Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I would like to acknowledge that I’m joining you from the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.

I rise today to speak to Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). By my count, this is the sixth iteration of this bill. As I said before, I feel a sense of déjà vu. I applaud Senator Griffin for her determination in trying to get this bill passed.

Forestry in Canada is a big deal. According to the 2020 annual report from Natural Resources Canada entitled, Canada’s forests: Adapting to change, with 347 million hectares of forest, Canada is the third-most forested country in the world. Canada has 9% of the world’s forests.

In 2018, the forest sector directly employed 204,555 people. That’s a lot of folks.

In 2019, Canada’s forest sector contributed $23.7 billion to Canada’s nominal GDP.

This bill makes a lot of sense just in those practical terms. We have the supply. We have the plan for sustainability. We have the people. What is most important about the forestry sector is its sustainability and environmental benefit.

According to the same report, 200 million hectares of forest in Canada have a long-term forestry management plan. That’s according to the numbers in 2016.

Canada has 168 million hectares of forest certified to third-party standards of sustainable forest management — that’s according to the numbers in 2019 — and 77% of Canada’s managed Crown forest land is certified to third-party standards of sustainable forest management. This is important to the long-term viability of the industry. By protecting the sustainability of our forests, product can and will be available, however we want to use it.

Trees also have the added benefit of cleaning our air. Ensuring a sustainable forest sector is vital to our fight against climate change. The environmental impact of using wood as opposed to steel and concrete is clear.

As my honourable colleague noted in her speech, and it bears repeating, one cubic metre of wood emits 60 kilograms of carbon, compared to 345 kilograms for the same volume of concrete and 252 kilograms for steel. As we navigate our way through mitigating the effects of climate change, it is important that we weigh these factors when deciding what material to build with.

This bill would require that in developing requirements with respect to the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables, the minister must consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits, and may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource — that achieves such benefits.

I think it is an idea worth exploring further. I look forward to hearing further information when we get this bill to committee.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, let me start my speech and continue after the break.

Honourable senators, last week we adopted the Selection Committee report that results in the formation of Senate standing committees. The first report of SELE named senators to the various standing committees according to the proportions that each group constitutes in the Senate.

The ISG received roughly 48% of the seats on each committee, the CPC received about 20%, the PSG 17% and the CSG 14%. Non-affiliated senators who wanted to be on committees were offered seats from the allocations that were assigned to the various groups.

Every senator who wanted to sit on a committee was offered one or more seats. No one was excluded. But how did a senator get the particular seat on the committee that he or she was assigned? Did that senator have a special claim to the seat?

Does any senator have a special right to a seat on a given committee? The answer is obviously no. We know this because all of us went through a process in the last two weeks of selecting committees that we wanted to sit on, and working through the inevitable conflicts that arise when there are more senators wanting to be on a committee than there are seats available on that committee.

Different groups use different protocols for allocating seats to their members. But I am sure every group had to deal with some overlapping interests among members, with the result that most senators did not get all the committees they wanted to be on. That is certainly true of the ISG.

While every ISG member got their first choice of committee, few also got their second and third choices.

Which brings us to the subject of the second Selection report that we are currently debating.

Let’s be clear, firstly, that this is a report of the Selection Committee, duly adopted by a majority of the members on that committee, consisting of members from all groups including nonaffiliated senators.

The reason Selection issued a standalone report on this issue as opposed to incorporating the issue into the first SELE report is because the PSG insisted on separating the issue of portability from the issue of committee formation.

The leaders of the other three groups — the Conservatives, the CSG, and the ISG — agreed with nonportability of seats, as they had for sessional orders in the previous parliament.

Listening to the polemics on Tuesday night, you might have come away with the impression that the suspension of portability is an ISG plot, masterminded by power-hungry facilitators at the helm of this group. In fact, three of the four groups in the Senate have supported some version of this report in previous sessions, and the Senate has voted in favour of non-portability each and every time it has come up in this chamber.

Honourable senators, the committee seat you obtained last week came through a negotiated process within your group that very likely deprived another member of the same group from having that seat. To put it in reverse, the seat you really wanted but did not get is because of the selection process your group established and that you willingly participated in. As they say, “You win some; you lose some.” However, that was the process you agreed to. It therefore follows, I believe, that if you choose to leave the group, you should, as a matter of fairness, return the seat to the group so that, if needed, the seat can be allocated to a member who is waiting in the queue.

This is why, honourable senators, the issue we are debating today is not about the independence of the Senate or the equality of senators. It is about the much more mundane — but foundational — concept of fair play and procedural integrity. Every time we have to reconstitute committees, as we are doing at the start of the Forty-fourth Parliament, we have to solve the problem of scarcity — scarcity of committee seats in the face of excess demand from senators. You can tell I’m an economist.

As it turns out, we have decided to solve this problem by allocating the seats by proportionality to recognized groups in the Senate and then leaving the groups to work out how they divvy up the seats they were assigned. This is about boring math, not some high-minded principle as the dissenters to the Selection Committee report have asserted.

On the subject of math, let me offer a rebuttal to Senators Mercer, Cordy and Bellemare who have made claims based on math without actually doing the math. They state correctly that any movement of senators from one group to another will change the proportionality of groups in the Senate, and they use that as a point to argue for portability. If you actually do the math, however, you will find that the movement of one or two senators does very little to change the actual allocation of seats on our committees. I have done the math, and I can confirm that the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, would have exactly the same number of members on committees of 9, 12 and 15 if one or even two members were to leave our group. This is akin to the retirement or passing of a senator, which does not precipitate an immediate change in the distribution of seats on a committee.

If a large number of senators were to leave a group, the proportionality numbers would be materially impacted and a change in seat distribution would be warranted. However, this is not unlike the appointment of new senators, which also affects proportionality calculations.

The point is that we don’t recalculate proportionality every time there is a shift in numbers — not even, I would say, when the shifts are quite large as was the case during the last Parliament when the ISG grew by nearly 20% even as our allocation of seats on committees remained static.

So much for math. Let me now return to the high-minded arguments that my honourable colleagues made on Tuesday night about the independence and equality of senators.

We heard from Senator Mercer that “a senator is a senator is a senator.” As tautologies go, this is especially seductive, but what does it mean? More to the point, how is it relevant to the debate at hand?

Senator Mercer would presumably argue that a senator deprived of his or her particular committee seat is less equal compared to other senators. But from what dispensation did the senator derive the right to have that committee seat in the first place? Did the Governor General grant it to him? Is it written in her summons? Do we have a rule that makes that claim? Of course not. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t believe there is even a rule that says senators must sit on committees.

To be clear, I believe that all senators have a right to sit on committees, but I do not believe that any senator has a right to sit on a particular committee.

We heard again on Tuesday night the mistaken assertion that this report deprives senators of the right to sit on a committee. It does not. All senators have the right to sit on a committee, including senators who are not part of a group or caucus if they want to sit on a committee. There is no violation of the equality principle.

The dissenters would have you believe that equality extends to a senator’s right to a particular committee seat. However, why should that be the case? More importantly, how can that possibly be the case when there are more senators desirous of committee membership than there are seats on that committee?

The underlying point here, colleagues, is that while senators may have a right to sit on committees, they do not have an entitlement to any particular committee seat. Seats on particular committees can only be assigned through what is essentially a process of negotiation. For a senator to then assert his or her unalienable right to that seat is a contravention of the negotiated agreement, a fallacy of logic and an abuse of procedural fairness.

I would go even further to say that this conception of portability actually violates the equality principle and undermines Senator Mercer’s mantra that “a senator is a senator is a senator.”

The dissenters also argue that this report is about the independence of senators. This is another red herring. Insofar as I am concerned, senators lose their committee seats when they leave a group not because of their views, but because of the agreement they signed up for when they joined a group. To put it differently, the seat is retrieved from a senator because it wasn’t theirs to start with.

This is not to say that seats will be taken away each time a senator leaves a group. If there is no pent-up demand for the seat from within the group, there is no need to retrieve the seat. The departing senator can continue to serve on it. Retrieving seats is not about vengeance or punishment. It is about respecting a process and working on a case-by-case basis.

I would add that the same applies when a senator joins a group after committee seats have already been assigned as will be the case when the new appointments to the Senate — which we are likely to see in the weeks ahead — take place.

If any of the new members join the ISG, I know the new leadership will make all efforts to find seats for them that correspond to their interests. That, too, is a process of internal negotiation that requires an equal measure of a clearly defined process and senatorial collegiality.

You will recall from Tuesday night’s debate that a number of senators dispute my view that we get our seats through our groups by way of a negotiation process. They claim that committee seats don’t come from groups; rather, they come from the Senate. Ergo, there is no need to return the seat to the group if a senator should choose to leave that group. I expect that some of our newer colleagues are puzzled by this argument, so I will explain it. However, that may have to wait until after the dinner break because I’m looking for the Speaker to now rise and invite us to see the clock.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.

Those of us who are unilingual heard that the interpreter had some difficulty with the translation, but I think I got the question. I will repeat the question as I understand it.

Senator Bellemare is asking whether there’s another way to solve — let’s call it — the procedural fairness problem that I’ve articulated, whereby if a senator leaves a group and there’s excess demand in the group, rather than stopping portability why don’t we get the Senate to use its powers through rule 12-2 to basically reappoint some senator to redress whatever imbalance resulted from the movement of that said senator. I hope, Senator Bellemare, I have accurately summarized your question.

The answer to that question is that you are, in effect, proposing renegotiation. That’s what it boils down to. If you are saying that every time a member from one group leaves that group and takes a seat with another and that the remedy for the imbalance in the group that used to have the senator’s membership is for the Senate to then make a fix, writ large, then we are essentially talking about the Senate as a whole trying to find the solution to filling one or more seats in the absence of a comprehensive solution. Where that will lead, I am sure, is essentially a wholesale renegotiation of Senate seats.

There may be special circumstances where the Senate can agree, for some extenuating circumstances when someone has to vacate a seat, they will unanimously agree to appoint somebody else into that seat. But in the event that it cannot be done, it essentially boils down to the problem I articulated before which is that you will force the Senate as a whole to try and solve a problem that is best solved by groups and within groups.

That’s why, Senator Bellemare, I don’t think rule 12-2 is the solution to the portability problem.

Senator Woo: Thank you for the question. I want to thank Senator Bellemare for her consistent reflections on how to modernization the Senate and how to make it more independent. She is one of our deepest thinkers on these issues, and I salute her for that.

Before I answer her specific question, let me challenge one of her premises. She said that the group negotiation process and the group committee allocation process essentially leaves the senator out of that decision making. That is not true. It is not true in two respects.

First, I speak for the ISG. ISG members designed the process. I am the servant of the process. ISG members agreed on what the process would be and asked the facilitators and the secretariat to administer it so that they had a say in the very shaping of the process.

Second, having shaped the process, they expressed their views on which committees they wanted. I’m sure it’s the same for other groups; they have some similar system — first choice, second choice and so on. So they had a lot of say.

But once they did that, then they subjected themselves to the rules that they designed — many of them, because not everyone was there at the creation of the rules — but most ISG members were involved in the design of a system that they signed on to, which they then participated in.

That is why there is an obligation to be respectful and responsible in following the process.

Before I get to your actual question, my second point is this: While I have described a kind of iron logic that requires seats to be given up when a senator leaves a group, you may have heard me say that this is not a logic that has to be employed every time a senator leaves a group. In fact, there could be, and perhaps likely would be, many circumstances where a senator leaving a group — I can only speak for the ISG — would not be asked to relinquish that seat because there’s no excess demand within the ISG, or maybe there is such a compelling case for that member to stay on the committee that there is no need to apply the non-portability rule.

But it is the principle of non-portability that has to be put up front, because that is how the system can have integrity.

Let me get to your question of how we see a more independent Senate. This is a huge question, of course, and I thought I touched on some aspects of it, but let me repeat my central point: There’s no incompatibility between a group that is cohesive, that has strong rules of procedure and conduct — no contradiction between a group that implements its procedures in a disciplined and rigorous way — and senators being independent to vote as they please, to say what they please and to introduce motions and bills. There is no contradiction between having strong groups and strong senators. That is basically the point I’m trying to make.

Some people think that having strong groups means a diminution of the individual senator’s rights. This is the view we heard. A group is there to serve the senator; the senator is not there to serve the group. Obviously, there is a balance. But if you ask me where I lean, I lean in the direction of having well-functioning groups based on strong principles which protect the independence and the equality of senators.

Senator Woo: Thank you for that question, and thank you for accepting our offer of a seat on the Fisheries Committee. I was distressed to hear last night that you had not gotten any committees. It was my understanding all groups, as part of the negotiations, would look after senators who are non-affiliated. As soon as I found out, I gave you some options and I’m glad you’ve accepted one of them.

With respect to your question, I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the rules, but if we were to pass this Selection Committee report, then I think that application would no longer be in effect, because a senator who was named under the auspices of a group would be subject to the non-portability of that seat. Of course, that’s a decision for this chamber to make, and I won’t prejudge our vote on this report.

Senator Woo: Yes, with leave.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wasn’t going to participate in the debate, but I have to say I got motivated by the intervention of Senator Woo. Of course, colleagues might even be shocked and surprised today that we are actually in agreement in one of those rare situations. Who knows? It might be a trend, Senator Woo.

Colleagues, I want to share a few thoughts on this particular issue. As I said, I usually don’t like engaging on the Senate floor on issues that have to do with structure, operations and rules. That’s not what we’re here to do. We came here to debate the public discourse of the day, talk about motions, inquiries and studies and provide sober second thought on legislation, to have the courage to put forward thoughtful private members’ bills that speak on behalf of groups that don’t have the opportunity to be heard on the other side for a variety of reasons.

I have to say I’m one of those who came here a number of years back. When I came here as a young rookie parliamentarian appointed by Prime Minister Harper, I came to this place and I got an opportunity to sit back and learn from some of the titans of the parliamentary process: senator Pierre Claude-Nolin, God rest his soul; people like senator Hugh Segal; senator Lowell Murray; senator Jim Cowan; senator Serge Joyal; and Senator George Furey, who still is with us and ably serving in the chair as Speaker. Let me tell you, when I got here, there were deep, thoughtful debates about public policy. Yes, we disagreed. There were Conservatives on one side — back then, we were on that side. There was the Liberal opposition on this side. It was a little partisan, but not as partisan as some of the independents profess and talk about the good old battle days. We didn’t spend that much time on navel-gazing; we didn’t spend that much time complaining about the operations and the nuts and bolts.

The Westminster model is designed the way it’s designed — with groups. Usually, they’re political groups around the world. You have the government side, the opposition side and there are a number of independents in a variety of parliaments. When I came here, we had some independent senators as well. We accommodated them out of goodwill.

The reason we have groups in all the Westminster parliaments is to eliminate the bottleneck that is happening right now in this chamber. I have seen this on a number of occasions since 2016. One has to ask the question: What are we spending all these hours trying to solve? Because I can tell you in 2015, that terrible bad old way of doing things in the Senate, very partisan, made up the Liberals and the Conservatives, when the government at the time forced upon this institution a structural change through political discourse, through an election, what has created this less partisan Senate was an election campaign, the Prime Minister going to the electorate saying: “I want to create a less partisan Senate, and I want to make it more independent.”

We respected the democratic will at the time because that’s how the tradition of this place was. Those who were the first arrivals appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau will remember both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses went out of their way to accommodate, to find committee spaces for those senators, and to change the rules to the best of our ability to accommodate them to create new groups. And that was just done out of goodwill, nothing more and nothing less.

Unfortunately, you all know my opinion on this, these changes have been imposed on us by Prime Minister Trudeau without strategic thought or a path forward, but we have tried to find that path forward to the best of our ability. And I will tell you that this is still a place of Parliament, and I remind everybody of that. It’s a place of democracy. We have had an issue for 154 years and ongoing. We don’t get elected every four years. We are not accountable to the electorate every four or five years. We have such a privilege of tenure. Independence of tenure is more important than professed independence, saying, “I’m not affiliated. I’m not a member of a party.” You’re here until the age of 75. That’s the most amazing privilege anybody could have. And this institution, before this new independent Senate, had an ongoing problem of accountability and transparency with the public. Just because you say you are independent today, all of a sudden, has not resolved that problem. We still have the issue that we’re not always compatible with democratic outcomes.

In the last two elections, the Conservative Party of Canada received the plurality of votes from the Canadian public.

An Hon. Senator: What are the odds?

An Hon. Senator: You don’t hear much about that.

Senator Housakos: Not only do you not hear much about that, we have a group in the official opposition in this chamber that, from a proportional perspective, continues to go down. As is the tradition of the place, the prime minister has the prerogative of naming senators and it continues to grow. Historically, senators have always been appointed to be either Liberals or Conservatives. Liberal prime ministers traditionally appoint liberal-minded senators. If not Liberal, they are independent, but certainly progressive; certainly centre-left. One would expect nothing less. Conservative prime ministers usually appoint conservative-minded senators, usually a bit right of centre, and that’s fine as well.

You know when you come here, more or less, those are the values of who you are, what you are all about and what you normally articulate. It’s very rare — although there are exceptions where prime ministers name senators who come here and have a diametrically opposed position. Again, because of your privilege of tenure, you have that right.

Now what we have is a situation where groups — and I’m going into a long precursor — in this place represent senators. We do the negotiations — nuts and bolts of committee representation — in order for this place to be functional. Regardless of whether we are political or not political, without groups working and cooperating — and over the last couple of weeks I have been filling Senator Plett’s big shoes as acting leader and it’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of work talking with all the other leadership groups in a spirit of fairness, trying not to guide or decide debate. We have disagreements all the time with Senator Gold, Senator Woo, Senator Cordy and Senator Tannas, but our intention is to make the place function so we can have coherent debate. Everyone can have an opportunity to articulate, make their points, persuade people and move the agenda along. So far, we are not doing a bad job, in my opinion, in this Parliament.

However, we are not doing a great job when we are spending hours on this kind of stuff. I listened to Senator Mercer and Senator Cordy carefully. Talk about an infringement of parliamentary privilege in this place. Let’s take two examples: the committees on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. These are not even committees that deal with public policy. These are committees that deal with our function. Take a committee like the Senate Ethics Committee, which touches each and every one of us, potentially, if ever an ethics question comes up. Those are three specific examples.

When a group appoints their representative to any one of these committees, those individuals not only represent their own personal experience, knowledge and skill set; they represent their colleagues. Can you imagine if tomorrow morning in the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee that the chair, Senator Marwah, and the deputy chairs, Senator Campbell — who represents the Canadian Senators Group — and the other deputy chair, Senator Dawson, decide they are suddenly becoming Conservatives? Highly unlikely, I know, but maybe Senator Dawson falls and hits his head. Maybe Senator Campbell, when he gets a little older, has a major shift in values from left of centre to the right of centre. All I’m saying is that once this place becomes the wild west, those individuals — and it’s not a question of their privilege being infringed or having a right to transfer representation on these important committees — are going to be infringing upon the rights of each and every colleague of the group that appointed them in that important committee.

The reason we have group meetings every week is because we can’t attend every single standing committee in this place. I expect, at least on the steering committee, a couple of representatives who will represent the values and views I have, and bring me any red flags I should know about on a weekly basis. If I want to further exercise my privilege, I can go to any standing Senate committee, as Senator Woo pointed out, and articulate my point of view as Senator Housakos. I can go to each and every one of the committees, even though I officially serve on three of them. That’s where your privilege kicks in.

However, the moment you are representing a group on the Ethics Committee, the Internal Economy Committee or the Rules Committee, and all of a sudden we allow for the potential of majority mob rule, this place falls apart. The goodwill I talked about earlier that I experienced in the past falls apart. All of a sudden, it’s a question of who can influence more members to join the Progressive Senate Group or the CSG or the ISG and the spirit of independence. For what? We are here to defend values and policies. We are not here to fight for territory or ground. That’s not what we are here for.

I think we have to be cognizant of that and to my earlier point about accountability. You have to be accountable to somebody. The members of the Conservative caucus and I, politically in our democracy — we can have a long debate about this, but if you ask the media, if any one of us does here something they will be knocking on Erin O’Toole’s door — the Leader of the Opposition — and saying that a member of his caucus is infringing on this, that and the other. We’ve had experiences recently, and that’s our accountability.

Honourable senators, there is a problem we have, even with this new model, and I haven’t worked my way around it. All of you who have been appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau in the spirit of independence have to be accountable to somebody. At a bare minimum, be accountable to the group you independently chose to sit with when you came here on the basis of values. Nobody forced you to join the Independent Senators Group, the CSG or the Progressive Senate Group. Nobody forced you to join the Conservatives; not one has since Mr. Trudeau has gone to this independent body.

Senator Housakos: The odds are what they are. That’s not the debate here. The point is that some people here change groups like I change ties. How in the world can you change your values overnight? What is the driving force behind it? Let’s call a spade a spade and be honest. It’s the typical interaction of groups as they get larger between egos and human beings, in pursuit of titles and premiums. We know what this debate is all about. It has nothing to do with values or political discourse. It has nothing to do with the interests of the Canadian people we are here to serve. It’s all self-serving. We have to look into the mirror and ask ourselves if this is the kind of Senate we want to build.

I remind you that we are not elected. We were given a mandate by a Prime Minister. Some of us were vetted by different committees, but each and every one of us was given a mandate by a Prime Minister. That’s your democratic mandate that you have here. After that, we are cognizant as senators, historically, that we have to make this unelected place work out of respect, cooperation, tolerance and give-and-take. I have always said, even at the worst and most partisan times of this institution — and I go back to the Rules Committee, the Internal Economy Committee and the Senate Ethics Committee — there was always a consensus. On this kind of stuff, on the nuts and bolts about rules, committees, budgets and titles, there was a consensus.

Then we went back to our caucuses and figured it out amongst ourselves. Not everybody was always happy with the outcome, but that is human nature. Since 2016, I have never seen the amount of navel-gazing that we are engaging in right now. I think it is wrong. We have to respect the groups. We just unanimously passed Bill S-2, and we sent it to the House. Why did we do that? We are asking taxpayers to foot the bill to pay more money for leadership of Senate groups in this place. This is something that we Conservatives were hesitant about, as you all know, but we have come to terms that there is change and we have to have consensus and make this place work. Why did we give such value to the different leadership groups here? Because we respect the choices of senators to work within those groups.

All I’m saying, honourable senators, is let’s stop the gamesmanship, let’s stop trying to poach one another and let’s focus on public discourse, policy, bills, motions, inquiries and on trying to make Canada a better place for Canadians. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, for the adoption of the second report (interim) of the Committee of Selection, entitled Duration of membership on committees, presented in the Senate on December 2, 2021.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

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

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, Bill S-207 has been discussed at length, and Senator Dalphond provided us with an excellent summary.

We understand the confusion created by this type of situation, when the territory of a riding doesn’t correspond to its name. If we were to make an analogy with the people who live in Lacolle and say that the Quebec City riding covers part of the territory of Montreal, it would be immediately clear that this is nonsense. However, that is what the people in that area are experiencing.

Just as I did when I spoke on this bill in the last session of Parliament, I support Senator Dalphond’s position on changing the name of the riding.

I urge you to vote in favour of Bill S-207 as soon as possible so as to correct an error that was made in the electoral district naming system.

Hon. Robert Black: Senator Miville-Dechêne, I’m thinking of many farm families across Canada who employ and engage young family members and others in farm operations doing things like picking rocks and sticks or being at the upper end of a bale elevator during peak heat in barns. These are activities that, in my youth, I sometimes considered cruel and inhumane punishment. Your bill speaks to minimum age requirements to work, so will it adversely impact farm families and farming operations here in Canada?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved second reading of Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day. International mother language day is not a legal holiday, nor a non-juridical day.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, let me begin by saying that this bill is important, and not just for people who speak several languages.

[English]

It is one important way we can strengthen Canada’s core values of inclusion, openness, equity and respect for all people and their identities. I strongly believe in these values. That is why I’m so incredibly passionate about the mother language bill which will legislatively enshrine February 21 as international mother language day across all of Canada’s provinces and territories, as have the UN and many other countries around the world.

[Translation]

I am passionate about celebrating one’s mother language. For my entire life, languages have been central to my own identity and my family’s collective identity in Canada.

[English]

As a girl, I was raised to be proud of Kutchi. It was my identity and I spoke Kutchi.

Now, as a practising Ismaili woman of African and South Asian descent, who was born in Uganda, studied in England as well as Canada, and now calls Vancouver home, speaking Kutchi remains part of my Canadian reality and identity. As a mother and grandmother, I carry forth the fight for recognition of all mother languages.

[Translation]

I fight more specifically for all of the young people who are passionate and proud about their mother tongue.

[English]

I fight to ensure that all young people, including my own grandchildren and great-grandchildren to come, know that their mother tongue is what identifies who they are. My own son learned our mother tongue and had several job applications because he spoke Kutchi.

When I speak to young Canadians, I feel empowered to continue my fight for the recognition, appreciation and celebration of all mother languages spoken across Canada.

Every day, my grandson Ayaan inspires and reminds me to keep up this fight. I would like to share with you what he submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology about why the former bill, and now this bill as well, are so important to him:

My name is Ayaan Jeraj and I am a 9th Grade student at the Prince of Wales school in Vancouver, BC.

This Bill is very important to me as both my sister and I are encouraged by our parents and grandparents to speak our mother tongue.

I feel the strength of my connection to my family, my friends and my country when I can speak in Kutchi. This Bill will ensure all people, of all ages in Canada will be able to speak their mother language.

Both my sister and I speak English and French, and just as much we want to make sure we can also speak Kutchi.

Senators, by officially recognizing this day on February 21, we are expanding awareness of one another and the way Canada and all the people in our country think. And that is our identity.

I was moved to hear another young person’s story, Anushua Nag. Many of you will know her as a staff member with Senator Dalphond. When she heard about this bill, she reached out to me and told me why it meant so much to her to speak her mother tongue and how important this bill was to her.

I am a child of immigrants from Bangladesh, and a Bangladeshi immigrant myself, but my mother language is not Bengali. The first language I learned to speak was Sylheti.

It did not take long before I lost the ability to properly communicate in Bengali, but Sylheti I retain as the principal means of communication with, and connection to, my parents, whom I cherish dearly.

It is difficult for me to limit my identity to only one language, even when I am asked on a form to confirm my “preferred” language. With my partner at home, I speak English. With my brother, I speak French. Most dearly, with my parents, I speak Sylheti. I identify with all three of these languages and each for very different reasons.

Anushua’s words should remind us that mother languages are part of our identity.

[Translation]

Sadly, we continue to see people in Canada and around the world suffering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In spite of our differences, I think it is essential that we continue to love and understand one another.

[English]

As a woman who fled my home to come to Canada, every day I wake up proud to be part of this great country. However, I know this gratitude cannot overshadow my awareness of the issues which racialized — and particularly Indigenous peoples — face on a daily basis.

Throughout the pandemic, we have seen the centring of Indigenous voices, ideas and perspectives in our collective Canadian society. Recent nationwide protests and marches for justice stand to remind us exactly why it is so important that all Indigenous peoples feel accepted when they speak in their mother tongues to their friends, extended families, communities and, most of all, when they are speaking truth to power.

For good reason, many of our traditional celebrations in Canada will never be the same. We are reckoning with our past, so as to pave the way for a brighter present and better future.

A huge part of this journey is about taking steps that embody truth and reconciliation. I believe this bill is a small but important step on this journey.

Currently, there is no legislation that explicitly protects or promotes any native languages apart from our official ones, English and French. Without a bill to explicitly recognize and celebrate the mother languages of all cultures and heritage, there is no real protection for any traditional language.

As I speak, more than 60, and as many as 70, unique Indigenous languages are spoken across Canada. Tragically, many Indigenous languages have disappeared. Every time a language disappears, a part of our Canadian identity disappears with it. Despite the laudable efforts of the government with Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, of all the registered Indigenous languages only four are considered safe from extinction.

My province of British Columbia is home to more than half of all Indigenous languages. Sadly, only 1 in 20 Indigenous people in my province are fluent in their language, and almost all of them are elders. Many of these languages date back thousands of years, but today we Canadians have allowed them to teeter on the verge of extinction.

As we all continue to work toward reconciliation in Canada, a mother language bill is a real way for the federal government to honour and uphold its long-standing commitment to building a strong nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous — namely First Nations, Inuit, Métis and non-status — peoples.

A mother language bill ensures Canada openly acknowledges the contributions of all Indigenous languages spoken across the country and traditional territories and the role each one plays in allowing Indigenous peoples to freely speak in the language they were gifted at birth.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, over the past year and a half, I have really felt the strength of my bond with my family, friends and country when I have spoken to them in my mother tongue.

[English]

To me, that is why international mother language day is more than a bill. It is a day to celebrate the freedom to communicate in the language of your mother. It is your identity. Languages allow us to build new and unique relationships and promote the sharing of untold stories, tales of spirituality, compassion and humanity.

Particularly, as we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel of pain caused by the pandemic, it is really uplifting to be able to speak in my mother tongue on Zoom every Saturday morning to my extended family around the world. Those conversations mean the world to me, and I wish nothing more than for every single person in Canada to feel free to not just speak but be proud of their mother tongue.

[Translation]

That is why I am raising the issue again today. I want each of you to know that I will persevere until this bill is passed.

[English]

Honourable senators, I had a very long speech that I have been making for five years. This time, as you can see, my speech is much shorter. But I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge my friend Senator Salma Ataullahjan. For the fifth time, Senator Ataullahjan, we will both be making the same speech.

I hope that this time, senators, you will support us on this bill. Thank you very much, senators.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill be read the third time now.