Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you for the question, Senator Cardozo.

I think even a quick scan of major media today answers your question. For those of you who noticed, there was more coverage about Grassy Narrows and the mercury poisoning — which we had been assured a number of times was being dealt with — and we now have a current media report on the fact that that is not true and that the Indigenous community of Grassy Narrows continues, on a daily basis, to suffer terrible health consequences. By no means are we talking about history. We are talking about the combination of history that has not stopped and is the current reality as well.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-226, which seeks to establish a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism while advancing environmental justice in Canada.

The goal and intent of what this legislation will accomplish cannot be overstated. Environmental racism may not be a well-known concept, but it is a profoundly damaging reality that many Canadians face with little acknowledgment or redress.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from a number of witnesses of varied backgrounds representing First Nations, Inuit, Black and other racialized communities. They also heard from renowned academics and legal experts. In essence, the possibilities presented by this legislation amount to a new lease on life for many of the most marginalized individuals, peoples and communities that are often tucked away in rural and remote regions across Canada.

This is an important note to highlight. Environmental racism, by virtue of it being a type of racism, impacts upon already marginalized peoples and communities. This, colleagues, is the exact segment of the population in Canada to which senators are supposed to be most responsible.

As set out explicitly in the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2014 ruling on the Senate reference:

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 . . . .

Colleagues, is there a better example of a bill that responds more directly to this obligation to represent the voiceless than the bill before us now? Bill C-226 seeks to offer tangible remedies to racialized Canadians who continuously struggle against the juggernaut that is the resource extractive industry.

Bill C-226 is truly a life-and-death proposition for many communities. This bill deals with premature deaths and premature morbidities — scientifically and empirically proven causality related to resource extractive activities.

This is not a frivolous or abstract bill. It has been a long time coming, and it has gone through all the necessary steps of review. Other countries around the world have already understood and adopted the concept of environmental justice, with Canada now close to catching up to those forward-thinking and just-minded societies. The opportunity is before us. After lengthy due diligence by senators, today is the time for us to vote on this opportunity.

Regrettably, a final vote has now been jeopardized because of a highly politicized process from which the bill’s sponsor, Senator McCallum, has been excluded.

Colleagues, Bill C-226 has had a long journey to where we are today — first introduced in a previous Parliament in February 2020, only to languish and die upon dissolution of that Parliament.

In February 2022, the leader of the Green Party in Parliament, MP Elizabeth May, introduced an enhanced version of the bill. It is before us after passage in the other place, without amendment.

Bill C-226 has been thoroughly reviewed by the Senate’s Energy Committee. Unanimously, without suggestion or discussion of amendment, it has returned to us.

Honourable colleagues, after ample due diligence, this bill has been closely examined. Its virtues and benefits have been well-established to the satisfaction of a range of senators, paying close attention to their responsibility to carefully and thoughtfully examine all dimensions of a bill brought to this chamber and to committee, now returned to all of us to follow proper, established procedures.

Today, I stand before you because, in discussion with Senator McCallum — the sponsor of Bill C-226 here — I have come to share her disappointment with some of the senatorial actions that have gone on behind the scenes.

Honourable senators, please keep in mind that Senator McCallum took this on as an unaffiliated senator, without the favour of a leader, liaison or scroll representative — in other words, without the support and privileges reserved only for caucused senators.

It has been incumbent on Senator McCallum and her office to shepherd this bill through the Senate of their own volition. I hope we can agree that “Team McCallum” has done well, that our colleague Senator McCallum has sponsored this bill with grace and tenacity at every turn.

Senators, I invite you to recall that, last spring, Senator McCallum had to fight to bring Bill C-226 to a second reading vote, which was delayed for many months until October 2023. Essentially alone, she acted with tremendous patience, restraint and — as hard as it may have been — even some deference to the “wink, wink, that’s the way things work here,” which resulted in a suite of agreed-upon bills passing before Bill C-226, that is, bills that belonged to caucused senators thereby ensuring that those bills now have priority at committee. Unfortunately, it is looking like Senator McCallum may be facing similar tactics this time around, awaiting a third reading vote.

Senator McCallum disclosed to me that in April she met with and communicated with group and caucus leadership to advocate for a fairly paced third reading vote, and that a consensus was reached to include her Bill C-226 in the recent suite of C-bills originating from the other place in the leader-brokered process that saw multiple bills expedited through this chamber.

In light of Government Motion No. 167 and the current discussion around the discriminatory realities facing unaffiliated senators, this agreement for expedition was welcome, excellent news. It is not every day that unaffiliated senators are considered favourably in such high-level discussions.

But was this predictably, sadly, short-lived fairness?

I’m advised that Senator McCallum was informed yesterday evening that, due to leaders being unable to agree to the passage of a further suite of bills, Bill C-226 has been dropped and now its final vote is excluded from the deal. It was suggested that perhaps a vote could be held at some nebulous point in the fall.

Honourable senators, I thank you again for your attention to my speech this week setting out the daily discrimination experienced by unaffiliated senators under the Senate’s practice of Aristotelian equality, where those of us who are different are treated differently and unfairly.

Please allow me to reiterate and underscore a critically important point here. Unaffiliated senators do not have the same leverage or equal opportunity to advocate for our items to progress through the legislative process. We have no bargaining chips of our own. We are excluded from discussions that produce decisions. We have no representative or champion within these discussions. We are shut out and shut down.

Being advised after the fact that a previous verbal agreement to have Bill C-226 receive its final vote will now not be honoured is disheartening. The long-standing and normalized process of horse-trading bills or paring off bills is a practice that is oppositional to the tenets of modernization.

Should not bills be considered and weighed on merit through careful consideration at committee with ample opportunity for senators to speak at readings? How does it make sense that a bill lives or dies based on the timelines and favours accorded to other unrelated legislation? We have just seen some bills advance to committee without a single senator speaking at second reading, for example, Bill C-275.

Let’s be honest about the impact on bills such as Bill C-226. This favouritism, this truncated due diligence, impedes the fair, final disposition of bills such as Bill C-226 that has succeeded at every stage of comprehensive review in both houses. How can this disparate treatment be viewed as acceptable?

Honourable colleagues, I stand before you today to call upon each of us to act responsively out of respect for our own careful, thoughtful standards on legislative review. Supporting this bill respects our standards and a primary purpose of the Senate: giving vulnerable minorities from coast to coast to coast a lifeline by which they can begin to improve their lives, health and environments.

Colleagues, I urge you to support our colleague Senator McCallum. Support Bill C-226 and support the voiceless and underrepresented Canadians to whom the Senate has a particular duty of care.

In conclusion, Your Honour, I call for the question on Bill C-226. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I’m not ready to speak at this time. With leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of time.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I have a question for Senator Moodie, if that is allowed.

Senator Moodie, it was a very comprehensive speech, and I know it reflects extensive work by you and your team, and I thank you most sincerely.

I want to zero in on child poverty. Could you tell us a bit more about how this act and the strategy would accelerate, galvanize and inspire much more concrete action to eradicate child poverty in Canada?

Senator Moodie: The question you ask is so important, because it speaks to the entire strategy. How will the strategy do what it claims to want to do?

First of all, it allows us, as a country, to decide what we value and what we want for every child, and setting that principle down in writing and establishing it as our goal — the desired outcome — that we follow through with the information, frankly, we already have.

We have a lot of this information. There is a lot of civil society that can provide us with reams of data which tell us where we are failing, where things are actually working and what interventions have the most impact. If we can use an evaluative process that follows through on a declaration that starts with, “We want to eradicate child poverty,” then we can revisit and reassess as we go along from month to month and year to year in order to understand if it is working. What is working? How can we repurpose investments over here — that are not impactful — into the types of interventions that we know work? Then, we can accelerate, build momentum and move things along with real investment.

Many may actually say, “What is the cost of this?” I would propose that we save money by understanding where our investments work, and by pulling money from areas where, frankly, we are throwing mud against the wall and it is not sticking.

We need to understand that, and we need to bring in new policies that align so that we are constantly building, constantly refining and moving the needle more effectively — so we are distributing and upscaling what works in smaller areas and communities more broadly across our country, and we are allowing children to benefit from this well-organized, deliberate approach.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

That the Senate take note of:

(a)the deteriorating humanitarian crisis occurring in Nagorno-Karabakh as a result of Azerbaijan’s ongoing blockade of the Lachin corridor and increased military aggression against indigenous Armenian civilians in the region; and

(b)the actions of the Aliyev regime as being dictatorial, and in violation of international law; and

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada:

(a)to support the liberty of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and their right to self-determination;

(b)to immediately impose sanctions against the Azeri regime;

(c)to demand the immediate reopening of the Lachin corridor and the release of Armenian Prisoners of War;

(d)to provide a significant aid package through NGOs to those Armenian people forcefully displaced from their indigenous land; and

(e)to protect the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh through the presence of international peacekeeping forces.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boyer, calling the attention of the Senate to the positive contributions and impacts that Métis, Inuit, and First Nations have made to Canada, and the world.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Gold, because I don’t belong to any Senate caucus I wasn’t able to ask this question of the President of the Public Service Commission at Committee of the Whole last December, so I’m pleased to be able to ask you the question.

Can you inform this chamber if whole-of-government policy directives regulating the use of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, in resolving employee grievances about harassment exist? Does the government track frequency, cost and other related metrics related to the usage of NDAs in departments, Crown corporations and other entities receiving federal funding?

Senator McPhedran: NDAs are tools intended to protect proprietary trade secrets, not to hide illegal wrongdoing. What is this government doing to protect employees from misuse of non‑disclosure agreements like we heard from testimony of employees of Sustainable Development Technology Canada when they addressed Parliament?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would the honourable senator take a question?

The Hon. Marilou McPhedran: 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 lines 1 and 2 with the following:

“Whereas, since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”.

Thank you, meegwetch.

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: My question is to Senator Gold, and it relates to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I like that smile.

As you know, Canada — rather resolutely — ignores this treaty, the third of three dealing with nuclear proliferation. Beginning in just a couple of weeks, on November 27 in New York at the United Nations, there will be the second meeting of states parties to the treaty. At the first meeting last June in Vienna, no one from Canada was there even to observe — except for me, at my own expense. And now we have the second meeting of the states parties. We have country members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, sending observers, but so far, not a peep from Canada.

Senator Gold, could you please tell us if Canada is actually going to pay any attention and send observers to the second meeting of the states parties?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I thank the Progressive Senate Group for my time to speak today. I want to speak to the escalating threats of nuclear strikes, and how senators may choose to respond.

In an article published today, Nobel Laureate Dr. John Polanyi issues a clarion call of warning that nuclear disarmament represents “the very best hope” for humanity. He cautions that despite:

. . . the dictum that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” we continue to plan for nuclear war. This is the source of our peril.

A recent The Hill Times article by the publisher emeritus termed this “a global suicide pact.” In fact, in 2022, nuclear states spent $83 billion on nuclear weapons — spending that has been steadily increasing year over year, with no resulting measurable improvement in our global security.

With this context, I am pleased to announce the launch of the first-ever Youth-Parliamentarian Nuclear Summit to be held 13 days from now here — on Parliament Hill — on November 20 to November 21, for high school-aged and university-aged youth across Canada who will be attending in person and online.

This summit will include interactive panels for parliamentarians, youth leaders, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and civil society leaders. Invited keynote speakers include Ambassador Maritza Chan, permanent representative to the UN in New York, and a young dynamic, diplomatic leader in nuclear disarmament; Setsuko Thurlow, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and Hibakusha/Hiroshima survivor; and renowned Canadian disarmament expert Dr. Jennifer Allen Simons, as well as my parliamentary co-host.

Summit participants will engage in an intergenerational multilateral dialogue across all aspects of nuclear policy, disarmament advocacy, climate justice, peace and security. These are intergenerational issues that will have compounding effects on youth.

I praise the hard work of co-organizers of this summit, which include Reverse the Trend Canada; The Simons Foundation Canada; Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons; Mines Action Canada; Project Ploughshares; Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention; Canadian Voice of Women for Peace; as well as my parliamentary co-hosts, Senator Kim Pate and MPs Lindsay Mathyssen, Heather McPherson and Elizabeth May.

In addition to the excellent work sessions, a parliamentary reception is organized for Monday, November 20, at 5 p.m. You are all enormously welcome.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Would you be so good as to convey this question with a request that we get an answer prior to the start of the second meeting of states parties for this very important treaty?

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: This is my lucky day, Your Honour. Thank you. I have a question for Senator Gold.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada is a federally funded agency mandated to find, fund and foster Canadian innovation in the green/clean technology field, providing more than $1.5 billion to Canadian start-ups to date.

Unfortunately, it has also been rocked by allegations of financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, workplace harassment and a volatile, toxic work environment. Canada’s Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development ordered a review of the agency’s practices, which is now done.

Senator Gold, I was contacted by some potential whistleblowers with knowledge of this workplace who indicated that some staff were pressured to sign non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, to conceal information about their negative experiences. Because the review has been described —

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: With appreciation to the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, and Senator Gold for allowing me time today, I rise as a feminist activist senator to pay tribute to the pioneering Québécois feminist the Honourable Monique Bégin, who passed away some six weeks ago.

In the words of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

[Translation]

In 1972, Ms. Bégin was elected as the Member of Parliament for the Montréal riding of Saint-Michel, making her one of the first three women from Québec to serve in the House of Commons. . . .

Ms. Bégin was a passionate advocate, who left a lasting mark on Canada.

Before she even took her seat in the Commons, Ms. Bégin rose to prominence as a pioneer of the feminist movement in Quebec.

In 1966, she was a signatory of the Fédération des femmes du Québec’s founding charter and became the organization’s first vice-president. The following year, she was appointed to the role of executive secretary of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, whose 1970 report remains important to this day.

[English]

The Honourable Monique Bégin went on to have a distinguished career as Minister of National Revenue, then Minister of National Health and Welfare, bringing in both the child tax credit and then the Canadian Health Act. As one of only two women in cabinet during the 1980-82 era of constitutional renewal, Monique and her colleague the Honourable Judy Erola were protective of women’s equality rights in the draft Charter of Rights.

From personal experience, I can assure you that Monique quietly and effectively supported our activist efforts that protected the sex-equality guarantee in section 28 from the section 33 “notwithstanding” clause.

After her political career, Monique became a distinguished scholar, first as the Joint Chair of Women’s Studies at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, followed by years as dean of Health Sciences. I reached out to her 20 years ago to ask if she would write the foreword to a book I co-authored about an unpopular subject, entitled Preventing Sexual Abuse of Patients: A Legal Guide for Health Care Professionals. Her endorsement helped to situate the book on curricula across Canada.

Her honorary degrees and awards are numerous: the Governor General’s Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case in 2017 and elevation to Companion of the Order of Canada last year. Her friend Deborah Davis wrote to me this morning to remind me that Monique was much more than her awards: she was a role model and an inspiration. She was generous in nurturing new generations. As I conclude, one of the first and most memorable dinner invitations I received as a senator was from Monique, who prepared a delicious repast shared with Senators Pamela Wallin and Nancy Ruth — it was quite the conversation.

[Translation]

You are a great woman, Monique, and we’ll meet again.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. In addition to that, could you please ask the government to report publicly on the review and to specify the use of NDAs by this federally funded agency? Thank you.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I shall be very brief. I want to speak in support of the concerns that have been set out very well today by Senator McCallum. She certainly speaks for me in the comments that she made.

I would ask all of us in responding to this point — and I realize this is something that will have to be ruled on by you, Your Honour — to think about the fact that every time we come into this chamber and begin a sitting, you start with a prayer. We are all part of that. I just want to remind us of the import of the comments made by Senator McCallum about the kind of representation that we have taken on as our responsibility — which takes time. The nature of this motion is to reduce time and opportunities.

The prayer that I’m referring to points out that we ask the following:

. . . let your spirit preside over our deliberations so that at this time assembled, we may serve ever better the cause of peace and justice in our land and throughout the world.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran moved second reading of Bill S-261, An Act respecting non-disclosure agreements.

(On motion of Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I’m returning to the question that I asked of you, Senator Gold, back in June — a long way back. My question referenced how in 2018 Bill C-65 brought in new reporting requirements in the Canada Labour Code, such as tracking occurrences of sexual harassment in federally regulated workplaces, including this place, for the first time. I noted the dearth of Canadian data on workplace harassment and violence and the severe impact on affected workers — disproportionately women, members of racialized minorities, persons with disabilities and gender-diverse folks — and I noted how annual employer monitoring and reporting was delayed nearly three years after Bill C-65 became law.

My question today is on the Labour Code requirement that the minister review the violence and harassment provisions of Bill C-65 every five years, relying on annual reporting and monitoring by employers.

Senator Gold, does the government intend to launch this process in time, as mandated, for the law’s five-year anniversary, and how does it intend to measure the effectiveness of these provisions given the delayed employer-reported data?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, please, Senator Tannas?