Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you very much. I’m pleased to rise to speak today. Hello. Tansi. As a senator from Manitoba, I acknowledge that I am on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I want to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded, unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

I also want to acknowledge that we have people joining us from across Turtle Island who are located on both treaty and unceded lands.

[English]

Honourable senators, today I rise in support of Bill S-218. When she moved this bill, Senator McCallum — in resplendent yellow today — shared a wealth of experience and knowledge that skillfully demonstrated the importance of this bill. She issued a call for members of this chamber to add their supportive voices to hers, sharing their perspectives and stories.

Today, I heed this call by attuning to voices different than my own. I acknowledge that our lived experiences limit our perceptions of priorities and needs.

As senators, however, we have an obligation to be receptive to — to understand — the different needs of Canadians. We have an even greater responsibility to attend to the needs of those who are systemically marginalized and underprivileged.

In thanking Senator McCallum for her vision and persistence with this bill, I also thank her for introducing a number of Indigenous experts to this discussion.

Today, I wish to refer to analysis provided by Chastity Davis‑Alfonse, a mixed-heritage woman of First Nations and European descent, who is the Chair of the Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women in British Columbia. She is on the leading edge of Indigenous gender-based analysis in Canada, helping the federal and provincial governments, the Tŝilhqot’in National Government and others to weave the Indigenous women’s lens into their daily practices.

I asked Ms. Davis-Alfonse the often-unasked question that seems to hover around this bill: Since there are lots of severely disadvantaged women in Canada, why should we be focusing on a bill that primarily addresses Indigenous women?

Here is what I learned from her response: Indigenous-specific legislation is needed to zero in on systemic, historical precedent in order to address and root out systemic failings in Canada, and that most legislation — for more than 150 years — actually codified and fortified the systemic failings. In other words, old, bad laws need to be fixed by new, corrective laws.

Since first contact, Indigenous women have been oppressed, and such oppression became an entrenched historical practice. A lot of early settler survival was due to Indigenous help, especially from Indigenous women. There has seldom been reciprocity by settlers for that kindness. Instead, the oppressive Indian Act stripped Indigenous women of status and bloodlines within their own communities by only recognizing men as leaders, thereby displacing matriarchal, matrilineal leadership structures.

Further, this legislated silence of Indigenous women extended to denying them tribal council leadership positions and federal suffrage. This week, we were delighted to welcome Dr. Gigi Osler to our chamber on Persons Day, October 18. I found myself thinking, as Senator McCallum and Senator Osler came into this chamber, about how much has changed since 1929 when the Persons Case was finally finished and the five women whom we often call the Famous Five actually succeeded in having the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the U.K. overrule the Canadian Supreme Court. This ruling said that yes, indeed, Canadian women have the capacity to hold high office, including in the Senate — but not Indigenous women. That ruling did not extend to or include Indigenous women.

Indigenous women were among the last to be given their right to vote in this country. Suffrage was extended to them in 1960. The truth is that Indigenous women were among the last in Canada to be enfranchised because they were and are among the most oppressed, marginalized people in this country.

Here is why I hope you will join me in supporting Bill S-218. First, the bill, should it become law, will shed light on the imminent needs of underserved women, particularly Indigenous women and girls. The model of gender-based analysis as it stands does not sufficiently consider all elements of intersectionality.

As Senator McCallum coined it, it considers women as one “homogeneous group” with undifferentiated needs. This is a kind of essentialism — the assumption of homogeneity of those of the same sex — but it could not be further from lived reality. A witness at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in the other place reminded that there is often greater diversity among women than there is between women and men. The practice of overlooking heterogeneity within a group is especially harmful to Indigenous and BIPOC women as they are often grouped together with no regard to the different struggles and experiences of different Indigenous peoples.

For queer people who are gender-fluid, non-binary or trans, it is hard to find any place within mainstream gender-based analysis.

We must thank the innate generosity of Indigenous culture for the term “two-spirited” that now is embedded in gender-based analysis plus.

Bill S-218 would put these questions of diversity within genders at the forefront. To effectively address a wrong, we must first identify the need. Bill S-218 will be a strong, effective step towards mending these gaps in knowledge, service and mutual respect.

Second, requiring the Indigenous gender-based analysis plus in legislation would address the gaps in application that we have observed over the years.

This was highlighted in the report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which underlined that some sectors, such as fisheries, national defence and infrastructure, are often far too quick to dismiss gender-based analysis plus as irrelevant to their areas of practice. Looking beneath the surface, we are able to identify the many ways in which Indigenous women and girls are disadvantaged as these sectors carry out their day-to-day business.

A good example of a thorough analysis is provided by paragraph 25(2)(a) of British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act, which requires all assessments to consider both the positive and negative direct and indirect effects, including environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects and adverse cumulative effects.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office has posted a detailed guideline on how to conduct this kind of analysis. It identified potential areas of study, such as employment, infrastructure, services, human health and culture. It asks questions like: How would the project affect Indigenous, local or regional employment? Which community services may be affected more acutely by project-related demands? Are there distinct subgroups that may experience adverse project-related health effects differently? These are excellent questions that need to be investigated in every area of work. Bill S-218 would help to ensure that kind of analytical consistency and accountability.

Third, given the historically painful truths being uncovered with the continued discovery of unmarked graves at residential school sites, about which residential school survivors have been telling us for years, it is more than appropriate that our Parliament further its commitment to consultation and inclusion with Indigenous peoples, especially women and girls. Incorporating those perspectives through gender-based analysis plus is a way of doing that.

Bill S-218 compels us to reflect and include the valid, unique and specific perspectives and needs of Indigenous women and girls, and to weigh these against any potential impacts and ramifications arising from decisions made. In so doing, we will move beyond words. We will act to mend some of the exclusionary wounds caused by colonialism, discrimination and cultural genocide.

Honourable senators, this chamber is rich with diverse voices and experiences providing us with the foundation to use the power entrusted to us as lawmakers. We can champion this straightforward and practical amendment that could spur catalytic changes for Canada, particularly all genders represented in Indigenous communities in Canada, and thereby strengthen our democracy. Thank you, meegwetch.