The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Moncion, it is now 6 p.m. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1) and the order adopted on November 25, 2021, I’m obliged to leave the chair until 7 p.m. unless there is leave that the sitting continue.

Accordingly, the sitting is suspended until 7 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

[English]

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.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, the important thing to note is that, proportionally, we are seeing the government steadily backing away from the post-secondary sector. This decline is largely what is behind the sector’s precarious financial situation.

Institutions are increasingly vulnerable to the ups and downs of Canada’s economy, and it is being left up to them to find reliable and sustainable sources of funding.

Then, on top of an already precarious financial situation, came the pandemic. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada and analyzed by the Library of Parliament, pandemic-related health measures have resulted in a significant decline in revenue for many universities, particularly from ancillary services. Examples include student housing, food services and parking.

Some universities anticipated deficits due to the pandemic and announced plans to cut operating costs. This was the case for the University of Ottawa, the University of Manitoba, Laurentian University, the University of Alberta and McGill University, among others.

In Ontario, tuition fees are replacing government funding as the primary source of revenue for colleges. In general, universities that rely heavily on international students for funding have suffered the most, such as those in British Columbia and Ontario.

In contrast, universities in Newfoundland and the territories are entirely publicly funded, shielding them from some of the negative impacts of the pandemic. Quebec’s universities are also predominantly publicly funded.

Clearly, larger institutions with robust funding structures and longer histories in communities able to support them have been faring better despite the pandemic. Typically, these are institutions serving the English-speaking majority.

[Translation]

I will now talk about funding for institutions serving official language minority communities. Things get more difficult when it comes to institutions that provide French-language programming in minority communities.

Canada’s 22 French-language colleges and universities face significant financial hardship. According to the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, and I quote:

Structural challenges mean that French-language post‑secondary education in the FMCs does not benefit from conditions equivalent to those granted to the English-speaking majority.

The communities are waiting to see a move toward real equality in education.

Lynn Brouillette, Chief Executive Officer of the ACUFC, is asking us to come up with solutions to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector. She said, and I quote:

Ad hoc measures are no longer enough to ensure the strength and well-being of this sector, which makes an enormous contribution to the vitality of francophone minority communities. The time has come to bring together those who care about the French-language post-secondary education sector in order to come up with sustainable solutions.

The president and lead researcher at Sociopol, Mariève Forest, who studied the French-language post-secondary education sector, said, and I quote, “Funding is the biggest challenge to the sustainability of French post-secondary education in minority communities.”

Volatile revenue is a threat to the sector’s long-term survival and has a direct impact on community vitality. The researcher noted that, in 2018-19, an estimated 30,000 francophones did their post-secondary studies in English, in part because of lack of access. At Laurentian University, the number of students wanting to study in French fell by 52% — 52% is a lot at Laurentian University — and that is for the northern Ontario campus.

Institutions serving francophones in a minority context are more fragile because they’re smaller. These institutions generally came along fairly recently, most of them in the 2000s, when the federal government introduced its Action Plan for Official Languages. Volatile revenue in that situation can mean the end of these institutions and especially the end of French-language programming.

Chiara Concini, a student in the second year of her B.A. at the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean, put it like this in an interview with Radio-Canada:

Now I can’t even finish my B.A. entirely in French. . . . Next year I’ll have to take some classes in English because they’re mandatory but not available at Saint-Jean.

[English]

This gap in the minority language education continuum is tragic. For francophones who have studied in French all their lives, being forced to study in English because of a lack of access is troubling.

The government’s increasingly hands-off approach forces a vision on post-secondary institutions that is strictly profit-driven, ignoring the other functions of post-secondary education that benefit communities. Institutions will, for example, focus on attracting greater numbers of international undergraduate students while neglecting to invest in research and less profitable programs, including French-language programs that typically have lower enrolment.

This growing privatization of post-secondary education is explained in the 2021 study on the “State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2021” by Higher Education Strategy Associates that I cited earlier. This is what the study says about the general trend towards privatization:

. . . Canada is moving further from a Western European model of a largely publicly funded system towards the model of other anglophone countries where postsecondary education may be mostly publicly owned, but it is ”publicly-aided“ rather than ”publicly-financed.”

[Translation]

This growing trend of relying on sources of private funding and tuition fees disproportionately disadvantages French-language minority institutions, which necessarily serve a smaller client base.

Charles Castonguay reminds us of the importance of demographics for the French fact in Canada. He said the following in his article entitled “L’intérêt particulier de la démographie pour le fait français au Canada,” or the significance of demographics for the French fact in Canada, and I quote:

The number shapes . . . virtually every aspect of life in French in Canada, from the quality of the spoken language to the availability of services in French, to the rate of anglicization and even to the way francophones perceive themselves and act as such.

I will step away from my text and tell you my story. I studied French my whole life, and I fought hard to study at university. I was living in the regions where we did not always have access to French-language universities. I took correspondence courses, I studied at Laurentian University, I moved to Sudbury to study in French.

During my French courses, when I was given books in English, I always complained saying, “I am taking a French course and the material is in English. Why is this material not available in French?”

I worked in a francophone community my entire life. That is very rare. I am a bit of an anomaly in the Ontario system. I’ve worked all over Ontario and always in French. I’ve tried to instill these values in my family, in the hopes that they would come to respect and understand the importance of the francophonie and the French language and also the importance of supporting our French-language institutions, through education, buying books, and so on. It’s such an important part of preserving a language. In my case, I was helping preserve the French language. I’m an anomaly in Ontario, I would say, since I’ve worked for 38 years exclusively in French. I don’t know whether there is anyone else in Ontario who has done that.

Universities and colleges in francophone minority communities do extra work to support the survival of the francophonie. To ensure that students can learn in French, it’s important that the university or college environment can foster linguistic security and that students can live a student experience in French outside the classroom.

However, the funding does not reflect the specific needs of minority communities and the long-standing catching up that needs to be done. In order to access additional funding, institutions must negotiate with their respective provincial governments. I will let you imagine how that works out with hostile governments or governments that don’t understand the challenges that francophone minority communities face. If you only knew how many university and college presidents are forced to lobby decision makers to get a little money so that the schools can meet the bottom line — it’s unbelievable.

Recruiting French-speaking students is also more complex. Francophone populations are often spread out and isolated. In terms of international recruitment, the centralized administrations of primarily anglophone institutions offering French-language programming do not always value or understand the importance of recruiting from francophone countries. This is a major challenge for Western Canadian institutions. The federal government also has a role to play here with respect to francophone immigration and recruitment.

Francophone communities are in the best position to understand their needs and challenges in post-secondary education. The example of Laurentian University has shown us that without the “by us, for us” approach, francophones risk being the worst hit when budget cuts need to be made. The restructuring of Laurentian University has been damaging in many ways, but francophones have suffered the most.

Let’s now turn our attention to the blind spot in post-secondary funding.

Researchers who study the issue of post-secondary funding and other stakeholders have long denounced, and with good reason, a lack of transparency and accountability with respect to federal transfers and provincial funding under agreements seeking to enhance the vitality of francophone minority communities.

[English]

It is important to understand that the financial picture of the sector I have presented is only a summary. It is incomplete not just to keep my speech from running too long but also in terms of academic and stakeholder knowledge. There are a lot of unknown variables, making it difficult to come up with solutions. We lose track of the funding when it is sent from the federal government to the provinces, and things get even murkier when it is sent to the various institutions.

For bilingual institutions in minority communities, we have no way of knowing whether, for example, federal money is actually being used to fund minority-language post-secondary education. Transfers from headquarters to the various programs or campuses are another unknown variable.

Funding earmarked for post-secondary education in the francophonie needs to be documented. The lack of transparency and accountability in federal transfers leaves many unanswered questions. This explains why the communities are reluctant to get excited about blank cheques sent to the provinces and why there were mixed reactions from the communities to the federal government’s announcement last August of $121.3 million to be invested over three years in support of minority-language post‑secondary education. Communities are calling for the ability to track the money and to hold governments accountable for the support they claim to provide.

[Translation]

Transparency and accountability are part of the solutions that can significantly help the financial viability of post-secondary institutions, and the federal government is fully aware of this. There is a way for the government to respect provincial jurisdictions while ensuring that its investments on behalf of the francophonie get to the right place, in accordance with its constitutional obligations.

At this time, I would like to speak to you about Bill S-215, which has two specific objectives.

First, it seeks to make the federal government responsible for finding solutions by requiring that it consult key stakeholders, specifically the communities and post-secondary institutions and, in particular, provincial governments.

Second, it seeks to prevent these institutions from having recourse to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to prevent situations similar to what happened with Laurentian University.

The bill proposes to require the designated minister to develop federal initiatives designed to reduce the risk that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; protect students, faculty and staff in the event that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and support communities that would be impacted, if necessary. The minister must develop solutions in consultation with institutions, provincial and municipal governments, groups and associations of students, faculty and staff, and parties advocating on their behalf. Development of the proposal must be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than one year after the day on which it comes into force. The proposal must be tabled both in the House of Commons and the Senate and it must be made public.

The federal government could do the minimum or it could exceed our expectations. The provincial governments and the institutions must also be prepared to work with the federal government to find solutions. Stakeholders must all assume their responsibilities and work together in the best interests of the sector and their communities.

Second, the bill prevents the use of inappropriate legal tools, such as the CCAA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

[English]

Facing insolvency, Laurentian University filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act on February 1 to begin a restructuring process. The fact that a publicly funded educational institution can use this act is appalling and sets a dangerous precedent.

However, Laurentian University’s situation is not unique. The case of Laurentian University is a wake-up call because this underfunding threatens the economic, social and cultural vitality of the communities as well as the constitutional rights of official language minorities.

To address this issue, the bill amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in clause 5 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in clause 6 to exclude post-secondary educational institutions from the definitions of “corporation” and “company” under those acts respectively. The amendments to the BIA and CCAA only come into force on a day or days fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council, on recommendation of the minister that would be designated by the Governor-in-Council for the purposes of the act in clause 2. It would therefore prevent post-secondary institutions from using the BIA and CCAA when insolvent or bankrupt.

These legal tools are inadequate for this sector, more importantly, considering that their implementation — as we have seen with Laurentian University — is detrimental to the social, economic and cultural vitality of communities, especially in a minority context.

The bill provides a lot of flexibility to the government but forces it to act to address pressing issues. It also provides the government with a framework within to work and important elements to consider.

Among the possible solutions for the federal government to consider the ACUFC proposes the creation of a new permanent support program for francophone minority post-secondary institutions that would allow the federal government to intervene in needs categories related to areas under federal jurisdiction.

The government could also create a regime separate from the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to govern the restructuring of post-secondary institutions that run into difficulty. The restructuring process should consider the particular characteristics of the institutions concerned, including its role in serving official language minority communities and its importance to their vitality. It should promote a restructuring plan that considers the unique functions of post-secondary institutions and should include communities and other stakeholders in decision making. In other words, the interests of an institution that delivers programming in French cannot be represented by a Bay Street law firm that has no understanding of the language rights at stake.

Campus Saint-Jean is the only institution in Alberta that trains French-language teachers, a function essential to implementing section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to counsel for Campus Saint-Jean, the right to an elementary and secondary education of a quality truly comparable to that of the majority is rendered meaningless if, in practice, the post-secondary infrastructure in place does not make it possible to train teachers and other staff needed to actually implement section 23.

[Translation]

Section 23 of the Charter guarantees a sliding scale of rights to instruction in the minority language. In her ruling regarding the Rose-des-Vents school in Vancouver, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis stated, and I quote:

What is paramount is that the educational experience of the children of s. 23 rights holders at the upper end of the sliding scale be of meaningfully similar quality to the educational experience of majority language students.

If we do not have teachers who have been trained in French‑language post-secondary institutions, how can we guarantee the exercise of these rights? We need to do everything in our power to keep Campus Saint-Jean from meeting the same fate as Laurentian University. The constitutional rights of francophones are in jeopardy.

To conclude, the bill that I am proposing seeks to make the federal government accountable and responsible for finding solutions and making decisions to help a sector in difficulty. The post-secondary institutions of official language minority communities are fundamental to their sustainability and survival.

Esteemed colleagues, we must act now if we are to protect the gains we have made with post-secondary education and to enhance the vitality of the Canadian francophonie. The survival of the linguistic and cultural heritage of our communities depends on it. Too often we end up preaching to the choir about the francophonie. However, we all have a responsibility to the Canadian francophonie and to the future of post-secondary education in French. The Commissioner of Official Languages wrote the following in a report entitled Learning from the Past, Shaping the Future: 50 Years of Official Languages in Canada:

Our unity is fragile, however. A lack of vigilance has led to complacency, which in turn has led to the erosion of language rights. And the less we talk about it, the more erosion will occur. But Canada needs to work on its own advancement as a nation. The recent actions of some governments are alarming, yet the greatest threat to Canada’s linguistic duality is indifference.

Linguistic duality is not just for Francophones, nor is it just for Anglophones in Quebec. It’s a valuable asset that belongs to all Canadians.

Colleagues, as senators, we have a duty not to remain indifferent to the needs of minorities. My Bill S-215 is a response to the heartfelt pleas from francophone minority communities. I am sharing the burden our communities have been carrying for far too long. Thank you for your attention.

Senator Moncion: Yes.

Hon. Paula Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Moncion. I’m glad you mentioned Campus Saint-Jean, which is dear to my heart.

[English]

But I want to understand exactly how this bill would help an institution like Campus Saint-Jean which is part of a larger university. Federal funding for Campus Saint-Jean; funding levels were frozen in 2002-03. Since that time, the francophone population of Edmonton and Alberta has skyrocketed. I believe at the time the funding was frozen we had something like 3,500 or 4,000 students enrolled in francophone schools in Alberta. Now it is closer to 10,000.

So I’m struggling to understand precisely how this bill would help an institution like Campus Saint-Jean, which is part of a larger anglophone university. It is never going to go bankrupt. It is never going to go out of business. Is there something in the legislation, a subtlety I’m missing, that would compel the federal government to increase funding for francophone universities outside of Quebec?

[Translation]

Senator Moncion: In the case of Campus Saint-Jean, if we look at the enrolment, there are currently close to 750 students, but it gets funding for only 450 students. The campus gets no funding at all for the other 300 students. It is already underfunded by the provincial government.

The other thing you asked is how the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act can help. That’s the point of this bill. We want provincial governments to be accountable for their education responsibilities toward both anglophones and francophones.

Campus Saint-Jean’s situation is unusual because there is a main campus, which is anglophone and provides funding for the francophone group, but when there are cuts to be made all across campus, they cut deeper for the francophone campus.

One thing the University of Alberta can do is gradually reduce the resources available to Campus Saint-Jean so that it can no longer function. In the comments received from Dean Mocquais, we learned that they had no money to invest in infrastructure, so their laboratories are aging. Students want modern labs. Once they enter the labour market, they’ll be working in modern facilities. The campus doesn’t even have the money to improve its labs and its library. There are infrastructure problems. Campus Saint-Jean is being squeezed as much as possible, while the university keeps its funds for the main campus.

What can the federal government do? One of the solutions we propose is that federal government funding for francophone institutions go directly to the institutions rather than through the provincial government.

How can the Bankruptcy Act help Campus Saint-Jean? I’m not sure that it can, since Campus Saint-Jean depends on the University of Alberta, but by no longer being subject to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, universities would no longer be able to use that mechanism to walk away from their creditors. The goal is to make provincial governments accountable and responsible. We also want to ensure adequate funding so that universities function optimally, so they can offer all the required services and so francophone universities get the funding they are due.

[English]

Senator Simons: Believe me, I am very committed to trying to save Campus Saint-Jean, which I think is a tremendous asset to all of Western Canada and not just francophone Albertans but for all Albertans.

I just don’t know that I see it as the federal government’s role to tell the province how to fund the university when that is a provincial jurisdiction, while at the same time, the federal government capped its funding 20 years ago to a university that has expanded. I can’t help but think the simpler solution here is to get the federal government to fund the university appropriately as it did in the past.

[Translation]

Senator Moncion: Thank you.

That is one of the elements. We would also like to ensure that the federal government is no longer able to use the mechanism through the provinces. There are certain areas, for example in health, where a sector receives federal money. A precedent was created, and we would like to see the federal government fund francophone initiatives such as Campus Saint-Jean so that the money is no longer channelled through the general campus.

That was one of the problems at Laurentian University, where there was a federation agreement. The main campus controlled the money and crumbs were given to partner campuses. There were three other campuses, including Huntington University and the University of Sudbury. The federation was dissolved and now four institutions are grappling with financial problems. However, Laurentian University continues to receive all the funding. We must find mechanisms for sending the money directly to the educational institutions.

We are also putting pressure on the federal government to ensure that funding for official languages programs is indexed annually so that post-secondary institutions will no longer be chronically underfunded.

Hon. Michèle Audette: I will be brief.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

We are on the unceded territory of several nations who speak the language of the Innu, the Atikamekw, the Maliseet, the Abenaki, the Wendat and the Wolastoqey.

Thank you very much, Senator Cormier, for talking about the importance of Indigenous languages. The recognition of these languages is a principle of reconciliation. Given that these are founding languages, how could we make sure to include the nations in your beautiful region, the Wolastoquey and the Maliseet and, of course, the Mi’kmaq, in this bill? I invite everyone to join the conversation, to consult and to debate this issue because, in many generations, you and I will be proud of the fact that we finally acknowledged that Canada has many other important languages, in particular the languages of the First Peoples.

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your comment and question, Senator Audette.

The answer to your question is both simple and complex, and it obviously lies in dialogue. I firmly believe, as I mentioned at the end of my speech, that this dialogue among all those who speak both Indigenous and official languages must occur in an atmosphere of joint reflection on our past and our future.

What I mean by that is that, as Canadians, we are currently living in a context where, thanks to our Constitution, we have two official languages and a law on Indigenous languages. I believe that we have tools that should not divide but rather serve to bring us closer together. It is obvious that this dialogue could continue in New Brunswick, senator.

My answer is both vague and specific. Why vague? I guess it is because I believe that this answer needs to come from both a francophone living in a minority community, like me, and from the Indigenous people who have been living on this land for millennia. It is my greatest wish that we can have an open and transparent dialogue while thinking about and showing respect for all of the languages of this country.

[English]

Senator Moncion: Absolutely. This has been going on for a long time. Education in francophone minority communities is underfunded. There are no equivalents, including when it comes to infrastructure.

Earlier I talked about research laboratories. There is not a lot of funding for specific research in French. It is a poor community. Post-secondary institutions that provide education in French or have a French campus have been getting by with very little for a long time. They perform miracles, as far as I am concerned, since they continue to offer top-notch courses. They have few resources for expanding and gaining the recognition of major universities. They are the poor relations of education.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

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-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

Hon. Percy Mockler: First, Senator Cormier, coming as you do from New Brunswick, you have given an excellent presentation of the challenges we face today, and I congratulate you on your fine speech.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge Senator Audette’s comments on another chapter for improving the lives of Canadians.

My question is about the bill in question, and I need your help here, Senator Cormier. What vehicle would be the best and most appropriate way to move forward on such an issue with greater clarity?

For instance, should we refer it to committee, or should we wait until the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is introduced and include it in another debate? This might allow us to more fully examine some of what Senator Audette raised as well as some of the things in your presentation.

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Francophone immigration to minority communities;

That, given that the federal government plans to develop an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy, the committee be authorized to:

a)review the progress on the target for French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec;

b)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of French-speaking immigrants to settle in Francophone minority communities;

c)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of Canada’s current immigration programs and measures to maintain the demographic weight of the French-speaking population;

d)study the measures and programs implemented by the Government of Canada to recruit, welcome and integrate French-speaking immigrants, refugees and foreign students;

e)study the impact of these measures and programs on the development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec; and

f)identify ways to increase support for this sector and to ensure that the Government of Canada’s objectives can be met; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Cormier: Thank you for the question, senator.

Possibly, and why not? I do not actually have a clear answer for you on this.

To be very honest with you, addressing these functions is an issue that is fundamental to our country. This is a matter that affects the Constitution of Canada and forces us to ask where the Constitution of Canada stands today and how it reflects current affairs and today’s Canada.

I do not have a specific answer for you, but I believe that this could be studied under different angles. I believe that the bill raises constitutional questions, as I was saying, but that may also be broader in scope and invite us to question ourselves about the state of Canada today and how that is reflected in the uppermost functions of the state.

Regarding New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, I sincerely believe that the people of New Brunswick want the person filling this position to be able to communicate in both official languages and to reach the entire population of New Brunswick

That is my answer to you, Senator Dupuis. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post‑pandemic economic and social policy to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality, when and if the committee is formed;

That, given recent calls for action from Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, the committee examine in particular potential national approaches to interjurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Hon. Tony Dean, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic, including Canada’s military infrastructure and security capabilities; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 6, introduced by my colleague Senator Pate, requesting that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post-pandemic economic and social policy and potential national approaches to interjurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

I wish to thank Senator Pate for proposing this study as it will be extremely timely and useful for the upcoming economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

As you all know, I published over a year ago a white paper on a clean and just recovery in an effort to document the work of experts advocating for a holistic approach to rebuilding Canadian society to achieve greater overall, collective well-being. It is available in three languages. I’m proud to say that the document has been enthusiastically cited by parliamentarians in the Americas and Europe.

The paper provided a set of 11 recommendations and a toolbox of key policies to stimulate an economic recovery that would put people first, focus on furthering human and ecosystem well‑being, ensure the costs and benefits will be distributed equitably and shift our measure of economic success toward sustainable prosperity.

Namely, the federal government should review all its policies through a climate lens that will consider the impacts on future generations, as well as a social justice lens to ensure the benefits and costs of the recovery are distributed equitably; impose enforceable and verifiable accountability measures on all financial assistance provided to large corporations; implement practicable methods of recouping their costs, such as through a tax on the wealthiest Canadians; and establish a guaranteed livable income and other measures focused on helping people rather than corporations.

These recommendations and many other potential post‑pandemic economic and social policies have the potential to increase the quality of life for all Canadians during a period where financial inequality is on the rise.

Research has shown that the degree of equality within a society is linked to its health and happiness. Almost every modern social problem — be it poor health, violence, lack of community life, early life pregnancy or mental illness — is more likely to occur in a less equal society. Higher levels of inequality correlate with lower levels of life satisfaction, and countries whose income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

This past December, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published — by my request — an updated High-net-worth Family Database “. . . to study the trends in the distribution of Canadian net wealth.” Beyond, once again, confirming the concerning trend of the greater accumulation of wealth for the richest Canadians, it also points to Statistics Canada’s under‑reporting of the share of wealth of high-net-worth families. This is concerning given the need for precise and adequate data for effective policy-making.

[Translation]

Canadians are aware that the pandemic exacerbated wealth inequality in Canada. An August 2021 survey by Abacus Data showed that most Canadians believe our tax system is unfair. In fact, 82% of them feel it is time to tackle wealth and income inequality. The post-pandemic recovery means a lot of support is available for new, novel, bold ideas. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is in a good position to study the matter and make recommendations to the federal government.

When the committee decided to examine the government’s response to the pandemic in 2020, it also raised the possibility of expanding the study to the future green recovery. Unfortunately, that plan was derailed because Parliament prorogued.

As Senator Pate pointed out in her speech, the committee had recommended that the Government of Canada, with provinces, territories and Indigenous governments, give full, fair and priority consideration to a basic income guarantee.

Then, in April 2020, 50 senators urged the Prime Minister to transform the Canada Emergency Response Benefit into a guaranteed basic income program. Honourable colleagues, the post-pandemic social and economic policy possibilities are numerous, and Canadians have proven that they are hungry for new ideas and effective action. I’m sure you all have big ideas for reopening our economy. Thanks to our committee, this study has the potential to carry out a comprehensive review of the proposed social and economic policies to ensure a speedy, efficient and prosperous recovery for all Canadians. I’m happy to support this motion, and I strongly encourage you do the same. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a) climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b) human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c) failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d) climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I speak to you today from Mi’kma’ki, the unceded territories of our Mi’kmaq people. I rise today in the first week of our 2022 Senate proceedings to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion, which calls on us to recognize that climate change is an urgent crisis, that the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency and that we commit to urgent action on mitigation and adaptation.

Senator Galvez’s motion also asks us to recognize that we, humans, are responsible for the warming of the lands, the oceans and the atmosphere that is causing the climate problems; to recognize that if we fail to address climate change, there will be catastrophic consequences; and to recognize that climate change is having a negative impact on our health and safety, along with the financial stability of our country, Canada.

Colleagues, as I said, I’m here to speak in support of Senator Galvez’s motion and, hopefully, to move this debate closer to a vote. But I want you to know that I honestly had no intention of speaking to this motion. As Senator Galvez can attest, I had expressed some hesitation about introducing this motion in the first place.

My concern was not at all about the validity of the evidence behind the assertions articulated by the motion. There is overwhelmingly reliable, scientific evidence to back the fact that we are in a climate emergency and that it is only going to get worse. We’ve heard our colleagues debating this motion outline that evidence in detail. My concern was also not about the fact that urgent action is required and that, in fact, the costs of inaction will be much higher than those of action.

My hesitation, really, was about the potential impact of the motion itself. I hesitated because I wasn’t sure the motion would have its intended effects. Would it or could it draw our collective attention as members of Canada’s upper house to the importance of the climate challenge? Could it signal to the government and the people of all ages, especially youth, in our respective regions that senators take climate change seriously? Finally, could this motion help to motivate us as senators to come together to better understand the climate challenge, to collectively appreciate the urgency to take action and to encourage us to seek solutions and hold the government to account on its promises?

Well, colleagues, I believe it could. That is why I am here today speaking in favour of this motion, adding my voice to those of Senators Miville-Dechêne, Forest, Griffin, Black, Dasko, McPhedran and Galvez. We know a motion declaring a climate emergency in the other place was passed almost three years ago on June 17, 2019. We know many jurisdictions and institutions — some 2,000 plus across Canada and throughout the world — have passed motions declaring climate emergencies.

Of course, the Canadian Senate doesn’t just want to jump on any fast-moving bandwagon. We are the chamber of sober second thought, after all. At the same time, we know we must always be alert to matters of critical importance and make sure that we play our role, as trusted parliamentarians, in guiding Canada in the right direction for the well-being of our citizens.

Colleagues, an assessment of the United Kingdom’s motion on climate concluded:

The declaration . . . has the potential to unify and coordinate action at a national scale. . . . Its weakness currently is the uncertain relationship between rhetoric and action. . . .

Government inaction reduces its credibility . . . .

That’s about the U.K. motion.

As I looked deeper into the literature on the challenges for inspiring action on climate, five main challenges kept coming up. Those challenges are skepticism; complexity; uncertainty; the sheer scale of it; and, of course, emotion. These challenges are real and should never be dismissed. In order to bring people together and make progress, those issues need to be fully addressed.

Because we don’t yet have a clear idea of all the specific actions, their sequence and pace that Canada and other jurisdictions and actors will have to take to deal with our climate challenges, it is understandable that Canadians feel unsettled and are concerned about a whole variety of issues. Of course we worry about being able to maintain our standard of living. We worry about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over our heads. We worry about overall economic insecurity in our communities and our nation; the reliability of our energy supply; and the possible disparagement and disadvantaging of certain groups of workers, industries or regions. We worry about our personal health and safety, about the myriad of impacts of extreme weather events, the melting of the Arctic sea ice and permafrost, and sea levels rising. We worry about what kind of a world and what challenges we will leave behind for our children, our grandchildren and future generations.

Colleagues, as we know, these concerns and fears are naturally heightened at this time of the global COVID pandemic, which has been so hard on so many. Former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, Mark Carney, is on record as saying:

When you look at climate change from a human mortality perspective, it will be the equivalent of a coronavirus crisis every year from the middle of this century, and every year . . . .

It’s hard to imagine living with the level of devastation experienced throughout the pandemic every year. Colleagues, are we late to the table with this climate motion or are there very good reasons to embrace this motion right now?

Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips, in recounting the 2021 extremes of heat domes, wildfires, droughts, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes in Canada, said:

This year showed how climate change can exaggerate and extenuate the normal extremes of Canadian weather into dangerous and destructive events.

He went on to say:

What I’m hopeful for is that it becomes the turning point and confirmation for the majority of Canadians that there’s clear and present danger to climate change and extreme weather. This year has really woken people up to that fact.

Honourable colleagues, let me repeat his words: “This year has really woken people up.” He hopes it becomes a turning point.

Colleagues, the year is 2022. Canadians are more awake than ever to the perils of climate change, for many because it is actually nipping right at their heels. It is eight short years until 2030, an important milestone in Canada’s climate commitments and those of our international counterparts. Next month, we will see the government release its emissions reduction plan showing how Canada will meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% by the year 2030. This is a requirement of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act we passed in this chamber in June of last year. Also required is the inclusion of an interim emissions target for 2026, just four years down the road.

In the fall of this year, the government will also release its first national adaptation strategy, establishing a vision and direction for climate resilience in Canada.

So, yes, colleagues, I believe it is a good time for us to pass this motion in the Senate of Canada. I believe it’s time to demonstrate our unity on this critical matter and encourage all Canadians to do the same thing. With our independence as senators, our connections to our regions and our ability to see and act beyond electoral cycles, the Senate of Canada is uniquely positioned to respond.

I hope we will soon vote on this motion. I believe the time has come to place our Senate stake in the ground on this critical issue of climate. It is also time to make sure Canada moves swiftly and with clear evidence to find the best solutions and to act on them. This will reinforce the credibility of this motion and our credibility as engaged parliamentarians.

Colleagues, as I move toward the conclusion of my remarks, I also want to emphasize that I believe that Canada’s imperative to act on climate is also its opportunity. This is something we know we will have a chance to delve into during this Parliament.

Honourable senators, it’s time to demonstrate leadership. That word, “leadership,” is so important: Leaders see and pursue opportunity when that is the right thing to do. I believe that passing this motion at this time is the right thing to do. It is one of the actions we can take among many.

Colleagues, Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, in speaking to her fellow world leaders at COP26 in Glasgow in November, asked the following:

Will we act in the interest of our people who are depending on us or will we allow the path of greed and selfishness to sow the seeds of our common destruction?

Leaders today, not leaders in 2030 or 2050, must make this choice.

It is in our hands. Our people and our planet need it.

Honourable colleagues, as leaders today, let’s seize this moment and come together in unity in this chamber to pass this motion for the sake of our people and our planet. Let’s show them they can count on us and then let’s get on with the work.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I speak today from the unceded territory of Mi’kma’ki, the traditional land of Mi’kmaq people.

I stand in support of Senator McCallum’s Motion No. 11, calling on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act. The existing five pillars do not adequately protect racialized Canadians. Indigenous and Black people in Canada experience health inequities and report experiences of racism within the current medical system. Adding antiracism as a pillar would lay the foundation for much-needed systemic change.

In short, honourable colleagues, racism is bad for health. According to the Black Health Alliance, Black people in Canada are more likely to live in poverty and are subject to more health disparities than the rest of Canadians, including chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes and issues related to mental health.

During the study of forced and coerced sterilization of persons in Canada, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights heard many accounts of racism and mistreatment within the medical system, resulting in forced and coerced sterilization. Dr. Josephine Etowa stated:

As is the case for Indigenous communities, a history of structural racism, discrimination and exclusion in Canada has created inequities in the health and well-being of African Canadians.

When race intersects with gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, sexual identity or immigration status, we can see even more barriers that the default policies and practices cannot reach, and at times seem invisible.

Honourable colleagues, I invite you to be a “story catcher” today as I take on the role of storyteller. Imagine you are walking to work and you slip on a patch of ice. Later that night, you wait in the emergency room with searing pain in your hip and shoulder. After waiting for 10 hours, barely seen by any medical staff, you are sent for X-rays. When the attending physician finally appears, they do not actually examine you. They simply read your X-rays, say nothing is broken and they prescribe a treatment of ice, ibuprofen and acetaminophen. They say you should be feeling better in a few days. After you leave the hospital, you realize then that the doctor never even asked to rank your pain on a scale of 1 to 10, and you realize it is a 12. You continue to move through the pain because you were told to return to work. Eventually the pain is so unbearable that you cannot dress yourself. Two weeks later, you are correctly diagnosed with a shoulder fracture. However, the initial misdiagnosis and lack of treatment have aggravated the fracture and led to multiple other injuries to your shoulder.

Three years later, you still feel that pain in your shoulder and each day are reminded of being dismissed and misdiagnosed. You feel anger, rage and helplessness because a slip on some ice should not have led to years of pain, medical appointments and now possibly surgery. What if this had been a life-threatening illness with no time to get a second opinion?

Honourable colleagues, my story catchers, this story is not fiction. This happened to me in April of 2019, and it continues to impact my life every single day. My experience is not an isolated incident. When I share my story with other African-Canadians, they nod, understanding my experience because they too have experienced the racism and discrimination in the Canadian medical system.

I have witnessed the similar treatment of my spouse, other family members and community, across the country with different conditions, different health care providers, but the same medical system that dismisses our pain.

A study conducted in 2016 in the United States showed the presence of racial disparities in pain assessment and treatment by medical doctors. Racial bias and false beliefs, originating with slavery times, impact the way Black patients are treated by medical professionals.

Hopefully, with the collection of more disaggregated data in Canada, we can see how Canada compares for systematically untreated pain. My prediction is that our experience is similar. These types of experiences are too common for Indigenous and Black people, especially those of us who live with intersecting oppression.

In November of 2021, Nova Scotia witnessed a groundbreaking dialogue during the Desmond inquiry about the connection between race and health. Lionel Desmond was a young, Black man who served in Afghanistan and was suffering from PTSD. When he sensed his mental health was declining, he sought medical attention. The day after he was discharged, he ended his own life after fatally shooting his wife Shanna, their 10-year-old child Aaliyah and his mother Brenda. Leading up to this tragedy, the Desmond family must have been in a crisis. A Black veteran dealing with PTSD was not able to find the help he needed at the time he needed it the most.

During the inquiry there has been a glaring absence of recognition of the systemic racism faced by Lionel Desmond in the lead up to the murder-suicide. That is until the landmark testimony presented by a panel of representatives from the Health Association of African Canadians. They identified the crucial need to address race and racism in this inquiry and, indeed, in the health system in Nova Scotia.

In theory, antiracism should be woven throughout the other five pillars, but as my story and the Lionel Desmond story highlight, the existing pillars do not always “protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being” as they are meant to.

Honourable senators, we cannot afford to wait for another tragedy before making serious changes to the federal health system. It is time for us to be bold for change. Including antiracism as a pillar is about ensuring health equity for those who are victims of systemic racism. Health equity is a way of recognizing and accounting for the barriers that exist and working towards removing those barriers. Accessibility and universality, two of the five existing pillars, are not guaranteed for people on the margins. As Senator McCallum asked:

How can health care be accessible and universal when people are afraid to go to the health centres because of racism?

Until we get to a place where universality and accessibility are a reality, it must be a conscious decision and deliberate action.

Honourable colleagues, Indigenous and Black people do not feel safe in the current medical system. In this chamber, we make evidence-based decisions, and we consider the experiences of marginalized Canadians. Accordingly, I support Motion No. 11, and I thank Senator McCallum for bringing it forward again. This motion will lay the foundation for a future in which equitable access to safe and culturally responsible health services is truly available to all Canadians.

Passing this motion enables us to be bold for change, and to lead the changes we want to see in the health care system. Asante. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to proceed to Motions, Order Nos. 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?