Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-220. I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.

I also wish to thank Senator McCallum for the powerful speech she delivered last Thursday.

I am a proud L’nu, also known as Mi’kmaq. I am living proof of the resistance and resilience of my people. We are still here despite the colonial and genocidal actions perpetrated by Canada and its institutions and actors. We continue to fight to regain control over our lives and futures while working to heal from historical and ongoing trauma.

In my role as a senator from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, I have the distinct privilege and responsibility to speak up in support of First Nations and all Indigenous peoples, and in this particular instance to share my perspective on the importance of ensuring that, in the context of reconciliation, Indigenous languages are treated as equal rather than subservient to English and French.

Colleagues, generations of Indigenous peoples in Canada have been deprived of opportunities that others take for granted. We suffer from lack of access to basic services and infrastructure due to chronic underfunding. We suffer from poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancies. We suffer from higher rates of poverty and homelessness. We suffer from lower levels of education and economic success. And we suffer from overrepresentation in the criminal justice and child welfare systems. The odds are against us since before we were born.

I have serious concerns about Bill S-220. In my opinion, the bill reflects a lack of awareness and understanding of the harsh realities faced by Indigenous people across Canada. Moreover, it amounts to a continuation of the status quo, which has directly contributed to exclude, rather than include, Indigenous peoples from participation in all aspects of public life.

The appointment of Mary Simon as the first Inuk and Indigenous person to serve in the role of Governor General of Canada is historical and inspirational. It should be celebrated by all as an important step forward in recognizing the linguistic plurality of Canada. Rather than putting into question her capacity to serve in this role, we should applaud that Mary Simon speaks English and Inuktitut and has committed to improving her French. In 2022, French and English should not be considered more valuable or superior to Indigenous languages.

Like Mary Simon, I am a survivor of the Indian day school system. Like Mary Simon, I was not given the opportunity to learn French in my childhood. The close to 200,000 of us who attended these federally run institutions received a substandard education. There was a greater emphasis on religion than academics. As a result, many of us were left with a lack of basic literacy and numeracy skills.

Unlike Mary Simon, I am not fluent in my Indigenous language, due to the intergenerational impact of the Indian residential and day school systems. There are not many around me who can fluently read, write and speak in Mi’kmaw. Those of us who became fluent in English struggled for many years.

Thirty years ago, educational outcomes for Indigenous youth were grim. Not enough has changed since. The graduation rate for non-Indigenous people is 88%; for on-reserve Indigenous people, it can be as low as 36%. Is it any wonder, then, that Indigenous people obtain a bachelor’s degree at one third the rate of non-Indigenous people?

Not many get to have the long and distinguished career — inside and outside of the public service — that Mary Simon has enjoyed. Very few, if any, have walked in her shoes. That she was able to retain her Indigenous language of Inuktitut at a time when Indigenous languages were suppressed or extinguished makes her story even more remarkable. Her remarkable success is not the rule but the exception.

I’m not here to say that learning French or English or becoming bilingual is not important, however, too often, Indigenous peoples have been squeezed between the squabbles of colonial interests. In the context of the assimilationist and genocidal actions inflicted by the state on generations of Indigenous people, it is not difficult to see how Bill S-220 would serve to perpetuate harm rather than alleviate it.

My language was taken from me. I was forced to learn English. Too many Indigenous peoples across Canada endure the same fate. To those who decry that Mary Simon had many years in the public service to learn French in order to succeed, I would urge them to reflect carefully on why she never did. Then I would ask them: Do you not see the cruelty in telling Indigenous peoples, whose language and culture were violently stolen, that they must learn yet another colonial language to be deemed worthy or deserving of serving Canada?

Colleagues, many Indigenous people continue to struggle to reclaim their culture and languages, but it does not have to be this way.

I wish to highlight the success of the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia. In the 1990s, when high school graduation rates were close to 30%, the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia began to exercise control over their education in their communities, including by creating successful immersion programs where children thrived in both English and Mi’kmaq. Today, the high school graduation rate for Nova Scotian Mi’kmaq students is 90%. Like Mary Simon, many of those students are retaining their Indigenous language. In my opinion, that should be the standard across Canada.

However, Bill S-220, if successful, would signal to these students that even after succeeding academically and retaining their Indigenous language, they would still not be good enough to serve the public good in Canada. Is that really the message we want to send to our Indigenous children and youth?

For the price of my culture and language, I received a substandard education that left me struggling to compete with my peers. For the price of my culture and language, I was taught English but not French. For the price of my culture and language, I am now being asked to rebuild the barrier Mary Simon broke down. Is that fair? No, it is simply not.

Colleagues, I suggest to you that as it is currently envisioned, Bill S-220 would be a step backwards from the good work we have accomplished in recent years. In my first years sitting among you in this chamber, the Indigenous Languages Act was passed. Against the myth that only French and English are foundational to Canada, the preamble of the act recognizes Indigenous languages as the original languages spoken on these lands. Yet, the Indigenous Languages Act stopped short of making Indigenous languages official federal languages. I say “federal” here because Inuktitut, among others, is an official language in the Northwest Territories as well as in Nunavut. This omission must be corrected.

The Indigenous Languages Act spoke to Call to Action 14 of the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was also a small step towards Call to Action 13: “We call upon the federal government to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”

In the context of the bill before us today, Senator McCallum called for Indigenous languages to be enshrined in the Constitution, and I agree. We must consider how this could be accomplished, and how Call to Action 13 may be better served.

Only two languages are explicitly protected by name in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution. Importantly, the Charter does not fully outline or advance the language rights of English and French. Instead, as two examples, the advancement of language rights is found in acts such as the Official Languages Act and the Language Skills Act. Simply put, acts like these operationalize those rights.

Indigenous or Aboriginal rights are also recognized and affirmed by the Charter. This language is important because the Charter is not the source of those rights. Slowly and judiciously, Indigenous rights have been laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those outlined are not exhaustive.

In terms of language rights, I wish to point out that the Official Languages Act does not extinguish the legal and customary rights of other languages.

Colleagues, I cannot support Bill S-220, because of its exclusionary intent. However, if the bill goes to committee, I support Senator Dalphond’s suggestion to look at the constitutional validity of using the Language Skills Act to put restraints on the appointment of the Governor General.

I would add that we should use this opportunity to consider how we can begin to operationalize Indigenous language rights. As an example, we could consider changing “both official languages” to “any two official languages.” This change would not diminish the prevalence of French or English as official languages, as assuredly these two languages are more common in Canada.

But while some may lament that Mary Simon does not speak both official languages, I would respond that she does speak two official languages of Canada — one of the original languages and one of the later languages — and I hope that more of our original languages will make that transition to official languages provincially, territorially and federally.

Many of us now begin our speeches with a land acknowledgement. As Senator Dalphond rightly noted, Mary Simon told us, during the recent Speech from the Throne, that land acknowledgements must move beyond symbolism.

This brings me to my final point. I want to preface my comments by saying I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, and I believe them when they voice their support for reconciliation. But I wish to express a dire warning that supporting Bill S-220 in the current context is not in line with efforts to reconcile past and ongoing wrongs.

If we are not willing to withstand some discomfort in the face of noteworthy achievements by Indigenous peoples, reconciliation becomes a hollow, performative act. True and lasting reconciliation is not meant to be easy. It has to be accompanied by actions to disrupt racist and colonial discourses and practices, including the myth that Canada was founded on linguistic duality. The truth is that Canada was not built on linguistic duality, but rather it paved over a linguistic plurality.

We are charged here with legislating on matters that will impact Indigenous peoples, but it feels like time and time again there is a lack of understanding and awareness of the true history of Canada. If we really want to ensure that Indigenous people are not unduly impacted by our decisions, we must urgently address this gap.

To make it a prerequisite for the Governor General to speak English and French — rather than English, French or an Indigenous language — undermines the path towards meaningful and tangible reconciliation.

I understand French may be dying, but Indigenous languages across the country have been strangled for decades, and many have already been killed. In my opinion, protecting the French language does not need to happen at the expense of protecting Indigenous languages. Why should it?

Colleagues, Bill S-220 disregards historical and current realities preventing Indigenous peoples from not only learning or maintaining our Indigenous language, but also becoming fluent in English or French, and, even less, both.

As Senator McCallum said, we are not asking you to learn our languages; we merely ask that you do not stand in our way, as has so often been the case. Please keep this in mind as you deliberate on Bill S-220. Wela’lioq, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Griffin, for the second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Omidvar, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.)

(2040)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023; and

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

As I explained many times last week, the government was convinced that all of the measures that were put in place and the invocation of the emergency measures were necessary to respond to the crisis.

Fortunately, the state of emergency is over, and the measures that were put in place are no longer in effect.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Once again, the answer is clear. All of these measures were necessary to put an end to the occupation of Ottawa, which caused a lot of harm to Ottawa residents and in other parts of Canada.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: First of all, I want to thank you for the master class in the discussion on the testing. Outstanding. Thank you so much for that.

I completely agree with the accountability issue that you raised. I’ve been struggling with that, and I wonder if you could think more loudly about it. We have accountability for the federal government with exactly where the tests came from and the accountability of what the provinces are doing with the tests when they go to the provinces. Some provinces sat on them for months and months. Then there’s the accountability from the province to the citizens. Are the citizens getting the tests they need? I happen to live in Nova Scotia. We’ve actually done a really darn good job at rapid testing. If we can do it, other provinces should probably be able to do it as well.

How would you address it? I’m with you on that accountability thing. How do we address that?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Since coming to power in 2015, the government has made significant investments in official languages, strengthening the institutions and infrastructure that support official languages minority communities, or OLMCs. As part of these positive obligations under the Official Languages Act, the government encourages and supports governments in fostering the development of francophone and anglophone minorities by providing municipal services in both official languages and having them receive instructions in their own language.

I also note that the new version of the bill includes support for non-profit organizations that provide many support services to OLMCs.

[English]

Senator Omidvar: I should remark that the sound quality is pretty bad, and I only heard a small portion of what Senator Gold said. I will read it in Hansard, but perhaps you would note this, Your Honour.

Senator Gold, Canada is incredibly fortunate to have the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. As we know, they’re deeply connected to friends, families and communities and are deeply concerned about them because they are now living in unimaginable precariousness and danger.

Will the government announce new numbers for private sponsorship so that the energy and enthusiasm of Ukrainian Canadians can be a bridge to safety for vulnerable Ukrainians?

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. I hope the sound quality was not a function of my voice. I hope you can hear me.

I will make inquiries with regard to your request. I should have added in answer to your earlier question that Canada is home not only to those Ukrainians who have settled here but also to many Ukrainians here not as citizens or permanent residents. I want the chamber to understand that Canada is taking steps to make sure Ukrainians currently in Canada don’t have to leave, notably by extending temporary status, issuing open work permits, waiving fees for passports, permanent resident documents, proofs of citizenship, visas and permits.

Hon. Percy Mockler: I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to thank Senator Griffin for the remarkable leadership she has shown in the Senate.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are all saddened by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[English]

As was so well said by Senator Boehm last Thursday, “The world changed last night and not for the better.”

Now, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine has highlighted the grave security threat posed by Europe’s dependency on Russian natural gas. As one of the world’s largest producers of natural gas, Canada could help our friends and allies in Europe diversify its energy supply away from Russia.

Honourable senators, great news. Last month, it was reported that Spanish company Repsol is considering converting its Saint John LNG import terminal into an export terminal. It has also been reported that the company has filed its development plans with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

We have here an opportunity, leader. What is your government’s response to this news? Would you see this as not only a way to support our own economy, but our security as well from coast to coast to coast?

[Translation]

Thank you, leader.

Senator Marshall: Thank you for that response, Senator Gold.

We’re seeing a worrying trend: Government either withholds certain information while other information, such as the Public Accounts of Canada and the Departmental Results Reports, are being released very late. They’re really not relevant by the time we get those reports; they are almost historical information.

The impression that’s being given is that government is deliberately withholding certain information and reports. So is the government deliberately withholding and delaying the release of accountability information?

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold. It concerns the illegal war being waged against the people of Ukraine, “a threat to each and every one of us,” as Ambassador Rae said yesterday. This situation calls for Canada to do everything it can, even if those demands require commitments from each of us.

My question relates to the need for the imposition of sanctions on Russian businesses in Canada, not just freezing their bank accounts. That may involve some sacrifice from us. A specific example in my province is EVRAZ. EVRAZ is a Russian steel manufacturer with significant operations in Western Canada, and it is controlled by four Russian oligarchs close to Mr. Putin.

My question is this: Are we imposing constraints on companies like EVRAZ and doing so in ways that share the burden among all Canadians without punishing the good, hard‑working employees of those companies who had no say in their companies coming under Russian control?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I do not have information about what the government’s plans may be with regard to additional sanctions. A day does not seem to pass by without more sanctions being announced. The government will continue, as it has been, to not only work with its allies but to exercise leadership with its allies to ensure that the illegal aggression of Russia in Ukraine is answered with real, significant sanctions.

Again, you don’t need me to read the long list of sanctions directed at individuals and institutions operating worldwide. Those are a matter of public record. Out of respect for you and others who might have supplementary questions, I will simply say this: The government is continuing to work diligently to ensure that the sanctions are, and any additional sanctions will be, ones that have a real bite and impact upon the aggressor.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, March 8 is International Women’s Day. This year’s theme is #BreakTheBias.

In Canada we are celebrating Women Inspiring Women, and we encourage recognition of those who inspire and demonstrate leadership in social, economic, environmental, cultural and political spheres.

Imagine a Canada that is diverse, equitable and inclusive — where every young woman and girl is inspired to pursue and seize leadership, free of bias, stereotypes and discrimination.

In 2008, one in four women in federal prisons were Indigenous while Indigenous peoples represented only 4% of the general population. This rose to one in three by 2016, and in 2022 it is approaching one in two.

The injustices identified 30 years ago for criminalized and imprisoned Indigenous women persist. The majority attended residential schools or had a family member who attended. Many are part of the stolen generations. More than 9 in 10 have histories of physical and/or sexual victimization.

The issues that give rise to Indigenous women being disappeared and murdered are the same issues to render them homeless and the fastest growing prison population.

It is time for us to work collectively to redress systemic class biases, sexism and racism — 1 in 2 federally sentenced women are Indigenous and 1 in 10 is Black. Imagine if that was the proportion of women in leadership in business, education and government. Imagine how we all could benefit and be enriched by more inclusive and equal public spaces.

In Canada, imagine what actualizing this year’s International Women’s Day themes could mean if, in 2022, we act to grow and strengthen inclusive, equitable and accessible social, economic and health supports and systems. Imagine if we ensure that we pull people in versus pushing them to the fringes where they become attracted to or easier prey to anti-government, anti‑democratic and anti-egalitarian ideas. Imagine if we implement every call for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. And this year — there is one vacancy so far — we absolutely hope the next Supreme Court of Canada appointments are Indigenous and Black women.

Honourable senators, let’s truly break the bias and inspire women’s leadership in all spheres. Meegwetch, d’akuju, thank you.

Senator Cotter: My second question is specifically about EVRAZ, coming from a different direction.

Canada operates the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, which, over the last five years, has distributed $5 billion to a hundred different projects, one of those in Saskatchewan. The fund contributed $40 million to EVRAZ. Does EVRAZ need the money? EVRAZ last week reported profits in excess of $3 billion and a whopping 60% of the share price paid out in dividends. Who are those shareholders? Four Russian oligarchs own two thirds of those shares.

I could go on at length with the question, but what has the Government of Canada done to get our $40 million back?

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, February is Age-related Macular Degeneration Awareness Month.

Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, is an incurable disease that causes gradual loss of vision, blurred vision and distorted vision, and eventually dark spots in the vision and legal blindness. AMD causes the macula, the part of the retina responsible for detailed vision, to degrade.

AMD affects nearly 2 million Canadians and 196 million people around the world. It is the leading cause of loss of vision in adults over 50 and accounts for 90% of new cases of blindness in Canada. It is a serious problem that will only get worse as our population ages.

You very likely know someone with AMD, a disease that turns Canadians’ lives upside down and reduces their quality of life in retirement. Over time, people with AMD become unable to drive a car, read a book, participate in all kinds of sports and activities, or enjoy the comfortable and independent retirement they deserve after working so hard all their lives. They can no longer live in their own homes and are forced to move to a place where they will be cared for. This is a life-altering diagnosis, mainly because there is no cure.

Thanks to research being done in Canada, there is hope. A treatment is being developed, and clinical trials are encouraging. A new treatment is awaiting regulatory approval from Health Canada. It could have a significant positive impact on the millions of Canadians who suffer from AMD.

Please join me in raising awareness about AMD. Let’s support our fellow Canadians in their struggle, and let’s support the development and approval of treatments for this devastating disease.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Seidman: No, I don’t think this bill can deal with sensitivity and specificity issues. Those are the characteristics and features of the tests that are being used in North America and probably all over the world. In fact, the tests are very highly sensitive and very specific. I did give you the data of the most common tests. Seven of them are being used most commonly in this country, and their sensitivity and specificity are pretty impressive.

I’m going to now go back to my notes, if you want the absolute numbers. These numbers were determined from the U.K. COVID-19 lateral flow oversight team. They analyzed 64 antigen tests. They published May 2021, and they showed that these tests really had very promising performance characteristics. As I said, these are the characteristics of the tests, so there’s nothing you can do to change that. It is what it is. But the most popular — the best seven and most reliable — showed, and here are the numbers for you, that the likelihood that an infectious individual tests positive ranged from 96% to 99%. For one of the tests — one of the seven — the likelihood was 94%. The probability of a false positive result was less than 1%, so you understand that it’s highly unlikely you get a false positive result.

Even more important is that the probability of an infectious person getting a false negative result is very low — 1% to 4%. That means, again, that the tests are sensitive and the tests are specific.

I hope that answers your question.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Senator Seidman, you spoke about the need for accountability on the part of the federal government, and you said that perhaps there were observations that could be appended or amendments that could be made. Can we agree that that is something we want to look into? What we want to know is how many tests the federal government distributed, how fast it distributed them and to which provinces and territories.

In other words, we don’t want to get caught up in the problem that you very clearly described, namely, the fact that we don’t know what the provinces themselves did with these tests and we have no way of verifying what the provinces did once they received the tests.

Do we agree that the only accountability we care about here is what the federal government did, how it did it and how fast?

[English]