Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, this Mental Health Week, I’d like to speak to how digital entrepreneurship is not just crucial to our collective prosperity; it is also a tool to improve mental health. I’ve seen this first-hand. Twenty-five years ago, I was the CEO of a start-up that developed sophisticated science-based programming to address severe reading disabilities, like dyslexia. In this highly technical field, we expanded access, reduced costs and improved outcomes. These are not mutually exclusive factors.

Allow me to offer some more recent examples. Rise, a national program based in Toronto, provides loans, business coaching and mentoring to individuals who are starting businesses, in particular, individuals with mental health and addiction challenges. Over the past 10 years, Rise has loaned over $3 million to clients who have launched over 700 diverse businesses. One of those entrepreneurs told CTV that Rise not only helped him launch a successful business but also helped to improve his diagnosed depression and anxiety, especially at the height of the pandemic. Providing access to resources that support people’s passions and create additional sources of income might not be exactly what the doctor ordered, but there’s no denying that its impact is helping people to thrive in spite of their mental health conditions.

Think also of busy families. Whether they’re in an urban or rural community, families struggle to access mental health supports. Strongest Families Institute is an organization built on research conducted at Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Centre in Nova Scotia. Over the past decade, they’ve worked to increase access to their specialized mental health and developmental disability services. Today, their data-driven e-mental health delivery platform remotely delivers customized care to children and families in most of our provinces and territories.

Lastly, think about parents whose child is showing signs of neurodevelopmental disabilities. The gateway to receiving any support is a formal diagnosis. Just imagine their anxiety and despair when they realize that simply accessing a diagnosis is years away. Alternatively, they can access the Parents Empowering Kids program, which remotely delivers evidence-based strategies and tools that empower parents to better support their children and improve life at home. Over 400 families in rural Atlantic Canada have accessed this evidence-based mental health care and support from home.

Honourable senators, I ask that you please encourage the development of innovative mental health program delivery models, enabling more Canadians to lead more productive, joyful and healthy lives. We have to think outside the box and leverage unconventional tools, like entrepreneurship, technology and paraprofessionals, if we’re to create the capacity necessary to meet the growing need. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Congratulations, Senator Miville-Dechêne.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act, as the official critic. This bill is the government’s attempt, after nearly seven years, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action numbers 53 through 56.

Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation, a framework that was flawed when presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The committee worked hard to repair Bill C-29, yet two issues remain that will require the close attention of senators here. I speak to the composition of the board of directors, specifically clause 10(1), and to the inclusion of the recognition of the importance of economic reconciliation as a driver for Canada’s overall efforts to reconcile with Indigenous peoples.

The bill sets aside directions for the construction of the council’s board of directors. The board will be composed of a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 13 directors. Originally, the board was to consist of three guaranteed seats, one each for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK; and the Métis National Council.

Through witness testimony, it was heard that these three groups do not represent all the First Nations, Inuit or Métis in Canada. It was through the interventions of the Conservative members of the committee that two other national organizations were considered for these guaranteed seats: the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada gives voice to Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada, inclusive of First Nations — on and off reserve, status and non‑status, disenfranchised — Métis and Inuit. The Native Women’s Association works on a variety of issues, including employment, labour and business; health; violence prevention and safety; justice and human rights; environment; early learning child care; and international affairs.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents the interests of Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada. The congress works collectively with its 11 provincial and territorial organizations across Canada to improve the socio-economic conditions of their constituency living in urban or rural areas.

Thankfully, through the advocacy of Conservative members and with support from other opposition parties, the bill was amended at committee stage to include guaranteed seats for the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, along with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. However, at report stage in the House of Commons, the Liberal government introduced a motion to specifically remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from clause 10(1) of Bill C-29.

The Liberal government along with their coalition allies, the NDP, voted together to ensure that the motion would pass, effectively silencing the voices of over 800,000 Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action 53 set out the conditions for the establishment of the council. Call to Action 53 called on:

. . . the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.

Of note, there is no condition that limits the government to provide a guaranteed seat, nor is there a condition to specify which organizations should be on the council. The only condition present in the Call to Action is that the legislation would establish the council that contains “national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.”

There are five recognized Indigenous national organizations, yet only three were part of the original bill. While, thankfully, the latter two were added at committee, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a nationally recognized Indigenous organization, was removed by a Liberal amendment in the House.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 was the lack of representation for largely urban status and non-status Indigenous peoples in this country. Conservatives advocated to address this serious oversight, but the government has chosen to deny a large swath of disenfranchised people.

Senator Brazeau stated, as a former elected Indigenous leader of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples:

If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

Furthermore, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK as it is commonly known, has raised its own concerns regarding clause 10(1), going so far as to withdraw its support from Bill C-29. ITK President Natan Obed fears the council created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests, adding that the bill as it stands also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

According to ITK, the proposed council would force Inuit — who have constitutionally protected Indigenous rights — to sit with organizations that are not rights holders, and that the bill could compel the government to pick and choose the people it listens to and how it does its work.

ITK has now officially withdrawn their support from Bill C-29, stating that the Liberal government’s claims that this legislation was co-developed are wrong. As President Obed stated:

It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we’ve interacted with the federal government as co-developed.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief RoseAnne Archibald has stated that Bill C-29 is “not within the spirit and intent of reconciliation, and it’s very paternalistic.” The AFN is very concerned that the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations minister would get to appoint the majority of the proposed national council for reconciliation’s first board of directors.

This issue was raised by Conservative members at the committee, asking how independent this council will be if members of the board are picked by the Minister of Crown‑Indigenous Relations. While the bill does state that directors will be chosen by the council and not the minister, Bill C-29 does stipulate that the first board of directors will be selected by the minister in “collaboration” with the transitional committee. But let’s not forget that the transitional committee was also selected by the minister in December of 2021.

Why is this important? The first board will have the vital task of establishing the articles of incorporation and other founding documents that set aside how future boards will be elected and who will constitute a member. In other words, the minister and his hand-picked transitional team will determine the future of this “independent” council whose job includes taking the minister to task over their failed record on reconciliation.

The other flaw in this bill that I would like to draw senators’ attention to is the lack of economic reconciliation as a factor of true reconciliation inherent in the bill.

What is economic reconciliation? According to Reconciliation Canada, an organization that, though partnerships and community outreach programs, delivers reconciliation workshops across Canada, economic reconciliation:

Aims to create meaningful partnerships and mutually beneficial opportunities based on a holistic, values-driven approach to attaining community economic prosperity.

This shared-prosperity approach draws on the values of the community to inform the structures, processes and environments to stimulate action toward community resilience.

The Assembly of First Nations says that economic reconciliation is a process wherein First Nations benefit from the resources extracted from their lands and waters to build their own wealth and have access to the wealth derived from those resources.

The First Nations Financial Management Board, an Indigenous-led organization that aims to provide the tools and guidance that will instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development, says that Indigenous economic reconciliation creates pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Simply put, economic reconciliation is about free, prior and informed consent, and about partnerships that create opportunity for Indigenous peoples for their benefit that support pride and individuals’ self-actualization.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the Indian Act’s deliberate purpose to remove First Nations from the national economy. The Indian Act contained specific restrictions on education, on how one could leave a reserve and how to obtain permission to do so, severely hampering efforts at trade and commerce. It shrank resource-rich areas to tiny reserves, and it prevented First Nations from hiring lawyers to fight for their rights. While Indigenous people fell into poverty and squalor, the rest of Canada grew and prospered — yet the principle of economic reconciliation is completely left out of the bill.

To right the 155 years of policy failure for Indigenous peoples that have contributed significantly to socio-economic gaps in housing, infrastructure, water and much more, economic reconciliation must be considered.

Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return to a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives recognized this and attempted to rectify this through proposing an amendment to clause 12 by adding, “(f) Indigenous organizations that focus on economic reconciliation and prosperity as the path to self-determination.”

Clause 12 outlines the representatives of the council’s board. It includes such categories as Indigenous elders; First Nations, Inuit and the Métis; youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons; and Indigenous organizations as defined in section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act. Yet it does not include organizations that promote economic reconciliation.

The silencing of over 800,000 Indigenous voices and the discounting of the importance of economic reconciliation do nothing but hamper our efforts to support true reconciliation in this country. With the concerns raised by the AFN and the withdrawal of support by the ITK, I urge all honourable senators to seriously consider when deciding to support this legislation or not.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the current government.

Honourable senators, there is more work that needs to be done on this bill and this important issue. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who have contributed to the debate at the second reading of this bill and for their thoughtful analyses, consultations and efforts thus far. Senator Anderson stated:

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to examine, question and use sober second thought to ensure that when we are considering a bill that not only arises from TRC Calls to Action but impacts Indigenous peoples, we are not repeating the historical wrongs of Canada in the guise of reconciliation.

I agree. It is also our duty to carefully review and re-examine bills from the House when there are glaring gaps and issues identified. I am confident the Indigenous Peoples Committee will do just that, and we, as a chamber of sober second thought, will do what is in the best interests of all those whom this bill will affect.

Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-29, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, this Mental Health Week, I’d like to speak to how digital entrepreneurship is not just crucial to our collective prosperity; it is also a tool to improve mental health. I’ve seen this first-hand. Twenty-five years ago, I was the CEO of a start-up that developed sophisticated science‑based programming to address severe reading disabilities, like dyslexia. In this highly technical field, we expanded access, reduced costs and improved outcomes. These are not mutually exclusive factors.

Allow me to offer some more recent examples. Rise, a national program based in Toronto, provides loans, business coaching and mentoring to individuals who are starting businesses, in particular, individuals with mental health and addiction challenges. Over the past 10 years, Rise has loaned over $3 million to clients who have launched over 700 diverse businesses. One of those entrepreneurs told CTV that Rise not only helped him launch a successful business but also helped to improve his diagnosed depression and anxiety, especially at the height of the pandemic. Providing access to resources that support people’s passions and create additional sources of income might not be exactly what the doctor ordered, but there’s no denying that its impact is helping people to thrive in spite of their mental health conditions.

Think also of busy families. Whether they’re in an urban or rural community, families struggle to access mental health supports. Strongest Families Institute is an organization built on research conducted at Dalhousie University and the IWK Health Centre in Nova Scotia. Over the past decade, they’ve worked to increase access to their specialized mental health and developmental disability services. Today, their data-driven e‑mental health delivery platform remotely delivers customized care to children and families in most of our provinces and territories.

Lastly, think about parents whose child is showing signs of neurodevelopmental disabilities. The gateway to receiving any support is a formal diagnosis. Just imagine their anxiety and despair when they realize that simply accessing a diagnosis is years away. Alternatively, they can access the Parents Empowering Kids program, which remotely delivers evidence-based strategies and tools that empower parents to better support their children and improve life at home. Over 400 families in rural Atlantic Canada have accessed this evidence-based mental health care and support from home.

Honourable senators, I ask that you please encourage the development of innovative mental health program delivery models, enabling more Canadians to lead more productive, joyful and healthy lives. We have to think outside the box and leverage unconventional tools, like entrepreneurship, technology and paraprofessionals, if we’re to create the capacity necessary to meet the growing need. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Thank you very much to our colleague Senator Martin for all her work and for acknowledging our colleagues for the work everyone has contributed thus far. I am pleased to hear that you are encouraging us to get this to committee because it clearly needs everybody’s attention at the Indigenous Peoples Committee for us to tease out all of the issues that you have raised.

My question is to make sure I understand what you were saying: The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a recognized national Indigenous organization, yes? That’s one point. The point you are making is that just like the Native Women’s Association of Canada — due to that recognition as a national Indigenous organization — it should have a place at that table. I heard that; I think that’s what you were saying.

You also said that there were 800,000 Indigenous people in Canada who would not be represented if — I believe you were drawing the link between those and that group?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Coyle, do you have a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would the senator agree to answer a question?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 4:19 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)

[Translation]

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 3, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Hello. Tansi. As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation. I also want to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

[English]

Honourable senators, today I rise in support of Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. Senator Galvez has advised that her bill is complementary to our government’s current action plan, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act — serving the dual purpose of addressing barriers to achieving our climate crisis commitments and protecting our nation’s financial system from climate-related risks.

Just days ago, we learned of the dubious distinction of the Senate’s banker, the Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC, leaping ahead of J.P. Morgan into the top spot as the biggest financier of the fossil fuel industry. The annual Banking on Climate Chaos report by the Rainforest Action Network — endorsed by 624 organizations from 75 countries — found that RBC funded fossil fuel companies in 2022 to the extent of $42.1 billion, including $4.8 billion for tar sands.

Also, the updated list of the top 10 such financiers includes another Canadian Big Five: Scotiabank. The study found that Canadian banks have provided $862 billion — that’s C$1.13 trillion — to fossil fuel companies since Canada signed the Paris Agreement.

Climate breakdown is claiming the livelihood and lives of millions globally. Vulnerable communities and — to use Senator McCallum’s term in her bill on environmental racism — “vulnerable environments” are disproportionately impacted negatively by climate change. Through her bill, Senator Galvez encourages the consideration of vulnerable communities and ecosystems, and sets particular safeguards for Indigenous communities. Although Indigenous people have contributed the least to this ever-growing problem, they face some of its worst consequences.

Northern communities are in the forefront of the assault of climate change. Melting ice caps and permafrost affect traditional food sources while driving up the costs of imported alternatives, and increase the risk to humans and wildlife. Food security continues to deteriorate, especially in isolated communities. The effects of climate change are not uniform in impact; however, one constant remains: Climate changes brought to our land, our water and our weather systems imperil long-established ways of life.

In other words, the climate crisis threatens ecosystems and human rights. Honouring our climate commitments means more than not exacerbating or contributing to the effects of climate change. It also means respecting human rights, including the rights of Indigenous peoples set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of traditionally owned lands which hold strong spiritual and cultural significance.

The declaration also states that countries must recognize the contribution of Indigenous knowledge when formulating sustainable and equitable protection of our environment.

In line with this, Bill S-243 allows for the integration of the Indigenous perspective into decision making in two distinct ways: First, it proposes that certain boards of directors, including Crown corporations, have climate expertise — having knowledge of Indigenous ways of life and ways of being qualifies a person for this position. Second, it requires reporting on implementation to enable the cooperation between the Bank of Canada and representatives of Indigenous peoples.

Honourable colleagues, positive advancements toward a cleaner future are in the new Canadian action plan. These include increasing the price of carbon to $50 per tonne and facilitating the transition to electric vehicles.

These infrastructure investments are essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, crucial steps along Canada’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

This goal can only be attained if decarbonization takes place across all sectors and industries. After all, the effects of decarbonization in one sector can easily be offset by emissions in another. The current action plan fails to address this elephant in the room — the identification and restriction of investments into high-emission activities.

These investments not only put our financial system at risk with millions of dollars worth of capital invested into this unpredictable sector, but they also contribute to the negative impacts of climate change.

If only the more than $1 trillion of Canadian funds had been invested by our big banks into decarbonization.

As the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, issued its sixth assessment report in February 2023 with the unequivocal conclusion that fossil fuels must be made extinct and never revived. The IPCC is clear: To stay below 1.5 degrees of warming as called for in the Paris Agreement, we need to slash CO2 emissions by 45% in the next seven years — by 2030.

Colleagues, in the best sense of the call from the Inter‑Parliamentary Union for parliamentarians to become champions for legislative initiatives to make real changes that will mitigate the damage of climate change, Senator Galvez has given us a substantive opportunity to be changemakers by supporting and facilitating this bill, which has gained international attention in finance circles worldwide.

In last year’s report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, the IPCC highlighted that investments in high‑emitting infrastructure would act as a barrier to achieving Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. Funding and subsequent development of green technology may be hitting record heights, but high-emission sectors continue to thrive and undercut progress being made. In other words, the default setting in our current legislative approach prioritizes the traditional polluting economy. Climate commitments are still on the back burner.

When thinking critically of Canada’s progress, we must be wary of greenwashing. For example, the thirteenth edition of the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report noted that investors in the tar sands increased their financing by 51%. That same year, however, these banks had vowed to become net zero by 2050, as they vow year after year.

One of the key goals of the act is to address the disconnect between financial institutions’ net-zero pronouncements and their continuing investments into high-carbon industries. Have no doubt: This bill will enhance accountability of the reporting entities which are subject to the act.

Colleagues, you may be quietly wondering why an engineer and a human rights lawyer think they are qualified to assess our economic system. Let me encourage you to recast that question, because our economic system is exacerbating our planet’s climate crisis. Indeed, if you are quietly questioning the qualifications of an engineer and a human rights lawyer, let’s add to that list a dentist with Senator McCallum’s bill on environmental racism.

We’re qualified because we’re mothers and grandmothers and global citizens and senators.

New voices must be heard in the financial world — voices from the world not insulated by wealth. Finance leaders in the financial system have lost touch with the reality of a planet with limits we must respect in order for human life — all our lives, colleagues, and those of our generations to come — to flourish.

This bill follows the money, addressing the reality of financial choices that wound Mother Earth and reduce capacity to sustain life. Abstracted numbers on a balance sheet help financial leaders to ignore crucial dimensions of the value of life on this planet.

The Greek root of the word “economy,” oikos and nomos — with all due apology to Senator Housakos if I have mispronounced those terms — literally translates as “good household management.” In this time of multiple crises where we have not managed our global household all that well, it is high time that divergent outside voices come to be heard by those who hold the reins of our collective purse — the select, highly paid, elite few who control billions of public and private dollars who seem to be having difficulty grasping the reality that our shared future is in peril now.

This bill rightly recognizes what experts in the scientific community have been saying for a long time. This climate crisis is unconstrained by geographic boundaries. This means that Canadian reporting entities have to account for their causally linked emissions wherever they occur.

As occupants of positions in the top 10 of fossil fuel funders, the Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank have demonstrated how Canadian financial institutions are investing globally and that what they do abroad is just as important as what they do within Canada.

This bill defines an entity that is aligned with climate commitments as one that respects the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill does not restrict the definition of Indigenous peoples to Canadians, meaning that the rights of Indigenous peoples have to be respected wherever they are.

This bill is as science-based as it is equity-based.

Honourable colleagues, aligning with climate commitments also means not fostering or exacerbating food insecurity or inequalities in society, and not causing significant harm to social and environmental obligations recognized already by Canada. That means we hope for a future where a low-carbon project does not run roughshod over human rights like we have seen with too many fossil fuel extractive and transportation projects.

Since women — especially poor women — are the primary victims of climate change, we would do well to add them as primary stakeholders in developing solutions worth investing in.

Since this bill was introduced a year ago, it has generated a bit of a buzz in Canada and beyond. Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions published a climate guideline and the Bank of Canada just issued its first annual climate risk report.

But beyond our financial regulators finally using the buzzwords of the moment, significant change still seems to elude us. With a Canadian bank becoming the world’s top fossil fuel financier and backing a pipeline project which is turning the ancestral lands of the Wet’suwet’en — who are opposed to the project — into a militarized zone, this bill is more necessary than ever.

Colleagues, escalating environmental calamities are a time‑sensitive issue. Canada has, to date, never successfully hit any of its emissions targets since 1990. We simply cannot afford another decade of failed targets, measures and ambitions. We must address this concern as soon as possible to ensure that we reach our climate targets by the end of the decade.

By mandating a yearly public review process on the progress of the implementation of all provisions, Bill S-243 allows for iterative learning. It will allow us to learn from our mistakes in real time and adapt our approach to the results produced. We have to stay flexible to emerging research. As a leader in many other sectors, Canada must step up.

Honourable senators, the acceleration of climate change and its consequences is a human-induced problem. It requires human-led and innovative solutions to transition towards a cleaner and more sustainable economy.

As lawmakers acting in the public interest of all current and future Canadians, it is up to us to consider and implement research-backed and ambitious solutions to maintain a livable earth for our generation and those to come.

Senator Galvez, with her Bill S-243, gives us an excellent opportunity to do just that. Let us accept her invitation and support this life-saving bill. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

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

(On motion of Senator Audette, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.)

Hon. David Richards: Honourable senators, I waited until Mental Health Week to read this. I’m rising today in support of Senator Brazeau’s Bill S-254, first because I am obligated to do so, for I’ve been down the same road, have seen the same results and been witness to the same outcomes. I am also speaking in support of the bill because, although some warning label will not solve the problem of alcoholism or all harm related to and because of alcohol, it might well in some way aid those who will take heed and may mitigate the suffering that many go through daily because of alcohol abuse — the shame and degradation alcohol can cause not only to the one afflicted but to his or her family, the loss of jobs, income and self-respect and the illnesses apart from all else alcohol consumption can foster.

So I, too, would like to see a label attached to alcohol being sold that indicates the serious health risk, fetal development and the link to disease that may arise from overconsumption. I would be the last to say “preach” but the first to say “inform.” The label should inform us that excess drinking could well be hazardous to our well-being and to the well-being of our family. Just as true is the retardation of fetal development and the devastating affliction of fetal alcohol syndrome.

I know this has been seen but it can be a horror if experienced in your own family. I will not go into any long story here, but I have seen much destruction because of alcohol and I doubt there are many in this chamber who haven’t seen that.

The warning label attached could be a good thing. I know it won’t be a cure-all, for youngsters are youngsters and rebellion is key to a youngster’s growth. And this, too, has to do with drink. I also believe that personal individual responsibility is tantamount to an individual’s life.

Without getting into a great deal about my own story, I began to drink when I was 14, and by 20 I was a daily drinker. It is useless to go into. Nor will I ever parade my afflictions onto others in this chamber.

Will these warning labels help? I cannot say. But I know they won’t hurt. I know this is a bill crafted out of experience and personal struggle, and I commend Senator Brazeau for this.

I will tell you one story. Years ago, a friend of mine wanted me to go drinking with him. He was my brother’s best friend. We hunted and drank together. He was a Mi’kmaw kid and one of those so close to us that he could enter our house without knocking. We would turn around and there he would be in our kitchen smiling at us. He pleaded with me to go out that night. I told him I had to finish the book I was working on. It was six months overdue and the publisher was waiting for it. Besides, I said, “Every time you and I go drinking together we seem to get into trouble.” “That’s what makes it fun,” he said. Those were the last words he ever spoke to me. An hour later he was dead in a car accident that ruined my brother’s legs. I often thought that going back home, determined to work on my book, kept me alive, so I dedicated the book to him. It was called, strangely enough, Lives of Short Duration. He was one of the 17 kids I grew up with who did not reach adulthood.

For him and for the dozens of others I knew and know; for those kids I grew up with, filled with love and charity as much as anyone, dead by car accidents or suicides or by someone else’s hand; and to others who, through alcohol, have lost their health and their way, I support Senator Brazeau and I support this bill and I ask you to allow it to go to committee. Thank you very much.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Will the senator take a question?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-226, a bill sponsored by Senator McCallum. The legislation proposes a requirement for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to create a national strategy to help promote efforts to address the harm caused by environmental racism. This is Parliament’s second attempt at passing this legislation after its predecessor Bill C-230 died on the Order Paper at the conclusion of the Forty-third Parliament. I hope that together we can get this version of the bill across the finish line.

I support this bill because environmental racism is an issue that successive governments have failed to address, and because efforts to address this issue are overdue and it’s time to come to terms with this problem. Bill C-226 is an important component of reconciliation, not just with Indigenous peoples but with all people who have had their lands or waters poisoned, their air quality worsened and their lives harmed because of this type of discrimination — a form of high-handedness, if you will.

There’s no universally accepted definition of “environmental racism.” As we know from Senator McCallum’s speech, one definition refers to it broadly as discrimination in environmental policy-making. To that I add, “or lack thereof.” This can mean making decisions without due care and attention in spite of impacting an overrepresentation of racialized or marginalized communities for waste facilities and related infrastructure, by allowing life-threatening pollutants to exist at high levels in communities mainly populated by minority groups or by excluding minority voices from leadership positions in the environmental movement. While exact definitions will differ, the problem is straightforward.

While racism is widely recognized and understood, the concept of environmental racism is sometimes questioned. So what are we talking about?

For generations, governments and civil societies have made decisions on the environment that had disproportionately negative effects on racialized and marginalized communities. Oftentimes, those decisions were made without input or consultation from the affected communities. One only need look at Canada’s record on environmental policy to conclude that environmental racism is undeniable. I’ll share some examples in a few moments.

Perhaps senators may have heard another phrase that can be confusing: that climate change has a racial aspect. However, this is common sense when we consider that Western industrialized countries have built-up their economies by disproportionately burning fossil fuels, which at the same time has caused disproportionate harms to less developed regions of the world. Indeed, at COP26, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, leaders from Africa argued that the continent would require $1.3 trillion in funding over the next two decades to provide for climate adaptation and mitigation.

The effects are already being seen. A report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies noted that climate-related disasters and extreme weather events were responsible for the deaths of more than 410,000 people, mostly in lower-income countries.

One of the biggest challenges when discussing environmental racism stems from the fact that the conversation tends to be closely associated with jobs and economic development. When we discuss environmental racism, we tend to think about things like paper mills, manufacturing plants, waste treatment plants and mining operations, all examples of businesses that can have a large environmental impact and that are usually located away from the typical suburban downtown. These facilities often employ many people, and they support significant economic activity across Canada. Often, the jobs found in these types of facilities pay good salaries, offer benefits and allow people to plan for retirement. We cannot, and should not, discount any of those things.

Yet, when we call upon the government to address environmental racism, that often means asking government to have difficult conversations with the companies which employ our friends, family and neighbours. It’s no easy task for elected officials to decide to close a local mill or to tell a large employer it must do more to address environmental concerns. It’s even more difficult to tell those companies that their actions have disproportionately affected racialized peoples. Often, those companies will fight back and governments will back down, preferring to let the status quo remain rather than fight for what’s right.

That’s why I support this bill because it will help the federal government make a positive change — at the very least, make a change going forward, even when that may be difficult to do.

Allow me to share some examples of what environmental racism looks like in Canada. I’ll begin with a story from my home province. As we all know, rural Canada is dotted with small towns and settlements. Northern Saskatchewan is no different. It’s a large space with few people but plenty of natural beauty. Many who live in northern Saskatchewan are Indigenous and their connection to the land is sacred. However, northern Saskatchewan is also well-known for uranium mining. In fact, northern Saskatchewan is home to the largest high-grade uranium deposits in the world. As with most resource extraction industries, uranium mining can have an impact on the environment. Sadly, this impact seems to have fallen disproportionately on the Indigenous peoples who have lived on those lands since time immemorial.

One such example is Uranium City. It’s a small settlement located just below the border that divides Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories on the traditional territory of the Chipewyan Dene people. As Uranium City’s name would suggest, the town was once a hot spot for uranium mining and its population exploded into the 1950s. For a short time, the town and others like it boomed as the mines carried out their operations. Today, the city as it was known, Uranium City, a small settlement, no longer exists other than stranded remnants.

While uranium mines were profitable, the Dene and other Indigenous peoples were often not able to share in the economic prosperity the mines created. Not only were they subject to racism and discriminatory hiring practices, but they were subjected to dangerous radioactive dust and tailings that were created by mining activity. Many Indigenous workers were not told about the dangers associated with working at the mining sites, and many would later die of cancer or experience other health issues.

The mining operations near Uranium City closed in the 1980s. Sadly, little was done initially to remediate the land. Cleaning up former mining sites has taken decades and has been mired in legal disputes and jurisdictional challenges. Meanwhile, those who worked in and around mines like these often suffered from high rates of lung cancer and other health issues years after their employment ended.

The voice of the local Dene people wasn’t heard when the mines were being built. Their voices weren’t heard when their health began to fail. And their voices weren’t heard when governments and corporations alike left the land to decay after the mines closed.

Sadly, the uranium mines of Northern Canada are not the only example of environmental racism in our country. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that today these mines are very mindful of environmental, social and governance issues and corporate responsibility. Let’s face it, most of these mines, mills, cement plants and the like can’t simply pick up their power lines, gas lines and deposits, and then move elsewhere and leave a stranded community behind.

Nonetheless, we’ve heard similar examples of environmental racism in places like Boat Harbour, Nova Scotia, where effluent has been dumped into the waterways that Pictou Landing First Nation has relied on for decades. Another example can also be found here in Ontario on the lands of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Theirs is a story of poisoned water and the impact it has had on generations of families.

For generations, there has been a paper mill in Dryden, Ontario. A mill is still in operation to this day. Yet, its history is stained. In the 1960s and 1970s, the mill’s chemical plant dumped 9,000 kilograms of mercury into the English-Wabigoon River. The mercury poisoned the river, which the people of Grassy Narrows depended on to catch fish. Health problems related to mercury poisoning have persisted in the community ever since. At first, neither the company nor the provincial government would accept responsibility for what had happened. It would be years before a legal settlement was reached, but by then it was far too late.

For a final example, I turn to Nova Scotia. It’s a story about a community from the past whose legacy lives on. Decades ago, in what is known today as North End Halifax, there existed a community called Africville. It was a small, predominantly Black community, and former residents have called it a happy place with vibrant community connections and a sense of family. Yet the community was treated poorly by the City of Halifax. The city neglected to provide Africville with services it had given to other neighbourhoods over the years, such as street lights, garbage pickup and even indoor plumbing. To make matters worse, the city would often use Africville and the surrounding area as a dumping ground for services that would never have been well received in other communities, such as a fertilizer plant, a prison, a slaughterhouse and, yes, a dump — all located inside or in close proximity to a community of 400 people, people whose voices were ignored.

When we think about environmental racism, I don’t think we should think about things like paper mills or uranium mines, nor should we think about the economic activity those facilities can generate. When we think about environmental racism, we should think about the Dene men who worked in those mines and who died of cancer. We should think about grandmothers living in Grassy Narrows First Nation who are worried that the mercury poisoning that destroyed their health will one day affect their granddaughter’s health too. We should think about a small Black community, ignored by its city and used as a dumping ground. That’s what environmental racism looks like, and they are who we should be thinking about when considering Bill C-226.

A national strategy will help in very specific ways. First, we need to ensure that the marginalized communities are consulted and their voices are heard and included in decision-making processes related to their environment. These communities should have a say in what happens in their neighbourhoods. With a national strategy, we can learn from past mistakes and move forward in a more inclusive way. Also, a national strategy will help to determine what future steps and targeted investments are necessary for sustainable development in marginalized communities and, I will add to that, with much resilience.

A national strategy is an important first step toward planning for a better tomorrow and for ending environmental racism.

Personally, I find little in this bill that can be objected to. I was surprised to learn that the bill had not been agreed to unanimously in the other place, so I’d like to address some of the concerns that were raised during the debate.

Issues were raised regarding the effectiveness of creating another national strategy. To me, hard or easy has got nothing to do with it. And others stressed the importance of recognizing regional differences and provincial jurisdiction. Let’s “step forward.” Let’s “step up.” I appreciate those criticisms, but I believe that a legislative tool like a national strategy is required to address the challenges faced by those who are experiencing environmental racism.

While I appreciate the concern that this is yet another national strategy and that it adds one more piece to Canada’s complicated environmental policy regime, the evidence is clear that such a strategy is needed to address issues being experienced by racialized peoples. They have as much of a right to a healthy environment as other Canadians and, as of 2023, they’re being denied that right.

When we vote on this bill, I hope that senators will think about the communities most impacted by environmental racism. These communities can’t wait any longer, and this is an issue we can no longer ignore. I hope that senators will lend their support to Bill C-226 so we can move it to committee and take one more step on the path towards making Canada a more equitable place for all people. Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

(On motion of Senator Audette, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boniface, calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Boniface’s inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario. I thank Senator Boniface for introducing this important inquiry and for asking me to reflect specifically on the epidemiology around this particular group of women who live in rural and remote regions of Canada and are affected by intimate partner violence.

In this case, I take it to mean “from the population health vantage,” that is, the attempt to understand determinants or causation, specifically social determinants of their health outcomes. Social determinants are sometimes called the causes of the causes of health outcomes. They are very upstream from the outcomes; thus, true causation is challenging to establish.

An explanation put forward by the World Health Organization and often cited by other population health agencies explains that social determinants of health are:

. . . the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes. They are the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life. These forces and systems include economic policies and systems, development agendas, social norms, social policies and political systems.

The Public Health Agency of Canada identifies 12 social determinants of health: income and social status; employment and working conditions; education and literacy; childhood experiences; physical environments; social supports and coping skills; healthy behaviours; access to health services; biology and genetic endowment; gender; culture; and race/racism.

As Mandana Mardare Amini writes in a 2022 report for Statistics Canada entitled Statistical Portrait of Women and Girls by the Relative Remoteness of their Communities, Series 3: Health and Well-being:

Living in a rural area remains a significant determinant of health disparities for women, both worldwide and in Canada . . . .

While rural locations themselves do not necessarily lead to poor health . . . living in a rural setting may not only limit access to health services, but also influence other socioeconomic, environmental and occupational health determinants . . . .

The report indicates that women and girls who live in very remote areas self-report the lowest perceived health, the lowest activity level, the highest proportion of women and girls without a regular health care provider, poorer mental health and significantly higher all-cause mortality and suicide-related mortality.

The report also found that suicide or intentional self-harm was a leading cause of death in very remote communities only and that health inequalities were more pronounced for Indigenous women and girls in both rural and urban areas. This 2022 Statistics Canada report indicates that the risk of poor health outcomes increases with more remote living conditions.

In Epidemiology: Principles and Methods, Brian MacMahon and Dimitrios Trichopoulos explain:

. . . the existence of an exposure-response relationship, that is, an association in which the frequency of the effect increases or decreases as the exposure to the putative cause increases, is usually thought to favour a causal relationship.

However, extensive efforts must be made to validate associations thought to be causal, and in the absence of direct experiment, the interpretation of the evidence is complex. Thus, from these Canadian statistics, we might suspect a causal relationship between the remoteness of one’s community and one’s health outcomes.

Although criminology is not my area of expertise, I note a similar trend in the data on spousal and intimate partner homicide. In the past 10 years, a higher proportion of spousal and intimate partner homicides in Canada have occurred in rural communities compared with urban areas.

In a report entitled Homicide in Canada, 2021, Jean-Denis David and Brianna Jaffray from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics found that homicides involving a spousal or intimate partner relationship between the victim and the accused accounted for 23% of homicides in rural areas, compared to 17% of homicides in urban areas. So we can suspect that there may be a relationship between intimate partner violence and residence in rural and remote areas of Canada. Unfortunately, much more data is needed.

As Eve Valera, an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, told The Globe and Mail in December, “Women in general . . . have been understudied in lots of scientific endeavours.”

For example, the Globe article reported on work being done at the Canadian Concussion Centre in Toronto. That facility has over 100 athlete brains that scientists can study to find out more about the impact of repeated concussions, but it has only one brain of a victim of domestic violence. This is a problem.

As the article notes, researchers estimate that approximately one in eight Canadian women is likely to suffer from an unrecognized brain injury related to domestic violence, but we know little about the impact of these injuries.

In a June 2021 JAMA Network Open article entitled “Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020,” Dr. Jecca Steinberg and her colleagues describe the historical under‑representation of women in clinical research:

Medical research has historically focused on male health. Female individuals were often excluded from clinical trials, supposedly to ensure homogeneity of treatment effect and reduce potential maternal-fetal liability. Sex bias persisted, even after research reported sex differences in diagnostic test results, disease progression, treatment response, drug metabolism, and surgical outcomes. Studies have associated this lack of female inclusion with suboptimal health care and adverse medical outcomes.

Steinberg and her colleagues found that female participants are still under-represented in oncology, neurology, immunology, urology, cardiology and hematology relative to their disease burden. Yet, male enrollees are under-represented compared with their disease burden in eight disease categories, including mental health and trauma research. Therefore, sex bias in clinical trials may have negative implications for both sexes.

In her speech, Senator Boniface reminded us of another inquest that happened after an intimate partner femicide in Ontario, the May-Iles inquest of 1998. Senator Boniface asked, “. . . how do we find ourselves in a similar position 24 years later?” Perhaps the answer to her question is that a lack of data and bias in the data likely contributes to this ongoing challenge.

A June 2021 study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women entitled Challenges faced by women living in rural, remote and northern communities in Canada found that a lack of transportation services; difficulty accessing services for women survivors of violence; a lack of reliable, affordable and adequate internet services; a lack of access to education options locally; difficulty finding stable employment; and difficulty accessing or a lack of local services, including child care, mental health and counselling services, were intersecting factors that affect the safety, economic security and well-being of women living in rural, remote and northern communities. Thus, research to better understand and investments to address health challenges for rural and remote women may also help us understand and address violence against these women.

In this regard, Canada is taking steps in the right direction. In recognition that “Geographic proximity to service centres and population centres is an important determinant of socio-economic and health outcomes,” and that, “Consequently, it is a relevant dimension in the analysis and delivery of policies and programs,” in April 2020, Statistics Canada released its Index of Remoteness dataset. This new tool has already facilitated important research, including the Statistics Canada report by Mandana Mardare Amini, which I cited earlier.

Further, the federal government has recognized that:

. . . our health system has not always understood the factors which influence the health status of women, trans women, girls, and gender-diverse communities . . .

In October of last year, it launched the National Women’s Health Research Initiative. As a first step, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Women and Gender Equality Canada will partner to invest in a Pan-Canadian Women’s Health Coalition. I hope that this investment will lead to tangible improvements in health research and delivery for women.

We must continue to address the historical under-representation of women in research so that we can better understand and ultimately improve outcomes for women in rural and remote communities and women in general. Women’s lives depend upon it. Thank you.