Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11, which calls our attention to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act. I would like to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this timely inquiry. I believe that one of Canada’s great strengths is our capacity to self-reflect on the mistakes that we have made in the past. Senator Woo’s inquiry gives us an opportunity to ensure, upon reflection, that we never go down this path again.

Many of my colleagues have weighed in and continue to weigh in, but I’d like to focus my comments on the gendered impact of discriminatory immigration policies on the Chinese community.

During the 24 years that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in place, Canada admitted fewer than 50 Chinese people. This was indeed a very cruel way to repay the contributions of the 17,000 Chinese labourers who played an essential role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was the first great infrastructure nation-building project of Canada.

When the railway was completed in 1885, instead of rewarding the Chinese labourers, Parliament enacted the Chinese Immigration Act, which placed a head tax of $50 on Chinese people coming to Canada. In 1903, $50 was increased to $500, equal to about two years’ salary of an ordinary person. This exorbitant amount meant many Chinese labourers could not afford to bring their wives. In 1921, it is no surprise that the ratio of Chinese men to women in Canada was 15 to 1.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923 ensured that this ratio remained disparate. Over 90% of the wives of Chinese men were left behind in China. During their husbands’ prolonged absences, wives had the responsibility of raising children and looking after parents. Visits by husbands were short and infrequent because their right to return to Canada would be revoked if they were away for more than two years. Remember, colleagues, there were no airplanes, there were no jets; there was only the long way with the ship. Many children grew up barely knowing their fathers.

Canada did not repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act until 1947. When it did, it was replaced by a restrictive race-based immigration policy under which only those Chinese who already had a Canadian citizenship were allowed to sponsor their families. In other words, it was a restrictive measure of a different kind. The same rules, of course, did not apply to European immigrants. Twenty years later, after the points system was adopted, Chinese people finally began to be admitted under the same criteria as other ethnic groups.

Wives who succeeded in entering Canada in the 1950s and 1960s found their lives fundamentally transformed. Having lived without a spouse for years, they had to deal with readjusting to husbands they barely knew. Many put in long working hours labouring in their husband’s small businesses or took on multiple manual jobs.

In the early years of their arrival in Canada, Chinese women found themselves socially isolated and excluded. But it was their daughters and their granddaughters who took up their cause for justice. Chinese Canadian women like Avvy Go, Chow Quen Lee and Susan Eng were instrumental in campaigning for an apology and a redress.

As the President of the Toronto Chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council, Avvy Go became involved in the campaign in 1989. She was co-counsel in the class-action lawsuit seeking redress for the head taxpayers and their families. One of the three litigants who led the lawsuit was Chow Quen Lee. Separated from her husband for 14 years because of the act, she was an outspoken activist. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it set into motion talks with the government that ended with an official parliamentary apology in 2006.

As co-chair of the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families, Susan Eng convinced VIA Rail to sponsor the Redress Express, during which about 100 people boarded a train from Vancouver to travel to Ottawa to hear the apology.

I want to also note the contributions of Dora Nipp, Chief Executive Officer of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. She comes from a family who helped build the railway and paid the head tax. As a historian, Dora Nipp has conducted extensive oral history interviews documenting the experiences of immigrants to Canada. She has also produced various works, including directing Under the Willow Tree, a documentary on pioneer Chinese women in Canada.

These women fought for justice and they were ultimately successful, with the government handing out symbolic payments to roughly 400 survivors and widows in 2006.

The Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory measures had profound and lasting impacts on Chinese women and families. It took until 1981 for the sex ratio in the Chinese Canadian community to equalize. On the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, it’s important to recognize not just the prejudice that the community faced but also the tremendous perseverance it took to have these injustices reversed. Canadian Chinese women played a significant role in seeking and achieving this redress. In their honour, I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I have a question.

Senator Omidvar: The time is late, I understand. I have a brief question. Canada is not the only country where three orders of government fight for power, resources and stability. I can think of Germany, for instance, and I can think of the United States. Does any country do it worse than us?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I realize I have an impossible task as I stand between you and a good, well-earned rest, but I beg your indulgence. In turn, I promise to be really short — 10 minutes — and hopefully, I will leave you somewhat enlightened as I speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry on climate solutions.

I wish to thank Senator Coyle for her leadership on this matter, even as she is with other world leaders in Sharm El-Sheikh for COP27. I think it is entirely appropriate that I make this tiny contribution in our chamber today on this matter.

The evidence of climate change is before us, and it is undeniable: the increasing storms, melting glaciers, the rising temperatures in our oceans and the severe droughts. No country on Earth will be immune to these changes.

We also know that climate change will produce a knock-on effect in creating mass displacement, not just for the short-term as we saw in B.C., but for the abiding longer term. Already, as I have mentioned in this chamber, there are 100 million people on the move because of war, persecution, corruption and breaches of human rights. Now, we are beginning to see the mass influx of climate migrants. The International Organization for Migration, or IOM, has estimated that there will be over 1 billion environmental migrants in the next 30 years. Some estimates have it as high as 1.4 billion by 2060.

I ask this question, honourable senators: Where will those people go? How will they be absorbed? How will this movement be covered?

It is entirely possible that Canada and Canadians themselves will not be a receiving country of climate migrants but a sending country, so a global response to the climate migration challenge is imperative.

It also presents us with an opportunity to do business differently — to imagine a collective response that does not limit itself to what a nation state determines in its own narrow interest. More than in any other area, we need to move on from thinking that we belong to a particular land or that a particular land belongs to us because, as we know, climate change does not recognize borders. The solutions on climate migration must become central, then, both to immigration and the climate change movement, and not exist in separate silos as they do today.

There are a number of different proposals to consider.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that climate migration could be the single most important consequence of climate change. That was 30 years ago, but nations have only begun to discuss this impact in the last few years.

Former Canadian ambassador Rosemary McCarney wrote in a paper for the World Refugee and Migration Council that:

There is no comprehensive international regime of “implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge” for addressing climate displacement. . . . there is a patchwork of initiatives . . . .

Initiatives that have disparate actors and silos that straddle multiple policy agendas. Ms. McCarney believes that both substantive and organizational actions are needed to address global governance of climate displacement. Responses should be grounded in fundamental principles of human rights, gender equality and inclusion. Gender-based analysis should be a key to understanding and assessing the gendered impact of climate change. She rightly concludes that this phenomenon needs an international legal framework to address climate change-related, cross-border displacement that can guarantee access to territory, assure status and rights during stay and offer long-term solutions.

Ms. McCarney also calls for the creation of a central institution or actor to serve as a focal point for policy implementation, supervision and research to bring about coherence, consistency and achieve a robust global governance. In other words, she is calling for a new international legal framework with a new international central institution.

There is much that Canada can do at the international level to push this policy agenda forward. However, we know that global change is not easily done. The calls for multilateralism at a time when there are strains and stresses upon existing frameworks — the logjam at the United Nations Security Council — do not bode well for such proposals, necessary and sensible as they may be. To get broad, far-reaching support from all nations will be challenging.

Therefore, we come to a second, less perfect but incremental proposal: a kind of “mini-multilateralism,” as the World Refugee and Migration Council has suggested, through the creation of regional arrangements where neighbouring states come together because regional spillover is inevitable. To some extent, the regional coalition between Colombia, Ecuador and other neighbouring countries in response to the displacement of Venezuelans serves as a bit of an example for this idea. In the context of climate change and migration, a regional arrangement in the Americas to deal with the inevitable crisis facing the Caribbean islands could be a start. Most of The Bahamas, including Nassau, is projected to be under water by 2050 with an estimated population of 396,000 people who will come knocking on the doors of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

We already have well-crafted agreements with these three jurisdictions — such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA — and so these could be a springboard to craft other instruments on climate migration. This is akin to what Professor Craig Damian Smith of the Toronto Metropolitan University proposes: a coalition of the willing — of like-minded states — with a commitment to solidarity focused on climate refugee settlement to come together as a club — a club with standards, norms of behaviour and even targets for climate refugee resettlement. To borrow language from our Minister of Finance, it would be a sort of “friend-shoring” in the context not of global supply chains and trade, but in the context of climate displacement.

In the migration space, there are already far too many bad actors who threaten international norms by wildly going their own way. This coalition could be an alliance of the good cops to counteract the Rambos, and if it works on a regional level, it would be easier to imagine more nation states joining in.

Going even more narrowly and thinking bilaterally, Canada could partner on climate migration policies with a like-minded ally like Germany to develop shared policies, protocols and frameworks on climate migrants. Germany, as I have said before, is a natural partner for us. We are both nations of immigrants and both believe in the rule of law, but we also both know that the tail will wag the dog without proactive measures. In other words, neither of us want to be faced with thousands of climate migrants on our doorsteps without the proper legal frameworks in place.

Finally, Canada can do more on its own and in its own time. Our current immigration processes do not adequately encompass climate migration as a reason for admissibility into Canada — not in the refugee space and not in the economic space. We need to create a new space with additional new numbers, and with the appropriate machinery of government attached to it.

Further, Canada’s policies for settlement agencies need to be updated. Currently, climate change migrants are not explicitly captured in this framework, and this may limit their ability to access services.

We have had many discussions on climate change in this chamber, and I think it is an über-complex issue. We have talked about the carbon footprint, resource extraction, pipelines and gas tanker bans. As we look at these issues, let’s remember to place climate migration squarely on the agenda as well, otherwise the tail will truly wag the dog. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I don’t wish to take any more points. I believe the point of my question was made, and it was more about the mechanics of Senator Plett’s proposal and exactly how it would work, given our true and tried principle of proportionality on the one hand, the fact that the Government Representative Office, or GRO, does not have an assigned number of seats on committees, nor do they have numbers of statements.

I’m wondering if you could explain your vision for all the non-affiliated senators being embraced by GRO as members of their caucus. I’m not quite sure how I would see that working.

Senator Omidvar: Fair enough.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, as an inveterate city girl, I take to this inquiry on cities like a duck to water and am delighted to swim into Senator Simon’s inquiry which calls:

. . . the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

For reasons we all understand, we rarely speak about cities in this chamber, and I would like to thank Senator Simons for opening up the space for us to do so.

Cities create a hum in the air. It is this hum of endless activity that has always attracted me to them. Big city, bright lights, anonymity, everything that is on offer has drawn me to live in New Delhi, Munich, Tehran, Toronto and now occasionally Ottawa. My colleagues who live in, let’s say, more bucolic parts of Canada — Senator Duncan and Senator Black, I’m looking at you — will certainly have a different point of view, and I respect that. But for me, cities are where the action is.

And no wonder. I come from one of the most diverse and vibrant cities in Canada and the world. The energy, the pace, the food, the culture and the sports help leapfrog Toronto high on every ranking of cities, not just in Canada but globally. I confess I am a bit biased, but I am not so biased that I don’t appreciate the glorious waterfront in Halifax, the music and laughs in Montreal, the Calgary Stampede — although I have never been to it; it’s on my bucket list — Stanley Park in Vancouver and, of course, the political chatter on the streets in Ottawa.

My time on this matter is brief, so I will take the opportunity of showcasing the unique capacity of cities to create innovative, place-based solutions to seemingly intractable national and global problems. Solutions which can be more easily adapted city to city with far less angst, process, debate and conflict than it takes national governments to adopt good ideas from elsewhere.

In order to make my case for a greater role for cities in our arrangements, I am going to pick a case study — that of climate change, and for good reason.

We all know the threat that climate change presents to us, not just in cities but across our nation and the world. But the sheer density of life in cities means that they will be at the forefront of rising global mean temperatures. It is predicted by Natural Resources Canada that:

As the global mean temperature continues to increase, cities and towns across Canada will experience warmer temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns . . . increased frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events, and—for most coastal cities—sea-level rise.

This is neither hyperbolic nor futuristic. We all know that. We have already witnessed chaos because of extreme weather last year in British Columbia, and we are going to see more — not less — of acute and chronic biophysical impacts, including more frequent intense heat events, increased incidences of poor air quality, high-intensity rainfall events, windstorms, wildlife-urban interface fires, increased coastal erosion, storm surge flooding and decreased water quality. It sounds almost apocalyptic, but this is a fact.

Let’s all remember the fires in Fort McMurray: 2,400 homes and buildings were destroyed, and thousands of residents were forcibly displaced. The estimated damage of this tragic event was over $9 billion, which is the costliest disaster in Canadian history.

From fire, let’s turn to water, namely sea water. One of the most commonly known impacts of climate change is the rising of sea levels. This will impact our coastline and therefore our coastal cities. Vancouver and Victoria could see significant landmarks and areas under water. Beloved civic spaces like the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Fisherman’s Wharf and BC Place could be under water.

This is not limited just to our coastal cities. Non-coastal cities could be impacted by rising sea levels as well. Quebec City, which is close to the St. Lawrence River, could see parts of the city under water from increased flooding in the summer. Toronto, too, would be impacted with warmer and wetter winters and summers. This could lead to flooding, which in turn will damage our physical infrastructure, because city infrastructure was not designed for climate change. It is no longer fit for purpose.

But cities are not ignoring the reality that stares them in the face. In fact, cities are leading the charge for solutions with innovation and ingenuity as David Miller, former mayor of Toronto and now cities climate activist, has noted. Time magazine observed, “Countries brought big promises to COP26. Cities brought actions.” The actions of cities matter a great deal, because 70% of greenhouse emissions are created by urban areas.

The most encouraging sign is that most forward-looking cities have embedded climate change into urban planning processes, and the results are impressive. To whet your appetite a bit, I will take you for a quick tasting tour of the “who,” “where” and “what.”

Vancouver is now dedicated to turning itself into a city for walking and cycling, much like Amsterdam. This includes a complete rethink of transportation, land use and urban planning so that cars are less and less a feature of city life. By 2030, 90% of the people living within the city will be an easy walk or roll to their daily needs.

The “rolling” grabs my imagination. I have to go back to Vancouver sometime.

Montreal has adopted strong climate-change plans that are backed heavily by city council and civil society. One key plank is to have strict energy efficiency standards for new construction in the city. It is already planning the establishment of a zero-carbon neighbourhood near the old Hippodrome horse racing track.

Toronto has recently adopted TransformTO, an ambitious climate change strategy. They have begun enforcing a new set of green standards for the buildings, which will tighten the rules around greenhouse emissions for new and existing buildings.

I could give you examples from Bridgewater and Halifax, and suburban cities like Brampton and Ajax in Ontario if I had time. But I do want to go beyond Canadian cities, because we do not live in Canada alone — we live as part of the globe. Let me give you a very quick tour of the exciting things other cities in the world are doing.

Oslo has adopted a green budget. Instead of only looking at financial analysis, it requires a carbon impact analysis and a budget to meet those challenges. Bogotá has gone on a bike lane building spree. Barcelona has banned cars from their Superblocks. Milan is being transformed into an urban forest. In Chicago, rooftop gardens and greenery have become the norm, reducing rooftop temperatures by 3 to 4 degrees Celsius. London is issuing green bonds for rewilding.

But, colleagues, I must tell you that the coolest ideas come from Canada. Vancouver is making buildings — really big buildings — entirely out of wood. Toronto is cooling its downtown office buildings not with expensive energy-intensive chillers but by piping Lake Ontario water and cooling it through an efficient system.

I believe that these are signals of focus, innovation and ingenuity. I have always believed that good ideas have long legs, and many of these ideas are being replicated across cities. But no matter how creative these solutions are, they cannot solve or resolve the challenge without the participation of other orders of government, and in particular the federal government.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has a sensible three-point plan. They call on the government to bring its whole self to the table through three actions. The first is rapid scaling of support for disaster mitigation and climate resilience, including wildfire mitigation, drought reduction and flood prevention. The second is strengthening natural infrastructure so that municipalities can purchase forests, wetlands and green spaces — how brilliant is that? And the third is supporting cities by updating natural hazard maps, updating regional climate mapping and undertaking risk assessments to integrate social and equity considerations.

Colleagues, I think these are all reasonable asks and, of course, they are accompanied by money — lots of money. But success will evade us if we continue to follow the narrow dictates of “business as usual” and stay in our lanes and corridors. The federal government must be able to talk to municipalities, and municipalities must be able to talk to the federal government and build relationships.

As Jane Jacobs has said, the level of government closest to the people has the capacity to respond fastest to its needs, but it is the level of government furthest from the people — in this case the federal government — that has the capacity and indeed the responsibility to provide protection to the people, whether this protection comes in the form of human rights laws, security protection or, as in this case, protection from the looming threat of climate change.

Cities and the federal government must be in the same room together more often. They must create space for each other at each other’s tables. There are already points of light.

I am an eternal optimist, so I will share with you some points of light that I have picked up. The federal government recently — “recently” is always a relative term in Parliament; so about two years ago — launched a Municipal Nominee Program to enable municipalities to choose their own immigrants according to their needs. The gas tax, when it was introduced, had municipalities in mind. Three years ago, the federal government reached out to the City of Toronto for special funding to house refugees. The taxes collected through the price on carbon are directly refunded by the federal government to schools, hospitals, colleges, municipalities and universities.

I will conclude by saying that we need many more of these good ideas and many more conversations and actions between levels of government to deal with this ever-present and growing crisis.

All this can happen, colleagues, without straying too far into the constitutional arrangements of our nation, but it will take public and political will to do so. I am pleased that Senator Simons has created the space in the Senate to start this conversation.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)