Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved third reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to begin third reading debate on Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

I thank former MP Lenore Zann, who first introduced an earlier version of this legislation — the former Bill C-230 — on February 26, 2020. I also thank MP Elizabeth May, the bill’s sponsor in the other place, for her years of working with grassroots and advocates to lay the groundwork required to introduce this bill. I thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee, as well as the many groups who submitted briefs to the committee. Finally, I thank the senators on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their engagement, open-mindedness, deliberative discussions and collegiality as we worked our way through this bill.

Colleagues, Bill C-226 intentionally does not include definitions of “environmental racism” or “environmental justice,” and this speech will speak to the reasons behind that decision. Bill C-226 is also intentionally not prescriptive in how to undertake the development and execution of the national strategy, as it must be developed in concert with affected individuals and communities. It is critical for people to speak on their own behalf about their first-hand experiences with environmental racism, and to be allowed to participate directly in environmental and policy-making decisions. As such, it must be their experiences that will inform the framework as they educate and create awareness of how environmental racism developed — and continues to develop — in their territories.

We heard in committee that some people did not know what environmental racism is. This was a very telling statement about the degree of education and awareness that is required to make Canadians better understand this class of racism. With this bill, the affected individuals and communities can share their solutions to inform a strategy that will better equip them in their fight against the racism that has affected them directly. Most simply want basic necessities and the things we all take for granted on a daily basis: access to clean and safe water, the right to health, environmental protections, community development and mitigation of destroyed environments.

Honourable senators, after excellent witness testimony, the committee agreed unanimously that there were to be no amendments to this bill. I would like to note that there was discussion of possibly including reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in the preamble; however, it must be noted that the bill before us will not only benefit First Nations and Inuit communities who experience this type of racism. Rather, this bill will also help improve the lives of countless African-Canadian/Black, Asian and other racialized communities, as well as women, the 2SLGBTQIA community, the disability community and others who face marginalization and discrimination across Canada.

However, under clause 3, subsection (2), entitled “Consultation,” it states that in developing this strategy, the minister must ensure that it is consistent with the Government of Canada’s framework for the recognition and implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Colleagues, I reference Elizabeth May in her witness testimony when she stated that she first became aware of the issues of environmental racism in dealing with Canada’s largest toxic waste site — the Sydney Tar Ponds — located in what was the only Black community on Cape Breton Island and in what had been Indigenous fishing grounds in the Muggah Creek estuary. That community work for environmental justice was documented in a 1999 film entitled Toxic Partners by Cape Breton filmmaker Neal Livingston.

Also, member of Parliament May quoted Dr. Ingrid Waldron — who holds the HOPE Chair in Peace and Health in the Global Peace and Social Justice Program in the Faculty of Humanities at McMaster University — and other Canadian academics extensively who documented the disproportionate proximity and greater exposure of Indigenous, Black and other racialized communities to polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities in Canada.

Dr. Waldron, in her presentation at committee, stated:

Since the fall of 2012, I have been examining the ecological, health, political and social impacts of environmental racism through a community-based collaborative approach that has included research; publications, including a book and journal publications; water testing projects; community engagement; community consultations; community advocacy; multimedia, including a Netflix documentary and media interviews; mapping using GIS analysis; education through workshops, symposiums and other events; and legislation.

She goes on to say:

The strength of Bill C-226 is that it uses an environmental justice lens that not only focuses on industry, waste, contaminants and pollutants, but also on the historical, socio-political and economic context within which environmental racism manifests in these communities across Canada. It also clearly identifies the steps that are needed to achieve environmental justice, including research, consultations with impacted communities, the involvement of impacted communities in policy-making and compensation for impacted communities. After 12 years of fighting for environmental justice for these communities, it is rewarding to see Bill C-226 waiting to be voted on at third reading in the Senate. I urge you to pass this bill. Its time has come. . . .

Chief Chris Plain from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation shared with the committee his history of environmental degradation that has developed in his community. He stated:

Aamjiwnaang . . . situated in the epicentre of what is referred to as Canada’s Chemical Valley, so named because the area contains 40% of Canada’s chemical industry. . . .

Over the past 100 years, lands and waters in Aamjiwnaang have been impoverished by over-exploitation. All facets of Aamjiwnaang’s environment are polluted, including air, land and water. . . .

Aamjiwnaang is surrounded on three sides by over 60 industrial refineries — the closest of which are literally across the street from, most importantly, community meetings, such as the band office, our church, our cemetery, our resource centre and many residences. These facilities represent 40% of Canada’s chemical refineries. It has been this way for many generations. While settler communities have been relocated at no cost to them, we remain here on our land. To us, it’s been an experience of profound environmental racism.

Chief Plain also told the committee:

. . . we need to mend the treaty relationship between Aamjiwnaang and the Crown, where Aamjiwnaang has an equal voice in decision making affecting our lands and waters, and decisions that directly affect our members. We need a seat at the table, and our concerns must inform the path forward. We want to be part of the solution. We want to feel confident that the air we are breathing isn’t slowly killing us. We want to live with peace of mind that our children will not get sick and die before us.

We hope that your work on environmental racism marks the beginning of a new honourable relationship where Aamjiwnaang can see measurable results from a government committed to doing better. . . .

Honourable senators, these are very powerful words. Another committee witness, Rueben George from the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, or TWN, stated the following in his briefing note to the Energy Committee:

In a 10 km stretch of Eastern Burrard Inlet, the core territory of the TWN, there is an aggregation of six industrial-scale above-ground oil storage facilities and their associated pipeline infrastructure, as well as marine and rail shipping activities. The Parkland oil refinery, which produces fuel for the Lower Mainland, is located directly across the water from the TWN community. A flaming tower burns waste gas here, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Westridge Marine Terminal, the terminus of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is also located just across the inlet and is slated to have daily transiting of tankers carrying diluted bitumen starting within the next month. These sites have histories of spills and environmental incidents. These facilities are not situated in the wealthier neighbourhoods of West Vancouver or Kitsilano, they are situated adjacent to our reserve.

Mr. George continues:

The Federal Government has committed to reconciliation with First Nations, but TWN has observed federal agencies continue to make decisions, develop legislation, policy and programs that have disproportionate negative implications for Indigenous peoples. The Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project . . . is an example of this. TWN demonstrated to the government of Canada and to the Canadian Energy Regulator . . . National Energy Board . . . that the Project would unjustifiably infringe Tsleil-Waututh’s Aboriginal title, rights, and interests with our Indigenous law-based Assessment of the Project. Disregarding the findings of the Assessment, Canada approved the Project, prioritizing tenuous economic benefits over impacts to TWN rights and interests . . . Tsleil-Waututh . . . provided extensive data, evidence, and dialogue to Canada — including the likely extinction of the Southern Resident Killer Whales from marine shipping impacts.

Colleagues, a further witness before the Energy Committee on Bill C-226, Mr. Les Dysart, spoke in his briefing note about the extensive damage done by Manitoba Hydro to his community of South Indian Lake. This included permanent flooding of 837 square kilometres, which raised the level of Southern Indian Lake by an average of 3 metres, which is almost 10 feet. Mr. Dysart also wrote about:

Disastrous flushes of water down the Lower Churchill at high water times (these sudden inundations of up to 50 percent more water than the highest flows recorded in the 15 years prior to Diversion—often during spring ice break-up—scour the riverbed, batter shorelines, flood cabins, inundate riparian habitat, and temporarily raise levels of lakes on the river system by as much as 5.8 m (19 feet)) . . .

Mr. Dysart wrote about the wide-ranging and harrowing impacts that environmental racism from hydro activity had on his community. These included effects on fish and wildlife, including the near extinction of a distinct and culturally vital species of sturgeon; a rise in fish mercury to levels not fit for human consumption; and the decimation of the most productive inland northern fishery — Southern Indian Lake was home to the third-largest lake whitefish fishery in North America. In the decade prior to the diversion, the annual catch averaged about 400,000 kilograms. In the past decade, it was less than a tenth of that.

The effects also include the killing of beaver and muskrat by flooding and unpredictable fluctuations; the disappearance of hundreds of islands due to flooding and erosion on Southern Indian Lake; an increase in wood debris from collapsing shorelines getting caught in nets and creating half-submerged deadhead hazards for boaters; and the forced relocation of the community of South Indian Lake and the imposed burning of the old village. When they were removed from their old village, they were only allowed to take a suitcase. Finally, it caused the inundation of hundreds of documented, culturally significant sites — including graves — on Southern Indian Lake.

In his briefing note, Mr. Dysart writes:

We never wanted Churchill River Diversion. It should not exist. The water should still be free to flow as it is meant to flow. The fish should still be free to spawn where they are meant to spawn. Our beloved homelands should not be sacrificed. But we are not demanding that Churchill River Diversion be dismantled; only that damages be addressed and that we have a meaningful say in how the Diversion is operated.

Honourable senators, another witness before the Senate Energy Committee, Sarah Wiebe from the University of Victoria, recommended the enacting of Bill C-226; creating an office of environmental justice that adheres to our collaborative, multi-jurisdictional governance model; and adopting an intersectional planetary health lens to guide future environmental justice regulatory developments and administrative programming.

In a briefing note she presented to the committee, Dr. Wiebe wrote, “Environmental and human health are inseparable, but they are often treated in silos. . . .”

She continued, writing:

An intersectional planetary health lens acknowledges the need to be accountable to human and more-than-human beings. Following Dr. Waldron, a multi-pronged strategy must unapologetically centre race and “how it intersects with class, gender, and other social identities to shape the experiences of communities disproportionately impacted by a web of inequalities and environmentally hazardous industries; environmental policy that acknowledges and addresses structural and environmental determinants of health and culturally relevant participatory democracy approaches; partnerships between white led environmental justice organizations and Indigenous and Black communities; and alliances and solidarities between Indigenous and Black communities.” This lens is central to the flourishing of entire ecologies – waterways, plants, animals and atmospheres – alongside human health.

Colleagues, these environmental warriors do not give up. There has been, and continues to be, a mobilization of communities, allies and activists as they fight against the companies, laws, policies and other forces that threaten to fragment, displace, assimilate or drive impacted communities and peoples toward cultural and community disintegration. It is time we join them and support their work toward justice.

Looking through the lens of environmental injustice over the six years I have been on the Energy Committee, I have heard and seen first-hand some of the Canadian experiences and subsequent claims for justice — claims that identified how their lives and communities were negatively impacted by this specific type of racism. These claims went beyond environmental inequity or the siting of toxic sites in marginalized communities. These claims were embedded in broader struggles that included institutional racism and oppression, cultural and spiritual genocide, land dispossession, protection from contamination, equal participation, self-determination, ethical and sustainable land use, a healthy community and work environment, food insecurity, upholding of treaties, human rights and civil rights breaches, interjurisdictional gaps and unsustainable practices of resource extraction. The list goes on. That’s why it’s very difficult to define of “environmental racism” — it is so broad.

In their article entitled Indigenous Struggles, Environmental Justice, and Community Capabilities, authors David Schlosberg and David Carruthers quote Bunyan Bryant, who offers a definition that incorporates numerous conceptions of justice and illustrates the potential of environmental justice to revitalize and reconstruct functioning communities.

In Bryant’s formulation, environmental justice:

refers to those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities, where people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing the “isms.” Environmental justice is supported by decent paying and safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. These are communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered and where distributed justice prevails.

Bryant offers a broad, integrated notion of environmental justice that goes beyond mere distributional equity. The different affected groups across Canada experience environmental racism in different ways; hence, their respective definitions will be reflected in the insight and information that will be forthcoming.

Honourable senators, 17 principles of environmental justice were adopted by the self-termed People of Color at their leadership summit held from October 24 to 27, 1991 — that is how long people have been fighting — in Washington, D.C. In the same article mentioned above, authors Schlosberg and Carruthers quote Dr. Dorceta Taylor, a professor of environmental justice at Yale. Dr. Taylor had examined these 17 principles of environmental justice and identified 25 different issues for consideration. Included in those were protection from contamination and polluting industries; environmental policy based on mutual respect; and demands for equal participation, self-determination, ethical and sustainable land use. Note that equity was only one among many concerns in these attempts to operationalize environmental justice.

Colleagues, in the recently released 2024 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s Report 1 entitled Contaminated Sites in the North that was released last week states:

Contaminated sites represent significant environmental and human health risks and cost Canadians billions of dollars. . . . Although work was undertaken to remediate contaminated sites, the total financial liability for federal contaminated sites is now over $10 billion.

. . . [T]he [Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan] did not appropriately support custodians by including climate change and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in remediation efforts, which are key priorities related to the management of contaminated sites.

The report further states, “There were more than 24,000 contaminated sites across Canada, . . . .”

The lack of reporting and meaningful information on contaminated sites, including large abandoned mines, means that the Government of Canada, decision makers, and Canadians do not have a clear picture of the environmental and financial effects of these contaminated sites.

Colleagues, there are many ways that environmental racism manifests itself in very specific sites. The article entitled Environmental Racism and First Nations: A Call for Socially Just Public Policy Development by Christina Dhillon and Michael Young states:

While the US environmental justice movement has developed at an exponential rate, Canadian efforts have been far less effective, resulting in uneven attention to and action regarding environmental justice . . . . Canadian legislation that deals directly with the inequalities created by environmental injustice is for the most part non-existent. . . . current public policy regarding environmental justice for First Nations people is needed to ensure equal rights to a safe environment for all Canadians, regardless of race and/or economic status. Failure to commit to such change is tantamount to endorsing the continuance of racist practices, a far cry from the goal of a just society.

Honourable senators, members of the Energy Committee heard first-hand from witnesses their own realities of how environmental racism, because of capital colonialism, has severely disrupted their communities, families, governance, lives, health, self-determination, culture and so on. That is why social justice for First Nations involves relationship-based respect; upholding First Nations knowledge systems and world views, identity and culture; and understanding what colonization did to our people.

In Taiaiake Alfred’s book entitled It’s All About the Land, he states:

Removing us from our land has been the project from the beginning. . . . where the Native opposes the development of the land for exploitative purposes: that Native is defined out of existence or pushed out of existence. For us to defer to this notion of Aboriginal and try to structure ourselves and conceptualize our processes and goals accordingly is the end game of colonization.

Colleagues, it is time to confront the environmental racism that systematically constructs inequities by conferring advantages upon one group at the expense of others. Power and privilege are distributed unevenly, enabling industry and governments to allow private control of extractive systems where, in the quest for profit and land, certain groups are exposed to known disproportionate risks and effects with no protective or preventive action taken.

Today, as extractive industries such as oil, mining, hydro, gas and lumber continue to cause widespread destruction of land, air and water through unsustainable practices of resource extraction, First Nations communities are needing to work harder to protect and mitigate damage to the land that had been theirs for centuries. As one witness said, as fast as they are mitigating the effect of oil on their waters and food supply, the resource companies are damaging other sites already.

It is a sustained action of not only taking, but taking without giving back. It is taking as if there are no limits to what can be withdrawn, no limits to what Brown and Black bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what Mother Earth can take. These unsustainable practices serve to deplete our clean waters, negatively impacting our non-human relatives, destroy our life-giving forests and cause instability of the climate itself. The impact of this reality on human health cannot be overstated. Here we look at premature morbidity and mortality, sexual violence and the perpetration of the painful history that brought us to this juncture today.

Honourable senators, we must acknowledge that this type of racism has long been enabled due to a persistent valuing of economy over health and life. In the article entitled The Environment as Freedom: A Decolonial Reimaging, author Malini Ranganathan quotes Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute at a gathering of climate change deniers in London in early 2017 as saying, “The environmental movement is, in my view, the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world.”

The author continues:

Donald Trump, who had earlier recruited Ebell to head his Environmental Protection Agency transition team, echoed this view by declaring in his May 2017 commencement speech: “I’ve loosened up the strangling environmental chains wrapped around our country and our economy.” According to this narrative . . . protecting the environment is freedom-robbing. Only by unshackling ourselves from the concerns of the environment can we “free” ourselves and our society.

Placing the societal dynamic that enables this reality into perspective, the noted critic of fascism, Theodor Adorno, lamented in mid-20th century Europe that:

People have so manipulated the concept of freedom that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they still have.

Honourable senators, the appetite for change, a change that would be brought about through this bill, is being called for — not just within this chamber and its committee. Rather, the groundswell of support externally must also be respected. The David Suzuki Foundation currently has an active petition calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-226. This petition has been signed by over 10,000 individuals who are advocating for the improvements that they know this bill will create in the lives of countless Canadians.

In a brief submitted to the Energy Committee by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, or CAPE, CAPE board member Dr. Ojistoh Horn articulates that:

Environmental racism is supported by upstream systemic factors — societal values and beliefs conforming to a capitalist economy, that humans do not have a right to a healthy environment in practice, legislation that does not fairly protect BIPOC and Indigenous communities, institutions whose siloed and competing mandates do not protect these communities and are not uniformly held accountable to the laws already in place, and programs that have been designed without input from all stakeholders.

Further, in their briefing note, CAPE also notes that:

In Akwesasne on the ON, QC and US borders the people of the . . . (Mohawk) First Nation, are subjected to toxic exposures including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — which have been found to be related to thyroid dysfunction, reproductive health harms, cancers, autoimmune diseases, mental health disorders, and more. The exposures are not fixed, but change over time, as PCBs degenerate and lose chlorine, making them lighter and then volatile.

In Northern BC, fracking operations are connected to childhood leukemia, cardiovascular diseases, neurological effects and respiratory illnesses. . . . Fracking also contributes significantly to methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, undermining efforts to address climate change.

CAPE also notes that the exposure of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation to mine-waste contaminated oil sludge tailings ponds in Alberta and the Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine toxic tailings ponds leak into the Peace-Athabasca river system has significantly impacted the communities’ ability to practise inherent and treaty rights, while also leading to physical and mental health issues arising therein.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada, NWAC, in their briefing note to the Energy Committee on Bill C-226, state that:

Environmental racism is not new. In Canada, Indigenous communities have fought against colonial law and policies to protect the air, land, water, species, and cultural connections to the land. Environmental racism is a form of systemic racism, which is the result of institutional policies and practices. Systemic racism is embedded in the laws, policies and institutions that govern our lives — and has been since European settlers first colonized these lands.

NWAC goes on to state that:

Indigenous Women experience gender-specific harms associated with systemic environmental racism. Changes in domestic and familial roles, perceptions of gender and identity, child-rearing and parenting norms, spiritual life, work and social activities impede their right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions. Disproportionate numbers of Indigenous Women experience violence, abuse, loss of culture, traditions and language, unemployment, poverty, lower levels of educational attainment, and reduced access to resources.

Colleagues, in a briefing note sent to the Energy Committee, Women’s Healthy Environments Network, WHEN, wrote:

The notion of environmental racism in Bill C-226 comes from the fact that environmentally hazardous sites (including landfills and polluting industries) are established in areas inhabited by members of an Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized community. Environmental justice expert Robert Doyle Bullard summarizes environmental racism as:

The disproportionate location and greater exposure of Indigenous and racialized communities to contamination and pollution from polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities;

The lack of political power these communities have for resisting the placement of industrial polluters in their communities;

The implementation of policies that sanction the harmful and, in many cases, life-threatening presence of poisons in these communities;

The disproportionate negative impacts of environmental policies that result in differential rates of cleanup of environmental contaminants in these communities; and

The history of excluding Indigenous and racialized communities from mainstream environmental groups, decision-making boards, commissions and regulatory bodies.

In closing, honourable senators, I want to share some final thoughts. We are here, with the bill before us, to determine our future as a nation. Our first obligation, then, is to understand and acknowledge the true story of environmental racism in this country.

The history of environmental racism is a little-known dimension of Canadian history. It is not taught in our schools. It is not commemorated anywhere in our country or the nation’s capital. The long history of environmental racism has not been made a part of our national memory. It has been ignored or, worse, dismissed.

What is known to most Canadians is the present legacy: that Indigenous peoples and marginalized peoples in Canada do not have the same standard of life that is enjoyed by mainstream Canada. Canadians easily fall into the trap of blaming people who have been marginalized for the conditions in which they live and for failing to address their problems adequately.

That blaming leads inevitably to disrespect. That disrespect, however, also flows from the many generations of public policy founded on the view that people of colour were somehow inferior. This long-overdue conversation on environmental racism would inquire why, in a land of bounty, we have Third World poverty. It is because, “there is no real poverty in this country; there is simply excessive greed.”

So gently I offer my hand and ask,

Let me find my talk

So I can teach you about me.

That was a quote from Rita Joe, in 1988.

So, I’m appealing to you to listen and to read more about environmental racism. I want to thank you for listening and taking the time to be here. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: We will keep the vote to 5:30.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-29, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing line 1 with the following:

“Whereas, since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peo-”.

Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: As a former student of a residential school, I want to correct something.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I want to thank the Progressive Senate Group for giving me their spot today to pay tribute to our guests in the gallery: members of the Bangsamoro Transition Authority.

Yesterday, my office and I met with this dedicated group of parliamentarians and staff working in the interim government in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in the southern Philippines.

This delegation has been legally mandated to implement political and institutional reforms that were agreed upon in a peace agreement signed between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Specific to these reforms is Bangsamoro’s role in enacting a law that will protect and promote the welfare of the Indigenous peoples in the autonomous region.

The Bangsamoro Transition Authority is in Canada to meet with Indigenous communities and government officials working on Indigenous files with the goal of fostering relationships for future collaborations. The heart of their study is to learn about the unique relationship Canada has with its First Peoples and the policies, laws and practices that deal with their identity, governance and welfare. Our wide-ranging conversations yesterday demonstrated many similarities between First Nations in Canada and the Indigenous peoples in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.

These include issues surrounding policing and justice, ongoing land contestations resulting from land dispossession and forced resettlement, and the need for distinct recognitions of various Indigenous groups and how to determine identity.

As with First Nations in Canada, their Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination and sovereignty. Both seek peace and a mutually respectful relationship with the mainstream population and the governments with whom they interact. This is best demonstrated through the treaties and peace agreement the Bangsamoro have entered into with the Philippine government.

We also learned that, in some instances, the Bangsamoro are ahead of us in Canada, specifically around matters of resource management and revenue sharing as it pertains to the land and its bounty.

While the Bangsamoro rely on the same international tools that Indigenous peoples in Canada do, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I left yesterday’s meeting confident that this group of dedicated and passionate Bangsamoro parliamentarians and staff are the right people to craft their Indigenous welfare legislation and lead their Indigenous populations into a better and brighter tomorrow.

Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 132. I would like to begin by registering concern over the limiting of debate. Any time we move to limit debate in this place, we set a dangerous precedent for ourselves while simultaneously sending a poor message to Canadians.

Colleagues, through Motion No. 132, the Government Representative Office proposes to adjourn the Senate at the later of 6 p.m. or the end of Government Business on every Thursday for the remainder of the current session — further limiting our debate in this place.

In debate on the question of privilege that I initiated on this matter on October 19, it was raised that, perhaps, I did not understand the intent and ramifications of this motion — possibly thinking that it meant non-government bills would no longer be considered on Thursdays. I would like to assure all honourable colleagues that my understanding of the outcome of this motion was clear, and I remain as concerned about it today as I was when I raised my question of privilege.

At the time, we were moving to a vote on this matter with no debate or explanation for its rationale. If I hadn’t raised my question of privilege, we would not have received any information from the government on the matter.

Honourable senators, in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . . . .

In the Senate, there has historically been no focus on the absence of Indigenous people’s issues, and that is what I am attempting to change through my work, which is being adversely impacted through limiting debate.

Colleagues, in his remarks on October 19, Senator Gold stated that we may continue to do non-government business on many Thursdays — pointing to the possibility that this motion could conceivably see many Thursdays when we do not deal with non‑government business at all.

Senator Gold also went on to state — I am paraphrasing — that there will come a time when we will become consumed with Government Business. That will probably take us well into the evenings on Thursdays.

It is a well-established fact that as we get closer to the breaks in December and June, the pace and timing surrounding Government Business picks up rapidly. Many of us would concede that these weeks, or months, necessitate a write-off of Other Business as Government Business takes precedence. When this onslaught of Government Business commences, will we still be excusing senators to travel home on Thursdays, or will we be expected to stay?

Colleagues, in acknowledging that there are already months of the year when we legitimately cannot meaningfully get to non-government business, does that not mean, then, that we should be placing a premium on dealing with such non-government business while we have the opportunity to do so? Instead, Motion No. 132 further sacrifices what time has been set aside to deal with these critical matters.

It should also be stated that the expectation of our reformed Senate is an increased diversity in our representation and, therefore, in the work that we do. In the article, “Birds of a Feather? Loyalty and Partisanship in the Reformed Canadian Senate,” the authors state that recent Senate appointments have led to an increase in gender and racial diversity. They go on to state that the two main functions of the Senate are complementary: the protection of political minorities and the provision of legislative review. In this way, the protection of political minorities is actualized by promoting minority interests in amending, defeating or even creating legislation. However, we are unable to adequately perform these functions if non‑government business continues to be seen as non-vital, and, accordingly, the gaps in legislation will continue to grow.

Honourable senators, Senator Gold estimated that there were 75 Senate public bills on the Order Paper, excluding a large number of non-government motions and inquiries, all of which also raise various matters of great importance.

While it is true that the number of items under these various rubrics may be larger than they have traditionally or historically been, that is simply the result and function of the modern Senate that we all pride ourselves in having worked to establish.

Given that we are seeing an uptick in senators bringing forward matters of critical import to those communities and regions they serve, how can we justify meeting this increase in items to be considered with a corresponding decrease in the time we spend considering them?

Colleagues, expectations of a reformed Senate would organically see heightened activity in the legislative process. There is nothing wrong with the number of interventions being made, but there is something wrong when leadership restricts the process of dealing with these interventions by not allowing them to receive a vote, by not assigning a critic, by not allowing committees to sit with regularity while the Senate sits, by refusing the option of hybrid sittings and by limiting the number of hours to debate specific items.

Honourable senators, the ultimate justification for Motion No. 132, as alluded to, was predicated on a discussion at the leadership table of needing to ensure that senators could get home in a timely manner. One of the reasons and benefits of the Senate not sitting on Mondays and Fridays is so that those may serve as travel days, ensuring we can move between our regions and Ottawa in order to be home and in the community — uninterrupted — for the weekends.

The fact of the matter remains that on sitting weeks, we are typically scheduled to sit three days a week. We know that due to various committee and caucus group meetings — that must also be fit into these three days — the Senate typically only begins sitting at 2 p.m. We also know that the Senate adjourns early on Wednesdays to allow for further committee meetings to occur in the evenings. To now propose that we also adjourn early on Thursdays is, frankly, hard to justify when we realistically have such precious little time in the Senate to begin with.

Colleagues, for all intents and purposes, Motion No. 132 indicates that senators are agreeable to the fact that Other Business can be adequately dealt with, reliably, one day a week — on Tuesdays — with the hope and prayer that we may be able to squeeze some of these items in before early adjournment on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Honourable senators, as it is fundamental to the overall argument that I am hoping to make, I would like to reiterate the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2014 Senate reference question. As part of their judgment, and found within paragraphs 15 and 16 of their ruling respectively, the court affirmed the role of the Senate in assuring:

. . . the regions that their voices would continue to be heard in the legislative process even though they might become minorities within the overall population of Canada . . . .

Colleagues, I would also like to specifically read paragraph 16 of this 2014 Supreme Court ruling, as it states:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process . . . .

Taken together, honourable senators, the Supreme Court has struck the heart of the work that we do here, and that we are intended to do here. We serve to fill issues that are not well served in the other place by providing a voice and a platform for those populations who have been — and who remain — underserved in our wider population.

Colleagues, we must always be mindful of the responsibilities that are inherent to the position of senator. These include the following:

The first is expectations of the highest standard of conduct as a role model to maintaining public confidence and trust. How can this be claimed if we are seriously considering cutting off Senate debate on a sitting day to enable senators to travel home on Thursdays when we have the privilege of travel time on Mondays and Fridays? Many senators already leave early on Thursdays.

The second is communicating and engaging in public debates while seeking to genuinely understand and respect the view of other senators who bring voices to the floor — when these voices have never previously been given the opportunity to do so. As senators, we all benefit from the interventions of one another in understanding myriad issues that arise in this chamber. Limiting debate effectively limits us all.

The third is carrying out senatorial duties with diligence and in the public interest. This entails not only making space for regional and under-represented issues, but also making adequate time to hear and debate these issues. Additionally, this entails ensuring legislation is permitted to come to a vote once debate has been exhausted, and transcending the partisan posturing that has led to historical inefficiencies in our operations.

The fourth is promoting constitutional legal requirements, values and goals, including equality and freedom from unlawful discrimination. Many of the non-governmental items on the floor deal with historical and current institutional, geographical and environmental racism — issues never before broached in this place. By limiting debate on these and similar items — items that are underpinned by constitutional legal requirements — we are forcing certain groups, including First Nations, to be continually reliant on courts and litigation to enforce their constitutional rights.

I thank colleagues for listening, and I appeal to each of you to act so that we collectively do the right thing in ensuring that we do not further restrict and limit debate on non-government business.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the message from the House of Commons:

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

EXTRACT, —

That,

(a)the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b)five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co‑Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c)in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d)the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e)the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g)membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(h)where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee;

(i)the committee have the power to:

(i)sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

(ii)report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites;

(j)the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and

(k)following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: If there will be a standing vote, I have a question of privilege.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-271, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to give second reading to Bill S-271, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I would like to acknowledge that I have had the privilege of working on two private members’ bills — Bills S-271 and S-272 — for Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, and the Lands Advisory Board, or LAB. It is critical that we, as parliamentarians, start working directly with the people who are adversely affected by issues — many not of their own making but from other sources, like government legislation.

Bills S-271 and S-272 are so intimately connected that they are discussed together in many of the quotes. As such, I will be repeating some of my quotes concerning Bill S-272 from yesterday.

Bill S-271 is important legislation that is necessary to clarify and confirm with conclusive certainty that the statutory duty of the RCMP includes the enforcement of First Nation laws and the execution of warrants that may, under First Nation laws, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers.

Bill S-271 will also amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to include the following definition of First Nation laws:

First Nation law means

(a) a bylaw made under the Indian Act;

(b) a First Nation law as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act; or

(c) a law enacted by a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of a First Nation under a self-government agreement implemented by an Act of Parliament. . . .

The June 2021 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, or INAN, entitled Collaborative Approaches to Enforcement of Laws in Indigenous Communities, states:

The committee acknowledges that this is a complex issue, and that identifying the barriers to enforcing First Nations laws and by-laws is challenging. What is clear, however, is that addressing it requires significant collaboration between First Nations, federal departments and agencies, and provinces/territories. There is no “off-the-shelf” solution, and any response must be distinctions-based and recognize the need for individual communities to craft their own solutions, as desired, in order to respect their inherent rights.

The committee continues:

. . . the experiences shared by witnesses about how enforcement issues are affecting their People requires the Government of Canada to act now.

. . . the recommendations presented in this report are aimed at moving this issue forward in the short-term, recognizing that in many cases, longer-term solutions are required.

On August 22, 2023, my office contacted the chair of the Indigenous Affairs Committee regarding the status of the 10 recommendations made in the June 2021 report, entitled Collaborative Approaches to Enforcement of Laws in Indigenous Communities. Recommendation 1 suggests the establishment of a permanent federal advisor who would, among other things, advise the Minister of Justice and Attorney General regarding the challenges to the enforceability of Indigenous laws and the unique issues relating to jurisdiction on-reserve and First Nations lands management, and identify solutions to the lack of enforcement of First Nations laws and bylaws within one year. Recommendation 2 suggests the Government of Canada convene a working group on how to address issues of law enforcement, prosecution and Charter compliance in Indigenous communities within two years. The response we received was that, “Justice was the lead on the government response; due to the 2021 election, it ended that work.” We further asked, “Were they able to determine if the government took any actions in response before it ended that work?” to which there has been no response to date.

So what recourse do First Nations have, since this involves different levels of government and a whole-of-government approach? This is the reason they are appealing to the Senate for help and support.

While temporary emergency measures were invoked to address COVID-19 and assist in enforcement of First Nations health protection bylaws, these measures did not and do not address the ongoing issue of why First Nations bylaws are not being enforced in the first place.

In the article “Solving the Indian Act by-law enforcement issue: Prosecution of Indian Act by-laws” by Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, the author states:

First Nations by-laws are ignored by many police forces across the country because those police forces know that in most cases, there is no effective way to prosecute or convict those who violate these by-laws. While section 81 of the Indian Act allows bands to make on-reserve by-laws in areas including traffic control, residency, public health, and intoxicants, and while some of these by-laws can include penalties such as fines and/or imprisonment, the Indian Act does not specify whether the provinces/territories, federal government, or First Nations themselves are responsible for prosecuting by-law infractions. Lack of federal and provincial/territorial coordination or leadership on this issue has led to a situation where oftentimes neither federal nor provincial/territorial levels of government are choosing to prosecute these laws.

The author continues:

. . . Many police forces view Indian Act by-laws as not having the same legitimacy as federal, provincial/territorial or municipal law, and as not being worth the liability risk and resource expense required to enforce them. . . .

. . . The fact that the Indian Act doesn’t specify whether the provinces/territories, federal government, or bands themselves are responsible for prosecuting by-law infractions leads to both the provincial government and the federal government claiming that it’s not their problem, with First Nations stuck with the resulting lawlessness and insecurity.

The federal and provincial governments need to step up, take the security and well-being of First Nations communities seriously and ensure these by-laws are being enforced and prosecuted. It is the duty of both levels of government to protect citizens, particularly Indigenous citizens with whom the government has a fiduciary relationship.

The problems with enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws were known in 1999, when Bill C-49 was first enacted, but were thought of as being part of an ongoing, longer‑term discussion that never took place. Twenty years later, the COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated the effects of the failure to prosecute and enforce and placed lives in danger over these many years. It illuminated the lack of progress or initiative in addressing prosecution and enforcement.

Honourable senators, it is important to reiterate what was stated in the speech on Bill S-272 that as part of our consideration of Bill C-32 in December of 2022, Grand Chief Garrison Settee of MKO provided our Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance with a clear written explanation of why Part 4, Division 3 of Bill C-32 should have been amended to ensure clarity on the enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws enacted pursuant to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

Colleagues, I again to want to reiterate the statement made by Chief Heidi Cook from the Misipawistik Cree Nation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs regarding the community’s experiences during an outbreak of COVID-19 in the winter of 2020-21:

During that time, it was expressed by the members of our pandemic emergency response team, our health team and our enforcement team that we felt abandoned. We were struggling to control the spread. Our second wave reached 155 cases and close to 300 contacts. We all suffered personal fallout. I feel that we all have PTSD from the situation we found ourselves in.

We have not enacted any laws after the expiry of our emergency law. The decision was, basically, what good is the law if it’s not enforceable? As a result, we haven’t done anything since then.

On May 25, 2021, Lands Advisory Board Chairman Robert Louie informed the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

Many land code First Nations have faced refusal from police forces when they ask for help, with police forces expressing concerns regarding validity of land code laws, concerns about potential liability of police officers, and uncertainty regarding who will prosecute laws if charges are laid. It has been difficult to this point to reach agreement with either federal or provincial prosecutors to tackle First Nation laws under the Framework Agreement.

On November 22, 2022, LAB Chairman Robert Louie advised our Indigenous Peoples Committee during its consideration of Bill C-32:

We have come to find out over the last 20-plus years that Canada and the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing the First Nation laws that First Nations have passed. It’s an issue that is bubbling. It’s something that we didn’t quite expect at the outset, but we’re working now with Canada and with provinces and with Attorneys General both at the Canadian and provincial levels to deal with this issue.

The RCMP Commissioner’s February 17, 2020, letter to MKO Grand Chief Settee served to provide an earlier confirmation of LAB Chairman Robert Louie’s statements that land code First Nations faced a “refusal from police forces” and that “the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing the First Nation laws that First Nations have passed.” The RCMP Commissioner advised Grand Chief Settee:

The RCMP recognizes First Nations’ authority under the FNLMA. However, there are concerns as to whether the FNLMA Land Codes provide the legal authority to enact COVID-19 related laws. Pending further direction, the RCMP will continue to follow the processes in place with respect to the enforcement of COVID-related bylaws passed under the Indian Act, as well as enforcing applicable provincial laws.

On March 15, 2021, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands and Economic Development at Indigenous Services Canada wrote to LAB Chairman Robert Louie:

I appreciate the frustration felt by First Nations who have taken on such fundamental aspects of their governance through the enactment of a Land Code, only to be forced to rely on Indian Act authorities to address the current COVID-19 pandemic. While more analysis will need to be done, I have instructed my team to collaborate with you on options to expand and clarify authorities through the next amendments to the Framework Agreement.

RCMP Inspector Jeff Preston, officer in charge of the Campbell River, British Columbia, detachment, told the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee in the other place on May 6, 2021:

Generally speaking, band bylaws are treated as federal laws that are enforceable by the RCMP, the police of jurisdiction or the band bylaw enforcement officers.

However, when responding on June 1, 2023, to a question from Chief Hubert Watt of the God’s Lake First Nation about the enforcement of First Nations laws on the second day of the MKO and RCMP symposium, the chief federal prosecutor for Manitoba said:

With respect to your question, with respect to specifically the issue of the Indian Act bylaws, it’s always been the position of the federal Prosecution Service that we don’t prosecute those bylaws. So, I take it that the RCMP, once they get that message from us, they take the position that if the Crown’s not going to prosecute, we’re (RCMP) not going to lay charges.

As I noted in my speech at second reading for Bill S-272, those are conflicting statements. The RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, witnesses did share many pieces of this puzzle with the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, but the RCMP and PPSC witnesses did not put the pieces together so that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs could see the actual full picture.

Honourable senators, to put all of this in very simple terms, it has become the established practice of the RCMP that if there is no potential prosecution of an offence under a First Nation law, the RCMP will not enforce and will not lay a charge pursuant to the First Nation law — even where the First Nation law is recognized by the RCMP as a federal law, and unquestionably has the force and effect of a federal regulation under the laws of Canada.

First Nations from coast to coast to coast are experiencing a crisis in public safety and well-being, largely driven by an epidemic of addictions that are driven by virtually uncontrolled drug dealing and bootlegging. The failure and refusal of the RCMP to enforce, and the failure and refusal of the PPSC to prosecute First Nation laws, including intoxicants prohibitions and trespass laws, are directly contributing to this crisis.

Honourable senators, in the CBC News article, released on April 4, 2023, entitled “Chiefs welcome RCMP efforts to curb bootlegging in northern Manitoba, but say more needs to be done” — with the byline “Manitoba RCMP say they’re helping remote First Nations communities enact local bylaws” — 11 northern First Nations in Manitoba, including God’s Lake, have recently declared states of emergency amid a range of social issues in their communities, including suspected drug-related deaths; suicide; inadequate emergency health and fire supports; and concerns around substance use.

The article states, “Meanwhile, there has also been rising tension between RCMP and some communities.”

The article continues:

Several communities like God’s Lake are attempting to enact local bylaws restricting or prohibiting drug and alcohol use, and have asked for more support from government and RCMP.

In a news release, it said that RCMP enforcement:

. . . “will continue as per the expressed wishes of community leadership” in communities that have their own drug and alcohol bylaws and “have asked to make enforcement a priority.”

But Chief Hubert Watt takes issue with how the RCMP has characterized their response to communities that want help enacting local drugs and alcohol bylaws. Watt said:

I think they’re just saying that because more and more First Nations are coming out and saying that the RCMP are not very effective . . . in northern communities . . . .

The article also states:

The First Nation wanted RCMP involved in mandatory searches of vehicles entering the community, but RCMP won’t proactively search every vehicle due to legal limitations, according to both Watt and Phillip Kanabee, a God’s Lake band councillor.

Kanabee said:

I’ve been fighting with the RCMP for the longest time to get them to enforce the bylaws . . . . We try to work with RCMP in the community but . . . the partnership is not there.

The article continues, “Police also recognize that some community bylaws around drugs and alcohol have been in place for decades . . . .”

Manitoba RCMP media relations spokesperson Tara Seel said in a statement that “. . . our recent communication regarding enforcement in this area is in no way saying this is a new initiative.”

Seel said:

. . . the RCMP, Crown prosecutors and other partners need to operate within the bounds of the provincial and federal laws — including the Charter of Rights and the Privacy Act — when investigating illegal distribution of drugs or alcohol.

Seel added that bootlegging enforcement has to be balanced with “a number of other public safety priorities,” including responding to violent crime.

I have worked in God’s Lake for about six years as a dentist, and my own personal observation is that much of the violent crime stems from alcohol and drug abuse. I was there for weeks at a time.

Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Chief Angela Levasseur stated that:

. . . communities are dealing with mental health and addictions issues that worsened during the pandemic, on top of the intergenerational trauma from residential schools and child and family welfare system.

She goes on to say that if:

. . . provincial and federal government made a greater investment in healing initiatives, First Nations people would not feel the need to self-medicate with substances.

Colleagues, I spoke to Chief Hubert Watt this morning, and he stated:

We have asked the RCMP to search for contraband every time the winter road opens, but they don’t do anything. The confiscation in March 2023 was a one-time event.

Chief Watt says that if that were done all the time, imagine what they could have confiscated and the violence that could have been prevented.

The confiscation he was referring to took place on March 10 to 12 on key roads heading into northern communities, including Highway 6 and Provincial Road 373, as well as winter roads into Gods Lake Narrows, Island Lake and surrounding communities.

The RCMP said they seized 26 bottles of liquor from a single vehicle during the checkstop. They issued a total of 75 traffic tickets; executed four arrest warrants; and charged one driver with impaired driving and another with trafficking under the Cannabis Act during that checkstop period. The news release said that RCMP enforcement “will continue as per the expressed wishes of community leadership” in communities that have their own drug and alcohol bylaws and “have asked to make enforcement a priority.”

As Chief Watt stated, that checkstop was a one-time event. It didn’t happen again.

Honourable senators, the final four words of each of the provisions speaking to the prohibition of intoxicants in Treaties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are “shall be strictly enforced.” The strict enforcement by the RCMP of First Nation laws prohibiting intoxicants is a treaty promise and treaty commitment of the Crown. The refusal and failure of the RCMP to enforce intoxicants prohibitions enacted by First Nations are a breach of Canada’s treaty promise and commitment, and it is also contributing to the crises of health and public safety in First Nations.

On February 3, 2023, Chief David Monias of the Cross Lake Band in northern Manitoba wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba; the RCMP; the Honourable Marc Miller; the Honourable David Lametti; the Honourable Patty Hajdu; and the Honourable Marco Mendicino to make an urgent request to uphold the rule of law and the treaty commitment to enforce and prosecute Cross Lake Band bylaws via section 85.1 of the Indian Act. He stated:

The terms of Treaty 5 set out an unmistakable and explicit treaty promise to enforce a prohibition of intoxicants on our reserve, including to enforce our duly enacted band bylaw, pursuant to section 85.1 of the Indian Act that is currently in force.

In the words of Treaty 5:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves, or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced.

Chief David Monias wrote:

The Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Campbell, 996 CanLII 7298 (MB CA), which case was prosecuted by PPSC, upheld the Charter compliance of both the s.85.1 By‑law of the Mosakahiken Cree Nation and of s.85.1 of the Indian Act. However, to our knowledge, this was the last enforcement and prosecution of a s.85.1 By-law in northern Manitoba — some twenty-seven years ago.

In the April 5, 2023, news article by The Canadian Press entitled “Feds back away from timeline for law to make First Nations policing essential service,” it stated that the then minister Marco Mendicino told The Canadian Press last December “that the government hoped to table a bill in 2023.”

The article goes on to say that:

This week, however, a press secretary for the minister backed away from any timeline, saying “It is too early to say when the legislation will be tabled.”

Honourable senators, through Bill C-49 — the First Nations Land Management Act — in 1999 and through Bill C-428 — the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act — in 2014, Parliament intended to create new and enhanced lawmaking authorities to support the self-determination of First Nations. One published official summary of Bill C-49 says that:

Bill C-49 would expand the range of powers that First Nations could exercise and no longer leave them at the discretion of the Governor in Council or Minister.

A departmental summary states that:

Bill C-428 . . . eliminates the Minister’s oversight in regards to the submission, coming into force and disallowance of by‑laws and gives First Nations the autonomy and responsibility over the development, enactment and coming into force of by-laws.

Despite the intent of Parliament to enhance the self-determining, lawmaking powers of First Nations, Bill C-49 and Bill C-428 have created stranded regimes of First Nation laws that are not enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have not been subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

Colleagues, acting in his capacity as Chief of the Westbank First Nation, Chief Louie wrote Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Grand Chief Settee to request:

Today, I wanted to write to you in my capacity as the re‑elected Chief of Westbank First Nation. I would like to see any change to federal law encompass Indian Act by-laws, the Framework Agreement and other self-government agreements such as the Westbank Self-Government Agreement.

Evidence given on May 13, 2021, at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs by Mr. Brooks Arcand-Paul, a lawyer, former vice-president with the Indigenous Bar Association and in-house counsel for the Alexander First Nation, states:

As a practitioner on reserve, and having primarily first nations in Alberta as clients while in private practice, I am intimately aware of the issues that exist within the framework of enforcement on reserve in Alberta and certainly on the Prairies. I’ve been dealing with this issue regularly in my practice. The same problems are highlighted time and time again.

Over the course of my work on these issues, I’ve been stonewalled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada with regard to the enforcement of bylaws for first nations.

The public prosecutions office is not seized with the ability to prosecute these bylaws . . . .

I would argue that such bylaws, formed under the act, are within the ambit of federal laws, given the first nations’ stature within the federation. However, I would go one step further and recognize that Mr. Richstone was correct in his statement that laws passed by first nations should be attracted with the appropriate enforcement by all levels of law enforcement in Canada. Many of your agents are offering their willingness . . . to enforce our laws. It is now your turn.

In sum, I make three major recommendations: a review of the bylaw-making capacities of first nations to amend the act to reflect that first nations have the authority to enact laws, not just bylaws; that such laws be adequately funded for first nations to develop and/or enforce; and finally, that such laws be enforced by those charged to do so, akin to the laws of other law-making jurisdictions in the federation, including your own.

In the same committee meeting, Mr. Derek Yang, Director, Community Services, Tla’amin Nation, British Columbia, states:

The short story that we want to present is that self-determination is virtually meaningless without the authority and capacity to pass and enforce laws. Many federal and provincial laws, negotiating mandates, funding decisions and approaches to enforcement undermine or weaken first nation law enforcement rather than supporting and strengthening it.

Mr. Murray Browne, legal counsel for Tla’amin Nation stated:

We have the unfortunate situation that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has said that it can only enforce COVID bylaws under the Indian Act. That’s a nice step under the Indian Act, but it’s problematic otherwise.

We need changes to the federal offence act . . . . They need to be amended to refer specifically to the authority of treaty first nations.

We need to retain all of the authorities under the Indian Act as well as under the land code.

We also need to think that enforcement is not only about prosecution. Much of enforcement is education, but it is also ticketing. Right now, first nations in B.C. do not have access to municipal ticketing the way municipalities do. I don’t know about other provinces, but we have to have ticketing enforcement, because it works.

Colleagues, as I stated yesterday with regard to Bill S-272, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak recently engaged in a legislative co-development exercise with the Manitoba Minister of Justice to secure the introduction, consideration and passage on May 30, 2023, of amendments to the Manitoba Provincial Offences Act which will — for the first time in Manitoba — create a ticketing regime for First Nation laws. Similar provincial laws were pursued by First Nations and passed in Alberta on December 9, 2020, and in Saskatchewan on May 11, 2023.

Together with the enactment of the amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act set out in Bill S-271, these provincial ticketing regimes for First Nation laws will significantly enhance the duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enforce First Nation laws in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Therefore, in addition to addressing the currently stranded regimes of Indian Act bylaws and Land Code laws, when enacted into law, Bill S-271 will address and clarify with conclusive certainty that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have a duty to enforce:

. . . a law enacted by a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of a First Nation under a self-government agreement implemented by an Act of Parliament.

When enacted into law, Bill S-271 will also clarify with conclusive certainty that it is the will of Parliament that all duly enacted First Nation laws are to be effectively enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Honourable senators, I want to express that First Nations have not sat idly by as these ongoing problems hit their communities and endangered lives. They have gone on to create, to seek relationships, to amend laws and to propose solutions and put them in place.

As a key part of the ongoing efforts of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, Grand Chief Settee to secure the effective recognition, respect, enforcement and prosecution of First Nation laws, MKO has successfully pursued the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commanding Officer of RCMP D Division in Manitoba to enter into a Protocol relating to the Enforcement and Prosecution of By-Law(s) adopted pursuant to s. 81 and 85.1 of the Indian Act. The renewed protocol is effective as of June 30, 2023, as a two-year pilot project proposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in a March 9, 2023, letter to Grand Chief Settee:

I further propose that my officials work with your organization and other key stakeholders during these three months to discuss the possibility of developing a broader pilot program for the enforcement and prosecution of Indian Act bylaws beyond those directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This kind of pilot would not be a permanent solution, but rather a joint opportunity to expand on the work done to date beyond the crisis posed by the pandemic. In addition, it would be an opportunity to gather evidence and experience that can then inform the development of solutions to better serve your communities in the long term.

Colleagues, it is MKO’s understanding that the two-year pilot project of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, the RCMP and MKO for the enforcement and prosecution of Indian Act bylaws through the protocol is unique in Canada and applies only to those of the 23 law-making MKO First Nations that elect to participate. As there are 634 First Nations in Canada, this means that just 3.6% of First Nations in Canada have the opportunity to see the potential enforcement by RCMP and prosecution of offences by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada pursuant to their Indian Act bylaws through a protocol process. As well, the protocol does not address the enforcement and prosecution of all First Nation laws and therefore does not address the enforcement and prosecution of a First Nation law enacted pursuant to a land code or a First Nation law enacted by a First Nation that has entered into a self-government agreement.

I am honoured to share with you that MKO and Lands Advisory Board, or LAB, representatives closely collaborated with my office to develop this version of Bill S-271. I can tell you it was a lot of work; I’m not a lawyer, and it took me time to understand what I was going to be speaking on and to make certain that I was comfortable.

This represents a concrete example of co-development in action of proposed legislation affecting First Nations. Such legislative co-development reflects and is consistent with Articles 19 and 38 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and therefore reflects and is consistent with Canada’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

MKO and LAB stated that the co-development of legislation by a senator and other parliamentarians with First Nations is consistent with the call for the actions of government to be on a nation-to-nation basis and consistent with the principles of reconciliation, as emphasized in the Deputy Prime Minister’s response on December 7, 2022, to a question by Senator Loffreda in committee on Bill C-32.

I call on all honourable senators to fully support the self‑determination and enhanced law-making powers of all First Nations in Canada that are intended by Parliament through Bill C-428 for those First Nations who choose to exercise the law-making authority intended by Bill C-49 as well as First Nations under self-government agreements entered into between a First Nation and Canada.

I call on my honourable colleagues to fully support and endorse Bill S-271, refer it to committee and pass the proposed amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act that are set out within it, which will clarify and confirm with conclusive certainty the statutory duty of the RCMP to enforce First Nation laws.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-274, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-274, An Act to establish National Thanadelthur Day. I want to share with you my experience of oral history among the Denesuline in Brochet and Lac Brochet. The Dene signed their Treaty 10 agreement in 1906, and the Crees moved in in the early 1920s. They lived together in Brochet, Manitoba, where they intermarried and raised families.

Young children who were Dene and Cree from Brochet were sent to the Guy Hill Residential School, where, as students, we did indeed become family. With this closeness, I was privileged to hear the story of Thanadelthur 20 years ago from Ms. Lucy Antsanen, a Dene citizen of Brochet and Lac Brochet who experienced intergenerational residential school trauma. Historically, in their years of oral history, the young Dene have heard and continue to hear about this remarkable young woman through stories passed down from their grandparents and parents.

At the outset, colleagues, I want to inform you that the word “Chipewyan” is used in historical reference. This is a derogatory term, whereas I will use the correct term, “Denesuline,” which means the Original Peoples. The word “Cree” is a colonial term as well. We call ourselves Athinuwick.

Honourable senators, over 20 years ago, Ms. Antsanen, a young Dene woman with her master’s in education and working as a teacher in Lac Brochet, introduced the story of Thanadelthur in the classroom. From that day on, the students wore red on February 5 to commemorate the memory of this young peacemaker, February 5 being the day Thanadelthur journeyed into the Spirit World.

I wear red today and every day for my sisters. Today, I also wear the moccasins given to me in 1979 by Dene Elder St. Pierre.

This story takes place before Canada was reinvented as a nation and before Manitoba became a province. There were no borders, only territorial boundaries of each of the Indigenous nations. This story takes place at the height of the fur trade. Both the Hudson’s Bay Company and the North West Company were trading in the vicinity of York Factory.

Thanadelthur was born in the latter part of the 1600s. Prior to written history and over the ages, the Dene people counted the number of winters from the birth of their children to keep account of age. The reason for bringing this up is because there are varying ages assigned to Thanadelthur in different historical forums, including Hudson’s Bay Company Archives and accounts told by individual historians. Regardless, she was a young girl in her early to mid teens when she arrived at the Hudson’s Bay fort.

Honourable senators, we are hard-pressed in modern times to find the actual names of Indigenous women in history. History has normalized reducing these ethenewuk to “Indian/Aboriginal women.” In our community of Brochet, when the French priest who had lived amongst us for over 50 years wrote his book about our lives in our lands, he referred to the people simply as “Indian” — not even acknowledging our humanity. This is happening in my lifetime.

At a time when Indigenous women rarely made it into history books, we have this remarkable Dene girl whose name, Thanadelthur, is etched into history books for eternity. As such, this information exists as oral history, yes, but it transcends that medium as it is also archived and housed in history books as well as through teaching tools used in schools. Author Rick Book’s publication entitled Blackships/Thanadelthur, which features the life and contributions of this young woman, is being used as a teaching aid in the Northwest Territories.

Colleagues, during Thanadelthur’s life, the Dene and Cree were warring ancient enemies. Dene elders from different Dene communities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan tell of the warring between the two nations. When the Cree came upon a Dene encampment, they killed the majority of the Dene but captured the young girls, as Dene girls were known to be hard workers. Conversely, when the Dene came upon a Cree encampment, they did not take prisoners.

In 1712 to 1713, Thanadelthur’s family was hunting caribou in the area near Arviat, Nunavut, when they were attacked in their encampment and slaughtered by the Cree. Thanadelthur was taken into captivity. The Cree elders called her “Akwakan Iskwew,” which means “slave woman.” The Dene elders say that she survived because she was stunningly beautiful and very skilful.

Thanadelthur was enslaved for over a year, and late in 1714, she and another young woman escaped their Cree captors and headed north to find their people. Without warm food and clothing, they were soon in dire straits. The girls survived on edible plants, berries and small game they snared along the way. It is believed they used their long hair to make snares. During this journey, Thanadelthur’s young companion tragically passed away, forcing Thanadelthur to then abandon her route and make her way to the fort, hoping to encounter the English. Thanadelthur had known of the fort but had never been there.

When she came upon tracks in the snow, she followed them, knowing full well that she could be killed if she came upon the Cree. Yet, she followed the tracks that lead her barely alive — to goose hunters at Ten Shilling Creek, southwest of York Factory. Luckily, William Stuart, an employee of the Hudson’s Bay Company, was among the hunters. The goose hunters brought Thanadelthur back with them to York Fort, which is located near the mouth of the Hayes River in northern Manitoba.

The governing manager of the fort was Governor James Knight, who, a few days prior, had made plans to employ another Dene woman to forge peace between the Dene and the Cree so he could expand the fur trade into the Far North — into Dene country. Sadly, that Dene woman passed away, forcing Governor Knight to explore other options.

According to the Hudson’s Bay journals, Thanadelthur was brought to York Fort — which today is York Factory, Manitoba — on Wednesday, November 24, 1714. Thanadelthur told Governor Knight that her people would trade with the Hudson’s Bay Company. However, that trade was difficult this far south, as the Cree had guns and were known for their attacks on the Dene people.

Both Knight and Stuart were impressed by Thanadelthur’s enthusiasm and intelligence. When she recovered from her harrowing escape, Knight decided to send Thanadelthur and Stuart, with about 150 Cree, on a peace mission to the Dene in late June 1715. He believed that Thanadelthur was the best person to help establish peace between the two nations.

Honourable senators, the party spent most of the year in the tundra, covering hundreds of kilometres, and the long trek took its toll. Food was in short supply, several expedition members fell sick and many turned back. Along the way, Thanadelthur used her extensive knowledge and skills of the northern environment to keep herself and William Stuart alive. She made their winter clothes from animal skins and snowshoes from sticks and animal sinew.

More than once, Thanadelthur saved the expedition from starvation. Hunger was kept at bay by drinking tea and eating soup made only from snow, blackberries and animal hides.

In the end, the party was reduced to Thanadelthur and Stuart, along with the Cree leader and about 10 of his people. Near to their destination, they came across the bodies of nine Dene, apparently killed by the Cree. Afraid they might be blamed for the deaths, Stuart and the Cree refused to go any further.

Thanadelthur asked the party to make camp and wait for 10 days while she went to find her people and bring them back to negotiate peace. She struck out alone over the barrens and within a few days came upon several hundred Dene.

Having earlier been attacked by the Cree, it took much talking for Thanadelthur to convince her people to accompany her to the Cree camp. In the end, more than 100 agreed, and in true epic fashion, she arrived at the Cree camp on the tenth day.

Then the peace negotiations began. Thanadelthur led the talks, haranguing and scolding the parties into making peace. Finally, heading a delegation of 10 Dene, including her brother, she led them back to York Fort in May 1716.

At the post, she quickly became one of Knight’s chief advisers. Seeking her thoughts on a variety of plans, he found her to be one of the most remarkable people he had ever encountered.

In early 1717, Thanadelthur fell ill. Realizing she was dying, she spent hours teaching one of the young Hudson’s Bay Company workers to speak Dene so that he could take her place. She died on February 5, 1717, at the age of about 16.

In the book Muskekowuck Athinuwick: Original People of the Great Swampy Land, author Victor P. Lytwyn gives more detail about this time:

When the HBC re-settled York Factory in 1714, it was anxious to facilitate a peace between the Lowland Cree and the Dene. The company had economic motivations for encouraging such a peace initiative; it planned to establish a trading post at the mouth of the Churchill River to collect furs from the Dene. There were also rumours of precious metals in the Dene territory, and the company wanted to develop a friendly relationship to exploit these mineral resources. The motivation for peace on the part of the Lowland Cree is more difficult to ascertain. There were no obvious economic advantages to be gained by making peace with their traditional enemies. However, the peace initiative does make sense if it is viewed from the perspective of the alliance between the Lowland Cree and the HBC. As allies of the company, the Lowland Cree may have participated in peacemaking with the Dene in order to solidify their relationship with the English traders. A careful examination of the peace mission in 1715-16 clarifies the role of the Lowland Cree in this initiative. This peace mission has been previously analysed by scholars who have been interested in the role of the HBC or the Dene woman who acted as interpreter.

James Knight, through feasts and gifts, persuaded the leader of the Lowland Cree to undertake the peace mission. The Cree leader was followed by 17 men and their families, numbering about 150 people in total. Accompanying this group was William Stuart and Thanadelthur, who had been captured by the Lowland Cree.

They left York Factory on June 27, 1715, and headed north toward the Churchill River. Nothing was heard of the peacemakers until April 13, 1716, when three Lowland Cree arrived at York Factory with news that the party had suffered from a shortage of food and forced to break into four or five smaller groups. According to their report, the Lowland Cree leader had taken four men, along with Stuart and Thanadelthur, in the direction of the Dene winter hunting grounds. Another group of eight Lowland Cree men also continued along a different route toward Dene winter hunting grounds. These men in the party of eight met a group of Dene and killed nine people in self-defence.

These two stories that come from two different archived sources are basically telling the same story.

On May 7, 1716, the Lowland Cree leader returned to York Factory with Stuart, Thanadelthur and four Dene men. The latter had joined the Cree leader as evidence of the peace that had been made between the two groups of Indians. According to Stuart’s report, their party came across the bodies of the Dene who had been slain by the other Lowland Cree. Thanadelthur agreed to go out and bring her people to the camp in order to explain the situation and reach a peace. Within ten days, Thanadelthur returned with 400 Dene, including 160 men. Using Thanadelthur as an interpreter, the Lowland Cree leader explained that they had come in peace and offered his pipe to smoke in friendship. The Dene leaders accepted and after two days of meetings and gift exchanges, they parted company in peace. The Lowland Cree leader took four Dene boys who were “adopted” as a sign of the peace. One of these boys remained with the leader and he was thereafter treated as his own son.

Honourable senators, as I mentioned near the outset of my speech, in the present day, teaching guides are used in the classroom to highlight Thanadelthur’s experiences for teaching and covering sensitive subjects and issues. I will share one example given by Jane Hunt:

Compare the differences between life in the past and present. Discuss how people obtained food (gathering, hunting, farming) as opposed to today’s grocery shopping. What skills were necessary to survive in the wilderness, in small villages or towns? Talk about the realities that people in the past faced on a daily basis for survival. Use other documents and previous knowledge to support the discussion.

Colleagues, on August 13, 2017, a 300-year commemoration took place in Churchill, Manitoba. Many of the Dene and Cree people led by Ms. Lucy Antsanen congregated in Churchill to honour and commemorate Thanadelthur.

Furthermore, for her courage and peacemaking abilities and her contribution to Manitoban and Canadian history, Thanadelthur was commemorated in 2000 as a Person of National Historic Significance and as an Historical Role Model for the Youth in 2002.

In August 2022, I was invited to Churchill by Ms. Antsanen and representatives from the Dene nation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to witness the renaming of Hudson Square to Thanadelthur Square. At that time, I delivered my second apology speech to the Dene for the pain that was inflicted upon them.

Treaty 10 was the treaty signed by the Dene in Brochet, Manitoba. The Crees started to move in in the early 1920s. The relationship between the Crees and Dene in Brochet was violent in many ways, for many years, but there has been intermarriage between the two, and these families have lasted over our lifetime. My aunt is Dene, and my relatives are Dene.

The violence culminated in the act of the Dene moving from their traditional lands and losing the wisdom and historical connection that resides in that place in Brochet for them when they moved to Lac Brochet in 1974. They made that extremely difficult decision and moved to a place where there was no electricity, and through sheer determination they shaped a place for themselves.

In 2009, at the 100-year celebration of the treaty, I gave my first apology speech to the Dene because it was the right thing to do. I remain close friends and an ally to my Dene brothers and sisters and grandmothers and grandfathers. My mom and dad were close to the Dene, and my dad visited the Dene in Lac Brochet and helped them through hard times and celebrated good times with them. I have been told stories of my parents from the Dene. I would not have known about this side of my father if not for the Dene sharing their stories with me. Throughout these years, as Cree and Dene, we have continued to gather and have conversations not only about our shared troubled history but what connects us.

I have always felt like an intruder into another’s territory because we were in historic Dene territory as Cree. In 2005, at our yearly gathering in Brochet, Elder Joe Hyslop said, “This is my land and this is my territory.” I spoke after him and informed the people that it was indeed his land and his territory, but it was also mine. I was born and raised there, and it was the land I was connected to from birth. I knew, as I always knew, that we needed to keep looking for peace because we are family.

You see, we were already making our way to reconciliation even before the word became popular. We were actively working towards it from the time of Thanadelthur.

Colleagues, I would like to share my apology speech to the Dene in Churchill in August 2023.

Thank you to the Dene for inviting and welcoming me to their home territory.

I would like to start with a moment of reflection on the mistreatment of the Dene throughout history and in this instance by the Cree. I want to say how sorry I am for the fear, the pain, the suffering and the indignities suffered while in close contact with the Crees.

I know there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain and hurt you and your ancestors have suffered individually and collectively. But I am extending my hand out to you in the spirit of brotherhood/sisterhood in the hopes of helping to resolve our past and begin a new beginning — one that Thanadelthur strived for and worked on relentlessly.

My parents were Horace McCallum from the Peter Ballantyne First Nation in Saskatchewan and Marie Adele Thomas, whose ancestors were Metis from Selkirk and Metis from Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. They both arrived in Brochet and settled in the Treaty 10 area. I grew up in the trap-line and fish-camp until I was sent to residential school in 1957. Our house in Brochet was on the island across from the Northern Store. The summers were the only time we could come home and as Cree and Dene children we returned from the Guy Hill Residential School.

I remember the drumming and the hand games that the Dene played, and these cultural events remain a cherished part of my memories. When the evenings were calm, you could hear the sound of the drums throughout the whole village. It was the Dene playing their drums. In times of great stress in my life, I sought the sound of drums because it reminded me of my home and kinship in Brochet. The drums continue to remain a very powerful healer for me today. In times of great stress, I have sought the advice and comfort of both my Cree and Dene friends and family. The Dene will always be a strong anchor in my life, and I hope to continue to walk with you during my journey in life.

I remember hearing stories of the trauma that was inflicted upon our Dene brothers and sisters, and how they felt they had to move from Brochet to make the lives of their children safer. Their decision to move was based on great courage to leave their home territory and to make a new life in Lac Brochet. We cannot forget their stories of hurt and trauma that went with the displacement, as well as what the Dene continue to feel as a consequence of the brutal treatment of the Crees. We must face the cold, uncomfortable truth anywhere violence and trauma occur, including Churchill, Brochet and Tadoule; we need to face it and deal with it — let’s start with the historical story of Thanadelthur and, like her, champion justice.

I must also remember the existence of intergenerational trauma. These types of historical injustices, whether in Lac Brochet, Tadoule or Churchill, still continue to exert their impact today on the continuing existence and vitality of their communities, laws and customs, language, land ownership and sovereignty.

I do not know the extent of the horrors that some of the families and individuals went through — not only in Brochet, but also in Churchill. In her book Night Spirits, Ila Bussidor was articulate about many of the harms that occurred, and that continue to occur today.

I understand that the Inuit, Métis, First Nations and non‑Indigenous peoples inflicted trauma on the Dene in Churchill. How do we start that process of reconciliation and/or conciliation with each other? How do we start the conversation to include the federal government who removed the Dene from their nomadic lifestyle and lands, and forcefully placed them in Churchill without any resources, including housing? How does the government acknowledge the harm that these removal policies inflicted on the Dene?

Identifying the impact on communities, as well as individuals, is a powerful way to recognize the foundation of First Nations differences. As you are aware, Thanadelthur, a skilled interpreter and negotiator, played a crucial diplomatic role that led to peace between her people — the Dene — and their traditional enemy, the Cree.

On behalf of the Cree, I acknowledge the hurt that was inflicted on our brothers and sisters — the Dene. The Cree and the Dene have their own unique cultures, and in Brochet, there was a mixing of the two because we lived and loved together. We have families together. The Creator put us together for a reason, and we must honour the unity of the two tribes for that reason. For the sake of our children, we need to find each other again.

My hope is that this acknowledgement and this apology lead to a process of healing — a recognition and an acknowledgement of the Dene’s human worth and dignity. How do we begin to end the cycle of resentment, and of hurt?

I am not expecting forgiveness, and, as an individual, I promise not to repeat any of the trauma you have undergone. I offer my apology in the spirit of healing between the Cree and Dene Nations.

It is important that we do not stay where we are. I acknowledge that the Dene — as sovereign nations — have the power to reject this statement and this apology.

I understand that to allow space for a response is important — and that the response might not be immediate, and, when it comes, it may not be positive. The point is to acknowledge and recognize that injustice did happen. For that, I am truly sorry.

Honourable senators, this July 2023, I went home to Brochet to celebrate the Treaty 10 celebrations, along with the Treaty 10 chiefs from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We revisited and truly celebrated the Dene-Cree kinship we have. The Crees hosted the Dene in their homes, cooked all the traditional foods, played hand games and challenged each other in different competitions. There was dancing, singing, drumming and feasting. I would say it was the best and most collegial gathering that we have ever had in all these years.

Colleagues, I want to end with a quote that Chief Simon Denechezhe, from the Lac Brochet Dene Nation, gave at the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, Annual General Assembly on August 23, 2023, when he addressed the MKO chiefs on a resolution he sponsored regarding national Thanadelthur day. As a strong ally, Cree Councillor Billy Linklater, a proxy for Chief Michael Sewap from the Barren Lands First Nation, was the seconder. This resolution — which calls on the federal government to adopt legislation recognizing February 5 as national Thanadelthur day — was unanimously adopted by the MKO chiefs, with the full support of the Keewatin Tribal Council and their Grand Chief Walter Wastesicoot.

In speaking to this resolution, Chief Denechezhe said:

This is oral history that has been passed on, generation to generation. It happen[ed] in the early 1700s. I heard it orally, too, from my parents and Elders. This is not only recognition, but it[’s] also for the path to truth and reconciliation, and as Nations, we must learn to respect and acknowledge each other. And this is the form of working collectively together with all nations. Truth and Reconciliation; we are on the path now. This needs to be clearly understood and that we need to work Nation to Nation, in th[ese] modern times. I [have] heard it many times that we need to help each other. It seems like we are always at . . . odds, but us around the table, that’s our voice, voices of our Nations, and we need to [be] recognized, too, and be on the path to reconcile. Thank you. Maci-chok!

With that, kinanâskomitin to everyone. Thank you for listening.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Would Senator Cotter take a question?

Senator Cotter: I certainly would.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you, Your Honour, and I also offer you my congratulations.

Before I start, I want to thank James Campbell from my office for all the help he has given me over these past few years.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 1, which conveys the Senate of Canada’s thanks to Her Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, for delivering the Speech from the Throne.

One of the main themes of this Throne Speech delivered in November of 2021 was a renewed pledge and commitment to the importance of reconciliation. This, of course, is not a surprise given Prime Minister Trudeau has boldly stated that there is no more important relationship to him and to Canada than the one with First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada.

This Throne Speech was perhaps more meaningful on the topic of reconciliation as it was delivered by Her Excellency Mary Simon, an Inuk woman who, as we all know, is the first Indigenous Governor General in Canada’s history. I agreed with our Governor General’s words when Her Excellency stated:

. . . I have seen how Canadians are committed to reconciliation. Indigenous Peoples are reclaiming our history, stories, culture and language through action. Non‑Indigenous Peoples are coming to understand and accept the true impact of the past and the pain suffered by generations of Indigenous Peoples. Together they are walking the path towards reconciliation.

Honourable senators, although Her Excellency was speaking to the acts of reconciliation that are, indeed, occurring across Canada, I see glimmers of this same hope and shared vision for a better and more equitable future within our very own chamber. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the unprecedented action of this chamber in passing a motion of acknowledgement and apology for the role that the Senate of Canada played in the creation of the residential school system.

As you know, colleagues, I have delivered speeches in this chamber that were, for me, very emotional. They examined profoundly difficult aspects of my life, yet they allowed me to grow and to strengthen through the very sharing of these stories. As you may recall, these speeches dealt with issues including residential school, unmarked graves and corporal punishment. They confronted loss of language, loss of culture and loss of self.

Despite these moments of vulnerability and pain, I have always been met with support and compassion from all corners of this chamber. Indigenous and non-Indigenous senators alike have demonstrated a sincere willingness to listen, understand and challenge their own preconceived notions of both the history of this country as well as their understanding of the First Peoples who called this land home.

Colleagues, I acknowledge that many of these conversations are difficult to have. Much of this difficulty rests with the fact that many of these conversations are new. They are unfamiliar, and with that unfamiliarity comes an uncomfortableness that must be embraced. I have seen, by and large, a willingness for this chamber to embrace new ways of knowing, thinking and seeing the world.

As Canadians across this great country and within this great chamber continue to come to grips with the history of the First Peoples and the intergenerational trauma they carry with them to this day, there has been a prevailing sense of guilt. Guilt in the belief that this country should have known better than to create and sustain such horrifically discriminatory policies. Guilt that they, as Canadians, should have known better the history of the land they call home.

Honourable senators, to that, I would like to restate the following words of Her Excellency Mary Simon within the Speech from the Throne:

We must turn the guilt we carry into action.

Action on reconciliation.

Action on our collective health and well-being.

Action on climate change.

It is absolutely critical, colleagues, that we subscribe to the importance of promoting reconciliation and a more just, fair and equitable future for all who call this land home. Unless and until we seize every opportunity to champion this cause, we will continue to see indicators of overall population health, known as the social determinants, lag further and further behind for First Nations in Canada. Governor General Mary Simon affirmed these very sentiments when she read:

Reconciliation requires a whole-of-government approach, breaking down barriers, and rethinking how to accelerate our work.

. . . the Government is committed to closing the gaps that far too many First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities still face today.

To this end, Her Excellency also stated that Canadians:

. . . want bold, concrete solutions to meet the other challenges we face.

Growing an economy that works for everyone.

Fighting climate change.

Moving forward on the path of reconciliation.

Making sure our communities are safe, healthy, and inclusive.

Honourable senators, within the Throne Speech, Her Excellency expounded upon some of these issues we are facing as a nation — in some cases existential issues — and the path forward that we must take to come out the other side. When speaking to issues of the environment, the Governor General stated:

Protecting our land and oceans will address biodiversity loss. In this work, the Government will continue to strengthen its partnership with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, to protect nature and respect their traditional knowledge.

When speaking to racism and discrimination — massive and insidious issues in our society — the Governor General said:

When someone in our country is targeted because of their gender, or who they love, or where they come from, the way they pray, the language they speak, or the colour of their skin, we are all diminished.

Everyone should be — and feel — safe.

The Government will continue combatting hate and racism, including with a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy.

She continued:

Canadians understand that equity, justice, and diversity are the means and the ends to living together.

Fighting systemic racism, sexism, discrimination, misconduct, and abuse, including in our core institutions, will remain a key priority.

Honourable senators, these are profound words and they are lofty goals. Despite that fact, we must resolve to work towards them, as they are critical outcomes that simply must be achieved, not only for a better today but for a better future for those to come seven generations from now.

To this end, there are many items that exist before us today for consideration and debate in this chamber that would be critical tools in achieving these goals. There are items that affirm gender equity, items that seek to mitigate harms to our environment, items that look at addressing racism in the health care systems and items that aim to address environmental racism across this country. Colleagues, these are items that are not only critical to reconciliation; they are critical in the fundamental sense of the word in that, in many cases, they are matters of life and death.

Issues of reconciliation, issues of discrimination, issues of climate action and issues of environmental stewardship are not bartering chips. They are not frivolous matters that we can afford to have caught up in partisan gamesmanship or political bickering. No. They are issues that are critical to the survival and well-being of the most vulnerable in our society. They are issues that are critical to the very survival and well-being of the land, the animals and the environment in which we all live.

When items of this nature are left to toil without resolution, we must look in the mirror and ask ourselves why that is so. There is so much potential in this chamber to do infinite good, yet far too often we stand in our own way, to the detriment of all who call this land home.

I would like to close, honourable senators, by once again quoting Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon in the Speech from the Throne:

There is hope in the every day. Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding.

As such, colleagues, I urge that we collectively embrace our role as agents of change and commit to upholding the principle of reconciliation as a core and guiding value as we each go about fulfilling the vital role bestowed upon us as members of Canada’s upper house.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 concerning the historical treatment of our Chinese brothers and sisters. It is critical that we, as senators and citizens of Canada, understand how immigration policies have continued to shape racism within our country.

I want to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this inquiry, and for highlighting the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination still faced by Canadians of Asian descent today.

Colleagues, in the 1983 book entitled Racial Minorities in Multicultural Canada by editors Peter S. Li and B. Singh Bolaria, author Gurcharn Basran from the University of Saskatchewan states:

Racism in Canada is not the product of the seventies and eighties. It has been practised systematically by the Canadian government and people in general from the very beginning of Canadian history. . . . It has been institutionalized throughout our history. It has been directed mainly against non-white populations in Canada. The chronology of the development of Canada immigration and ethnic policies is the chronology of the discriminatory policies followed by the Canadian government in relation to non-white populations.

The author continues:

Chinese were brought in to work on the construction of the Canadian Pacific line. It was difficult to secure white labour for this purpose. Woodsworth, in his book, Strangers Within Our Gates, points out:

“The Chinese, in any number, were first brought in when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built, in order to work on the construction on that line when it was next to impossible to secure white labour.”

While discussing the contributions of Chinese labour to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or CPR, John Porter emphasizes:

Without Chinese labour the construction and completion of the CPR would have been indefinitely postponed. Not until 1962 were coloured people from Commonwealth countries looked upon as possible immigrants, except for small numbers who were allowed in to work as domestic servants, an entrance status previously held by lower class British and eastern European females.

The author continues:

There are various examples of institutionalized racism in Canada. Students of Canadian history in general, and those responsible for Canadian immigration policy in particular, are well aware of various pieces of legislation, laws, and practices that discriminate against the non-white and immigrant population. As soon as CPR construction was completed in 1885, and Chinese labour started entering into other occupations, institutional racism began in various forms. . . . A head tax of $50.00 was imposed on Chinese in 1885. It was increased to $100.00 in 1900 and $500.00 in 1903. Other Orientals were also subjected to a head tax, while passage assistance was available to the British immigrants. Chinese and East Indians had to pay a head tax in Canada and their immigration was virtually stopped after 1907. Orientals had no voting rights until World War II and were not allowed to practise certain professions in British Columbia. According to the 1906 Immigration Act, important discretionary powers were given to immigration officers, who used them against non-white immigrants in a ruthless and discriminatory manner. . . . There were race riots in British Columbia in 1907, in which Orientals were attacked and their properties, businesses, and houses destroyed.

In 1907 immigrants from Asia were required to have a minimum of $200.00 in landing money. In 1919 this account was increased to $250.00. In 1930, section 38 of the Immigration Act prohibited the landing in Canada of immigrants of any Asiatic race.

Honourable senators, the following information that I’m going to share with you is based on research done by the Library of Parliament. The first major wave of Chinese immigration began with the Fraser River Gold Rush in 1858. From 1881 to 1885, more than 15,000 Chinese labourers came to work on the construction of the CPR. Over the course of construction and by the end of 1882, 6,500 of the 9,000 railway workers were Chinese Canadians. They were employed to build the B.C. segment of the railway through the most challenging and dangerous terrain.

Chinese workers were paid a dollar a day, and, from this dollar, they had to pay for their food and gear. White workers were paid $1.50 to $2.50 per day and did not have to pay for provisions. In addition to being paid less while also incurring higher expenses, Chinese workers were given the most dangerous tasks, such as handling the explosive nitroglycerine used to break up solid rock. Due to the harsh conditions they faced, hundreds of Chinese Canadians working on the railroad died from accidents, winter cold, illness and malnutrition. Between 600 and 4,000 Chinese men died working on the CPR.

Although Chinese-Canadian workers faced and overcame great obstacles to help build the CPR, they were left out of the national celebration surrounding its completion. In the iconic and historic photograph of CPR director Donald Alexander Smith driving the ceremonial Last Spike — when the western and eastern segments of the CPR finally met in Craigellachie, British Columbia — all of the Chinese-Canadian workers were cleared from view.

Many people have pointed out the lingering injustice captured in that image. There is not a single Chinese-Canadian worker in the photograph, even though Chinese-Canadian labourers suffered, toiled and died building the railway that has come to symbolize the unity of Canada from coast to coast.

Prime Minister John A. Macdonald acknowledged the necessity of Chinese labour. When the Government of British Columbia tried to ban Chinese immigration in 1882, Macdonald rose in the House of Commons.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

I would like to thank MP Elizabeth May for her work and leadership on this important initiative, and former MP Lenore Zann, who initially introduced it in the second session of the Forty-third Parliament at the other place, when the bill was known as Bill C-230.

As you will remember, colleagues, this chamber recently unanimously passed a motion of apology to former students of residential schools and their intergenerational families. That motion acknowledged the systemic racism upon which this country was built, wherein representatives from the federal government and the churches gave themselves a unilateral authority to remove First Nations and Inuit children from their families and their communities.

I bring this up to remind senators that environmental racism is one very profound piece of the broader picture of systemic racism that exists in this country, whether systemic racism is in parliament, academia, corrections, policing, health care institutions or government branches across this country. Systemic racism allows other forms of racism to continue to flourish in these disparate areas without question because systemic racism has become normalized, largely desensitizing the general population to its very existence and effects. In other words, environmental racism is not experienced in isolation of other contexts, nor is environmental racism unintended. These are deliberate decisions that, in many cases, reflect the creation of so-called “sacrifice zones,” communities that are largely out of sight and out of mind from the general public, a fact which somehow legitimizes their devastation. This is known as geographic racism.

An apology is only the first step in the process of conciliation or reconciliation towards a new relationship. The ushering in of a new, transformative and meaningful relationship requires more than words. In other words, we need to understand, become aware of and act on addressing the serious issue of environmental racism, which this bill seeks to accomplish. We must first each explore the work we need to do as individuals and as a collective to move forward in this relationship, to honour and fulfill our work as senators in our role as advocates for those not represented at the other place and for those without a voice or power in their own country.

Honourable senators, I want to inform you of the gift that we bring to this chamber as senators of First Nations, Métis and Inuit non-status descent: Our experiences of racism, exclusion, assimilation, genocide, inequity and inequality, but also our strengths — our two eyes seeing through the melding of Indigenous and Western knowledges, kinship and cultural ties to communities, our ancestors’ proclivity for sober second thought and the wisdom that comes from navigating a lifetime of oppression.

A special mention about women is required here. Indigenous women’s ways of knowing and being have been largely squandered, and violence against women exists throughout this country. Much of this is related to the root causes of environmental racism. This includes the dispossession of land, governance, health, economy and self-determination. There has simultaneously been a rise in water and food insecurity, inadequate housing infrastructure, intimate partner violence, addictions, human rights violations, biodiversity loss and the contamination of land, water, air and our other relations, which are all impacting women negatively and increasing the unpaid work they have to shoulder.

As such, we share with you our unique experiences that need to be taken into account every time we stand up and we speak. We speak from our experience. I have worked in communities for over 40 years. I have lived with the people. I have seen the devastation that they live with, and that is what we bring to the table. As Indigenous senators, when we share our perspectives from our ways of being, knowing and experience, we are offering you a gift. We say to you that the legislative system has never provided a means to redress the issues brought into our lives and communities by colonial laws and policies. Why do you think there’s so much unrest in Indigenous communities and increasing court cases? Because they have nowhere else to go. This unrest has to come from somewhere, and it comes a lot from legislation.

As Indigenous women, we also have to navigate violence from our own patriarchal and colonial leadership in our own communities. Many times, our own men have been colonized, and they are brought to the table to counteract what we have to say in this chamber. The voiceless cannot compete with educated people. The educated people have the privilege, and the grassroots people remain voiceless. That is what we bring when we come and we speak for the people that we work for.

Honourable senators, please take the time to understand and accept that we are different from you in how we have experienced genocide on our homelands in this country, and how we continue to live in “stranded regimes,” to borrow a phrase coined by the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO. Stranded regimes brought on by legislation, sometimes from this very place.

Honourable senators, I would now like to speak to environmental racism, how it can be brought to light and how it can be combatted. It was African-American civil rights leader Benjamin Chavis who coined the term “environmental racism” in 1982, describing it as:

. . . racial discrimination in environmental policy-making, the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of colour for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of colour from leadership of the ecology movements.

When I speak about the examples I will give, think about how reconciliation is going to work to address these issues and really make it reconciliatory.

Colleagues, when I recently attempted to include reference to this matter in another bill, the minister denied that amendment, saying that the term had no precedent in existing legislation and that they were new terms. Environmental racism is not a new concept. It has long existed, disproportionately affecting First Nation peoples and communities across Canada. I have witnessed this first-hand. Many of you will know that I have spoken many times about environmental racism in the resource extraction industry.

Honourable senators, how and why does race play a major role in exposure to environmental dangers and land use within a community? Failing and substandard infrastructure of housing and water; failing and substandard infrastructure of sewage lines and plants; failing and substandard infrastructure of fire services; and stranded regimes of bylaw enforcement are all issues that contribute to the reality of environmental racism.

Moreover, these have been studied, acknowledged and researched by committees within the Senate and House of Commons as issues existing within First Nations communities in Canada. The history of environmental racism in Canada contains other examples of the federal, provincial and municipal governments — as well as large corporations — failing to protect the most vulnerable communities. How did these communities become vulnerable, and why are they kept vulnerable and powerless?

What are some of the root causes of environmental racism? Policy failures, intentional or otherwise, that unfairly affect those without a voice; legislation that doesn’t take into account the marginalized through measures like GBA Plus; interjurisdictional gaps arising from issues like natural resources, water, health and child care; lack of human and financial capital to challenge governments and corporations; poverty; dependence on government through the Indian Act; not honouring treaties; establishing resource-extractive operations or toxic waste sites on cheap land, with disregard for the populations that call that land home thus establishing sacrificed zones.

Honourable senators, having identified some of the root causes, I will now provide real-world examples of environmental racism.

Water contamination disproportionately affects low-income communities of colour. We are all aware of minority communities that lack clean water. Contaminated water can deplete a community’s health, causing illnesses that range from waterborne diseases to cancer and the inability to practise self-care like bathing. They live on bottled water brought in by the government. How do you take a bath, cook and clean with bottled water?

Water contamination issues can cause long-term consequences. One example in Manitoba is the remote community of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, where they are experiencing flooding from a hydro dam operating in their territory, endangering the sturgeon population, coupled with the upstream flushing of waste water as far away as Winnipeg, which has caused blue-green algae to flourish from herbicides and pesticides. The blue-green algae cause rashes in children, the deaths of fish and moose that are relied upon for sustenance and causes an inability to have a stable drinking water supply.

The blue-green algae in the Great Lakes and in other lakes in Ontario were taken care of through bylaws that prevented the use of herbicides and pesticides, and they cleaned up their lakes. But this is different, and this is allowed to flourish. That is environmental racism.

Another example is the tailings ponds, which grew 300% in 20 years despite legislation that should have protected against this plight. We know that tailings ponds are now leaking, further impacting water safety, biodiversity and animal health. The Athabasca region First Nations in Alberta are actively involved in fighting against devastation wrought on their lands from tailings ponds. Addressing water contamination issues requires government intervention, which has not been forthcoming.

Environmental racism is also related to the protection of the water species. We have addressed this in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. It has been brought forward over and over again.

We are also seeing some communities with drastically high rates of air pollution, such as an area known as Chemical Valley in Ontario, where air pollution data from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation forecasts foreign air pollutant chemicals linked to cancer up to 44 times the annual level. High air pollution contributes to many critical diseases, including lung cancer, respiratory infection, strokes, pulmonary disease and others, according to the World Health Organization.

Another issue we are seeing is lead poisoning. An example of this is Grassy Narrows First Nation in Ontario where they have been dealing with mercury poisoning in their water for three generations, which is the result of industrial pollution from the 1960s and 1970s and remains unresolved today.

Colleagues, there are many unique environmental situations and occurrences in Canada that lend themselves to environmental racism, which includes a lack of piped water, as some First Nations communities in northern Ontario have youth in their twenties who have never had the privilege of living a life with piped water.

Another example is abandoned oil wells and their continued threat of pollution — an issue which still has not been adequately addressed despite the acknowledgement of their deleterious effects.

Extensive agriculture is another example. Swan Lake First Nation in Manitoba is predominantly affected by intensive and monocultural agriculture. The community’s lake is considered dead and no longer a viable food source. Fragmentation and surrounding land use has also contributed to a decline in flora, including medicines.

Laws have fragmented populations, leaving people displaced from some of their territory. Northern examples of environmental racism include communities and territories impacted by planned flooding and forced relocation, a lack of access to safe drinking water, lack of consultation regarding the manipulation of water levels of hydro dams, abandoned construction and extraction sites from mining, violence resulting from work camps and insufficient water partnership agreements, unresolved land claims, lack of connectivity to the internet, repopulation, forced amalgamation of First Nations into bands and the lack of access to health care and the continuous inadequate and non-existent consultation in anything that affects us.

One more example that I would like to highlight is Rooster Town in Manitoba, which was home to rural Métis who arrived to find work in the urban economy and build their homes while keeping Métis culture and community as a central part of their lives.

Rooster Town grew without city services, within the City of Winnipeg. In 1951 the City of Winnipeg began encouraging suburban development in this area. Today it is called Grant Park. To remove Rooster Town families, the city and media reported false stories rooted in racist stereotypes that were harmful and humiliating to the Métis community. In 1960, the last few houses in Rooster Town were bulldozed and destroyed.

Honourable senators, there are countless other examples of environmental racism in Canada. I know some of our colleagues will be giving voice to these issues.

Honourable senators, you will note that in Bill C-226 there is no definition of “environmental racism.” Although the original definition was given at the outset of my remarks, the situation in Canada is unique due to the history of treaties, Canada’s heterogeneous Indigenous population, the passage of UNDRIP legislation and the duty to consult and accommodate. As such, while a definition is not required, as we have seen with this bill’s passage in the other place, any definition would need to reflect the Canadian experience.

The national strategy fundamental to this bill is key to promoting effective change in achieving environmental justice, not just for First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status people, but for all Canadian populations who are victims of this insidious issue.

Honourable senators, let us take the honourable path to ensure that we end the premature morbidities and premature mortalities that continue to be inflicted upon Indigenous peoples in Canada due to environmental racism. Those who have contributed the least to environmental degradation are often those at highest risk of experiencing the worst human rights impacts.

As stated by Assistant Secretary-General Ilze Brands Kehris of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Unfortunately, continuing harmful practices, insufficient action, and inaction by Governments and other duty-bearers with respect to the protection of the environment threatens the progress needed to protect the environment for all people.

Colleagues, addressing environmental racism will protect vulnerable people, vulnerable environments and the generations yet to come. We all have the right to a healthy environment. Let us work to uphold that right by supporting Bill C-226. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

(At midnight, pursuant to rule 3-4, the Senate adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum, pursuant to notice of December 13, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be authorized to examine and report on the misrepresentation of Indigenous ancestry, inadequate self‑identification standards and the profound effects that such identity fraud has on further marginalizing Indigenous people, in particular Indigenous women; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2023.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 96, which states:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be authorized to examine and report on the misrepresentation of Indigenous ancestry, inadequate self‑identification standards and the profound effects that such identity fraud has on further marginalizing Indigenous people, in particular Indigenous women . . . .

I want to acknowledge Senator Brazeau, who introduced Motion No. 371 on September 20, 2018, regarding the issue of selling fraudulent membership cards.

Colleagues, it is important to acknowledge that all the work I do in the Senate is not mine alone but is always a collective effort that arises from the context of struggle, whether the struggle is righting historical wrongs or addressing current gaps in policy and legislation. It is important to bring to light that the fight surrounding these injustices is a burden carried most heavily by Indigenous women, as it harms humans and all our relations. Our work, as Indigenous women, has and will always remain a collective effort because that’s who esquiwak are.

I wish to thank the Indigenous Women’s Collective and acknowledge the work they have done on the issue of Indigenous identity theft and fraud. It is on their behalf that I bring this matter to the Senate floor.

Honourable senators, I wish to speak to the word “identity” at the outset. Kim TallBear, a Native/Indigenous studies and technology scholar, has analyzed race shifting cases in both the U.S. and Canada since the early 2000s, particularly as they relate to genetic research and testing. In the article “Native ‘Identity’ Fraud is not Distraction, but the Final Indian Bounty,” Kim TallBear states that:

Playing Indian is the increasingly common practice of non‑Indigenous (most often, not always white) people making especially public claims to Indigenous identity, sometimes for great financial gain and career advancement.

She cautions us about the use of the term “identity.” She states that “it is usually an individualistic word that pertains to our individual bodies and things we consider bodies’ property . . . .” Maybe the correct terms might be “relatives, relations, citizenship, kinship, and who we are or become together as collectives?”

Kim TallBear continues:

We do not want to reinforce the individualism that roots often false claims and help further erase the fact that we are making collective claims and asserting collectively-forged ideas and cultural and political authorities.

In the book Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit, author Lynn Gehl quotes Robert Bocock who states that:

. . . culture is best understood as a set of practices by which meanings are produced, shared, and exchanged within a group. . . . while cultural entities and meanings predate who we are, it is the collective assigning of meanings to them that allows us to appreciate what they are and the purpose they serve.

She goes on to state:

Richard Castillo agrees with this idea of one’s culture as a source of direction and agency when he argues that cultural meaning systems provide humans with representative, constructive, directive, and evocative functions.

Honourable senators, for my generation, it took living within a community to arrive at these meanings, teachings and life skills, which are taught through land-based living. Today, we have to figure out how we pass on the knowledge to future generations — many who are land-, identity- and kinship‑dispossessed through no fault of their own.

As stated by the Indigenous Women’s Collective, the most insidious harm caused by “pretendianism” is how it most hurts Indigenous people who are reconnecting to their culture and identity. Displaced Indigenous peoples need to be supported and acknowledged. “Pretendians” perversely claim the vulnerability and violence experienced by Indigenous peoples as their own and then use it to their own callous and self-centred purposes.

In the book entitled Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, author Andrea Smith states:

Rather than adopt the strategy of fighting for sovereignty first and improving Native women’s status second, as many activists argue, we must understand that attacks on Native women’s status are themselves attacks on Native sovereignty.

Colleagues, how can it be that the policy of self-identification continues to be adopted, giving free rein to pretendians, who unjustly continue to hold and wield great power and authority over issues that are intended to be Indigenous-led? Disappointingly, this practice is supported by the very government that claims that there is no more important relationship than that with Indigenous peoples. Such self‑identification represents one part of the intellectual violence inherent to Indigenous identity fraud.

Our story as First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status esquiwak is about creation and ceremony of life and love; respect; courage; and understanding and celebrating our resilience through complex lessons learned from life, nature, environment and astronomy. Our story should be the one thing in life that is truly ours. It’s what has connected us to our ancestors for centuries, what has been passed down, what has kept us safe, what has motivated us to keep raising our voices for those yet to come and those who have been kept marginalized and voiceless. It is what has kept us moving toward transformational change to regain our power and spirit taken by the Church, government, the patriarchy and even those other women who purposefully give themselves power over the sovereignty of our story, and hence our legacy, and distort it.

Colleagues, I stand with the Indigenous Women’s Collective in denouncing the deceit of Indigenous identity theft. Its tentacles reach every level of academic, political, judicial and policy branches of power. Historically, colonial institutions must cease their silence now and denounce this for what it is: legitimate theft. If such institutions are committed to reconciliation, they will help to end the silence surrounding this matter, renounce its conduct and acknowledge the harm it causes to Indigenous people, particularly Indigenous women and children.

Honourable senators, as is the custom in Cree culture, I would like to introduce my kinship and my history. When Cree people meet, they ask who your parents are — a winak ke mama equa ke papa? — and where you come from — tant ke tha ochi? — as it gives them a frame of reference of who you are and what you represent.

My spirit name is Wa Ba Ne Quie: Woman of the Dawn or Woman of the East. I am from the Hawk Clan. I received my spirit name through a shaking tent ceremony when I was taking traditional medicine. My mother, Marie Adele Thomas, was Métis. Her mother’s family fled from the Selkirk area outside Winnipeg to Brochet in the early 1900s because they were afraid for their lives. My great-grandparents’ ancestors came from France and Scotland, and they married ethenewak — human beings — from Canada. Ethenewak is the word we had for ourselves before the Indian Act.

My mother’s father came from Cumberland House, Saskatchewan. My mother passed on in 1957 from thyroid cancer. My remembrance of her comes from stories of family and elders, and she was remembered for being a caring and hardworking mother who had many skills.

I was sent to residential school three weeks after she passed on, and I have not dealt with that trauma to this day, as I have repressed my memories of this time in my life. When my mother married my father, she became treaty and was defined as such by outsiders, the church and the Indian agent, a fantastic woman afforded little to no significance by settlers.

My father, Horace McCallum, was a treaty Indian and arrived in Brochet when he was 16. His mother was from Shoal Lake and his father from Peter Ballantyne, both in Saskatchewan. My father was a hunter, trapper, educator and a single parent. He was determined, innovative, fearless and observant.

In the first years when he started trapping at the age of 16, he walked to his trap line in minus-40-degree weather because he didn’t have a dog team and he pulled the sled behind him. He remains, to this day, my greatest teacher, mentor and role model. He never allowed the colonial system to define him and his life, and I hope I’m staying true to him and following in his footsteps.

Honourable senators, what would you think if I told you that today I have decided that I am going to be a White woman? This country has expended massive amounts of money, time and effort to remove the Indian from me, attempting to remove language, culture, environment and spirituality. They have taught me sin; about the negative aspects of childhood, girlhood and womanhood; derogatory words from your language, such as savage; and the subordinate role that women play. They have developed policies and strategies to keep Indigenous people oppressed while at the same time benefiting because systematically oppressing us provides others with jobs. What do you think? Would you accept me if I were to become White? Would I be treated differently? Isn’t it a ridiculous concept and proposition?

Colleagues, I would like to close with a joint message from the Indigenous Women’s Collective and me.

In Cree, iskotew means fire in a woman’s heart. We have witnessed courage in and with so many Indigenous women standing up publicly to denounce the revelations of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s deceit and identity fraud. Turpel‑Lafond and others like her, in their very actions, have the capability to stop and silence the advances of colonial violence on Indigenous women, advances championed by women like the Indigenous Women’s Collective. The power and prestige that these individuals who commit Indigenous identity fraud wanted, garnered and displayed publicly silenced many. It subsequently and unfairly left Indigenous women to do the work required to counteract the consequences of the theft, grief and powerlessness that they helped to create. The Indigenous women are left the challenge of holding colonial institutions accountable for enabling and protecting those who knowingly and premeditatedly practice identity fraud.

Each time an Indigenous woman stands up, she lights a fire and uplifts the forgotten, the abused and the silenced. Eden Fineday, Cindy Blackstock, Vice Chief Aly Bear, Audra Simpson and many others are examples of iskotew. What is often not shared is the pressure placed on Indigenous women privately to be quiet: Ka we the aya me — don’t speak. Even the act of preventing speech is a threat — an act of violence. Whether they are in a violent relationship or combatting systemic violence, Indigenous women have always faced the pressure to be quiet. Ka ke to — do not utter a sound. Yet we persist. This is how healing and transformative change happens in real time. So we humbly ask that you share love and support for Indigenous women who speak out because they have fought silent battles we do not see and mounting pressure kept out of the public eye. When we see courage, we need to honour it. This is consistent with the traditions of many Indigenous nations across Turtle Island, to honour the warrior and to dance the victory dance when courage defeats fear. Because that is what you are witnessing today and in the days yet to come: That courage will defeat fear. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you, Your Honour.

I move adjournment of the Senate.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for further study.

Thank you, kinanâskomitin.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

I want to go on the record about my concern about the expedited process of this bill in the Senate — a bill that is not a government bill but has been given special privilege, a privilege that has superseded government bills on the floor — a process I have not witnessed before.

I understand that this special privilege and exception were ratified by the leaders of the four caucuses. As an unaffiliated senator, I am not part of these caucuses, so I was not party to nor aware of this deal being made, nor do I agree. Therefore, there was not unanimous agreement to this process that seeks to marginalize, exclude and silence certain segments of the Canadian population.

While I understand that this bill is being given prompt consideration as a way to honour the legacy of a dearly departed colleague, I have profound concern that this is the sole reason why we are asked to rush this bill through. I personally didn’t know our colleague, but from the tributes I have heard, I would believe that he would want his legacy to incorporate equity, diversity, inclusion, respect, relationship, integrity, trust, reconciliation and public trust. Any prompt and exceptional consideration requires rigorous examination to maintain public trust and transparency. However, this bill has spent a mere three days before the Senate.

The second-reading debate began just two days ago, and here we are today facing a final vote on a very complex bill, a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. This process included the decision to hold only one committee meeting to hear the views of the many different rights holders and stakeholders. This study did not include a single First Nations witness to be heard on matters that greatly impact them as rights holders, impact their treaty rights, their economic rights, their human rights. But you know this, you passed Bill C-15.

As many of you will know from correspondence we have all received over the past 24 hours, First Nations were unaware of this impending legislation and of the extremely truncated timeline in the Senate. This precluded First Nations from the opportunity to register their concern with this bill. In discussion on the process being adopted by the Senate, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, had the following comment, “The lack of notice and involvement of First Nations is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful.”

This sentiment, colleagues, is telling. While it is blunt, it is a belief that I agree with wholeheartedly. It is a well-established role and function of the Senate to give voice to minority rights and interests in the review of legislation. As senators, we have a duty to promote core principles and values of our democratic system, especially given the Senate’s traditional role in acting on behalf of groups under-represented in the House of Commons, whereby the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Reference re Senate Reform, 2014:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process.

However, yet again, we find ourselves enabling a process that willfully sidelines and quiets these marginalized voices from our discourse. This is especially troubling, as this is a bill that has an immediate and substantial impact on First Nations in the Prairie provinces. As senators, we hold a unique public office that requires us as parliamentarians to confront racism without reservation and to ensure the integrity of the institution.

Yesterday, honourable senators received a written submission from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlighting their concern with Bill C-235. Within their submission, they expressed the deficit they have been placed in by the Senate’s actions. In their words, “This has severely reduced [AMC’s] ability to properly prepare and seek to be a witness to speak to it.”

We received the same. I know that MKO had put in a submission to speak.

Let us be clear: The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have underscored their support for the development of a green economy. However, as they rightfully maintain, this approach:

 . . . must be done with First Nations, as Treaty partners with the Crown, taking a much larger role in matters that affect Treaty lands and First Nations traditional territories and the waters that run through them.

AMC has stated, colleagues, that Bill C-235 represents:

 . . . the development of a framework through a legislated consultation and engagement process that maintains the status quo and does not consider current developments that impact on their inherent and Treaty rights of First Nations in Manitoba and other provinces.

Honourable senators, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlight a greater and more direct concern with this legislation when they write:

Bill C-235 deals with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, all of which have Natural Resource Transfer Acts that purported to transfer control over Crown lands and natural resources within these provinces from the federal government to the provincial governments that did not have the free, prior, and informed consent of First Nations. In the AMC’s view, supporting legislation that directly affects the NRTA, Treaty lands and rights, self-determination and sovereignty of First Nations in Manitoba can be interpreted as supporting the status quo and accepting the unfinished business that has yet to be resolved.

Honourable senators, it is important to note that tomorrow the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is having a press conference to announce a lawsuit they are initiating on the Natural Resources Transfer Acts. This lawsuit has the support of First Nations chiefs in both Manitoba and Alberta. Colleagues, with this foreknowledge, we are all now aware that this lawsuit is imminent. Moving to pass federal legislation that will interfere with that process is both reckless and against the usual practice of the Senate, especially when it involves a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. As senators, we require clarity on this upcoming lawsuit.

Colleagues, we must consider profound legislation that we passed in this chamber, Bill C-15, legislation that will align Canadian law to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. This chamber voted in support of this bill, affirming the Senate’s intent that the articles of UNDRIP serve as guiding principles when approaching the drafting and implementation of federal legislation as it pertains to its impact on, and inclusion of, Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Bill C-235 represents a litmus test on how it respects the principles of UNDRIP. A foundational feature of UNDRIP is that it requires Canada to work with, engage and consult directly with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis. This show of respect and conciliation is sorely missing from this bill.

This lack of respect and conciliation is demonstrated clearly through the committee process of Bill C-235. First Nations have expressed that they wish to be heard as witnesses on this legislation. As they were not consulted in the development of the bill, it is critical that space be made for them to be heard during committee study. Yet, as we know, the committee examination of this bill was negligible. It took place yesterday, with just one panel of witnesses being heard. Not a single First Nations voice was heard as part of that discussion. What were the factors taken into consideration to invite some and not others?

Honourable senators, we must look inward to determine if passing Bill C-235 at this time is responsible, equitable and just. If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that we have not been allowed to be fulsome, diligent and, therefore, not responsible in the study of this bill.

First Nations and others who will be negatively impacted but not given the opportunity to be heard on this matter — despite a desire to do so — should be reason enough to prompt us to momentarily delay the final vote. Silencing is violent behaviour and not a good foundation for any bill.

Delaying a final vote until early in the new year will not have a deleterious effect on the bill. However, silencing First Nations when they are requesting to be heard will have a deleterious effect on Canada, including the Senate. We must then ask ourselves what the purpose was of passing previous legislation that purported to advance self-determination and establish a nation-to-nation relationship.

Colleagues, it is not too late to do the right thing and delay the troublingly swift passage of this bill. This will allow all impacted stakeholders a chance to be heard and ensure that we, senators, are dealing with legislation in a responsible, respectful way, practising sober second thought.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Cotter: Yes.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill S-5, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in subclause 9(3) (as amended by the decision of the Senate on June 21, 2022), on page 5, by adding the following and repositioning and renumbering accordingly if required:

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Gold, would you take a question?