Senator Miville-Dechêne: As a former ombudsman of Radio-Canada, I’ve thought a lot about conflicts of interest. There are very specific codes. We could not be on a board of directors, and our activities outside of our work had to be very limited to avoid any apparent or actual conflict of interest, since that would destroy all of our credibility. A journalist colleague of mine who was assigned to cover police operations was secretly being paid to provide information to police officers. We obviously need to prevent such obvious conflicts of interest.

I am less familiar with the banking and financial sector, but certainly, if directors of banks or financial institutions hold shares in fossil fuel companies or are otherwise involved in an economy that does not respect our financial commitments, that is a problem since we don’t actually know what happens on these boards. We don’t know whether that will influence the individual’s vote.

There needs to be a lot more transparency and information on board activities if we want to change things. Your bill is rather innovative in that sense. It prohibits directors from being shareholders or having ties to companies that do not comply with our climate commitments, and it states that lobbyists who have worked for companies that do not comply with our climate commitments cannot serve as directors for a period of five years. It is a rather unique way of looking at things, but it is essential.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling 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.

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.)

Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, it wasn’t that long ago when taking a drive down Highway 7 west of here, just past Perth, would lead you to a little rest stop where you could feed Coca-Cola and ice cream to a pair of black bears confined in a roadside cage. The stop was one of many such enclosures during the 1970s meant to lure you off the road to grab a bite, either on the way to Ottawa for a vacation or heading home in the opposite direction. Snapshots of smiling young kids standing in front of the cages or feeding the bears dot the history blogs and the local museums in the villages where those pens once stood.

Societal mores and values change. In a lot of cases, visitors didn’t know or appreciate the neglect or deprivation those poor animals suffered.

But today, we do know. That is why this important bill, Bill S-241, is before us. It is a very wide-ranging bill, which, among other protections, limits captivity and provides additional protections to many species. It needs to be supported in this chamber.

Thankfully, the vast majority of those roadside attractions I just mentioned no longer exist, but several other types of animal confinement do, including roadside zoos, which house big cats, wolves and dangerous reptiles like crocodiles and pythons.

They also have bears. Bears have a special place in my heart, as anyone who has seen some of the artwork in my office will know. They also occupy a special place in the identity of our nation and within the cultures of many Indigenous peoples. The polar bear, for example, is respected by Inuit hunters as the most intelligent animal in Canada’s Arctic and as a symbol of the resilience, patience and determination needed to survive in that harsh climate. That is according to Inuvialuit and Nanuq: A Polar Bear Traditional Knowledge Study, authored in 2015.

The West Coast spirit bear, or Kermode bear, became an important point of debate in this chamber just three years ago during the discussion of Bill C-48, which banned tanker traffic from the northwest coast of B.C. Depending on estimates, there are only between 400 and 1,200 of those light-coloured bears left, all living in that part of our country. They are deeply important to the Indigenous nations living there. Like polar bears, spirit bears are especially adapted to their habitat. Their white fur makes them particularly suited to hunting salmon, because their white fur prevents them from standing out against the sky.

Then, of course, there are grizzly bears, who protect their cubs with an intensity that stands out among other species. The grizzly bear’s Latin name is Ursus arctos horribilis, which means “terrifying bear” — an appropriate moniker for an animal that is more likely to attack than flee when feeling threatened.

Of the many species this bill covers, bears need particularly large habitats to thrive. Captive polar bears, along with orcas and other cetaceans, suffer from more sickness and psychologically related illnesses than other animals kept in captivity, according to literature prepared by the Britain-based Bear Conservation. Bears are highly intelligent animals that can suffer mentally and physically while in captivity.

This bill solves a real and pressing problem surrounding their welfare.

In Ontario in past years, there have been media reports of attacks from other bears on cubs born in captivity. One Ontario zoo recently kept a black bear in a 25-foot by 25-foot enclosure for over 25 years. A representative of Zoocheck commented that it was probably the worst bear enclosure in North America. Before its death prior to the onset of the pandemic, that particular bear exhibited abnormal stereotypic behaviour like pacing and lying unnaturally still.

Bears have also been used on television and in film in Canada in recent years, and this bill would require a provincial licence for that activity.

In total, there are more than 25 zoos in our nation that continue to keep bears. Bill S-241 aims to protect them and others by limiting new captivity to justified situations with licensing requirements that protect their well-being.

The bill also prohibits the use of bears in performance for entertainment and grants them limited legal standing, allowing for court orders in their best interests, such as relocation with costs, if illegal breeding or performance were to occur.

As with Canada’s 2019 whales and dolphins law, the penalty for these summary offences would be a fine of up to $200,000.

Specifically, this bill attempts to protect these species by prohibiting the acquisition of new bears, including through capture or breeding, as well as through transfer, including imports and exports, unless licensed in one of three ways.

First, similar to the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act, an organization could apply for a licence allowing captivity of its bears if it is in the bears’ best interests, regarding individual welfare and conservation.

For example, qualified persons could take in orphaned cubs or problem bears that have come in contact with people and pose a safety risk. Licences could also provide better homes for captive bears currently living in inadequate conditions.

Bear sanctuaries can still thrive under this bill. Opportunities exist to save bears and to provide further public education, and for some existing locations holding bears to evolve. The bill also provides that it is not an offence for anyone to help an animal in distress, to ensure no interference with rescues.

Second, an organization could become licensed to acquire bears for non-harmful scientific research. This would justify new forms of captivity that allow us to learn vital scientific information about bears. In this way, the law would not prohibit the collection of hypothetical data in captive conditions that could help wild polar bears survive, such as with the disappearance of sea ice. In all such licensing decisions, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and, in some contexts, the province, should consider the individual welfare and prospective importance and credibility of any research.

Third, an organization can acquire new bears if they are designated as a Jane Goodall act “animal care organization.” Such organizations must serve purposes aligned with animal welfare, conservation, science and public education objectives. This designation can allow credible organizations, such as Canada’s leading zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries, to conduct their operations without an undue administrative burden. This bill proposes seven zoos and aquariums as initial organizations.

Such organizations must continue to meet five transparent and accessible criteria to protect animals, including the highest standards of care, whistle-blower protection, responsible acquisition of animals and no circus-style shows or use of animals for performance in TV or film.

Of great importance, such organizations must also meet any conditions established by the minister on the basis of the best scientific and expert information after, of course, consultations. Such conditions could be specific to the species or a particular facility and could restrict breeding.

Senators, we need the Jane Goodall act to protect bears in the same way we need it to protect other animals on the list, including big cats, the subject of such controversy in the very recent past. It’s estimated that close to 40 zoos in our country keep big cats, while estimates for private ownership range between an astonishing 3,600 to 7,000 animals.

Bill S-241 is wide-ranging and groundbreaking in many other ways, and it would be a disservice to the bill to try to discuss its many facets in the short time allotted to me. Perhaps, though, it’s worth touching on a significant portion of the bill which grants limited legal standing to animals in criminal sentencing for captive offences, notably illegal breeding or use in performance.

While this standing is restricted because it applies only within limited proceedings — criminal as opposed to civil, which is in the provincial domain — it is still a significant precedent given that virtually no jurisdictions grant animals any standing whatsoever.

The practical effect of the bill could, for example, see the forced relocation — with costs — of all of a roadside zoo’s big cats if it were found that any of the zoo cats were to have been illegally bred. Similarly, if a proprietor were to stage an illegal whale show, the same could apply for the relocation of whales.

This new version of the Jane Goodall act also encourages the Government of Ontario to grant civil standing to Kiska, the lone orca at Marineland, and basically advocates for recognition of her rights as an individual.

I have been a strong advocate for a Senate whose role is generally circumscribed by sober second thought, amendment and representation of regional and minority views. There are times, however, when I believe it can lead, and this is one of those occasions, in part because this bill is also included in the ministerial mandate letter.

Moreover, Dr. Jane Goodall, former Senator Sinclair and now my colleague Senator Klyne have highlighted the urgent plight of our wildlife and how it squares with our goals for reconciliation. The bill is also widely supported by organizations and individuals from across the country, including the Coastal First Nations of British Columbia, where the spirit bear’s habitat is located. This is consistent with the history of these nations in protecting the great bears of the rainforest, the cetaceans of the sea and all other creatures in the temperate bioregion. They are also leaders, working with Canada and British Columbia, in advancing the largest network of marine protection areas in Canada’s Pacific Coast.

Let me close by saying there is also a spiritual element of respect inherent in this bill for the kindred spirit of all living things. Mahatma Gandhi once said the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I think there is some truth in this. Protecting and respecting animals elevates our humanity. Neglecting them degrades it.

Discussing his own esteem for animals, the great humourist Will Rogers summed it up better than I could ever do. He said, “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” Thank you.