day heat wave in 2010 led to the death of 106 people in Montreal. During this time, there were 280 extra deaths . . . .

Extra or premature deaths refer to deaths that would not have occurred if not for the adverse factor in question.

It is widely accepted that climate change will make the severity, duration and frequency of heat waves increase in the coming decades. The number of 30°C days could triple as early as 2080 in several Canadian cities.

These figures are masking some significant inequalities in terms of health determinants. People in precarious socio-economic situations often live near highways and urban heat islands.

According to Quebec’s department of the environment and the fight against climate change, road pollution accounts for 62% of the fine particles, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone in the air. The difference between some wealthier neighbourhoods, which have ample green space, and working-class neighbourhoods, where every square inch is paved, reflects social and public health disparities. In its report entitled The Health Costs of Climate Change, the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices emphasized that:

Disadvantaged groups are at higher risk of heat-related illnesses and death

Some of the pre-existing diseases that affect heat risk are associated more strongly with disadvantaged groups.

A literature review published in March 2021 by Quebec’s public health institute, the INSPQ, paints a picture of the many climate phenomena that affect population health, from extreme heat to extreme cold, from storms to floods, from air pollution to smog events, from drought to forest fires, from human encroachment on natural spaces to zoonotic diseases, and so on.

As we saw in Western Canada, the catastrophic consequences of deforestation that depletes soils, combined with forest fires and extreme rainfall, caused devastating floods. It is therefore not surprising that we once again called in the Canadian army to help us cope with disastrous meteorological phenomena.

Climate disturbances are causing cascading effects that can be seen in Canada from coast to coast to coast. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, with about one in five people living on the coast. The impact of climate change is generally considered over the long term, that is, over 10, 20 or even 50 years. Coastal erosion in the Arctic can be observed from one day to the next. According to Natural Resources Canada, it is estimated that each year in the Arctic, 30 to 40 meters of coastline are lost.

Changes related to erosion have been affecting the food supply of Inuit populations for the past 10 to 15 years. The extraordinary and urgent steps we must take to counter the impact of climate destabilization are crucial to combat food insecurity among northerners.

While the health impacts of pollution are obvious, as I mentioned earlier, some of the effects of climate change on population health are more insidious.

Take, for example, zoonotic diseases, which are diseases or infections that naturally spread from an animal species to humans. Lyme disease has been in the news every summer for the past few years. Tick migration on white-tailed deer populations is responsible for the arrival of this disease north of the forty-fifth parallel.

The risk of zoonotic diseases increases as humans continue to encroach on wild spaces.

In a book on epidemics in Quebec entitled Brève histoire des épidémies au Québec, the author references a 2015 warning from virologist Patrick Berche:

With population and poverty levels rising and contact with animals becoming increasingly common, it is highly likely that we will see other epidemics, such as flu or coronavirus . . . .

We must take care of our ecosystems. This type of intervention will help prevent future epidemics or even pandemics.

Dear colleagues, we know what we need to do. The Government of Canada has proposed a number of concrete measures to improve our chances of reversing the devastating effects of climate change, including building sustainable and net-zero buildings, accelerating the energy transition to renewable sources, moving away from our dependence on dirty fossil fuels by electrifying vehicles, and purifying our air by planting 2 billion trees in Canada.

In the “Initiatives” section of Senator Galvez’s website, you’ll find other measures, such as improving soil health, improving the National Building Code and creating a circular economy.

Motion No. 7 reflects the observations made by the INSPQ. Even if we significantly reduce Canada’s production of greenhouse gases in the coming years, the effects of climate change are already being felt and will continue to affect our communities for decades to come.

This is why it is more important than ever that we work even harder to combat the causes of climate change.

This is the only way to guarantee a longer life expectancy and good health for current and future generations.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion as well. This emergency is real, though the extent to which each of us, in Canada and globally, feel its effects so far depends in large part on our class, our race, our gender and our access to resources — in short, on our privilege.

Environmental degradation has both amplified and been driven by systemic inequalities. Our climate action will not be successful if we continue to leave the most marginalized behind. Future generations will be shaped by our collective work. We must uphold international commitments to reconciliation, eradicate inequality and urgently act to redress environmental destruction.

The first of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is the eradication of poverty in all its forms. Millions of Canadians live below the poverty line. They are disproportionately bearing the consequences of our failure to manage carbon and other emissions, from increased flooding, droughts and fires to catastrophic weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. Too many families and communities do not have the resources to shield themselves from the impacts of climate change.

Money pays for air conditioning as temperatures soar; money fills grocery carts as food insecurity increases; money pays for relocation and shelter away from natural disasters, such as floods, landslides and hurricanes.

Those living in poverty have fewer viable means to prepare for, protect themselves from and safely leave areas experiencing environmental disasters. Policy decisions intentionally ignore and abandon them.

In 2020, the woeful inadequacies of social assistance programs meant the poorest and most marginalized were left to survive a pandemic that cut them off from many community supports and services, on amounts ranging from 34% to 63% of the poverty line.

Let us be very clear, colleagues. This is below even Canada’s deep income poverty threshold. In some provinces, more than 50% were below that threshold.

While the poorest of the poor suffer the greatest consequences, the richest of the rich are actually driving climate change. Oxfam tracks the richest 1% of the global population as having used two times as much carbon as the poorest 50% over the last 25 years.

This inequality has only been exacerbated by COVID-19. The pandemic saw the wealth of billionaires increase by $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 31, 2020, alone, while the number of people living on less than $5.50 per day is estimated to have increased to as many as 500 million in 2020.

During pandemic-related commercial travel bans, sales of private jets soared internationally. The jets and yachts of billionaires are the main contributors to their huge, unfair and unsustainable carbon footprints.

According to Oxfam:

. . . it is the richest who are least affected by the pandemic, and are the quickest to see their fortunes recover. They also remain the greatest emitters of carbon, and the greatest drivers of climate breakdown.

Their report concludes that the division between those who reap the rewards of carbon-producing processes and those who pay the price needs to be a top priority for global governments. As Oxfam states, “. . . The fight against inequality and the fight for climate justice are the same fight. . . .”

Bearing the brunt of this crisis are women. On average, women have lower incomes and are more likely to live in poverty than men. Black and Indigenous women in particular experience the highest rates of poverty. Globally, they also typically bear responsibility for tasks such as securing food and water — tasks made more difficult by climate change.

In 2017, the United Nations Development Programme reported that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women.

When natural disasters associated with climate change occur in Canada, they are accompanied by notable increases in violence against women.

Systemic racial inequality contributes to disproportionately negative health outcomes, overrepresentation in jobs being outside exposed to the elements and therefore face disproportionate exposure to extreme heat and air pollution. First Nations peoples living on reserve are 33 times more likely than others to face evacuations due to wildfires. Racialized and low-income communities in Canada are in peril as a result of our inaction.

Women and girls are a powerful force for climate action. Polls consistently indicate that women are more aware than men of environmental degradation and its harms, want the government to take urgent action on this issue and they vote based on issues relating to climate.

Action to arrest, mitigate and prevent climate change and environmental degradation is a fundamental part of upholding the right of women and girls to equality. Climate policies won’t last if they do not reflect feminism or intersectionality. Success depends on us identifying vulnerabilities, creating more inclusive climate policies and improving economic equality and inclusion.

As Senator Galvez’s white paper highlighted, guaranteed liveable income initiatives would help to foster climate resilience. Such programs create opportunities for everyone to participate in climate action.

Climate action:

. . . requires urgent, society-wide mobilization to provide children born today with the liveable environment and functioning health systems they need to thrive in a climate changed world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated what governments can do to respond effectively to a global crisis. The climate crisis demands the same level of action. We need policies that reduce demand for energy, end subsidies to fossil fuel industries and we need banks to end investments in fossil fuels and ramp up investment in sustainable, renewable energy. We need to end tax benefits for fossil fuel corporations that, according to last week’s report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, cost $1.8 billion annually or about $9.2 billion between 2015 and 2019.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.