Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of the development of a national anti-hate action plan that was announced in Budget 2023.

I want to thank my colleagues for speaking out on this issue today, and I want you to know that it is a privilege to be able to stand here with you.

I, like many Canadians, am significantly concerned about the rise of hateful rhetoric, including public displays of hate speech toward 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada.

In September, demonstrations held across this country amplified discriminatory, harmful and false messaging about 2SLGBTQI+ adults, youth and children. Most of these messages contained disinformation that has been regurgitated for decades to advance political agendas that resist social progression and respect for basic human rights. One happened right outside my office, and I and my staff were dismayed by the slogans being chanted and the signs being held.

Following the demonstrations, Senator Cormier and I filmed and released a video on social media, denouncing these hateful messages. We shared a message of kindness, compassion and support for 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians and their families. We spoke about the rights of all Canadians, regardless of whom they love and how they identify.

On Twitter, our message of allyship was met with some of the most hateful responses I have personally experienced. Although there were many, I will share one comment about me, left on Senator Cormier’s post, and I will censor certain words and ask you, colleagues, to use your imagination to fill in the blanks. Let me assure you that your imagination may not go to the places the actual words did.

Look at these two [blank] clowns! Just absolute [blank] mongers. Stan, you are a dirty, filthy, [blank]ing pedophile. You are a vile, worthless [blank]ing loser. You know it too, you know that you are an absolute piece of [blank]ing [blank].

Colleagues, according to the United Nations, hate speech is:

. . . any kind of communication . . . that attacks or uses . . . discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group . . . based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

The Canadian Criminal Code defines public incitement of hatred as “. . . communicating statements in any public place . . .” that “. . . incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace . . . .”

This comment on our video was only one of many that met these criteria.

I am deeply concerned about two things. The first is the digital technology that allows this kind of hateful language to be posted in the public space without regulation, without consequences and, perhaps, even encouraged. Indeed, my staff registered complaints about a number of similar posts, only to be told that they were considered to be within “normal” limits of the use of this platform.

Colleagues — really? This type of hate speech is considered to be “normal”?

Secondly, I am deeply concerned about 2SLGBTQI+ youth and young people who are exposed to this abuse and the potential it has to damage their well-being and mental health. Think of how you would feel if such abuse were directed toward who you are as a person. I am certain that no one in this chamber would consider such verbal slagging to be anything but damaging.

Numerous research studies have found that lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, suicidality and substance abuse than their heterosexual peers. As a psychiatrist who has a robust professional knowledge in this domain, I can safely say that much of this mental torment is the result of the prejudice, discrimination, hate speech and harassment they face both online and in person.

Targeted hate speech is spread and repeated with the end goal of preventing 2SLGBTQI+ people from freely participating in our society. Colleagues, it denies their identity. It turns them into caricatures that are deemed to be less than human. We are only too aware of how the process of dehumanizing others turns out. It is the false touchstone that leads to discrimination, violence and even worse.

Those who post hate speech online are telling us that some of our children, family members, friends, colleagues and fellow citizens are not worthy of our respect, that they are not worthy of our love — that they are not worthy, period. Colleagues, this is simply wrong. This is not what we want our Canada to in any way condone. As leaders, we cannot stand idly by and let this happen. We cannot let hatred fill our streets and become the norm in our social discourse. We have a responsibility to act, and we must use that responsibility fully and vigorously.

We cannot remain silent, because silence can mean consent and silence tells those who are spreading hatred that they can do whatever damage they choose to do — that there are no consequences for hateful and harmful behaviour. So, I will repeat to you here some of the words Senator Cormier and I spoke online several weeks ago:

Children and youth have the right to safe and nurturing environments where they are supported by their peers, by their caretakers, at home and at school.

We also said:

All people deserve to be loved, accepted and cherished, not despite, but regardless of who they love, how they identify and how they express themselves.

Honourable senators, I do not think that any platform in Canada should tolerate the promotion or spread of hate speech. I do not think that any Canadian should be subjected to hateful attacks for any reason, including the colour of their skin, their place of origin, whom they love and how they identify themselves. That is why I support the development of a national anti-hate action plan.

Colleagues, in my opinion, every person living in Canada deserves to live a life free from prejudice and discrimination, where they are free to be who they are and where they are free to love whom they love.

Thank you.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, it is my privilege to rise to speak to Inquiry No. 5, which draws attention to the budget entitled A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future.

In response to an increase of police-reported hate crimes, including the hate faced by 2SLGBTQI+ communities, Budget 2023 has included plans to introduce a new action plan to combat hate in this country.

We live in a time of increased polarization, with the rise in hateful messages and misinformation targeting many, but in particular our queer and trans communities, fostering fear and isolation. The federal government recognizes this, and steps have been taken, including the development and implementation of the 2SLGBTQI+ plan. The plan in 2022 helped advance equality and the rights of community members throughout Canada and is helping several queer and trans organizations and communities across the country build resilience in the wake of increasing hate.

Just this past August, in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government announced funding through the action plan to two local organizations, First Light St. John’s Friendship Centre and the Quadrangle LGBTQ Community Centre, whose respective goals are to support, among others, Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQI+ communities. The projects receiving support are focused on ending gender-based violence and providing affirming health care.

The 2SLGBTQI+ communities contribute immeasurably to Newfoundland’s cultural fabric, arts and business communities. They are our friends. They are our family. They are our neighbours. They continue to play a leading and ongoing role in the broader movement for their rights and acceptance in our country through advocacy, education and visibility. Colleagues, we must stand by them.

In May, the Newfoundland and Labrador Queer Research Initiative launched a collection of rare documents and photographs detailing the province’s LGBTQ+ past. With credit to Sarah Worthman, the non-profit’s Executive Director, the new archive tells the hidden stories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and gender-diverse Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout our history. As Ms. Worthman eloquently stated in an interview, “. . . it’s much harder to hate on someone that you know as opposed to someone that you don’t.”

In my own career, I have witnessed the devastating impacts on the mental health of 2SLGBTQI students — students who are stigmatized by name-calling, microaggressions, marginalizations, exclusion and sometimes violence.

The implementation of this plan to combat hate is an essential next step to continue on the progress that we’ve made. This plan signifies a continuing commitment to tackling the systemic issues that have perpetuated discrimination and violence against these communities. It recognizes that in order to secure a prosperous future for all Canadians, we must confront the hatred and prejudice that undermine our values of equality, diversity and inclusivity.

The significance of this plan extends far beyond its immediate impact on hate crimes. It goes to the heart of what we stand for as Canadians — a nation that values the dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of who they are or whom they love. By addressing hate, we are not only helping safeguard the lives of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, but also reinforcing our commitment to building a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive.

Honourable senators, I look forward to seeing the development and implementation of this plan with specific measures to combat hate as we move towards a more equitable, inclusive and, hopefully, prosperous future for our 2SLGBTQI communities and other marginalized groups. A prosperous future in the truest sense is one where every Canadian can live their lives authentically without the fear of discrimination or violence.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: I found my colleagues’ speeches inspiring today. I want to very briefly speak to Inquiry No. 5 by Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate, about the action plan to combat hate announced in the most recent budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. This budget is entitled A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future. I would add “for all” — not just for the middle class, but for all classes in Canada.

I remind honourable senators that the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended exactly 10 years ago to remove sections that protected groups that are discriminated against and that are the subject of hate speech. I refer you to subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, entitled “Hate messages,” which says, and I quote:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act refers to the groups against which discrimination is prohibited. The grounds of discrimination are as follows:

. . . race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Honourable senators, I’m impressed by the speeches I’ve heard today, and I hope to be just as impressed by the actions this chamber takes.

Honourable senators, we’re all lawmakers, and we need to put this section back in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I encourage Senator Gold, who initiated this inquiry, to convince the government that an action plan is all well and good, but that action plan must be comprehensive and must include concrete measures so that people subjected to hate, which is discrimination, have recourse under the law. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill S-237, An Act to establish the Foreign Influence Registry and to amend the Criminal Code.

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

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

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

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Your Honour, I thank Senator Boisvenu for that moving speech, a tribute to his daughter, Julie.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Scott Tannas moved second reading of Bill S-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Indian Act.

He said: Before I start, thank you, Senator Boisvenu. I know we will have time to celebrate your legacy. You have left us a bill to honour your legacy, and it is much appreciated.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-268. I am a first-time sponsor of a Senate public bill. I have been here 10-plus years and this is my first bill.

For the record, I’ve been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples since my very first day in the Senate. It has not always been easy, but it has been an honour to work with members past and present on issues and obstacles to reconciliation.

I’d like to thank First Nations people in general and Chief Roy Whitney of the Tsuut’ina Nation and Chief Bobby Cameron of FSIN — the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations — for their initial inspiration to me to take this step on behalf of all First Nations.

Let me talk about the objective of the bill. This being second reading, my speech will be relatively short. I’m happy to answer questions. I’m going to try to stick to the principle of the bill.

Simply put, the bill affirms First Nations’ governments’ jurisdiction and power to govern gambling activities on their reserve lands, and does so in a way that matches identically provincial jurisdiction and powers in their respective jurisdictions.

Bill S-268 would formalize First Nations’ control of gaming only on-reserve. It would displace provincial control over those activities, including licensing and — here’s the tricky part — the appropriation of the profits. The desired outcome is that all activity and profit would be under the control of duly elected First Nations governments for gambling on their territories and reserves, in the areas of their jurisdiction. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year that would accrue to the benefit of the First Nations communities involved. That’s what this bill attempts to do.

Here’s some context around the history and the situation today. About 40 years ago, the federal government entered into two agreements with the provinces that effectively devolved gaming — or what they called back then lottery schemes, as they were termed — to the provinces. This devolution involved changing the Criminal Code to say that only provincial governments could manage or conduct gambling or, as they called it, lottery schemes.

Of course, this being 40 years ago, there does not appear to have been any thought or consideration given to First Nations, or territorial governments for that matter; not surprising, after all, because the ink was barely dry on the Constitution at this point.

Since that time, First Nations governments have attempted to assert their right and jurisdiction in this area, citing section 35 of the Constitution and backed by evidence that gaming and gambling have been part of Indigenous culture for millennia, and certainly predates the arrival of and contact with European settlers.

Many First Nations governments entered the gaming industry in the hope and expectation of eventually realizing their jurisdiction. They developed infrastructure and expertise in good faith despite an uneven and sometimes unfair relationship with the provinces. Today, there are more than 30 Indigenous community-owned gaming facilities on reserves across the country.

Successive generations of First Nations leaders and delegations have engaged with and been assured by ministers of the Crown that the federal government is working toward recognition of rights and jurisdiction of gaming on reserve lands. Many years of soothing words to that effect have been heard by leaders and delegations.

It has become clear that nothing is happening. Nobody is working toward anything regarding this issue. Why is that? In this era of reconciliation, why is that? I suspect the real reason is because it’s hard, because doing what’s right will cost somebody who previously had a monopoly to have that monopoly removed and face competition and innovation and, ultimately, see less revenue than when they had a monopoly. This is what real economic reconciliation looks like. It’s hard.

Much effort has gone into reconciliation in the past 10 years or so, particularly with acknowledging the truth of our past; providing funding and development of Indigenous governments; and providing resources and jurisdiction in the areas of education, culture, social services and community development — all cost centres, by the way. We’ve provided jurisdiction and resources in all of those areas.

There is still much work to be done on these fronts, but talk has definitely turned to action — speaking as somebody who has an arc of time of 10 years watching Indigenous matters through the committee.

Economic reconciliation is more difficult because it disrupts the status quo. It displaces those who were advantaged by the policies of the past. It involves money, new competition and redistribution of market share. But it is overwhelmingly, colleagues, the right thing to do.

After decades of uneven and unfair suppression of First Nations rights and jurisdiction, and after years of quiet promises and assurances by ministers of the Crown, as we move past symbolic reconciliation toward tangible economic reconciliation, it is time to do this. To quote John F. Kennedy from many years ago, “We should do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”

Colleagues, there are a number of nuances in this bill that will hopefully receive study and reflection at the Indigenous Peoples Committee, and I welcome the opportunity for improvement through the committee stage.

I will leave my comments here for now. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have today, and you will certainly hear more from me about the bill — in greater detail — at third reading. Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Tannas. I know the term “economic reconciliation” comes up a lot, but I’m from the community of Maliotenam, which is 15 kilometres from Sept-Îles . . . We vigorously opposed getting a casino for reasons such as public health, mental health and organized crime. That was some years ago.

Now we see the effects of all that. Even though we rejected it, we still found ways to reduce gambling addiction.

I remember when the bill was introduced, and I need to know what mechanisms were put in place. You can surely see why this makes me uncomfortable as an Innu woman and a First Nations member who would like our nations to be self-governing. We don’t have a lot of territory, and gambling is unfortunately seen as a solution sometimes.

What mechanisms did provincial and territorial governments put in place when they created this kind of gaming and built casinos? The government also has to promise support for mental health and fighting organized crime.

What mechanisms are there in your bill to ensure that people look beyond economic considerations to broader reconciliation that includes security, health and so on?

[English]

Senator Tannas: That is a great question, thank you.

Let me say that if we truly believe in reconciliation and we believe in Indigenous governments’ jurisdictions, you can’t put a whole bunch of conditions on them when we hand them over something that is already theirs. If we believe it is already theirs, it is tough to start making conditions and rules for them.

The Indigenous governments that are currently involved in gaming recognize this. Again, another nuance in the bill contemplates the ability for Indigenous communities to establish an Indigenous gaming commission where they would work together on common standards.

Would they actually make it somehow mandatory or put into law some way in which they have to do that? Probably not. It would probably be more along the lines of an association that would audit and make sure the standards were being followed, and if they weren’t, it would issue consumer warnings.

But the point is that is the work that needs to be done of that order of government that wants and actually believes they already have, in some cases — in fact, there is a community in Quebec that is probably against this bill because they’re worried that, somehow, there is an admission they don’t have the rights they believe they have now. They operate how they feel like, and they dare anyone to come and tell them they don’t have the rights.

This bill allows First Nations governments, as they take up the jurisdiction, to also cooperate on a regulatory regime that they will decide.

Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: The amendment that I had made to Bill C-218 — which brought about the inherent right of gambling that First Nations have — was voted against in the Senate, and the amendment didn’t pass.

What makes this different from that amendment? Also, does this include virtual gaming? As you know, with Bill C-218, First Nations across the country cannot enter into virtual gaming and are literally left out. The Mohawks, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the other chiefs from Ontario — I was bringing this on their behalf — are looking at correcting this. Could you answer those questions?

Senator Tannas: Those are all good questions. With respect to the amendment that you brought forward, I think I voted against it. I felt that it was a consequential amendment that was outside the scope of that bill, and that it needed to be its own bill. We have it here now, and I think we can engage on the discussion of the other items.

With respect to virtual gaming, the initial issue is to put First Nations governments in exactly the same position as the provinces. It’s not clear in any laws in the country — that I can see — where the rules are with respect to virtual gaming. Ontario and others have said, “Virtual gaming means you have to live in our province,” but that’s their interpretation of it. There isn’t any clarity.

As a step, we wanted to make sure that First Nations have the ability to pursue gaming on their reserves in law and in the Criminal Code. The one piece that we did make sure our language included was the fact that they can run virtual gaming servers on-reserve — that would be included.

The question of how their jurisdiction — as an elected First Nations government on-reserve — interacts with Province X or Province Y, or Country X or Country Y, is something that they will have to sort out and negotiate, but they will be negotiating in the context of all the other countries and provinces that are trying to understand how this works.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Tannas, I was hoping to garner a bit more detail about your bill because it is not something I have had a chance to delve into. Usually, at second reading, I hope to hear a bit more detail.

Did you consult with any provincial governments when you were drafting this bill about this very dramatic change to the gaming environment in Canada?

Senator Tannas: No, I did not. I intend to invite provincial governments to come and tell us what impact it will have, but, at the end of the day, this is about sovereignty — for Indigenous and First Nations peoples — and they either have it or they don’t. We either believe in reconciliation, and that they have jurisdiction on their own lands, or we don’t. I know what we will hear from the provinces, and you know what we will hear: It will cost them money. This will come out of their cut of casino betting and other betting that occurs on reserves. We’re going to give them the chance to come and talk about that. Maybe some provinces will see this as a positive step — one that is doable and within their purview to support.

Just as the federal government didn’t consult with First Nations when they gave the power to the provinces, we did consult with First Nations and received the support of the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, through their gaming subcommittee. They have already started to work on some initiatives in support of this, should it pass — but no, I did not talk to the provinces.

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Senator Tannas, will you take another question?

First of all, thank you for your commitment to the Indigenous Peoples Committee. Just for clarity, does this bill protect the interests of those First Nations who do not want to have lottery schemes on their reserves? If this bill passes, will it bind all First Nations to take part in the gambling industry?

Senator Tannas: That’s one of the nuances that I mentioned. When we were drafting the bill, I remembered when we had the marijuana legalization. We had First Nations and Inuit communities come and say they wanted it to stay illegal in their communities, and whether there was a way we could make it happen. I thought we might see that same desire in some Indigenous communities; they may not want to have anything to do with this.

The bill accomplishes that by asserting the right, but, in order to activate the right, First Nations communities give short notice to the Government of Canada that they intend to take up their right. In that way, those who don’t want to, don’t. Thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas, will you take a question or two?

Senator Tannas: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it being 5:15 p.m., I must interrupt the proceeding. Pursuant to rule 9-6, the bells will ring to call in the senators for the taking of a deferred vote at 5:30 p.m. on Government Motion No. 126.

Call in the senators.

On the Order:

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

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order, or usual practice, until the end of the day on June 30, 2024, any joint committee be authorized to hold hybrid meetings, with the provisions of the order of February 10, 2022, concerning such meetings, having effect; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Tannas, there was a question. Had you finished your question, Senator Cotter?

Hon. Scott Tannas: If I remember correctly, you were talking about the deal in Saskatchewan. The deal in Saskatchewan, as I understand it, has an interesting formula that involves a percentage going to the host nation and a percentage going into a pot for all First Nations, and then the non-First Nations casinos, obviously overseen by the province, also contributed into that pot that goes to the benefit of all First Nations, which was a negotiated deal that has some interesting history to it.

The point is this: Our bill would not seek to preserve or to kill that. Our bill recognizes and seeks to affirm the jurisdiction of the communities. They will decide what they will do. If there is a wealth redistribution scheme that needs to happen, they will make that decision. If there’s a wealth redistribution scheme that needs to happen in uranium mining, oil and gas, forestry or whatever, where maybe a community that isn’t close to those resources gets something, they can decide all of those things. We don’t get to decide that and the province doesn’t get to decide that.

It’s probably fair to say that in the province of Saskatchewan — and maybe it was trial and error or maybe it was circumstance — it’s probably the deal that is fairest for host First Nations, and indeed for non-host First Nations. Maybe it will be a model that will run rampant across the country. But that is for those governments to decide, just like wealth redistribution is done in our federation with transfer payments and equalization.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas had begun to answer it. He answered me in private, but I think he might like to provide an answer to it here.