Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. This is important to the government and is a priority for the government.

To answer your question directly rather than speak in more general terms, in addition to the steps I have already described, one way the government is taking action in terms of working towards the appointment of a new leadership and making that a priority for the leadership is through the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat. The secretariat combats discrimination and tackles the effects of discrimination on people and communities across the country, including in the workplace and health care spaces. This is another measure the government is taking more broadly to do its part to reduce — and, ideally, eliminate — racism in the workplace and other spaces in this country.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague Senator Plett about foreign interference in Canadian elections, you said that the Prime Minister did not benefit from any such interference. I find it hard to comprehend why the House leader of the other place, Mark Holland, claimed on Monday that the Conservative motion to compel Ms. Telford to testify could become a vote of confidence in the government. This was presumably to get Mr. Singh on board.

You said yesterday that the federal election was not compromised. That was your answer to Senator Plett.

Senator Gold, will you undertake today, in this chamber, to confirm that the alleged interference by the Chinese government, particularly during the two elections, did not result in the election of any Liberal candidates in Canada?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, it has been raised with you previously that the cost of housing has skyrocketed under the Trudeau government. For example, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association, house prices in the interior of my province of British Columbia have gone up over 43% in the last five years. In the Statistics Canada survey released last month, 46% of British Columbians said they were very concerned about their ability to afford housing or rent. The Trudeau government’s Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund and First-Time Home Buyer Incentive have both been failures. The Tax-Free First Home Savings Account is still not in place.

So, leader, why should Canadians struggling to find housing or pay their rent believe your government will help them when what you have brought forward so far hasn’t worked?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Again, the issue of the affordability of housing is an important one. So thank you for raising this issue.

However, colleague, it is simply not the case that the federal government — any federal government, past, present or future — can be held exclusively or even mainly responsible for the increased housing prices, especially in a market such as the one you have described. Having lived in Vancouver myself for almost four very happy years, we know that the price of housing and the rise of prices is a function of many factors for which even provincial governments who have a responsibility for housing could or should not be held largely responsible.

That said, I also respectfully disagree with your characterization of the efforts the government has made, and will continue to make, to help Canadians become first-time home buyers, offset the costs of maintaining their homes or, indeed, finding rental homes. There are many more programs than you mentioned, and they have not been an unmitigated failure, though no program can ever claim 100% success.

The government will continue to assist Canadians as they meet the challenges of home prices. It is encouraging that inflation — at least generally, though not in the grocery store — is coming down continually, and we are hoping that the responsible fiscal measures the government has been taking to get us through the pandemic and out of the pandemic will bear fruit and that the housing market will become more accessible to more Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 36, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding diplomat pay.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 67, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding ministerial exemptions granted under COVID-19 quarantine rules — Global Affairs Canada.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. This is not a simple bill as some believe. A statement was made by a member of the transitional committee advising the reconciliation council for parliamentarians to take off their political caps when considering this bill. This was an ignorant remark and silencing tactic showing how little some Indigenous peoples understand what has happened to their own.

Reconciliation is not the simple act of removing a cap or passing legislation. When you are born already trapped in the Indian Act, you are not wearing a cap; you are a political entity. The oppressive systems of the act reshaped our identities, communities, lives and spirits, and that violence still lives within us as First Nations. Understanding and unbraiding the complex racist colonial systems that were involved in the making of the Canadian state is a lifelong process. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, stated:

The Survivors acted with courage and determination. We should do no less. It is time to commit to a process of reconciliation. . . .

The Senate has the responsibility to ensure that this process is doable and that it is transformative.

When I asked Minister Miller if he was open to amendments, he assured us that he was. As First Nations’ lawyer Ken Young said, we have one chance to do this right. We need to ensure that it does not negatively impact or interfere with section 35 rights.

Honourable senators, the complexity of Bill C-29 involves the intentional lumping together of different peoples who have been impacted by colonialism in different ways: First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status. Some are at different levels of engagement and some are not engaged at all with the federal and provincial governments, and we all have unique, unresolved issues specific to our histories. The Calls to Action are based on the stories of residential school survivors, so how are the people who didn’t attend or aren’t intergenerational residential school descendants going to be able to use the interpretation of reconciliation of this bill as based on the TRC? As Manitoba Métis Federation President David Chartrand said, “The vast majority of the TRC and its recommendations were aimed at reconciliation with First Nations.” As such, First Nations should constitute 50 plus 1 of the committee membership.

In the book entitled Visions of the Heart: Issues Involving Indigenous People in Canada, Joyce Green, in the chapter on enacting reconciliation, writes:

 . . . it is important to note that the Commission’s terms of reference did not include consideration of the many day schools deployed for the same objectives as residential schools, nor did they permit consideration of or compensation of the many Métis and non-status Indian students who were the subjects of the same kinds of abuses and deprivations as were status Indian students.

To include the four Indigenous groups — First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status, which includes many Sixties Scoop survivors — in one national council for reconciliation does a disservice to all. As I have said, each has different outstanding issues that have not been resolved by the federal government. All deserve to have their own version of reconciliation that is meaningful and transformative. Pitting one against the other, as we are doing in this bill, is not reconciliation.

Honourable senators, when considering the TRC’s final report, conciliatory efforts are involved in Calls to Action 43 to 94 and will need to be monitored as per clause 7(b) of Bill C-29. Monitoring multiple calls to action is a huge task for one committee that involves disparate groups.

According to the Library of Parliament’s gender-based analysis on this bill:

Other commissions and inquiries, including those covering matters related to diverse groups of Indigenous peoples, have recommended mechanisms to review implementation of their recommendations. For example, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous women and Girls … was mandated to ‘report on the systemic causes of all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls.’ The National Inquiry published its final report in June 2019, which included 252 Calls for Justice. … However, Bill C-29 does not require the Council to examine the implementation of the National Inquiry’s Calls for Justice.

The complexity of Bill C-29 involves individual and collective reconciliation for those who have been impacted by residential school. The majority will be First Nations. What, then, will reconciliation look like for the different groups of Métis and for the non-status, including the Sixties Scoop survivors? How can the committee determine reconciliation efforts when these varying histories and their effects have not been established?

Honourable senators, the uncertainty surrounding Bill C-29 includes the term “reconciliation” itself. Reconciliation has different meanings for different groups and its lack of definition in the bill will cause problems. In The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools and the Challenge of Conciliation, by David B. MacDonald, the author states:

. . . reconciliation implies the need to revisit some point in time when relationships between Indigenous peoples and settlers were productive, respectful, and healthy. Where the term reconciliation works better may be among Indigenous peoples, where various aspects of colonialism severely weakened some families and communities, introducing forms of lateral violence and inter-generational trauma, while also disrupting several millennia of interdependent relations with animals, plants, waters, and lands.

For greater clarity, the TRC defined “reconciliation” by stating:

It’s about coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people going forward. It is in the latter context that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has approached the question of reconciliation.

The report continues:

. . . there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgment of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.

In the same report, when the question was asked, “. . . how, given the history of the residential schools, could Canada be a better place,” survivor Victoria Grant-Boucher said:

I’m telling my story ... for the education of the Canadian general public ... [so that they] can understand what stolen identity is . . . how it affects people, how it affects an individual, how it affects family, how it affects community.... I think the non-Aboriginal person, Canadian, has to understand that a First Nations person has a culture.... And I think that we, as Aboriginal people, have so much to share if you just let us regain that knowledge.... And I also take to heart what Elders talk about ... we have to heal ourselves. We have to heal each other. And for Canada to heal, they have to allow us to heal before we can contribute. That’s what reconciliation means to me.

Allow us to heal before we can contribute — this is a profound statement. Individual healing is required. Collective community healing is required. These are both essential to further conciliation effects at institutional levels which will require different forms of action. Reconciliation will require “. . . real social, political, and economic change.”

Colleagues, when considering the individual healing that needs to occur, we must acknowledge that such healing will be a different journey from person to person, but it will also be markedly different between men and women. As Joyce Green writes in her paper entitled Enacting Reconciliation:

. . . colonialism has been gendered, thus, its effects are experienced differently by men and women, and reconciliation itself must be gendered. The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) writes that “The ongoing violation of Indigenous women through systemic subjugation, marginalization and violence is a legacy of colonialism in Canada . . . .” NWAC notes that Indigenous women have also been subjected to intergenerational “gendered injustices of marginalization, dispossession and violence within their own communities as well as in the larger Canadian society” as a consequence of colonialism and the residential school experience . . . . The truth of this is evident in the numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women . . . .

Until the issue of gendered violence against women and girls is addressed, there can be no reconciliation.

Honourable senators, we must also reflect on Bill C-29 in light of this chamber’s recent passage of federal legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. In the book Pathways of Reconciliation, author Sheryl Lightfoot states:

. . . the TRC linked reconciliation and implementation of the UN Declaration so tightly together that it is now simply impossible for one to support the TRC and not support full implementation of the UN Declaration.

She continues:

As a standard-setting tool, the forty-six articles of the UN Declaration are intended to guide state action toward relationships with Indigenous peoples; they are based on justice and serve as a framework of mutual recognition and respect, with the self-determination of Indigenous peoples at its core.

Lightfoot quotes S. James Anaya, former United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, who offered the following suggestions for steps toward UNDRIP implementation:

First, State officials as well as Indigenous leaders should receive training on the Declaration on the related international instruments, and on practical measures to implement the Declaration.

This training must be mandatory for the council’s committee members. Anaya continues:

Additionally, States should engage in comprehensive reviews of their existing legislation and administrative programmes to identify where they may be incompatible with the Declaration. . . . On the basis of such a review, the necessary legal and programmatic reforms should be developed and implemented in consultation with indigenous peoples.

States should be committed to devoting significant human and financial resources to the measures required to implement the Declaration. These resources will typically be required for the demarcation or return of indigenous lands, the development of culturally appropriate educational programmes, support for indigenous self-governance institutions and the many other measures contemplated by the Declaration.

Lightfoot concludes:

As the TRC Summary Report noted, ‘Studying the Declaration with a view to identifying its impacts on current government laws, policy and behaviour would enable Canada to develop a holistic version of reconciliation.’

Colleagues, the TRC rated reconciliation in UNDRIP as being intertwined variables. If we pride ourselves in collectively passing UNDRIP, why do we continue to pass legislation that goes against the principles of UNDRIP, and accordingly against reconciliation itself?

Honourable senators, to have this bill be truly conciliatory, changes must be made to get it there. Under the heading Purpose and Functions, section 7(a) should be amended to say, “develop and implement a multi-year national action plan to advance reconciliation based on the framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

There are profound questions surrounding the lack of guaranteed funding. The issues with this bill are large, and the approach it takes is not conducive to reconciliation. I urge you to think about these matters when considering the bill. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: I have a question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I’m sorry, Senator McCallum’s time is up.

[English]

Senator McCallum, we have a question. Do you wish to ask for five minutes?

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I would like to thank Senator Ravalia for introducing this bill. We have been aware of the serious and lifetime consequences of prenatal alcohol exposure for over 40 years, and yet Canada continues to lack a comprehensive, coordinated national framework.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, is not only a health issue; it is fundamentally about Canadians’ human rights. As things stand now, countless Canadians may be needlessly struggling from a lack of formal diagnosis and support. As with many issues I have spoken to in this chamber, FASD is often found among vulnerable segments of the population. I believe one of the most heartbreaking aspects of prenatal alcohol exposure is that it is ultimately preventable.

Honourable colleagues, I will be brief, as I believe this bill to be simple, necessary and long overdue.

FASD is not to be taken lightly, as it is the leading cause of neurodevelopmental disability in the country, affecting approximately 4% of the population, which represents over a million Canadians. Of course, there are most likely many more, but we lack the comprehensive data and accessible diagnostics to truly grasp the proportion of Canadians with FASD. Some are born with permanent brain damage, while others, exposed to large amounts of alcohol before they are born, suffer through withdrawal during the very first weeks of their lives. Among the primary disabilities of FASD are issues with memory, filtering out distractions and cognitive processing.

Senator Richards eloquently described the agony that children with fetal alcohol syndrome often live with. They are often unable to stand noise or physical touch, and they live in their own world. To make matters worse, they are susceptible to suggestion from a deep desire to connect with others and be loved. It is not surprising that many struggle to meet society’s age-based social and academic expectations.

Unfortunately, rates of FASD are much higher in certain segments of the population, such as low-income populations, children in care, individuals involved in the justice system, homeless Canadians and Indigenous communities. Research suggests that about 90% of individuals with FASD struggle with mental health issues, and nearly 60% find themselves involved with the justice system, either as an offender or as a victim.

Canadian researchers have estimated that among young offenders, youth with FASD are 19 times more likely to be incarcerated than youth without the disorder. Hence, Canadians with FASD are particularly vulnerable and may experience greater susceptibility to justice involvement and victimization.

The cognitive issues linked to FASD can also make it difficult to access housing, as they may struggle with time and money management, have memory issues and struggle to understand the consequences of their behaviours. Therefore, Canadians with FASD navigate a world in which they must live with the dual impacts of a cognitive impairment and environmental adversity, and they are more likely to experience homelessness.

According to a study exploring the lived experiences of individuals with FASD who are supported by the homeless-serving sector in Calgary, many individuals experiencing homelessness self-report a diagnosis of FASD. Studies also suggest that women experiencing homelessness tend to be more likely to have children with FASD, thus perpetuating a cycle of suffering.

Bill S-253 would require the Minister of Health to develop a national framework designed to support Canadians with FASD, their families and their caregivers. The framework would include measures to standardize guidelines, improve diagnostic and data-reporting tools, expand knowledge bases, facilitate information exchanges and increase public and professional awareness, to name but a few.

The research behind this bill is extensive and inclusive. I would like to congratulate Senator Ravalia on tackling this important yet often overlooked issue. I particularly believe that the required consultations with other ministers, representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, relevant stakeholders, Indigenous communities and organizations and any person or entity deemed appropriate will be crucial in the development of the framework.

My concerns regarding Bill S-253 have less to do with the bill itself and more to do with the Minister of Health’s application of the consultation requirements. The discrepancy between a minister’s perception of the success rate of consultations and the perception of those directly affected by the topic is often discussed in committee hearings. This has been particularly prevalent in the Human Rights Committee hearings on Islamophobia in Canada. I would be remiss to fail to highlight that recurring problem.

I was deeply moved by Senator Richards’ speech a few weeks ago, and I would like to take a moment to thank my honourable colleague for sharing such a personal and moving story. It was eye-opening and heartbreaking. I cannot even begin to fathom the distress your sister-in-law must face every day, wondering how her brother is faring.

Honourable senators, Canadians with FASD deserve to grow up in a safe environment rather than face disproportionate incarceration, stigmatization, violence and rejection. When I walk in Ottawa, outside this very chamber, I wonder how many homeless folks I come across could have been spared such a life of hardship if they had been given a proper chance. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading to speak in support of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages), which was introduced by Senator Patrick Brazeau and aims to add a cancer warning label to liquor bottles.

At times, our past calls out to us and guides our actions in this chamber. That is the case for me today.

My father was an alcoholic. He died, drunk and freezing, one bitterly cold January night in Quebec City, when I was eight years old. In my family, talking about my father and the ravages of alcohol has long been taboo.

That is why I have deep respect for Senator Brazeau’s initiative, knowing that he managed to overcome this affliction for his own good and that of the people around him, and that he was brave enough to speak about it publicly.

Senator Brazeau also decided to draw on his personal experience to contribute to the legislative process in the hope of making a difference. He conducted research, mainly with labelling experts, in order to propose legislation. I thank him for that.

I have to say that the stars seem to be aligned for my colleague.

One month after introducing his bill, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction recommended the introduction of mandatory labelling of all alcoholic beverages with the number of standard drinks in a container and health warnings.

This same research centre advises the federal government on these matters. In its recent report, it caused shock waves by making draconian changes to the guidance on safe alcohol consumption based on new studies. The risk of negative outcomes associated with alcohol use is low for those who consume only two drinks or less per week.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction reports that three to six drinks per week increases the risk of developing certain types of cancer, such as breast, colon and rectal cancer. The fact that alcohol is a carcinogen that can cause at least seven types of cancer is often unknown or overlooked by the general public. Alcohol consumption causes nearly 7,000 cancer deaths every year in Canada.

In many ways, I’m surprised that warning labels on alcoholic beverages do not already exist. Consumer products are covered in warnings, sometimes going so far as to remind us not to eat dish soap or put our children in the microwave. In this context, while we have long been aware of the link between consuming alcohol and cancer, liver problems and cardiac disease, it is hard to understand why alcohol is exempt.

What is the reason for this apparent complacency? Senator Brazeau gave us a good hint when he talked about a study that was being conducted in Yukon about putting health warnings on bottles but was stopped after just 29 days as a result of pressure from the alcohol lobby.

To date, the provincial governments have also refused to take action. That may be because they consider the sale of alcohol to be profitable to their finances. Is that really true? In Quebec, for example, the SAQ pays $1.2 billion in annual profits to the government. Conversely, however, the Institut national de santé publique estimates that the health, justice and loss of productivity costs associated with excessive alcohol consumption total $2.8 billion per year.

When preparing this speech, I took a quick look at the federal regulations on the labelling of alcoholic beverages. There are pages and pages of technical details about sulfites, the origin and percentage of alcohol, the font size and even the placement of words, but there is absolutely nothing about the health risks.

Under Quebec regulations, labels cannot contain any information that could lead consumers to believe that drinking alcoholic beverages may be good for their health. That is a good thing. The Quebec regulations also indicate that the American or European health risk warnings are acceptable as long as they are written in French. In this case, I think that the protection of our language should be accompanied by a better protection of our livers.

For example, a label on a bottle may indicate that, according to the U.S. Surgeon General, drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems. However, there is no similar warning from the Canada or Quebec public health authorities. Unfortunately, in that regard, we are in good company. Most countries exempt alcohol from the labelling standards for psychoactive substances.

I think it is time to review those unwarranted exemptions.

Will a warning on the health risks change Canadians’ drinking habits? That is the big question.

In reviewing the literature, I found that the studies were inconclusive. Still, the 2017 Yukon study showed that 20% of consumers felt better informed because of these warnings. Furthermore, participants in studies on improved labelling consistently and strongly support these measures.

Should we wait for unassailable scientific evidence of the effectiveness of these measures before changing the labels? I don’t think so. Increased cancer risks for people who drink alcohol are real, scientifically proven and mostly unknown to the general public. I myself knew nothing about it. As in other areas, I support the precautionary principle. In this case, it’s not about raising taxes or prohibiting alcohol. We’re simply proposing a way to better inform the public. I would find it difficult to oppose such a simple and justifiable transparency measure.

Honest labelling is essential. Consumers have a right to know the risks and must have the tools to make informed choices. The choice is theirs, of course.

The industry’s response so far has been predictable. The lobby claims that labels are ineffective and that it would be better to direct consumers to specialized resources, because cancer is a complex disease. However, it is well known that consumers rarely consult these external sources.

Alcohol is one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in Canada. The fact is that 81% of Canadians drink alcohol, and 31% drink too much.

It is time the public was properly informed about all the risks posed by what has become, in our society, the “social lubricant” of choice.

Labelling is one of the transparency tools available to public authorities. Let’s use it without moderation.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-232, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to rise today as the Senate sponsor for Bill C-232, which would designate the month of April as Arab heritage month. Introduced in the other place by MP David McGuinty, the bill passed unanimously on March 28 of this year and is now here before this chamber.

Heritage months give Canadians the opportunity to celebrate their diversity and to engage in dialogue about their culture and that of others. We already celebrate several other months: Tamil, Irish, Asian, Caribbean, Italian, Portuguese, Islamic, Black, Sikh, Jewish, Indigenous, Filipino, German, Hispanic or Latin American and, of course, Women’s History Month. In the coming weeks, I hope we can all vote to add Arab heritage month to this important list.

The first Arab immigrant to arrive in Canada was Ibrahim Abu Nadir, who settled in Montreal in 1882, some 140 years ago. Since then, the Arab communities in Canada have grown to over 1 million people. They are our neighbours, friends and colleagues. They are our teachers, nurses, doctors and lawyers. We eat in their restaurants, shop in their stores, dance to their music and read their books. Simply put, we share a life together in our great country.

Colleagues, it is fitting, proper and timely that we recognize the important contributions that Canadians of Arab origin make to our country — contributions that have been and continue to be remarkable in all sectors of Canadian society. But it’s also important that we hear about their lived experience as they seek to build their lives in Canada. Recognizing April as Arab heritage month will give all Canadians the opportunity to do just that.

Many Canadians of Arab origin are very well known to Canadians even though not everyone may realize their backgrounds. Think of actor Keanu Reeves, rapper Belly, singer Zaho, comedian Rachid Badouri in my province and — and here I date myself, colleagues — pop stars Paul Anka and Andy Kim. There are politicians, such as premiers Joe and Robert Ghiz of Prince Edward Island, and the many past and current parliamentarians in both the House and here in this chamber.

There are business leaders such as Ablan Leon, who founded Leon’s furniture company in 1909, or media personality Kevin O’Leary; journalists such as Mohamed Fahmy and Nahlah Ayed, both award-winning war correspondents and authors; and, of course, Giller Prize winner and internationally acclaimed author Rawi Hage. There are athletes such as NHL veteran Nazem Kadri and Fabian Joseph, former captain of Canada’s men’s national ice hockey team and winner of two Olympic Games silver medals. The list goes on and on.

There are countless more Canadians of Arab origin whose contributions are equally impressive, but they are not as well known to the public, if indeed they are known at all. So let me take a few minutes to tell you about three people whom I have come to know and why they have made me proud to be the Senate sponsor of this bill.

Amal Elsana Alh’jooj is a graduate of McGill University with a doctorate in social work, and she’s the former executive director of McGill’s International Community Action Network. Born in an unrecognized Bedouin village in Israel’s northern Negev, Amal is a determined advocate for the rights of Bedouins in Israel, for the rights of women within Bedouin communities and an active promoter of peacebuilding between communities both here in Canada and abroad. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, Amal has been the recipient of numerous awards for her human rights work. She has resided permanently in Montreal since 2012.

I first met Amal well over 20 years ago in connection with some philanthropic work I was doing on behalf of the Montreal Jewish community. I had the privilege of being part of several groundbreaking projects that she had initiated, and our working relationship quickly blossomed into a true friendship. Amal has taught me a great deal — about courage, about perseverance and, most of all, about how one person can affect real change both at home and globally. Her work here in Canada and abroad should serve as an inspiration to all who aspire to making our country and our world a better place.

[Translation]

The second person that I want to talk about is Karim Benyekhlef, a professor at the University of Montreal’s faculty of law. Although he is not really known outside legal circles, he makes an important contribution to our country.

Karim is a world-renowned academic and innovator in the area of access to justice. In 1995, he founded the very first French online legal journal, Lex Electronica. He established the Cyberjustice Laboratory in 2010 and is currently its director. He is also leading a national and international project that seeks to put AI to work for defendants and justice system stakeholders in order to improve access to justice. Also, at the invitation of Justice Canada, he will represent Canada in the Canada-Europe dialogue on the digitalization of justice systems.

I met Karim for the first time over 30 years ago when I became a director on the board of the University of Montreal’s research centre for public law, where I spent a sabbatical year in the 1980s. I got to know him even better during the eight years he served as the director of that research centre. I was, and still am, awed by his intelligence, his productivity and, most importantly, his commitment to exploring and promoting technology to improve access to justice for Canadians.

[English]

Finally, let me tell you about Khalid Elgazzar, a Canadian lawyer, indeed an Ottawa lawyer, of Egyptian origin, whom I met when I was the Senate sponsor of Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters.

I was introduced to Khalid by the father of a young boy who had been placed on the no-fly list when he was a young child — not because of anything he did or any threat he posed, simply because of his name. While travelling with his father, Sulemaan, to see his beloved Montreal Canadiens play the Maple Leafs, Adam Ahmed, a young boy, was flagged as a possible security threat. He was six years old. This happened a second time four years later, on another trip to see his favourite hockey team.

Now, Adam’s father, Sulemaan, was one of the founders of the #NoFlyListKids group, which was a grassroots coalition determined to get the government to introduce changes to Canada’s Passenger Protect Program that were embodied in Bill C-59.

Khalid Elgazzar was their legal counsel and partner. For four years, he worked with them behind the scenes, pro bono, as they sought to remedy an injustice suffered by thousands and thousands of Canadian kids. Sulemaan tells me that Khalid was critical to their success in achieving their goal.

But Khalid’s commitment to help his fellow Canadians didn’t end there. He was also part of Conquer COVID-19, a grassroots initiative that succeeded in delivering more than 3 million items of personal protective equipment into the hands of front-line health workers and vulnerable communities during the very early months of the pandemic.

Although he is unknown outside his own personal and professional circle, Khalid’s commitment to social justice and to helping his fellow Canadians provides one more example of why this bill is so important.

Thus far, I have focused on a fraction of some of the many contributions made to Canada by Canadians of Arab origin, but there is another side to this story, a less flattering side and one that speaks to the individual experience of many Arab Canadians as they seek to integrate into Canadian life — a lived experience that further testifies to the importance of this bill.

All immigrants face difficulties and hardships when they arrive in a new country. Such was the case for those who came from Arab countries or the Maghreb or elsewhere. They and their children struggled against discrimination and exclusion in housing, in employment and in their day-to-day lives. But since the events of 9/11, the obstacles they face have increased, with attacks on individuals, on community centres and places of worship, a far-too-common reality for far too many.

Heritage months are primarily designed to celebrate culture, but they can serve to remind us of how easily a culture can be misrecognized and marginalized. Workable multiculturalism requires that we stay vigilant.

In my work with Ensemble pour le respect de la diversité, a not-for-profit organization in Montreal, we have, for over two decades now, been committed to combatting anti-Arab prejudice. Ensemble’s team of experienced educators works with thousands of students every year to help them understand the repercussions of these prejudices and stereotypes on our fellow citizens and to provide support to those Arab Canadians who are the victims of bullying and stereotyping in our schools.

Recognizing April as Arab heritage month will give Canadians of Arab origin a chance not only to share and to showcase their culture with us but also to raise our awareness of the struggles they continue to face as they seek to make their lives in Canada.

Colleagues, we often talk about how diversity is our strength in Canada as a country, and I believe fervently that this is so, but for this diversity to be fully appreciated, for Canada to grow even stronger, we must create opportunities to learn about others and from each other as well.

Passing this bill represents one such opportunity. As eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor reminds us, the recognition of our differences is not a simple courtesy we owe people; it is a vital human need. In implementing Arab heritage month, we recognize how integral Canadians of Arab origins have become to our Canadian identity.

I would like to conclude by reading into the record a quote from my dear friend Amal, which she provided to me yesterday. I will adjust it because I was to have spoken to this yesterday.

Yesterday, Tuesday, was, she writes:

. . . Mother’s Day in the Arab world. The value of family, and especially the mother, is the foundation of Arab society. Marking April as Arab Heritage Month gives us — Arab Canadians — the opportunity to share our culture and talents with the general Canadian public, not only to learn, but also to celebrate with them.

Colleagues, as we fast approach the month of April, I ask you to join me in giving this bill speedy passage so that we may all participate in Arab heritage month this year. Thank you, colleagues.