Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you today from the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people at my home in Riverview, New Brunswick. I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

My sincere thanks to Senator Mary Jane McCallum for her leadership on this bill and for always educating and reminding us of the needs for acts of reconciliation.

The purpose of my brief speech is to offer support and endorsement of this important bill. I have discovered how very little many of us know about the historical events and the culture of Indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada. I am truly grateful to be in this place and to have ongoing opportunities to expand my knowledge.

As a woman, I recognize the need to honour women through rituals and celebrations that speak to them in various ways. I believe Bill S-219 encourages and clearly provides opportunities for women and girls to wear their ribbon skirts to celebrate their culture. It also provides an opportunity for education, decolonization and reconciliation. The preamble of this bill states that:

Whereas Indigenous women are life-givers and are entrusted with traditional knowledge to care for their families, their communities and the environment;

Whereas the ribbon skirt is a centuries-old spiritual symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival and is a way for women to honour themselves and their culture . . .

But first, I want to share with you that I was especially touched by the testimony of one of our committee witnesses, Isabella Kulak, an 11-year-old girl from Cote First Nation, Saskatchewan, who shared her story about her experience of wearing her ribbon skirt for school for her formal day.

She told us that when she woke up she was so proud and excited to wear her skirt that day; she couldn’t wait to get to school. However, when she got to school, she was ridiculed by an educational assistant who told her that her outfit wasn’t formal wear.

Of course, this was deeply upsetting for Isabella. However, with encouragement from her parents, Isabella turned this experience into a positive outcome. She began speaking out publicly and gained a lot of support and recognition on the importance of honouring and wearing a ribbon skirt.

Her compelling story was heartbreaking as I thought about how many young girls like Isabella may have their self-esteem quickly diminished by a single act. Anouk Bella, my 11-year-old granddaughter, reminded me of Isabella. These are precious young girls with big hearts and passionate ideas. Isabella used her voice and became a young leader, speaking out about her experience, and helped many to understand the value of wearing a ribbon skirt.

What could have been a devastating event was turned into a positive result by Isabella. I do believe that Bill S-219 will provide opportunities to honour these women and girls who have been so often silenced. This could be even more difficult for marginalized First Nations girls and women who were affected by intergenerational trauma and their voices have not been heard.

As I researched more about ribbon skirts, I found interesting articles from across Canada and I will share a few of the highlights with you.

Indigenous ribbon skirts have become a permanent fixture in many parts of Canadian society. The resurgence of Indigenous ribbon skirts have different meanings for the women who wear them. For example, in Western Canada, Suzanne Life-Yeomans, Chair of the First Nations Women’s Council on Economic Security and a member of the Alberta Joint Working Group on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stated that her mother lost her Indigenous culture due to residential schools and the Sixties Scoop:

. . . when I wear my ribbon skirt it is healing my spirit and connecting me to Mother Earth. I hope to help other Indigenous people to be proud of their culture and to embrace the teachings around making and wearing ribbon skirts

Georgina Lightning, a First Nations film director, screenwriter and actress, stated:

. . . wearing a ribbon skirt symbolizes great strength, pride and hope in a better tomorrow as we stand united to speak out for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and all future generations to come.

I was so pleased to find some examples in Eastern Canada as well.

Annie Bernard-Daisley, the first female chief of We’koqma’q First Nation in Nova Scotia, spoke about how:

. . . a ribbon skirt makes you feel empowered, and you’re not just wearing a skirt, you’re wearing your culture and your traditional beliefs and what we are as Mi’kmaq women. It’s an expression of our history, our resilience, and especially . . . what you stand for . . . .

Before becoming chief, she worked with the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association around advocacy work. Her ribbon skirt was created by Candia Flynn from Healing Stitches to reflect the things the chief holds dearest: her role as a mother of three daughters; her advocacy work for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls; and her family roots.

On March 6, 2022, the CBC reported a story from Fort Folly First Nation, just 30 kilometres from my home here in New Brunswick. The report spoke at a new regalia-lending library in Fort Folly First Nation, New Brunswick that is providing access to cultural attire for anyone who needs to borrow it, or they can teach them how to make their own.

Nicole Porter, who works as a cultural coordinator and is the project lead, explained how it works. The idea of the lending library seemed important as her community was seeing a resurgence of cultural interest and the need to access regalia for ancestral ceremonies or sweat lodges, where women may be required to wear ribbon skirts.

Not only does Nicole have skirts to lend, she also teaches women how to make them. She said reducing, reusing and recycling is a big part of the project.

Laura Lymburner learned how to make her own ribbon skirt from Nicole and she said that it:

. . . really helped provide me with a sense of my role as a woman in my community, that we are sacred, that we are powerful and it’s really tying the culture back to me, through this skirt.

In closing, I want to share an inspiring story about Agnes Woodward, a Plains Cree seamstress from Kawacatoose First Nation in Saskatchewan who now lives in North Dakota.

Through her business, ReeCreeations, she designs and sells ribbon skirts. Woodward says:

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.

Agnes had the great honour to make a ribbon skirt for the first Indigenous cabinet Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland of the United States, for her swearing-in ceremony. That moment was historic by so many standards, because the first female U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, was swearing in the first Indigenous Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland. Deb’s beautiful royal blue skirt, wrapped in a rainbow of satin ribbons overlaid with an artful corn stalk, deep blue butterflies and stars, had been carefully crafted by Agnes Woodward from Canada.

Back in Canada, that ceremony was deeply appreciated by many, including Chief Annie Bernard-Daisley, who watched the swearing-in with a group of women from Nova Scotia. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house.

Those kinds of events and connections are so important, especially to show young girls the role models that are possible. There are so many stories that I found so interesting on this subject.

Dear colleagues, the ribbon skirt has great power and agency in moving toward reconciliation and greater equality for Indigenous women and girls. Let it be a beginning by offering support to this important bill. Welalioq.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I am speaking today at third reading of Bill S-219, an Act Respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

I am going to begin by describing the origins of the ribbon skirt, which is the subject of the bill. The ribbon skirt appears to date back to the 18th century when relationships between Great Lake tribes and French settlers expanded. The practice of incorporating ribbons into Indigenous clothing seems to have become widespread after silk fell out of fashion following the French Revolution. At that time, more goods, including ribbons, were exchanged. Indigenous clothing makers in the Great Lakes and Prairie regions began to use the colourful silk ribbons in their work.

However, there is evidence that ribbons were used in Indigenous art work much earlier. In the east, 17th century Mi’kmaq women began replacing hides and furs that made up their clothing with cloth that they occasionally decorated with glass beads and silk ribbon appliqué.

According to the Milwaukee Public Museum:

The first recorded instance of ribbonwork appliqué was on a Menominee wedding dress made in 1802. Ribbonwork reached its peak in the last quarter of the 19th century, having moved out from its epicenter in the Great Lakes to several tribes in the Prairies, Plains, and Northeast.

Although the materials used to make ribbon skirts are not native in origin, the method of appliqué used to make the folded look of the ribbon has become a visual marker of identity for centuries.

Senator McCallum, in testifying at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, referred to a Métis elder who spoke about the significance of the shape of the skirt:

She says it’s like a teepee you wear as you’re walking, because it tapers at your waist. As you’re walking over the earth and wearing the skirt, it signifies protecting the Earth and connecting with her at the same time. It’s those kinds of teachings people will seek out as they move towards this conversation about the origin of the ribbon skirt.

It is important to recognize that the ribbon skirt holds a great significance to Indigenous communities and to the women who wear them. The ribbon skirt represents strength, resilience, cultural identity and womanhood. That background is necessary to understand the significance of an incident that occurred in Saskatchewan on December 18, 2020. While you have heard the story a number of times previously — and in addition to Senator Hartling a few minutes ago — it’s a story of inspiration that deserves retelling.

It is the story of Isabella Kulak, a 10-year-old First Nation’s girl from the Cote First Nation in Saskatchewan. On December 18, 2020, Isabella’s school sponsored a formal day. Isabella proudly wore a traditional ribbon skirt. Unfortunately, Isabella was shamed by an educational assistant who was unaware of the significance of the ribbon skirt. Sadly, Isabella removed her ribbon skirt, placing it in her backpack. When she returned home, she told her parents what had happened.

As details of the incident became known, Isabella received support from her community and from around the world. As Isabella said at the Aboriginal People’s Committee: “It’s like the world woke up.”

The following month, on January 4, 2021, Isabella returned to her school for the first time since the incident, accompanied by her nation’s leadership and many women in her community, all of whom walked her to school wearing their own ribbon skirts, hence the significance of establishing January 4 as national ribbon skirt day.

On January 4, 2022, Isabella’s school celebrated their first Ribbon Skirt Day as an act of reconciliation and education, and encouraged other students from other nationalities to wear something that represented who they are. As Isabella said, “It turned out to be the best day ever.”

Last month on March 21, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met to study Bill S-219, an Act Respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day. Bill S-219 conveys to us the importance of ribbon skirts, educates us and provides us with the opportunity to learn more about Indigenous cultures and heritage.

Lisa J. Smith, a senior director at the Native Women’s Association of Canada, said during a committee meeting studying the bill that:

Indigenous culture must be celebrated in the way that Isabella demonstrated. . . . there are currently no federally recognized days of celebration of Indigenous culture during winter. NWAC submits that recognizing January 4 as national ribbon skirt day will be a welcome means to advance reconciliation.

. . . this is truth and reconciliation in action. . . .

As Senator McCallum said during her testimony at a committee meeting:

. . . having January 4 of each year set aside to recognize the ribbon skirt is fundamentally both an action of reconciliation and conciliation. It not only upholds and honours a highly important cultural item for many Indigenous people in Canada but simultaneously acknowledges and values our self-determination.

Before I conclude, I would like to reference the Pope’s historic apology of April 1, which received much media coverage. There were a number of videos on media sites showing women wearing ribbon skirts, while another site had a photo gallery that also included photos of women wearing ribbon skirts. I would not have recognized the ribbon skirt had it not been for this bill.

Bill S-219 proposes to establish January 4 as national ribbon skirt day. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Mercer: Senator, it seems to me that this is an opportunity for us to continue to engage Canadians in defence of our very important agricultural sector.

Would this not be an opportunity to educate Canadians to ask their grocers why they have products on the shelves that are from elsewhere when there are products available being grown here in Canada?

I am the grocery shopper in my house, so excuse me if I get too detailed. I go in to buy cherry tomatoes for my recipes at home. I always read the label; I see Mexico and the southern parts of the United States. In this country, there are some huge greenhouses, for example just north of Trois-Rivières in Quebec; there is a huge greenhouse there that is about the size of five Canadian football fields. All they grow is cherry tomatoes.

When I go to the Sobeys store in Nova Scotia and I pick up cherry tomatoes, I seek out the produce manager and ask, “Why are you selling me Mexican cherry tomatoes when they are available from Quebec or Prince Edward Island, where a lot of cherry tomatoes grow?”

Isn’t this an opportunity, having a food day in Canada, to call our fellow citizens to the battle in making sure that our grocers are not taking the lazy way out and buying food from other places when there is a product being grown right here?

Senator Black: Senator Mercer, thank you for that question. The short answer is absolutely, yes.

I’m hopeful that a food day in Canada celebration would encourage people to ask those very questions of grocers across this country, that day and all year. I know that there are times in the cold parts of our year when we can’t access produce grown in Canada.

We certainly do need to ask those questions more often than not. I am delighted that, as the food shopper in your family, you do that. I do the same thing. Sometimes they get very annoyed with me, but I think it’s so very important.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Food as reconciliation.

Harry S. Truman said, “In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more prosperous than its farmers . . . .”

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-227, which seeks to establish food day in Canada.

I would like to thank Senator Black for his continued and committed advocacy toward the land, soil safety and the agriculture community on Turtle Island.

Farming has always been and continues to be a key part in the solution toward producing nutritious and free-range food for Canadians. My interest in farming has a personal connection. My mentor and surrogate father, Dr. Robert Glenn, was a farmer around the Russell area in the Interlake region of Manitoba.

One day, when he was in his late seventies, he was talking to me about his farm while we were in the dental clinic. I asked him:

Dr. Glenn, why do you continue to do this hard work that starts at four or five in the morning and continues late into the night without so much as a guaranteed income when the season is over?

He answered, “It’s in the blood, my girl.” At that moment, my profound respect for farmers and the hard, tireless — and many times unappreciated and thankless — work that they do was born.

Farming, as I understand it now, is land-based education. Like Indigenous knowledge, there is knowledge and wisdom garnered in this setting that you will never learn from a textbook while sitting in a classroom.

Honourable senators, it is a little-known fact that one of the most significant contributions that America’s Indigenous peoples have made is in agricultural farming. Many foods, such as chocolate, potatoes, corn and tomatoes, are native to the Americas, and were initially cultivated or domesticated by Indigenous farmers.

The three sisters — corn, beans and squash — were typically grown together by Indigenous farmers. Going back to the earliest days of first contact, settlers frequently relied on Indigenous people’s knowledge of food and the land to survive in this foreign terrain.

As is stated in The Canadian Encyclopedia’s submission on First Nations, it says, in part, that during the 1600s Indigenous technology and knowledge of hunting, trapping, guiding, food and disease proved crucial to the survival of Europeans and early colonial economy and society.

Without the sharing of their knowledge and bounty, including Indigenous food preparation techniques such as harvesting wild rice in the fall and maple syrup in the spring, Europeans would not have survived, let alone thrived.

Dr. Diana Bizecki Robson at the Manitoba Museum, in her book A Brief History of Indigenous Agriculture, stated:

After Europeans arrived in the Americas, crops from the “Old World” (e.g. wheat, barley, oats) were brought here while American crop plants were transported to Africa, Asia and Europe; this process was known as the Columbian Exchange.

However, colleagues, it should be acknowledged that despite their contributions in this field, Indigenous peoples have a complicated and misunderstood history regarding farming in Canada.

In the book entitled, Lost Harvests, Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy, well-known author Sarah Carter stated:

The Indian farmer has been accorded an insignificant role in Canadian prairie history. Although the Plains Indians were among the earliest and largest of groups to attempt farming west of the Red River Settlement, immigrants from Europe and the older provinces of Canada are routinely credited with the pioneering efforts to farm the prairies. Not only were the Indians excluded from histories of the sodbusters, but they were not even recognized as having the capability to farm.

She continues:

. . . the Plains Cree were anxious to acquire the skills and tools that would allow them to farm but that eventually they gave up agriculture because of restrictive government regulations including the permit system, the subdivision of reserves, and the ban on the use of machinery.

Colleagues, the reason Indigenous farmers were not as successful as their settler counterparts was, as Sarah Carter states:

. . . not that the Indians’ culture limited their capacity for farming, but that along with environmental setbacks, Indian farmers were subject to regulations that denied them the technological and financial opportunities to form a strong agricultural base.

The author frames this issue concisely when she writes:

The prevailing view that the Indians of western Canada failed to adapt to agriculture because of their cultural traditions is in need of revision . . . .

Those who stress that the fundamental problem was that Indians were culturally or temperamentally resistant to becoming farmers have ignored or downplayed economic, legal, social, and climatic factors. Reserve agriculturalists were subject to the same adversities and misfortunes as their white neighbours were, but they were also subject to government policies that tended to aggravate rather than ameliorate a situation that was dismal for all farmers.

Honourable senators, I have given a very brief history on food and agriculture as it relates to Indigenous peoples. This includes their willingness to share their food production insights and provide sustenance to earlier settlers, Indigenous people’s capability, ingenuity and willingness to thrive in the farming arena, and the many barriers that existed beginning in those early days, which were insurmountable forces working against Indigenous success in this realm.

Colleagues, I would now like to touch on the issue of food security and its reliance on a healthy environment and biodiversity.

In the book Saving Farmland: The Fight for Real Food, the author quotes Vandana Shiva when she describes the rights of nature:

The Earth’s living systems and human communities face multiple crises of climate change, mass species extinction, rampant deforestation, desertification, collapse of fisheries, toxic contamination with tragic consequences for all life. Under the current system of law, Nature is considered an object, a property, giving the property owner the right to destroy ecosystems for financial gain. The Rights of Nature legal doctrine recognizes that ecosystems and plant and animal species cannot simply be objects of property but entities that have the inherent right to exist. People, communities and authorities have the responsibility to guarantee those rights on behalf of Nature. These laws are consistent with indigenous people’s concepts of natural law and original instructions as well as the understanding that humans are a part of Nature and only one strand in the web of life.

Colleagues, it is understood and accepted now that the health of our surrounding natural environment has direct and profound impacts on our own health. The loss of diversity, whether culturally, biologically or environmentally that continues to occur in Canada, has been detrimental to our food supply and production.

When these fundamental supply chains become compromised, we suffer a severance in our connection to the land as well as to the animals that are integral to a healthy and thriving biodiversity.

It should also be noted that food security can often take different forms for different segments of our population. Considering the traditional, land-based lifestyle that many Indigenous peoples still live and strive to uphold, it will come as no surprise that Indigenous peoples face a greater threat of food insecurity. This is explained in an article entitled The History of Food in Canada Is the History of Colonialism from the online publication The Walrus, which states:

In a large city, food choices are horizontal, like a buffet, each option available independently of the others. In many Indigenous food systems, the menu is much more vertical, like a Jenga tower, in which many pieces support the entire structure; removing one element can topple everything. Within this food system, an animal like seal is not just a source of protein but also of fuel, clothing, tools, and commerce — all of it devastated in 2009, when the European Union, prompted by environmental activists, banned the import of seal products.

Colleagues, the reality and importance of the seal is but one example to show the intricacies and the intersectionality that biodiversity has on the overall well-being of countless Indigenous peoples across Canada.

Senators, many Canadians feel that our food systems are secure so long as the grocery stores are full, often showing indifference as to where and how these stores come by their product. However, it is critical that we ask ourselves: What is our relationship with food? It is to our benefit that we question things such as how has the wheat been grown or the meat been raised? Is it organic or free-range? Is it local? Is there genetic engineering involved?

To best support our local businesses and especially our local farmers, it is important to ask such questions. Supporting and understanding local businesses helps us to appreciate and respect that nutritious food is not to be taken for granted. It is the result of the marriage between a healthy biodiversity and those individuals who nurture and cultivate it.

Colleagues, the preamble to Bill S-227 states:

. . . the people of Canada will benefit from a food day in Canada to celebrate local food as one of the most elemental characteristics of all of the cultures that populate this nation . . . .

This is an important feature of this bill. Celebrating with and through food is an inherent act shared by First Nations and other Canadians. We often do this through feasts, which have always been a time of gathering, celebrating, sharing, laughter and joy.

With food at its heart, people come together to share stories, to listen, to learn and to heal. In this way, the celebration of food contributes to building relationships and bridging differences. It also underscores the importance of working together, whether it is harvesting, hunting or gathering. Food is always a conduit to find time to bring us together and to share our humanness.

Honourable senators, the importance of food is obvious, but the concept of celebrating and commemorating its past, present and future in Canada is a valuable initiative. I want to acknowledge all farmers across Canada for the massive undertaking of their work, all small local businesses across the country who make available local produce, goods and food and all chefs across the country, whether they are in our homes or restaurants for the part they play in resourcing local foods.

In closing, colleagues, I would like to quote Frances Moore Lappé when she wrote:

The point of commons care is to prevent harm before it occurs. And means learning to “think like an eco‑system” . . . .

We come to see natural treasures no longer as merely divisible property but as gifts protected by boundaries we create and honor, knowing that all life depends on their integrity.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: When they talk to Senator Boisvenu and myself about the programs they have, they work with the men who have committed the violence. They have a very high success rate. They also work individually with women. They work with youth. And there is so much potential.

One of the reasons we met with her was to look at what resources were needed. I think that if we do more work like this, working with the community, with the legislation that we’re working with, that there is much more success, our legislation will have fewer gaps, and that we will see if these interventions will work. They are willing to go through this and work with the system. So I think it’s a great step ahead.

Senator Pate: I’m not sure there was a question, but I’m happy to add that I think it’s true. The challenge is, as you have already experienced in talking to those women, when the only response you provide is a criminal law response, women who have had a history of not having any kind of avenues to get support often will leap to that and cling to that, when in fact as you have already experienced, when you go and speak to them, that’s the last thing they want. They want a whole host of other supports and services to prevent them from ending up before the courts in the first place.

My concern is offering electronic monitoring as though it will solve the problem creates that false sense of security, and creates a sense that it actually will be effective when, as I hoped to lay out, in fact, there is ample evidence that is not true. If at the committee we take the opportunity to say, what should we be doing instead of this, I think that would be a fabulous opportunity, so thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator McCallum: Many Canadians feel that our food systems are secure as long as the grocery stores are full, no matter where we got it from. We just have to look at the flooding that occurred in B.C., which cut off the city of Vancouver, to understand how precarious our food supply is.

In the book by Ms. Chambers entitled Saving Farmland, she states:

In fact, on Vancouver Island, we have only enough food collectivity for about three days, should it stop being delivered from other places, and even now, many people are not getting enough to eat. There is a crisis looming, and it is, in fact, already upon us as we continually appropriate the best farmland for development and erode and damage already restricted food-production areas.

Supporting local businesses helps us to appreciate and respect that food is not indispensable. Eating locally reduces the carbon footprint because the food doesn’t have to travel as far.

According to a study by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the Iowa State University, a local carrot has to travel only 27 miles, while a conventionally sourced carrot has to travel 1,838 miles to get to your plate. Eating local means that money stays in the local economy, and local businesses thrive instead of a corporation.

Farmlands contain whole parts of ecosystems —

Senator Pate: I absolutely agree with going to committee. I think you know that in Manitoba alone, there are some incredible examples of where Indigenous communities have stepped in precisely because of what I have just spoken about and have taken the position that they will remove the men from homes and provide supports in the home for women and children. That impact, that approach has had hugely positive success, but it requires resourcing and requires supports for communities to do that. Looking at those sorts of approaches would absolutely be a fantastic opportunity, so thank you for suggesting that.

Senator McCallum: Senator Pate, my question is around the violence that occurs in the communities. Stemming that violence has many origins and they require different interventions, and some of those interventions go beyond legislation. They cannot be legislated. Those are societal responses. The communities need to play a part in what is happening in their communities. For that reason, I arranged a meeting with Senator Boisvenu and Indigenous groups in Winnipeg that are addressing this violence, and they are working hand in hand with Senator Boisvenu now.

I think that, like you said, it is not a stand-alone. I have seen this happen time and time again with legislation and there was no community involvement. The work that’s being done by the communities in Winnipeg is successful, and they are willing to work with Senator Boisvenu. Wouldn’t it be good for this to go to committee so that people can hear about what is happening at the community level?

Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, for both your speech and your ideas. I would love to work with you on that kind of initiative and I would welcome that opportunity. I am troubled, however, by your suggestion. Given that you know that there are many of us in this chamber who similarly have family members who have been murdered, sexually assaulted and victimized, as well as the fact that we know police organizations, women’s groups and victims’ groups do call into question the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, especially when it comes to the issues you ended your speech with, namely, Indigenous women — that is partly why it is one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

I am troubled by your suggestion that the bill would actually repeal mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, it is quite the opposite. You stress the importance of section 718.2(e) especially for racialized prisoners and, in particular, for Indigenous women. Yet, that is precisely what the impact, the import and the role of the bill would be. It would be to allow, in exceptional cases, those mandatory minimum penalties that the courts have already challenged, including the Supreme Court of Canada, when they said in R. v. Luxton that when considering the life sentence for murder, the only thing that saved it from being unconstitutional was the fact that there was a “faint hope clause,” and we now no longer have it.

Would you agree that you have perhaps overstated a bit the fact that this bill will repeal mandatory minimum penalties? In fact, it won’t do anything of the sort. In exceptional cases such as the ones discussed by a number of us in this chamber, it might provide judges an opportunity to give reasons as to why they would not utilize the mandatory minimum penalty.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, before I begin my speech on Bill S-233, allow me to express my great admiration for Senator Pate’s work on the penal system and her tenacity in promoting an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income program. I share her desire to see an end to poverty. I recognize, as she and others have pointed out, that receiving a stable basic income has positive effects on the physical and mental health of each person.

However, it is possible to achieve the same results with public policies that are less costly and more equitable and socially acceptable than the policy proposed in Bill S-233.

Even though I hold Senator Pate in great esteem, the socio-economic problems raised by Bill S-233 are so important to me that I cannot support the bill.

[Translation]

Bill S-233 would require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to provide all persons over the age of 17 in Canada, as well as permanent residents, refugees and temporary workers, with access to an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income.

Throughout history, a few philosophers and some economists have promoted the idea of an unconditional guaranteed basic income, or GBI. More often than not, they were described by their peers as utopians.

In the early 1960s, right-wing economist Milton Friedman gave new life to the idea of GBI when he proposed a negative income tax in his famous work, Capitalism and Freedom. He sought to reduce the role of the state and to privatize social programs. Certain right-wing and left-wing groups have praised him since.

In most industrialized countries, the social safety net we know was developed around concepts of mutualization, reciprocity and social inclusion. It relies on participation in the workforce, social insurance, targeted income-based benefits and social assistance for those in need. This system can be improved. Unfortunately, it is incompatible with a system based on an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income, as provided for in Bill S-233.

Several studies have shown that this idea is not economically realistic and is questionable in terms of fairness and social acceptability.

Why is a GBI is economically unrealistic? The answer is simple: its cost is prohibitive. A GBI would help just over 11% of those living under the poverty line by giving 100% of all adults a basic income. To fund such a GBI, we would have to completely overhaul the income tax system.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently calculated that it would cost $87.8 billion in 2022-23 to implement a GBI program similar to the pilot project that Ontario launched in 2017 for adults aged 18 to 64. These estimates are based on a basic income of $17,000 for a single person and $24,000 for a couple, reduced at a rate of $0.50 for every dollar earned on top of the basic income. The cost of a basic income increases rapidly as the clawback rate goes down, as was pointed out in another PBO report released in 2020.

In 2019, the Basic Income Canada Network estimated the cost of providing a guaranteed annual income of $22,000 for Canadians aged 18 and over at $187 billion a year if the government clawed back $0.40 per dollar earned. Bill S-233 takes a similar approach. That is the equivalent of all federal personal income taxes in 2021-22, which totalled $189.4 billion.

A universal benefit is even more costly. A guaranteed income of something like $22,000 for every Canadian adult would cost $637 billion according to the Basic Income Canada Network. That is almost twice the federal government’s total revenue. Even after taxes, that kind of basic income would absorb all federal revenue. In short, the cost of a guaranteed basic income is prohibitive.

That is the issue. To finance this kind of program, governments would have to overhaul the income tax system. The tax changes it would take to fund such a program would have a negative effect on labour market participation, not because people are lazy, but just because they are rational. In essence, the number of people supported by the program would exceed the number of people the government set out to help initially. Fewer hours worked means fewer hours taxed, and that means less revenue for the government. In short, paying for guaranteed basic income is unsustainable.

As you know, not long ago, the Government of Quebec struck a committee to come up with a plan for implementing a GBI, and the Government of British Columbia created a panel to set up a pilot project. Both groups rejected the feasibility of such a program. The British Columbia panel rejected the very idea. Why? Because no pilot project could capture all the macroeconomic consequences of financing a GBI system.

[English]

I quote from the B.C. panel:

Many Canadian basic income proposals suggest eliminating most or all tax credits, including the basic personal amount, to create a “self-financing” RTC basic income. This would be a fundamental reform of the tax system that would mean tax becomes payable with the first dollar earned, increasing disincentives to work for low-income earners not on Income Assistance.

The report adds that these taxes would generate insufficient funds.

The panel continues:

Eliminating programs could be another alternative, but we believe that the many services provided by the existing programs aimed at meeting basic needs—in combination with cash transfers—are essential to a just society.

The report concludes:

. . . as we have emphasized a basic income must be considered in the context of how it is financed and how the changes made to taxes and programs to cover its costs combine with the incentive effects of the basic income itself. Impacts of the financing aspects of a major basic income could exceed the incentive and economic effects posed by the benefits alone.

[Translation]

My second point has to do with fairness and social justice. The two provincial expert panels analyzed the impact of a guaranteed basic income from the perspective of social fairness through the philosophical principles of social justice that have been outlined by the well-known philosopher John Rawls. According to these principles and that philosopher, a guaranteed basic income can cause major social fairness problems. The short explanation is easy to understand. An equal basic income for all is not necessarily fair, because it does not guarantee equal opportunities for all. Let’s not forget that everyone has different needs. Conversely, a targeted approach can better ensure the principle of equal opportunities.

As the British Columbia expert panel pointed out, and I quote:

[English]

Moving to a system constructed around a basic income is not the most just policy change we can consider. The needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government.

The report further reads:

We are also concerned about the implications of a basic income for the society we will share in the future. A basic income emphasizes individual autonomy—an important characteristic of a just society. However, in doing so it de‑emphasizes other crucial characteristics of justice that must be, in our view, balanced: community, social interactions, reciprocity, and dignity. The basic income approach seems to us to be more individualistic than the way we believe British Columbians see themselves.

[Translation]

The work of American philosopher Elizabeth Anderson reached similar conclusions.

Our current system provides support to all people in need through a variety of different programs, which, I repeat, could be improved at both the federal and provincial levels. These programs are more responsive to the diverse needs of all those who experience hardship under different circumstances and at different times in their lives than an equal basic income for all at all times would be.

Because the guaranteed basic income is a one-size-fits-all solution, implementing this approach could have unintended and undesirable consequences.

Here is an example to illustrate my point. According to the latest report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which discusses the income distribution effects of GBI, a low-income single-parent family could lose $5,315 per year as a result of the implementation of GBI. However, it is precisely these families, which are usually headed by women, that we want to help.

Esteemed colleagues, I join Senator Simons in encouraging you to reflect on how Bill S-233 will affect young people. How will society be able to provide roots and wings for its children if they are handed a basic income as of the age of 18 without any corresponding requirement for education, training or participation in society? Would a parent, even a wealthy one, agree to finance their 18-year-old who decided to drop out of school or a training program and refused to work? To ask the question is to answer it. Should these be the principles on which our society is based?

I now want to talk about political issues. Colleagues, Bill S-233 raises issues of social acceptability and constitutional problems. In March 2022, I conducted a poll with Angus Reid on work ethic and GBI. The results will soon be available on my website.

I’ll give an overview of the findings.

Firstly, Canadians have a work ethic that has remained consistent through similar polls that I conducted in 1981 and 2014. Roughly 79% of Canadians think that every adult who is able to work should work to earn a living. However, 54% of Canadians would like to be able to live without working. That is why the idea of a guaranteed basic income polarizes Canadians. While 46% of Canadians support this idea, 37% are against it. When we ask Canadians if they are prepared to pay for this program through their taxes and reduced services, only 19% of Canadians are prepared to do so, while 62% are not. What is more, only 5% of Canadians strongly support the idea of funding a guaranteed basic income through increased taxes and reduced services, while 43% of Canadians are strongly opposed.

GBI is an attractive idea, but Canadians are not prepared to cover the cost. Who would pay for it then?

Bill S-233 also raises real constitutional issues. It involves eliminating many social transfers to the provinces. The federal government could unilaterally decide to do so. It goes without saying that the provinces would react vigorously. The provinces are not ready to accept this, nor are they prepared to hand over their social assistance responsibilities to the federal government. The discussions would be endless.

In conclusion, there are solutions we can work on to reduce poverty in Canada. The Poverty Reduction Act, which we passed in 2019, seeks to reduce poverty and sets targets linked to the United Nations 2030 Agenda. The British Columbia and Quebec reports describe many inspiring opportunities for action. For example, the two reports recommend the implementation of a guaranteed basic income, similar to what already exists for seniors and persons with living with disabilities, and it is quite feasible.

Recommendation No. 5 of the Quebec report proposes the implementation of a program to facilitate transitions in the labour market and training. It provides several realistic proposals for reducing and preventing poverty.

The current system, which is preferred by industrialized nations and promoted by the OECD, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations, has proven to be successful. It reduces poverty and, above all, it helps prevent it.

[English]

There are many solutions we can work on to eliminate poverty and inequality in Canada, but a GBI should not be one of them. It’s time we abandon this utopian dream for pragmatic, rigorously tested, targeted programs that will reduce and prevent poverty, provide skills and training and create an inclusive labour market. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Pate. Regarding the whole Indigenous issue, I’ve reviewed some court decisions, and a number of judges referred to the Supreme Court’s direction to take cultural factors into account during sentencing or to issue rulings that are more favourable to Indigenous communities. These are people who live under very specific circumstances. For my bill, I had the opportunity to talk to many members of Indigenous communities, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Poverty and violence among Indigenous people is much more of a social issue than a criminal one.

We obviously do not have the same perspective on your bill. I disagree with the approach you’re taking to achieve your goal of ensuring that judges all have the freedom to decide on sentencing, rather than being restricted to minimum sentences in some cases. The Supreme Court already authorizes judges to depart from minimum sentences in exceptional cases if they can justify their decision.

Unfortunately, when I spoke to Crown attorneys this week, I learned that even judges are not fully informed on decisions made by the Supreme Court. If you go back 5, 10 or 15 years, you might be surprised to learn that some Supreme Court directives have not been followed.

What I am saying is that the approach your bill takes shifts the debate, in my opinion, because currently, judges can, in some exceptional cases, choose not to impose minimum sentences. Why abolish those sentences or change the system? If you’re telling me that this bill does not abolish minimum sentences, then why introduce it, if judges already have the ability, in accordance with the Supreme Court directive, to decide whether or not to apply them, provided they can justify their decision?

[English]

Senator Pate: Perhaps you could point me to where, exactly, that provision is. I know you read out part of a decision, but that was regarding one mandatory minimum penalty saying the judges did not have to apply it. One of the challenges is there have now been at least 43 court decisions striking down mandatory minimum provisions. We now have a patchwork across the country of where the law applies, and where it doesn’t. In fact, there is no ruling that says judges do not have to not impose mandatory minimum penalties, hence the reason for Senator Jaffer’s bill. Would you not agree?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Robert Black moved third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-227, which seeks to designate the Saturday of the August long weekend as food day in Canada.

At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Simons for taking my place as Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in order to allow me to act as a witness for Bill S-227. I would like to thank Senators Poirier and McCallum for speaking to this important bill, and I look forward to hearing from them in the near future. Finally, I would like to thank the agricultural industry for their widespread support of this bill and to the witnesses who appeared before the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to share their thoughts on the establishment of a national food day in Canada.

Colleagues, you have heard me time and again highlight the importance of the agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada. Food is at the heart of our homes, our communities and our economy, and one positive thing that has emerged from this pandemic is that many Canadians, especially those outside of rural and agricultural communities, have become far more interested in learning about where and how their food is grown.

In terms of access to food, we are so very lucky here in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the largest producers and exporters of agriculture and agri-food products in the world. I and many others, including industry stakeholders, believe it is high time we acknowledge the important role that agriculture and local food play in Canada with a cross-country celebration.

The establishment of food day in Canada will raise the pride and confidence that many of us have, and that many more of us need to have, in the food we produce in Canada, not only for our own domestic use but for international folks abroad as well. It will promote discussions around food sovereignty and food security.

While I mentioned that we are extremely lucky to have access to such a bountiful agri-food sector, there are still Canadians who struggle to access affordable and nutritious foods. This is something that must be addressed going forward. No Canadian should go hungry.

During the Agriculture and Forestry Committee’s meeting on this bill, we heard how important it is for our future generations to understand that our farmers, producers, processors and agri-food retailers work hard to produce good food. Canadians young and old need to see for themselves that their agriculture communities care about the land, the commodities they grow and the animals they raise.

We have some of the very best natural resources, countless talented leaders in the industry and highly innovative technology and equipment to feed our country and the world.

It is clear that having a nationally recognized food day in Canada can help our friends, neighbours and future generations understand that there is so much to learn about agriculture and food production in our country.

At the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, we also heard from witnesses about the value of such a tribute to Canadian ingredients and the good people in the food system, as well as the immeasurable value of positive support and trust in Canadian food and farming, especially in light of how much we have learned about our domestic food system over the course of the pandemic.

If established, this annual celebration would not only see Canadians join together in a celebration of our food — and the people who make it happen, from our farms to our forks — but also encourage Canadians to continue learning about our agriculture and agri-food industries. It’s a chance to highlight and appreciate the diverse and nutritious food products we have access to.

Agriculture and agri-food are critical industries that contribute not only to the whole of our nation but also to countries around this world, not to mention that increasing the awareness around the world of food produced in Canada and the good food that we grow is absolutely critical as we increase our reach and work to achieve the targets that were outlined in the Barton report a number of years ago.

Honourable colleagues, when we talk about local food, we are also talking about people in our everyday lives. We are talking about the farmers who grow the crops we drive by as we travel Canada, the agri-businesses that produce the food we see on the shelves, the restaurateurs and chefs who feed us and the vintners and brewers who brew the wine, beer and spirits we enjoy.

Local food is about much more than just what we eat; it is about Canadians. If passed, Bill S-227 would give Canadians a reason to celebrate not only agriculture and agri-food but also everyone who makes up the vast food supply chain coast to coast to coast together every summer.

At this time, I’m pleased to share that the bill has had resounding support from all parties in the other place. I’m hopeful that we can pass this expeditiously here in the Red Chamber to ensure that a nationally recognized food day in Canada will take place this summer.

However, regardless of the outcome of my bill, I would like to thank all of you in advance for your support in celebrating Canadian food from coast to coast to coast all year-round.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black: Senator McCallum, thank you for your important words. Would you comment on how you see the passing of the food day in Canada bill as a means of helping to support a healthy environment?

The Hon. the Speaker: We will suspend for one hour.

Senator Clement, when we return, you will have the balance of your time. Thank you.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Clement, but I must interrupt.

It is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair and suspend for one hour, unless it’s the wish of the Senate to not see the clock.

If honourable senators wish to suspend, please say “suspend.”

Senator Plett: Suspend.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Use of displays, exhibits and props in Senate proceedings, tabled in the Senate on April 5, 2022.