Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, kwe, tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I recognize that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

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

I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, an act to establish a national council for reconciliation. I support this legislation. I intend to vote in favour of it, and I hope to do so today. I hope Bill C-29 will receive the same unanimous support here as it did in the other place.

I want to acknowledge everyone who supported this bill in committee and participated in debate at each stage. I especially want to thank Senator Audette for her leadership and collaborative approach to shepherding this bill through the Senate.

[English]

Bill C-29 responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 53 to 56, which called for an independent national council empowered to monitor and evaluate government accountability for reconciliation efforts; to establish national action plans in furtherance of this goal; and, in other ways, to promote public dialogue and to foster reconciliation across all levels and sectors of Canadian society.

In his third-reading remarks, Senator Klyne highlighted the urgency and obligation we have to pass this bill into law. He also eloquently touched upon our accountability and responsibility in this chamber. He said:

When it comes to reconciliation, good enough is never good enough. Indigenous nations and federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments and legislatures must constantly be working to strengthen relationships and achieve the best possible results. Honesty, courage and criticism are essential to progress in society . . . .

Good enough is never good enough. In that spirit, I wish to highlight a small but significant issue that merits our attention regarding the distinctions between First Nations and Métis peoples’ historical land use, occupation and governance.

On November 15, a letter written by Grand Chief Cathy Merrick of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was delivered to the Prime Minister. Senators all received a copy of this correspondence, and I will now quote extracts from Grand Chief Merrick’s letter to help explain the amendment that I will propose to you today:

Dear Prime Minister:

On behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, I write to you today to address a concerning misconception amongst Canadian politicians about the distinctions between First Nations and Métis peoples’ land use, occupation and governance. The AMC is aware that an amendment to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, proposed by Senator Mary Jane McCallum in a recent debate of the Senate, failed to pass. The proposed amendment was in reference to the preamble, which states that Indigenous peoples have lived and governed these lands since time immemorial.

Senator McCallum sought to correct an inaccuracy associated with overgeneralization of the term “Indigenous” by replacing it with “First Nations and Inuit peoples” in order to reflect the lived realities of the three distinct groups commonly referred to as “Indigenous.”

The AMC is concerned that the content of the debate, and subsequent failure of the Senate to pass the amendment, reflects a lack of knowledge that Canadian politicians have in regard to the unique histories of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Accordingly, I would like to take the opportunity to provide education on this topic. Out of respect for the multi-juridical nature of Canada and the many legal orders that comprise it, I cite both First Nations and Canadian law in the following explanation.

Prior to European contact, First Nations existed on the lands now known as Canada since time immemorial, with our own unique laws and rights derived from the Creator. This truth is echoed across the sacred creation stories of First Nations in Manitoba, and Canada more broadly. Creation stories have multiple versions, each of which is true. They are passed down over generations by elders who teach us to know who we are and understand our spiritual relationship with the land. For a fulsome example, I refer you to D’Arcy Linklater et al., Ka’esi Wahkotumahk Aski, Our Relations With The Land: Treaty Elders’ Teachings, Volume 2, where Anishinaabe Elder Ken Courchene sets out the origins of Turtle Island. Through this sacred story, he confirms that the Anishinaabe were gifted with their lands and traditional territories by the Creator.

Anishinaabe Elder Donald Catcheway further affirms that the Creator placed the Anishinaabe on the land first and gave them responsibility and stewardship over it. As such, the Anishinaabe have an obligation to care for the land, which is tied to their ability to learn from it and enjoy its gifts.

In more recent history, First Nations have exercised their own sovereignty alongside the Crown’s assumed sovereignty through negotiated treaties and in respect of our sovereign nationhood. In contrast, the Métis people, many of whom are our relatives, arose only after contact with the Europeans. This distinction cannot be overlooked, because it informs the rights and obligations that our people owe and are owed.

In R. v. Desautel, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed:

. . . the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under s. 35(1) are the modern successors of those Aboriginal societies that occupied Canadian territory at the time of European contact . . . .

At the same time, the court clarified that there are distinctions between First Nations and Métis section 35 rights “Because Métis communities arose after contact between our Aboriginal peoples and Europeans . . . .” The court emphasized its previous opinion in R v. van der Peet that:

The manner in which the aboriginal rights of other aboriginal peoples are defined is not necessarily determinative of the manner in which the aboriginal rights of the Métis are defined.

Likewise, in R v. Powley —

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Hello. Tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation. I also want to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

[English]

Honourable senators, today I rise in support of Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. Senator Galvez has advised that her bill is complementary to our government’s current action plan, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act — serving the dual purpose of addressing barriers to achieving our climate crisis commitments and protecting our nation’s financial system from climate-related risks.

Just days ago, we learned of the dubious distinction of the Senate’s banker, the Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC, leaping ahead of J.P. Morgan into the top spot as the biggest financier of the fossil fuel industry. The annual Banking on Climate Chaos report by the Rainforest Action Network — endorsed by 624 organizations from 75 countries — found that RBC funded fossil fuel companies in 2022 to the extent of $42.1 billion, including $4.8 billion for tar sands.

Also, the updated list of the top 10 such financiers includes another Canadian Big Five: Scotiabank. The study found that Canadian banks have provided $862 billion — that’s C$1.13 trillion — to fossil fuel companies since Canada signed the Paris Agreement.

Climate breakdown is claiming the livelihood and lives of millions globally. Vulnerable communities and — to use Senator McCallum’s term in her bill on environmental racism — “vulnerable environments” are disproportionately impacted negatively by climate change. Through her bill, Senator Galvez encourages the consideration of vulnerable communities and ecosystems, and sets particular safeguards for Indigenous communities. Although Indigenous people have contributed the least to this ever-growing problem, they face some of its worst consequences.

Northern communities are in the forefront of the assault of climate change. Melting ice caps and permafrost affect traditional food sources while driving up the costs of imported alternatives, and increase the risk to humans and wildlife. Food security continues to deteriorate, especially in isolated communities. The effects of climate change are not uniform in impact; however, one constant remains: Climate changes brought to our land, our water and our weather systems imperil long-established ways of life.

In other words, the climate crisis threatens ecosystems and human rights. Honouring our climate commitments means more than not exacerbating or contributing to the effects of climate change. It also means respecting human rights, including the rights of Indigenous peoples set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of traditionally owned lands which hold strong spiritual and cultural significance.

The declaration also states that countries must recognize the contribution of Indigenous knowledge when formulating sustainable and equitable protection of our environment.

In line with this, Bill S-243 allows for the integration of the Indigenous perspective into decision making in two distinct ways: First, it proposes that certain boards of directors, including Crown corporations, have climate expertise — having knowledge of Indigenous ways of life and ways of being qualifies a person for this position. Second, it requires reporting on implementation to enable the cooperation between the Bank of Canada and representatives of Indigenous peoples.

Honourable colleagues, positive advancements toward a cleaner future are in the new Canadian action plan. These include increasing the price of carbon to $50 per tonne and facilitating the transition to electric vehicles.

These infrastructure investments are essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, crucial steps along Canada’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

This goal can only be attained if decarbonization takes place across all sectors and industries. After all, the effects of decarbonization in one sector can easily be offset by emissions in another. The current action plan fails to address this elephant in the room — the identification and restriction of investments into high-emission activities.

These investments not only put our financial system at risk with millions of dollars worth of capital invested into this unpredictable sector, but they also contribute to the negative impacts of climate change.

If only the more than $1 trillion of Canadian funds had been invested by our big banks into decarbonization.

As the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, issued its sixth assessment report in February 2023 with the unequivocal conclusion that fossil fuels must be made extinct and never revived. The IPCC is clear: To stay below 1.5 degrees of warming as called for in the Paris Agreement, we need to slash CO2 emissions by 45% in the next seven years — by 2030.

Colleagues, in the best sense of the call from the Inter‑Parliamentary Union for parliamentarians to become champions for legislative initiatives to make real changes that will mitigate the damage of climate change, Senator Galvez has given us a substantive opportunity to be changemakers by supporting and facilitating this bill, which has gained international attention in finance circles worldwide.

In last year’s report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, the IPCC highlighted that investments in high‑emitting infrastructure would act as a barrier to achieving Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Funding and subsequent development of green technology may be hitting record heights, but high-emission sectors continue to thrive and undercut progress being made. In other words, the default setting in our current legislative approach prioritizes the traditional polluting economy. Climate commitments are still on the back burner.

When thinking critically of Canada’s progress, we must be wary of greenwashing. For example, the thirteenth edition of the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report noted that investors in the tar sands increased their financing by 51%. That same year, however, these banks had vowed to become net zero by 2050, as they vow year after year.

One of the key goals of the act is to address the disconnect between financial institutions’ net-zero pronouncements and their continuing investments into high-carbon industries. Have no doubt: This bill will enhance accountability of the reporting entities which are subject to the act.

Colleagues, you may be quietly wondering why an engineer and a human rights lawyer think they are qualified to assess our economic system. Let me encourage you to recast that question, because our economic system is exacerbating our planet’s climate crisis. Indeed, if you are quietly questioning the qualifications of an engineer and a human rights lawyer, let’s add to that list a dentist with Senator McCallum’s bill on environmental racism.

We’re qualified because we’re mothers and grandmothers and global citizens and senators.

New voices must be heard in the financial world — voices from the world not insulated by wealth. Finance leaders in the financial system have lost touch with the reality of a planet with limits we must respect in order for human life — all our lives, colleagues, and those of our generations to come — to flourish.

This bill follows the money, addressing the reality of financial choices that wound Mother Earth and reduce capacity to sustain life. Abstracted numbers on a balance sheet help financial leaders to ignore crucial dimensions of the value of life on this planet.

The Greek root of the word “economy,” oikos and nomos — with all due apology to Senator Housakos if I have mispronounced those terms — literally translates as “good household management.” In this time of multiple crises where we have not managed our global household all that well, it is high time that divergent outside voices come to be heard by those who hold the reins of our collective purse — the select, highly paid, elite few who control billions of public and private dollars who seem to be having difficulty grasping the reality that our shared future is in peril now.

This bill rightly recognizes what experts in the scientific community have been saying for a long time. This climate crisis is unconstrained by geographic boundaries. This means that Canadian reporting entities have to account for their causally linked emissions wherever they occur.

As occupants of positions in the top 10 of fossil fuel funders, the Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank have demonstrated how Canadian financial institutions are investing globally and that what they do abroad is just as important as what they do within Canada.

This bill defines an entity that is aligned with climate commitments as one that respects the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill does not restrict the definition of Indigenous peoples to Canadians, meaning that the rights of Indigenous peoples have to be respected wherever they are.

This bill is as science-based as it is equity-based.

Honourable colleagues, aligning with climate commitments also means not fostering or exacerbating food insecurity or inequalities in society, and not causing significant harm to social and environmental obligations recognized already by Canada. That means we hope for a future where a low-carbon project does not run roughshod over human rights like we have seen with too many fossil fuel extractive and transportation projects.

Since women — especially poor women — are the primary victims of climate change, we would do well to add them as primary stakeholders in developing solutions worth investing in.

Since this bill was introduced a year ago, it has generated a bit of a buzz in Canada and beyond. Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions published a climate guideline and the Bank of Canada just issued its first annual climate risk report.

But beyond our financial regulators finally using the buzzwords of the moment, significant change still seems to elude us. With a Canadian bank becoming the world’s top fossil fuel financier and backing a pipeline project which is turning the ancestral lands of the Wet’suwet’en — who are opposed to the project — into a militarized zone, this bill is more necessary than ever.

Colleagues, escalating environmental calamities are a time‑sensitive issue. Canada has, to date, never successfully hit any of its emissions targets since 1990. We simply cannot afford another decade of failed targets, measures and ambitions. We must address this concern as soon as possible to ensure that we reach our climate targets by the end of the decade.

By mandating a yearly public review process on the progress of the implementation of all provisions, Bill S-243 allows for iterative learning. It will allow us to learn from our mistakes in real time and adapt our approach to the results produced. We have to stay flexible to emerging research. As a leader in many other sectors, Canada must step up.

Honourable senators, the acceleration of climate change and its consequences is a human-induced problem. It requires human-led and innovative solutions to transition towards a cleaner and more sustainable economy.

As lawmakers acting in the public interest of all current and future Canadians, it is up to us to consider and implement research-backed and ambitious solutions to maintain a livable earth for our generation and those to come.

Senator Galvez, with her Bill S-243, gives us an excellent opportunity to do just that. Let us accept her invitation and support this life-saving bill. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

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

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

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

[English]

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Omidvar’s Motion No. 3, which asks us to adopt Recommendation 8 of the 2019 report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, chaired by former senator Terry Mercer, with Senator Ratna Omidvar as deputy chair.

Specifically, Recommendation 8 is simple and achievable, requiring the Canada Revenue Agency to include questions on tax forms for registered charities and federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations on diversity representation on boards of directors. I applaud Senator Omidvar for bringing this motion forward. Too often, excellent Senate reports with sensible, needed change strategies are not pursued in such a practical manner.

The non-profit sector is an economic driver and influencer in this country. Canada has over 170,000 charitable and non-profit organizations that are largely governed by boards of directors that often do not represent the diversity of the communities they serve and Canada as a whole. In supporting this motion, I do not wish to take away from the work these organizations are doing, but to highlight that a lack of diversity and representation saps legitimacy, limits voices and ideas and sows disconnect between groups and the communities that these boards serve.

Efficacy in the charitable sector is undermined where there are perceptions of bias, exclusion or mistrust. Further, when boards do not address diversity, a disconnect with the communities they serve will inevitably occur, resulting in limited networks, limited funding sources and difficulty in developing new ideas. The lack of diversity can create a conformity bias or groupthink mentality, which can lead to making the wrong decisions at a strategic level for effectiveness.

Senator Omidvar has detailed how Canada’s charitable sector lacks diversity, particularly in management positions, sometimes called “snow capping.” Snow capping occurs when racialized workers appear on the front lines while top positions are maintained by non-marginalized individuals. Another unintended consequence is the “cloning effect,” which refers to the bias, unconscious or otherwise, that sometimes occurs when, in recruiting new board members, trustees tend to seek out those from their immediate circles of influence, almost cloning themselves with look-alike and think-alike individuals who experience life much like they do, creating a homogeneous board that risks being disconnected from the communities in need.

Boards of directors who are not representative of their communities underserve their populations and create barriers for equity-deserving groups to advance to positions of authority. Conversely, a diverse board of directors can bring a realistic view of the community, strengthen the organization’s connections and credibility to its constituency, improve fundraising and assist with targeted, effective policy creation and implementation. In essence, it makes a board more effective at carrying out its mission.

Notably, Canada lacks comprehensive reporting mechanisms and statistics on diversity in its charitable sector. In 2021, Statistics Canada launched its first voluntary questionnaire to gather information on diversity among Canada’s charities and non-profit boards of directors. While the data was not collected using probability-based sampling, the results demonstrate the lack of equity in Canada’s charitable sector. Over 40% of respondents indicated that their organization does not even have a diversity policy. Conversely, organizations that did report a written diversity policy indicated they had higher proportions of diverse representation among their boards, including individuals living with a disability, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, visible minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Recent developments in Canada’s corporate sector indicate that increased diversity reporting requirements can result in concrete diversity advancement for boards of directors. Since amendments were made to the Canada Business Corporations Act in 2020, requiring publicly traded organizations to disclose information on the diversity of their boards of directors and information related to their written policies concerning diversity, there have been substantive, measurable and positive developments. The amendments likely assisted in spurring a normative change, wherein boards of directors saw increases in the representation of minorities, women and Indigenous peoples.

The starting point for good policy and reform begins with transparency and data and leads to accountability. Motion No. 3 would galvanize necessary reporting requirements on board diversity within Canada’s charitable sector and lay the foundation for more targeted reform based on information and data collected. It may also spur a normative change within the sector by requiring organizations to consider and reflect upon the composition of their boards of directors and their diversity policies or lack thereof.

I commend Senator Omidvar for her long and dedicated leadership in the non-profit sector. This motion builds on the crucial work of civil society by shining a spotlight on where further study, data collection and inquiry are essential to building paths for growth and change that are necessary for a more just and effective Canada with a more inclusive economy and, in turn, a stronger democracy.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

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

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

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

That, given reports of human rights abuses, repression and executions of its citizens, particularly women, in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Senate call upon the government to immediately designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, as a senator from Manitoba, I want to acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Métis Nation. I also want to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

I would also like to note that we have many people joining us today from across Turtle Island who are located on both ceded and unceded land.

I would like to thank all those of you who have taken the time to think about and consider the issues raised through this inquiry with regard to our very unique institution, our model of self‑governance, and our moral commitment to providing our citizens with a modernized, transparent, accountable, rigorous and fair Senate. We are vested with many duties, the most important of which is public accountability.

Many of you have contacted me privately to discuss these topics in more detail, and I have found these discussions enlightening and motivating. I especially want to thank Senator McCallum, who has spoken out publicly about some key aspects of Senate inequity.

In submitting this inquiry, I proposed changes to our use of parliamentary privilege, public financial disclosure procedures, and protocols, reporting and transparency in the Senate Ethics Officer’s investigations, and I suggested codifying our rules to ensure greater clarity in their interpretation.

I hope the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators will commit to examining these issues and will consider the suggestions I have sent to them.

However, the purpose of this inquiry goes beyond any specific requests made to a Senate committee.

[English]

In that light, I rise this evening first to thank you for listening. I acknowledge that your leaders decided on a different course for this evening, but I hope you will forgive me for asking for my right to speak in accordance with our Senate Rules when you hear what I feel compelled to say to you, my colleagues, to whom I feel I owe the courtesy of first telling my truth and sharing evidence of what I did, and why, believing then and now that my efforts — which were never solitary and never attention‑seeking — were in good faith, dedicated to trying to save lives, with a focus on women and girls. I’m very grateful for the fact that I can cry and speak at the same time.

To close my inquiry, I bring to you another case study that illustrates many of the complex issues that this inquiry has encouraged for consideration. The case study is my own, and I respectfully invite you to assess the actions taken based on the evidence that I share with you here.

I stand today because of my desire to share this evidence first with you, my colleagues in this chamber, and I need to underscore that those I name in presenting this evidence were, and remain to me, trusted, diligent and compassionate officials, for the most part, who should be commended — not reviled or used as an excuse for promises not met by Canada. On September 21 and 22, 2022, The Globe and Mail published front‑page articles naming Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, as the primary source for their articles, but anonymously. Those headlines included “Canadian senator sent documents to Afghan family that weren’t authentic, Ottawa says” and “A senator sent inauthentic documents to stranded Afghans,” accusing me of issuing inauthentic or — in the words of one of the reporters when she wrote to one of the non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, I was working with — “fake documents” from Global Affairs Canada to Afghans, mostly to women seeking to save their lives and escape the resurgent Taliban regime.

Colleagues, I need to say this to you in person: This is not true. It is not true on the facts, and it has been grievous in impact, reducing my effectiveness to try to evacuate Afghan women still trapped, in hiding and at extreme risk, as well as those we have managed to get out — because we have managed to get many out — and to help them resettle, to help them survive whatever country they got dumped in, whether it was Albania or Pakistan, while they would wait and wait and wait to come to Canada, as we promised them they could.

Beyond immediately stating to the reporter my innocence of these allegations — and asserting that the documents in question were very much authentic and provided to me by trusted, high-level government officials — I chose to stay quiet, shielding those officials and advocates, but this is no longer an option as of tomorrow.

In support of Afghan applicants who are taking IRCC to court, I am providing an affidavit tomorrow, and it is important to me to provide my evidence first to you, my honourable colleagues in this chamber.

I was a feminist, activist lawyer for 40 years before being appointed to this august place. Now I am a feminist, activist senator. That’s who I am. My advocacy in supporting Afghan women and girls to live their rights predates the August 2021 disastrous Western exit from Kabul by more than 20 years, working with many organizations, including the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. I have travelled to Afghanistan with the Canadian Armed Forces to meet with officials on security issues affecting Afghan women and girls.

Many senators in this chamber have deep connections and involvement in defending and advancing human rights and protections for Afghans, especially Afghan women and girls.

To anyone who knows the region, the Taliban resurgence was not the surprise often portrayed by some media. In February 2020 when former President Trump signed the U.S.-Taliban deal that signalled the U.S. troop withdrawal, experts the world over raised warnings about what was going to happen, and it did. To its credit, The Globe and Mail ran a January 2022 article by the founding Chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and former Afghan Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Sima Samar — whom I’m honoured to say I’ve known since 2001 — warning of a looming catastrophe and pleading with Canada to act decisively to save lives.

While I am proud of my advocacy for evacuating Afghan women parliamentarians, athletes and young human rights defenders on the Taliban kill list, I am also so proud of and grateful to colleagues with whom I have worked before, during and after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, including Senators Boehm, Omidvar, Ataullahjan, Marty Deacon, Jaffer, Plett, Housakos, Dasko, Pate, Ravalia, Simons and Patterson, Ontario, to help Afghans find safety. Many of us have reached out to Prime Minister Trudeau and other high-level officials imploring action long before the fall of Kabul. Many more have been advocating to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, on behalf of Afghan families currently held in various states of limbo in the bureaucratic nightmare of immigration processing. Many of us have collaborated with federal, international and civil society organizations and networks to facilitate this work. That’s what senators can choose to do, and many of us are still doing it almost every day.

My own outreach during that period included Canadian ministers, ministry officials, ambassadors, U.S. and international counterparts, military and multilateral organizations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Our collective goal was always to maximize the number of Afghan lives we could save.

In the context of the announcement on August 13, 2021, two days before the fall of Kabul and the same day a federal election was called on the 15th, IRCC Minister Marco Mendicino, Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau and Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan — by the way, it’s kind of odd that the women and gender equality minister, who was born in Afghanistan, wasn’t part of that group, but let’s put that in brackets — made a joint announcement:

. . . Canada will resettle 20,000 vulnerable Afghans threatened by the Taliban and forced to flee Afghanistan.

. . . we will introduce a special program to focus on particularly vulnerable groups that are already welcomed . . . through existing resettlement streams, including women leaders, human rights defenders, journalists, persecuted religious minorities, LGBTI individuals, and family members of previously resettled interpreters. . . .

Time doesn’t allow detailing of the mounting danger and chaos at the Kabul airport, also often referred to as Hamid Karzai International Airport, or HKIA, the key exit point for Afghans seeking to flee and where international forces, including our Canadian soldiers, held a rapidly deteriorating perimeter protecting access to the airfield, the only place in Afghanistan not controlled by the Taliban after the fall of Kabul on August 15.

I’m sure you remember those images of bodies falling off rolling airplanes and Canadian planes taking off nearly empty. Nevertheless, my experience of most Canadian officials — especially members of the Canadian Armed Forces — was their earnest efforts to help vulnerable Afghans, to go to the edge of their limits and do their best to help. But their good intentions could not undo a perfect storm of crippling failures, failures in communication, coordination and administrative roadblocks that combined to guarantee those failures. Not only were Afghans being shot, beaten and choked with tear gas, but I kept getting reports from Afghan women that even when they made it to the line of Western soldiers around the airport, they were denied access and often told they needed a form. But at that point, no one was defining what form.

It was often up to soldiers to make these life-or-death decisions because embassy officials were gone or they were very busy leaving, creating a vacuum — as reported in one newspaper, quoting an advocate — of official, government-run mechanisms for those most at risk to have safe passage out of the country. In short, the Canadian promises announced through Ministers Mendicino, Sajjan and Garneau to evacuate and resettle 20,000 vulnerable Afghans were not working very well on the ground.

By August 22, a week after Kabul fell, media reported that Mr. Sajjan said that Canadian special forces were empowered to do what was necessary to get people out.

Minister Sajjan was also quoted as saying that our troops, “. . . have all of the flexibility to make all of the appropriate decisions so they can take action.”

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.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I rise this evening because Inquiry No. 3 is a means through which Senator Yvonne Boyer has given us a welcome opportunity to recognize the important contributions that Métis, Inuit and First Nations have made to Canada and the world.

[Translation]

As a senator from Manitoba, I recognize that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

[English]

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabeg and Algonquin First Nations.

I thank Senator Boyer for this initiative. We can all learn much from the resilience and brilliance demonstrated by every generation of the founding peoples of Turtle Island, often in the face of massive systemic discrimination and illegality of every kind.

I’m pleased to take this opportunity to present to you the work of three truly remarkable, awesome Indigenous women: Teara Fraser, Leslie Spillett and Diane Redsky. I speak from experience and can assure you that all three of these strong Indigenous women leaders are admirable examples of success on their own terms. All are role models for leadership grounded by deep‑rooted Indigenous values, reflected in who they are, what they do and how they do what they do.

Honourable colleagues, the first woman I would like to recognize is Teara Fraser, a proud Métis woman who brings her passion for aviation to her work and volunteerism every day. As Teara started out her career in this heavily White‑male‑dominated industry, she dreamed of a more diverse workplace with better working conditions, and she continues tirelessly to make it happen through her own airline.

In 2019, Teara launched Iskwew Air, her own Indigenous, female-run airline based at Vancouver International Airport, currently the only Indigenous business in the airport. Iskwew is a Cree word for “woman,” and it represents her desire to empower and celebrate female leadership. The airline aims to support Indigenous tourism and to improve accessibility to remote Indigenous communities in British Columbia and neighbouring provinces and territories.

Teara has instilled in her business some of her ancestral values. For example, Iskwew Air is committed to becoming a carbon‑neutral company. They do so by calculating their operating greenhouse gas emissions, working on reducing them and offsetting the difference. Such an initiative shows care for the air and the land. It also demonstrates innovation in addressing environmental concerns.

Another notable contribution is Teara’s work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her airline supplied essential goods to remote Indigenous communities affected by COVID, often at greatly reduced prices.

Teara is a wonderful model for bringing feminine energy, creativity and tenacity to innovative leadership. Logically, Teara was recently celebrated as the Businesswoman of the Year at the 2022 BC Tourism and Hospitality Awards in British Columbia.

Honourable senators, the next woman I would like to recognize is Dr. Leslie Spillett. Born in northern Manitoba, her maternal ancestry is Cree from Cumberland House and Opaskwayak Cree Nation and Red River Métis, and her paternal ancestry is Irish and Scottish.

Leslie is a formidable community activist and advocate, with far-reaching initiatives serving Indigenous and non-Indigenous Manitobans. Leslie founded Ka Ni Kanichihk, a leading Indigenous organization supporting women and their families through trauma-informed, culturally attuned educational programs and development services. Ka ni kanichihk is Cree for “those who lead,” and it’s often called a “second home,” a place to belong, a place to find purpose and a learning hub.

Leslie was also one of the principal founders of Mother of Red Nations Women’s Council of Manitoba and has worked in an executive capacity at the Native Women’s Association of Canada. Her initiatives also include support of Aboriginal youth achievements, traditional knowledge and the status of Indigenous women, spoken in very blunt terms.

Leslie was one of the first advocates for missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada, and she raised the issue through international forums long before the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, on which our colleague Senator Michèle Audette served with such distinction.

After some deliberation on her part, Leslie decided to accept an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Winnipeg in 2011. In 2012, she was inducted into the Order of Manitoba. Leslie’s courage, dedication, initiative and tenacity are an example for all of us.

I’m now honoured to recognize and acknowledge Dr. Diane Redsky, a strong advocate for Indigenous rights in health, education and social services, especially for the many Indigenous women and children who face barriers to actually living their rights and to actually accessing these services in a helpful way.

Diane has been serving as Executive Director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, known in the community as Mamawi, for many years and has recently announced her retirement as of this December. Mamawi houses more than 50 programs operating in far-ranging Indigenous communities aimed at creating meaningful opportunities for community and family involvement, building on innate strengths and drawing from Indigenous skills to amplify healing and reconciliation within Indigenous families, within their communities and having this kind of healing benefit the community of the whole.

Mamawi’s vision brought together community members in 1984 who wanted to rebuild families through Indigenous solutions. This vision is carried and sustained today under Diane’s leadership, making Ma Mawi one of the largest Indigenous-led and -staffed social service organizations in all of Canada, and she has secured a succession plan that will ensure this vision will continue to be made real.

Diane is devoted to combatting human trafficking and violence against women and girls and 2SLGBTQI people. For five years, Diane stepped away from Ma Mawi to be the project director for the National Task Force on Sex Trafficking of Women and Girls in Canada, which was not started by government. Rather, it was funded by individual women philanthropists through The Canadian Women’s Foundation and became the catalyst for increased government responsiveness, publishing a highly significant report containing 34 recommendations to end sex trafficking in Canada.

Diane’s contributions have not gone unnoticed, as she was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, the Governor General’s Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case, the Senate 150th Anniversary Medal, the YWCA Women of Distinction Award, and she has been made a member of the Order of Manitoba and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Winnipeg.

In our society, we pay attention to titles in front of names and letters after names because they signify for us that the holder has achieved distinctions that we value and respect. These three remarkable women have all of those honours, but they also have the invisible medals that matter the most — the deep respect, love, appreciation and dedication of their communities in their provinces, joined by allies and supporters throughout Canada and other countries.

Colleagues, I invite you to join me in celebrating these amazing Indigenous women leaders, and as Senator Boyer has invited us through her inquiry for “recognizing the contributions that Métis, Inuit and First Nations have made to Canada and the world,” let’s find and recognize many more and place them on the Senate record. Chi-meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: 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.

[English]

On this solemn occasion, when senators have been given this opportunity to speak freely of our reflections on this unique woman world leader, I wish to acknowledge the complex history of colonialism embodied in the Commonwealth, over which Queen Elizabeth II presided, by noting that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrenderred, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe and Algonquin First Nations.

We are here today with impressive women leaders of our own in a chamber that became the second senate in the world to achieve gender parity. Millions of little girls in this country grew up seeing a woman monarch’s face day after day, even in years when Canada had no widely recognized women leaders.

We cannot quantify the impact of Her Majesty’s presence in the minds and hearts of these many millions of girls, generation after generation, but I know I am far from alone in tracing my own sense of entitlement to full actualization as a female human, to deeply knowing that the rights of women and girls are full human rights — rights not only to be claimed but also to be lived by all females, not just those who are privileged, like those of us in this chamber.

[Translation]

She was my Queen for the 70-plus years of my life, and she always will be. May you rest in peace, dear Queen Elizabeth.

[English]

God save the King. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, 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.

[English]

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded, unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory and that we have people joining us from across Turtle Island who are located on both treaty and unceded lands of Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

Colleagues, I rise in support of Senator McCallum’s bill, Bill S-219, and I thank you for allowing me to speak to it at this point.

This is an inspiring step on the long, essential and sometimes uncertain path to reconciliation between nations within the borders of this country. Through this bill, we all have the opportunity to further respect, understanding and education of Indigenous culture and heritage, specifically the ribbon skirt which is a creation of Indigenous women cherished in Indigenous tradition and ceremony.

Today, I am honoured to wear my ribbon skirt, a gift from a wise woman in my life who also gave me the eagle feather that I carried into this chamber for the first time when I was sworn in — the indomitable Leslie Spillett, founding executive director of Ka Ni Kanichihk, which means “those who lead.”

Just a few days ago, we welcomed in this chamber the bereaved family of our beloved Senator Josée Forest-Niesing. Later that afternoon, we heard Josée’s sister talk about how she, Josée’s mother and friends completed the ribbon skirt that Josée began.

Senator Forest-Niesing had told us of being inspired by this bill, crafted, in the words of Senator McCallum, “turned an unfortunate incident into a platform for change through understanding and education.”

We here all know 10-year-old Indigenous student Isabella Kulak, who was so eager to wear her ribbon skirt, gifted by her auntie, to her school’s formal day and was instead shamed and told she should have worn a more formal outfit bought in a store like the other students.

The belittlement of Isabella’s ribbon skirt may seem innocuous or mild when compared to the violent systemic modes of racism and oppression often inflicted upon Indigenous peoples, but it illustrates insidious prejudice and discrimination that Indigenous peoples — so frequently women and girls — have experienced for generations. Senator McCallum helped us better understand how this impacted Isabella and alerted us all to the need for education, respectful listening and greater efforts to seek true reconciliation.

Please allow me to add a few observations of my own.

Agnes Woodward, from Kawacatoose First Nation in Saskatchewan, makes beautiful ribbon skirts made all the more poignant and powerful by how she describes her purpose:

The skirt is mostly about representation, and how Indigenous women choose to represent ourselves . . . . That’s why they’re so important today . . . because their voice has been taken away.

Ribbon skirts are traditionally worn for Indigenous ceremonies by women and girls, but they can also be iconic and symbolic, for example, to raise awareness about missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Abigail Echo-Hawk, a Pawnee public health researcher, crafted a ribbon dress out of body bags to draw attention to the disproportional effect of COVID on Indigenous communities. She embroidered her personal mantra, “I am the tangible manifestation of my ancestors’ resiliency,” to highlight her connection to the past and future. Echo-Hawk says that she sews with loving energy:

Each ribbon is prayer. Each stitch is prayer and love and dedication to those people and when you make it, you can’t come from a place of anger, you can’t come from a place of bitterness.

Ms. Woodward made headlines in June 2021 at the swearing in of U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, the first Indigenous person to hold such a position. She wore a beautiful Woodward skirt adorned with cornstalks, stars and butterflies, and was featured in news coverage.

Honourable senators, such a situation could typically be an example of a woman’s skill being belittled by commentary on what she wore, but that’s not actually what happened. Attention was harnessed by this skirt, and the message became one of power and worth.

Ms. Woodward further stated:

The ribbon skirt today reminds me that I have a power and that I carry a responsibility, to teach the future generations that they belong here and that they have the right to take up space however they choose . . . It’s about taking back the shame that I carried as a young girl.

Senator McCallum spoke eloquently and with much wisdom on the concept of “holding spaces,” the creation of safe environments where individuals — youth, in particular — can grow, learn, question and grapple with significant issues in a nurturing and supportive manner.

National ribbon skirt day is one example of this type of “holding space” as the aim is to celebrate identity, autonomy, reclaimed dignity, representation and to challenge outdated ways of seeing, of confronting entrenched stereotyping and prejudices and of reconciling and returning value.

In a work published in the Girlhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Kari Dawn Wuttunee of the Red Pheasant Cree Nation and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Jennifer Altenberg, a Michif educator from Saskatchewan, and Sarah Flicker of York University studied the issue of ribbon skirts as a form of cultural resurgence. They found that the act of sewing ribbon skirts brought Indigenous women together intergenerationally — young and old — to reclaim teachings, resist gender-based and colonial violence and reimagine their collective futures. Learning about the historical and cultural significance of ribbon skirts gave girls a stronger connection to their culture, community and each other. Wearing their ribbon skirts became an embodied act of resistance, resilience and self-determination.

These findings speak directly to the concept of positive holding spaces that youth need and deserve. It is important that such space go beyond those who traditionally identify with the ribbon skirt. It can encompass any and all who seek to reclaim value in their identities and cultural pride using regalia, customs and other traditions.

The ribbon skirt is one, poignant symbol of past erasure, racism and colonial attitudes. It is an intersectional symbol of how race, gender and equality have been twisted by colonial means of discrimination, and it can be a catalyst for change.

Now, at Kamsack Comprehensive Institute, the school where Isabella Kulak was shamed for wearing her ribbon skirt to a formal day, a ribbon skirt day is now celebrated on January 4. This year, over 100 students and staff wore skirts, many of which were made at school in the brand new classes on skirt making, beading and drumming that were introduced to respond positively to Isabella’s call for reconciliation, awareness and healing.

Honourable senators, many of us close our speeches with “thank you” in several languages, including meegwetch, but often Senator McCallum says — and today Senator Pate said — chi‑meegwetch. One day, Senator McCallum explained to me that this means “thank you,” but the added meaning is along these lines: Thank you with the intention to carry this forward in a good way.

Senator McCallum has asked us to stand with her and support not only this bill, but to stand with young Isabella and what she stands for — agency, identity, inherent dignity, positive self-affirmation of cultural identity and reconciliation.

On behalf of Isabella, and with visions of positive futures carried by these beautiful ribbon skirts, may I now ask for your support in calling the question on this bill? Chi-meegwetch.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Hello, tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

[English]

I also acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe and Algonquin First Nations.

I am honoured to speak in support of this motion by Senator Rosa Galvez, the senator in this chamber with the most expertise on the science of climate change. If this scientist alerts us to the urgent need to declare a national climate emergency, we would do well to respond carefully, thoughtfully and rapidly.

We are exceptionally fortunate to have her voice here in this place, bringing credibility to the Senate and to Canada in multilateral settings around the world.

I similarly applaud the Senate of Canada coalition for urgent climate action, and in particular Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their initiative in bringing this inclusive work group into being. By this I mean that as an unaffiliated senator I get to participate along with any other senator, because this issue is bigger than any lines drawn by our small ways in this place.

This evening I hope to be respectful of the brilliance and tenacity of youth leaders who woke up to this crisis much sooner than most of us. For the first time, colleagues, Canada has become an old country. The 2016 national census marked a new reality. Canada has more folks in the age range of this chamber than younger generations. This is a shift that does not bode well for Canada unless we amplify intergenerational joint action.

From the age of 12, Autumn Peltier has continued in the line of Indigenous matriarch leaders with her clarion voice as a water defender. She reminds us that we can’t eat money or drink oil. And repeatedly she has reported that she has not felt respected or heard — perhaps because she is a young Indigenous woman. Autumn has said that it is almost like the politicians “don’t believe climate change is real. Climate change is a real thing and they are not realizing that.”

When Autumn was recognized at the elite gathering of the powerful at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she said that people are awarding her, but:

“I don’t want your awards. If you’re going to award me, award me with helping me find solutions. Award me with helping me make change.”

No corner of the globe is immune from the devastating consequences of climate change. Rising temperatures are fuelling environmental degradation, natural disasters, weather extremes, food and water insecurity, economic disruption, conflict and terrorism, both international and domestic. Sea levels are rising; the Arctic is melting; coral reefs are dying; oceans are acidifying; forests are burning.

To state as much is not fear mongering. It is the tragic reality we are living today and will only increase in frequency and magnitude. As other senators have noted in this debate, we need look no further than our own recent Canadian experience of wild fires, flooding, infrastructure and ecosystem collapse, heat domes and Arctic degradation for the evidence that this truly is an emergency, truly a crisis. It is beyond obvious that business as usual is illogical, ineffective and immoral. It has been said that we fool ourselves if we think we can fool nature. As the infinite cost of climate change reaches irreversible highs, talk, debate and negotiation fall away. This is not a climate negotiation because we can’t negotiate with nature. What is required is action, inspired by this truth that this is an emergency.

I was recently inspired by Dominique Souris, the founding executive director of the Youth Climate Lab, who has said:

. . . real action and real leadership does not lie at the negotiating table, but on the ground. Young people and local communities are the drivers of this change.

In explaining why the Youth Climate Lab was founded, Dominique said:

. . . we were frustrated with a lack of meaningful youth engagement, which is why we created Youth Climate Lab.

. . . young people today, especially those on the front lines have the most at stake and the most to gain when it comes to fighting climate action. So Youth Climate Lab focuses on supporting youth to create and support climate solutions because as a generation youth are the most impacted by climate change.

I agree with Dominique Souris that young leaders are some of the most collaborative, intersectional and innovative problem solvers that create the solutions that we need. Not seeing youth as partners to solve this is a total missed opportunity and, she goes on to say, it’s even a moral mishap.

Speaking of young leaders, I’m honoured to be able to work with members of my youth advisory from many parts of Canada on a range of issues. Now a Toronto university student, Aleksi Toiviainen was in high school when he suggested to me that we start the climate justice work group of youth advisors, which is now active and paying close attention to what Parliament is doing about the climate crisis. They well know that they are the ones who will soon be living the impact of the decisions that parliamentarians make today.

Colleagues, it is imperative that we do not myopically reduce climate change discussions to a simple accounting of temperature. As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, report clearly establishes with sound, concrete, scientific rigour and unparalleled data, climate change is already affecting every region on earth in multiple ways. Many of the changes observed in the climate are unprecedented in thousands of years, and some of the changes already set in motion, such as continued sea level rise, are irreversible.

Climate change is intensifying the water cycle, bringing more intense rainfall, flooding and more intense drought in many regions.

Coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding, rapid Arctic ecosystem devastation such as the loss of seasonal snow cover, melting of glaciers and ice sheets and loss of summer Arctic sea ice.

Changes to the ocean including warming, more frequent marine heat waves, ocean acidification and reduced oxygen levels have been clearly linked to human cause.

Urban areas are not immune to these worsening conditions which manifest in increased urban temperatures, flooding, fires, food and resource shortages. All of these have costly impacts on basic services, infrastructure, housing, human livelihoods and health.

While technology has contributed to this climate crisis, new and efficient technologies can help us reduce net emissions and create a cleaner world. Readily available technological solutions already exist for more than 70% of today’s emissions.

I am not talking here about the proposals from the nuclear industry. That is not a viable way for us to go in finding technological solutions to the climate crisis.

In the meantime, nature-based solutions provide breathing room while we tackle the decarbonization of our economy. These solutions allow us to mitigate a portion of our carbon footprint while also supporting vital ecosystem services, biodiversity, access to fresh water, improved livelihoods, healthy diets and food security. Nature-based solutions include improved agricultural practices, land restoration, conservation and the greening of food supply chains.

Honourable senators, please consider these words from Dr. Andreas Kraemer — founder of the Ecologic Institute and senior fellow at the Canadian Centre for International Governance Innovation — at COP26 where he described how we have:

. . . missed the opportunity to initiate meaningful change, particularly to integrate the ocean into the climate agenda, and the damage about to be done to marine ecosystems will be in the trillions of dollars.

Several trillion, whether euros or U.S. dollars, in surplus liquidity are currently stashed in household bank accounts, accumulated during the pandemic and waiting to be spent once restrictions are lifted. On release, this pent-up demand will reinforce existing economic patterns and accelerate the destruction long underway.

Dr. Kraemer goes on to state:

Driving earth’s overheating are dominant patterns of production, trade, and consumption, reinforced by perverse subsidies and tax rules. Along with the deteriorating climate, rising inequality, and modern slavery, cocktails of chemicals poisoning life on land and in the water, rapid loss of biological diversity, and disruptions of natural cycles are the direct consequences of policy choices and business practices. About 15 percent of economic activity might be sustainable, 85 percent is clearly not. The 15 percent should expand. The 85 percent needs phasing out fast.

Dr. Kraemer continues:

National stimulus packages are small by comparison, and investment in infrastructure that locks in dirty practices is still too high. All eyes are on “building back better” rather than “building forward toward sustainability.”

At the COP26 summit held last November in Scotland, there were mixed results. Despite the many advances and new commitments reached at COP26, the wider consensus was that Glasgow revealed the weight of unkept promises, missed targets and a growing loss of public confidence in national commitment and capacity.

As Senator Forest aptly surmised in his comments, is it any wonder that the public is increasingly losing faith in federal promises and instead turning to local, municipal, community and grassroots leadership instead?

A group of Canadian and Scottish researchers in environmental law and governance from the University of Ottawa, the University of Cambridge and the Quebec Environmental Law Center have provided a stark assessment of the COP26 summit.

While acknowledging that the 1.5-degree temperature increase target remains alive, these scientists stress that the goal is in critical condition as the required concrete measures to achieve it are still lacking. It is telling that, under the Glasgow Climate Pact, states did not adopt new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Among the positive results of COP26 was a strengthening of certain alliances among states. This was the case, for example, of the Powering Past Coal Alliance co-founded by Canada, which aims to eliminate unabated coal power. It now has 165 members, including 28 that joined during COP26.

Another example is the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, which aims to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Quebec joined, but not Canada.

These agreements, which were concluded in parallel to the main negotiations, may allow states to take action on issues where there is still no international consensus.

At COP26, Canada was one of more than 130 countries that signed a declaration to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It covers more than 3.6 billion hectares of forest around the world. However, 40 countries, including Canada, signed a similar agreement in 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests, yet deforestation increased 40%.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabek First Nations, and as an independent senator from Manitoba, I am from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I rise to add my own thoughts on this topic. I do so from the rather unique position I now hold within the Senate; that of sitting as a non-affiliated senator. A very small minority of senators sit as non-affiliated. Some do so by choice, others by virtue of their particular duties — by which I refer to those who serve in the GRO — and there are others who do so as circumstance dictates. Non-affiliation is to look through the window with an acute awareness of the banquet of privileges and comforts afforded to those who are group members.

There are barriers and procedural obstacles to full Senate participation — invisible when you are part of a group. This is a chosen and new experience for me. As most of you have never experienced non-affiliation, perhaps what I can share will add to the present debate.

For example, as a non-affiliated senator, I currently hold zero committee assignments. These are allocated according to group and caucus proportionality. Of the membership lists proposed in the recently tabled SELE first report — which nominates membership to 18 standing and select Senate committees, and which included 193 committee nominations for seats — I am named to not even one. Hopefully, that may change, but clearly I do not have equality with you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, we have a rare opportunity today — an opportunity to decline groupthink and to pay close attention to the proposed further erosion of our individual independence as senators. We can do this without impinging on your group benefits, and by adding to your individuality and agency as a senator.

I’m referring to the rule provision changes proposed in the present report from the Senate Selection Committee that would remove ownership of committee seats from individual senators and give additional whip-like powers to leaders who would control the seats instead.

This is not the first time this rule change has been moved. When I was a member of the Independent Senators Group in the previous Parliament, I recall that this provision was heavily supported by the then leadership of the ISG and of another group. I found this puzzling when I was a member of the ISG. You may recall that I stood with my esteemed colleague Senator Bellemare on the vote on her very reasonable proposal. Yes, I appreciated and understood the lure of committee membership as a reward for being a compliant group member, but I had to ask how such a rule would actually make the Senate more modern, accountable, transparent and independent.

It is those goals that brought me here, and I do not think I am alone in sharing those goals. Shall I just say that, from this side of the chamber, I can see more clearly now, and concern about true independence of senators leads to the inescapable conclusion that senators should not have to sacrifice their committee contributions if they choose to be truly independent and decide they no longer wish to remain in a particular group. Having more groups than, in effect, a duopoly defined by two political parties is a good innovation that we’ve seen grow over the past five years.

A better future for our democracy and for the Senate means that groupings of senators coalesce around shared values about what is best for their province and for our country. With independence, senators choose to align themselves accordingly, and in keeping their independence, senators should be able to choose when it’s time to leave a group, and certainly without the implied threat of forced removal from their committee responsibilities. It should be a warning to us all that some leaders hold the view that independence should not extend to the right of senators to hold a committee seat.

As I understand the concern of those who support the SELE report proposal, senators must serve and please their group or caucus leaders if they hope to keep a committee seat that they obtain through the combination of group and Senate as a whole process.

The logic for this proposed new rule seems to be that every senator who belongs to a group or who has obtained their committee seat by being sheltered or sponsored by a particular group or party must remain obedient and beholden to the leadership of that group in order to hold on to their committee seat. But as we’ve heard repeatedly this evening, that’s not what our Rules say. The truth is that each Senate committee membership is a result of being named to a committee by the Senate, not by group leaders, and that what’s confirmed in their committee seat. Our Rules promise that a senator “shall serve for the duration of the session.” The exception to this is that group leaders can authorize temporary replacements in accordance with our Rules as an exception, and it is important to note that though these changes are technically permanent, there is a strong tradition of reinstating the original member. But consider this: It is a tradition that leaders can ignore if they have notice of a member’s desire to leave the group.

We have just had a tragic reminder of how fluid Senate membership is in fact — through death, retirements, new appointments. Committee membership does not change for senators in place unless they so choose. A number of us gave up our seats on committees when new senators arrived in order to give them an opportunity. If I understand the argument presented in this report, it suggests that senators are not entitled to committee seats but in effect the seats belong to the group process that assigned that spot. Yes, the established practice is that senators are subject to their group’s negotiations as then played out amongst the leaders of all groups.

Honourable senators, please remember this. In the end, now it is the Senate that appoints senators to serve on committees, not leaders or groups. Why would we want to take that away from our institution in order to increase the control and power of a few group leaders? Why would we want to elevate the power of a few individual senators to such a degree? It is illogical to suggest that there is somehow a violation if a senator decides to leave a group and holds on to their committee seat. The Rules are clear that a seat belongs to a senator.

Senator Tannas raised an interesting point this evening, referencing rule 12-5. A Speaker’s ruling on May 9, 2007, noted that:

. . . independent senators can indicate, in writing, that they agree to accept the authority of either the government or the opposition whip for the purposes of membership changes.

This arrangement is entirely voluntary. If an independent senator does not write such a letter, or withdraws it, the rule respecting changes does not apply.

Similarly, if a senator withdraws from a caucus, rule 12-5 would cease to apply. In the latter case, that senator would retain any then current committee memberships unless removed either through a report of the Committee of Selection or a substantive motion adopted by the Senate. This is at page 1510 in the Journals of the Senate.

To quote Senator Cordy in The Hill Times:

It has been suggested that not agreeing to this change has resulted in the Senate being held hostage. But if this change proceeds, it would be senators themselves who would be held hostage. Their leaders would effectively own committee seats.

Honourable senators, this is a pivotal moment for us in our self-government.

Does this proposed rule give you the Senate you really want? Do you really want to limit your independence in this way? Do you really want to diminish your rights as an individual senator in this way? Have you asked yourself what harm may come to the independence of this home for sober second and often innovative first thought?

Please think ahead; please think carefully about what happens when a power that is held collectively is divvied up and handed to a tiny minority within the collective. If you accept this change to existing practice, you will undoubtedly please your leader and will establish a new way of doing business that will become difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.

But I ask you this: Is your leader’s pleased approval of your potential compliance worth the price of diminishing the rights of all senators in the process? Is that truly in the spirit of a more modern and independent Senate? Do you truly believe that group and leadership interests should override individual independence and committee work?

Consider this: The House of Lords has 6 groups with 25 or more members yet still entrusts its members to maintain their committee roles throughout a parliamentary session. The Australian Senate has three groups of nine or more members and does the same. These equivalent parliamentary bodies are not proponents of group control over senators’ independence.

Since 1867, individual senators received their committee seats by motion and decision of the Senate, facilitated by a few leaders, yes, but the decision was made by us as a collective, and so for 154 years individual senators have been entrusted to serve honourably using their own judgment. At the core of that trust is that Senate committees, not Senate groups, have been given the responsibility of studying legislation and issues referred to them. A modern, more transparent, more accountable Senate should uphold this historic independence of individual senators and their best possible contributions to committees.

I want to close by casting to an even more modern and democratic Senate by adopting a point made by Senator Woo, quoted as saying:

Indeed, if Senators were assigned their seats through an all-Senate process rather than by group negotiations, a case can be made that the seats “belong” to individual Senators.

In that scenario, there would be no violation of the seat-assignment process if Senators change groups. But good luck to anyone trying to come up with a Senate-wide system of assigning committee seats by individual member.

In fact, dear colleagues, we already have such a system. We are already using a Senate-wide system whereby individual senators are assigned committee seats and all we have to do is make it clear that we — as senators — integrate the tradition and affirm our independence and dedication to the integrity of this institution, that we reject the introduction of expanding and entrenching unequal power held by a small number of senators who happen to be called “leader.” Thank you, meegwetch.