Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

He said: Honourable senators, on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, I’m honoured to rise as sponsor of Bill C-45. This legislation amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act of 2006, helping support economic reconciliation and greater prosperity for First Nations.

Bill C-45 contains important measures to enhance the statute’s opt-in fiscal frameworks for the 348 scheduled and participating First Nations and any new entrants. Most importantly, this bill will also create the First Nations infrastructure institute.

I will start today by situating this bill in the bigger picture of economic reconciliation. Then, in the second part of my speech, I will explain Bill C-45’s improvements in relation to tax authorities, financial management, economic information, borrowing and infrastructure development and maintenance. All of this sets the table for greater access to capital and mainstream funding and investments, as well as First Nations’ meaningful realization of social and economic rights and equity. In turn, this shift can help First Nations prosper, supporting the revitalization of languages, cultures and ceremonies.

In the big picture, the statute that this bill would amend is an alternative to the Indian Act framework and one that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Indeed, as the preamble notes, the bill will help implement multiple articles of UNDRIP. Essentially, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act provides participating First Nations with a legislative and institutional framework through which they can assert their jurisdiction in financial management, taxation and access to capital markets.

By enhancing this framework, also noted in the preamble, Bill C-45 responds to Call to Action 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in relation to self-determination and economic reconciliation. The preamble also acknowledges traditional Indigenous models of taxation and sharing, including the word taksis in the Chinook trading language.

It is of fundamental importance to me, as sponsor, to highlight that First Nations-led institutions led the co-development of Bill C-45 through six years of hard work and consultations, including engagement with the 348 participating First Nations.

On today’s commencement of Senate debate, congratulations to Ernie Daniels, President and CEO of the First Nations Finance Authority; Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board; Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission and Allan Claxton and Jason Calla of the First Nations Infrastructure Institute Development Board and their teams. Three of those organizations already exist under the act and will receive important modernization measures via this bill.

The legislation will also establish a fourth organization in relation to infrastructure. Along with the participating First Nations, this is their bill.

Thank you as well to Minister Miller and his team for advancing Bill C-45 on behalf of the government and to the other place for their unanimous support. I hope senators will join me in honouring these shared efforts and the consensus reflected in this bill by passing Bill C-45 before the summer.

This legislation is cause for optimism as our country works toward economic reconciliation. In 2021, with Bill C-15, Parliament upheld legal protection for Indigenous rights through UNDRIP. That historic change was a pivotal response to a long-term injustice. It restored Indigenous nations’ legal rights to self‑government, social and economic rights and equity regarding their lands, waters and resources, including for responsible development.

Again, that all aims toward prosperous communities and supporting flourishing languages, cultures and ceremonies.

The UNDRIP action plan is due to be released this June. Senators should expect an economic component further to the Indigenous Peoples Committee’s observations from two years ago. For example, I hope to see the action plan engaging with the National Indigenous Economic Strategy unveiled last year by a coalition of 25 Indigenous organizations and their 107 calls to economic prosperity.

Complementing the breakthrough of UNDRIP, Bill C-45 supports financial pathways to greater self-determination, prosperity and well-being for many First Nations. For example, this bill can help communities build and grow their tax base, raise revenue for services, regulate services, start or purchase businesses and invest in infrastructure to improve quality of life and support commercial opportunities. All such changes toward greater prosperity can go hand in hand with traditional knowledge, values and culture. Moreover, the changes in this bill can fully complement the realization of self-government via section 35 constitutional rights and UNDRIP.

Of note, Bill C-45 responds directly to issues raised by Senator Tannas on May 16 in our Senate inquiry celebrating success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. Senator Tannas noted that First Nations businesses often don’t have access to capital to finance on-reserve assets. Bill C-45 enhances one avenue of financing by continuing to develop and support the First Nations Finance Authority, a lender to qualifying nations.

Before I get into the bill’s details in the second part of my speech, I will share two concrete examples of how the First Nations Fiscal Management Act can be a game changer.

My first example comes via Member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria Jaime Battiste, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is the first Mi’kmaw member of Parliament. On debate in the other place, Mr. Battiste shared the following experience of Membertou First Nation in Cape Breton. About 10 years ago, Membertou received the First Nations Financial Management Board’s first-ever financial systems certification. That certification provided the community with access to long-term, affordable capital, allowing Membertou to refinance and reinvest in business developments. The results have included an $8.2-million elementary school, a 90-lot housing development and a $9.5-million highway interchange opening access to further commercial developments on Membertou’s land.

Membertou went on to build one of the largest sporting venues on Cape Breton as well as a state-of-the-art bowling alley.

That said, perhaps Membertou’s greatest economic achievement was the acquisition of Clearwater Seafoods in 2021. That $1-billion acquisition was achieved with six other First Nations, all part of the First Nations Finance Authority under this act. Membertou Development Corporation is now home to 12 corporate entities.

My second example of success under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act is Siksika Nation, east of Calgary. In 2016, Siksika Nation opened the long-awaited new Chief Crowfoot School. The original school suffered damages from flooding, was overcrowded and had heating problems. Thanks to Siksika Nation’s commitment to obtain First Nations Financial Management Board certification, it was able to access financing through the First Nations Financial Authority to build the new school. Today, Chief Crowfoot School offers students various services, including speech and language, a dental therapist, a family liaison, a parent-student support worker and weekly visits from an elder to share traditional and cultural teachings. Siksika language and culture are also offered for each grade to promote pride and respect for Siksika heritage.

This example is a social success, but it’s also an economic one, considering the brighter future these students will be able to access. Early in life, an excellent community-led education instills identity, pride and hope in these students in the Siksika Nation. First Nations in Canada need more stories like that across the country.

In addition, First Nations under this act have realized billions of dollars in investment and the assessed value of their reserve lands now exceeds $15 billion. Thousands of laws have been passed under the act, and 150 First Nations administrators have graduated from the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics in Kamloops, B.C.

Loans to First Nations from the First Nations Finance Authority have resulted in the creation of over 20,000 jobs and an economic output of $4 billion through nine provinces and the Northwest Territories. On that point, I remind senators that, in 2021, Senator Harder’s Senate Prosperity Action Group noted a performance target of Indigenous businesses contributing $100 billion to the Canadian economy compared to the current estimated $32 billion. Let’s help reach that goal with Bill C-45.

At the House committee, Manny Jules of the First Nations Tax Commission quoted his father, Chief Clarence Jules, from 1965. His advice for First Nations was, “We must be able to move at the speed of business.” I can personally attest to this need for nimbleness in seizing economic opportunities from my experience in mainstream business as a corporate banker, commercial lender and as a developmental lender in Indigenous economic development.

However, colleagues, it is not only First Nations who can benefit from the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the amendments in Bill C-45. This legislation can lead to shared opportunities and benefits for the entire country. For example, the act can support First Nations’ co-ownership of ventures developing critical minerals needed for the green transition, along with other net-zero capital located on First Nations’ territory. Bill C-45 will support more First Nations in being able to enjoy better interest rates when borrowing through the First Nations Finance Authority.

The journey toward economic reconciliation now offers Canadians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, generational opportunities for employment, partnerships, investments and environmental progress. To illustrate that, last year, RBC reported that Indigenous territories hold at least 56% of advanced critical minerals projects, 35% of top solar sites and 44% of better wind sites. Business leaders and investors should run, not walk, to consult Indigenous nations on those opportunities.

Colleagues, let’s turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla of the First Nations Financial Management Board at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where he gave a good summary of the act and the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

Rarely does a bill cross our chamber that has received unanimous support in the other place, yet Bill C-45 has done just that. Partisanship has been set aside in recognition of the good work of the organizations this bill purports to expand and in acknowledgement of the important work Canada must still do to reconcile itself with its colonial past.

This bill will expand the roles of the three First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions: the First Nations Financial Management Board, or FMB; the First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC; and the First Nations Finance Authority, or FNFA. It will also establish a fourth institution, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or the FNII.

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act — or FMA — institutions are Indigenous-led organizations that aim to provide the resources, administrative tools and guidance to instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development. The actions of the organizations support economic reconciliation and create pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

We all recognize the inherent right of Indigenous peoples 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.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the archaic and paternalistic Indian Act and its consequences that effectively removed First Nations from the national economy. Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, and I am glad we have Indigenous-led organizations like the FMA institutions to lead the way. The FMA is the most successful First-Nations-led example of implementing First Nations jurisdiction through optional legislation, as within 15 years it has grown to the voluntary participation of nearly 300 First Nations from across Canada.

The FMA was founded on four basic principles and objectives that continue to guide policies, standards and proposals for institutional, fiscal and legislative changes.

First, through the First Nation institutionally supported jurisdiction, the FMA provides a framework and process to establish, implement and protect First Nation optional jurisdictions. Jurisdictional space is created for First Nations to occupy with their own legislation supported and protected by the FMA institutions. The FMA institutions provide knowledge, efficiencies, capacity and advocacy that individual First Nations would have difficulty achieving on their own. In this way, the FMA supports effective and applied self-determination for interested First Nations.

Second, the FMA supports First Nation economic growth through a strong First Nation investment climate. This investment climate is characterized by lower costs of doing business; standards to support increased trade and provide certainty; access to long-term capital; sustainable business grade infrastructure; available information to support investment, financial management and administrative capacity; and quality local services at a fair price.

Third, the FMA establishes a revenue-based fiscal relationship like other governments in Canada. Key features include a connection between clear revenue powers and expenditure jurisdictions, incentives for economic development, First Nations institutionally supported systems for transparency, statistics and accountability, and transfers to ensure national service and infrastructure quality standards.

Last, the FMA is an optional process for First Nations. This creates an institutional incentive for motivation and improvement and respects the self-determination of each First Nation.

With respect to the bill, it does several important things. First and foremost, it establishes a fourth institution under the FMA, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or FNII.

First Nations face a staggering infrastructure gap of at least $349.2 billion. Inaction will only make the problem worse, and it’s clear that top-down, government-driven programs have failed to respond to the massive need. At the House committee, Mr. Allan Claxton, Development Board Chair of the FNII, had this to say:

The problems with the current first nation infrastructure systems are well known. Infrastructure on reserves takes too long to develop, costs to much to build and does not last long enough because it’s not built up to the proper standards. This contributes to a series of poor health, social and economic outcomes.

He also said, “High-quality public infrastructure is important for the health and sustainability of our communities.”

The FNII’s mission would be to provide the skills and processes necessary to ensure Indigenous groups can effectively and efficiently plan, procure, own and manage infrastructure on their lands. Through FNII’s team, optional capacity support services would be available to all Indigenous governments and entities, including best practices for maximizing economic benefits not just for First Nations but for regional economies as well.

Bill C-45 also expands the First Nations Tax Commision, the FNTC, to support First Nations that choose to increase their fiscal powers beyond real property taxation. It would also open FNTC to be able to offer services to self-governing First Nations, municipalities and other orders of government.

The legislation would continue expanding and modernizing the services of the FMB, the Financial Management Board, to meet the needs of First Nations and other Indigenous groups and entities. This would be an optional pathway for tribal councils, modern treaty nations and self-governing groups to build their administrative, financial and governance capacity through the risk-managed support of the FMB, as 342 First Nations — 348 expected by the end of the week — have chosen to do. This legislation is a key step to the FMB being able to support innovative projects of collaborative entities such as the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which is comprised of nine First Nations.

Mr. Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the FMB, summed it up during his testimony thus:

These amendments build on the achievements of Canada’s most successful piece of indigenous-led legislation. A huge part of this success lies in the FMA’s optionality for first nations that choose, on an individual basis by band council resolution, to be scheduled to the act. There are no financial enticements to do so, just an individual nation’s desire to have good financial management that is recognized to meet international standards, to be able to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority or to levy local revenues to fund first nations government services.

With the passage of these amendments, nations will be able to choose expert advice and support for building and maintaining infrastructure. The optionality of this legislation also provides evidence of its success. Nearly 350 first nations have chosen, one by one, to be scheduled to the FMA. That is over 60% of the first nations that are part of the Indian Act.

The bill will also establish a statistical function within the FNTC and FMB. The socio-economic gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians is a barrier to economic reconciliation. A lack of readily available data and statistics makes the problem worse: Decision makers, such as the chiefs and councils in First Nations governments, do not have access to the kind of information they need to understand the causes, solutions and complexity of the socio-economic gap — and close it. By providing economic and fiscal data, all levels of government will be better informed.

Bill C-45 also would provide First Nations with additional powers to ensure compliance with their local revenue and service laws, such as enabling First Nations to apply to courts of competent jurisdiction for court orders directing persons or entities to comply with their local revenue and services laws and to collect amounts owing to the First Nations under their local revenue laws. It would allow First Nations to use these provisions to enforce all their local revenue laws, not just laws in respect of taxes, charges or fees. First Nations would be empowered to enforce their laws respecting the provision of services, including using “stop work” and “do work” orders and the discontinuance of services.

Finally, changes are proposed that would enable First Nations scheduled to the First Nations FMA to also be signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, the FNLM. 

Conservatives have long supported economic self-sufficiency and economic reconciliation as an essential off-ramp from the Indian Act. The 2021 Conservative election platform supported the creation of a First Nations infrastructure institute along the same lines as the one proposed in Bill C-45 and supported the expansion of FMA institutions’ mandates and powers to enhance the work they do in establishing accountability and transparency for First Nations.

Our 2019 Conservative election platform spoke to the importance of Indigenous communities accessing capital for economic development to reduce the socio-economic gap between their Indigenous and other Canadian communities.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-45 was passed in the House of Commons with all-party support. Amendments at committee were clarifying in nature and agreed to by the bill’s proponents. I know that the Senate will do its due diligence in scrutinizing Bill C-45, and I hope we will reach a similar conclusion.

It’s time for action, and it’s time to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people that have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act. It’s time to restore to Indigenous people more control of their land, money and decision making.

Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the FNTC, in his closing testimony concluded with this comment:

Your support for these amendments demonstrates that my ancestors were right when they wrote in a letter to the prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1910, that by working together we can make each other “great and good.”

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

When the Right Honourable Mary Simon stood in this chamber and delivered her speech, she spoke in Inuktitut. She opened her address urging action on reconciliation. She pushed us to move beyond platitudes and sound bites to actually achieve change. To quote Her Excellency:

Despite the profound pain, there is hope.

There is hope in the every day. Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.

Already, I have seen how Canadians are committed to reconciliation. Indigenous Peoples are reclaiming our history, stories, culture and language through action. Non-Indigenous Peoples are coming to understand and accept the true impact of the past and the pain suffered by generations of Indigenous Peoples. Together they are walking the path towards reconciliation.

Colleagues, I believe that language is a vital aspect of culture and identity, so it is incumbent upon us to do our utmost to protect, promote and revitalize Indigenous languages.

When I was minister of education for the Northwest Territories, the Government of Canada, represented by the then Indian affairs and Northern development minister, the late Honourable John Munro, made a special trip to Yellowknife in 1982 to meet with our cabinet to inform us that Canada would take action to legislate official bilingualism in the Northwest Territories.

I remember telling Minister Munro in response that while the benefits of official bilingualism would be welcome in my constituency, where there is a significant francophone population, if the Government of Canada would not correspondingly support and recognize Indigenous languages also in need of recognition and support in the N.W.T., federal unilateral action would amount to a declaration of war. “We have more tanks than you do!” the minister told me, jokingly, but agreed to consider my plea for parallel federal support for Indigenous languages and helped authorize a meeting with the secretary of state to discuss ongoing federal support for Indigenous languages.

At that time, I served in our cabinet with the Honourable Richard Nerysoo, who was then Premier of the Northwest Territories. We came to Ottawa and negotiated with the then secretary of state, who was also our esteemed former colleague senator Serge Joyal, and came away with a contribution agreement for a significant $16 million to support Indigenous languages. This was the so-called Territorial Language Accord, which has since then continuously provided federal support for French language enhancement for our small percentage of French speakers in Nunavut — roughly 4% — and roughly equal support for the enhancement of Inuktut languages in Nunavut, the first languages of a significant majority of our 85% Inuit population.

For our part of the deal, the N.W.T. government passed the Official Languages Act, which recognized nine Indigenous languages in addition to French and English as the official Aboriginal languages of the territory. This carried over when the territory later divided, and Nunavut was created. Canada’s newest territory passed its own Official Languages Act in 2008, which recognized Inuktut, Inuinnaqtun, English and French as the official languages of Nunavut.

A key element of the Act is the inclusion of language in section 3, which states:

. . . the Official Languages of Nunavut have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in territorial institutions.

That same year, the Government of Nunavut passed the parallel Inuit Language Protection Act. The then minister of languages, the Honourable James Arreak, released a document entitled Uqausivut, which was meant to serve as a road map for language protection and revitalization for the territory. It explained how the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act would work in tandem to provide the legislative framework required to see Inuit languages flourish.

The document clearly laid out the intent of these bills by stating:

While respecting the equality of Official Languages, the Inuit Language Protection Act was designed specifically to ensure respect for unilingual Inuit, particularly Elders, to reverse language shift among youth, and to strengthen the use of Inuktut among all Nunavummiut. The Act was unanimously approved by the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in September 2008, and is now law in Nunavut.

As one of Canada’s founding languages, Inuktut is also an irreplaceable part of the national heritage, and contributes to the richness and diversity of life in this country. Canada recognized this fact, and the need to protect and support Inuktut, when it signed the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005, and, more recently, when it endorsed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in November 2010.

The act requires, and I stress this, every organization — which includes by definition “a public sector body, municipality or private sector body,” and a “public sector body” means “a federal department, agency or institution” — to “provide, in the Inuit Language, . . . customer or client services that are available to the general public.”

The act goes on to say that every organization shall be bound by the language and signage obligations laid out in the act.

Sadly, honourable colleagues, this is not the reality we live in today in Nunavut. Inuit are not able to access federal government services in their preferred first language. During the Aboriginal Peoples Committee’s study of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, former Nunavut languages commissioner Helen Klengenberg shared a legal opinion with the committee studying the Bill — an opinion which stated clearly that Canada was equally obligated to adhere to the Inuit Language Protection Act as an organization operating within the territory. Accordingly, the committee, with the support of this chamber, reinforced this by attempting to ensure that essential federal services could be provided in an Indigenous language with a reasonable qualification where numbers warrant. However, that amendment was removed in the House under the former majority Liberal government.

It is of great concern to me that the Government of Canada will not honour Nunavut’s Inuit Language Protection Act enacted by the duly elected Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. I often have to deal with complaints from unilingual Inuit who have problems accessing federal government services and programs.

There is no accommodation for the Inuit elders who face language barriers in accessing government programs now delivered through the Income Tax Act. This is partly why I believe that studies have shown that 30% of Nunavut residents — the highest proportion in the country — do not file tax returns. We all know those returns are difficult enough to access and understand for folks who speak English or French.

A very disturbing example of how the Inuit face prejudice — due to Canada’s failure to honour its clear obligations under the Nunavut Inuit Language Protection Act — came to my attention in the last federal election campaign in 2019. At a polling station in Iqaluit, the entire signage at the polling station was in English and in French only — with no signage whatsoever in the Inuktut language. An elder who was at the poll to vote complained to the staff about this blatant failure to respect the third official language — Inuktut — at the poll. She was given a pencil and asked to voluntarily translate the election signage, and handwrite the information on the sign into Inuktut.

When the Indigenous Languages Act was presented and studied in the Senate, Inuit participants in the committee study complained that while it was commendable that the bill addressed the weakened state of many Indigenous languages in Canada which are in danger of extinction due to small numbers of speakers and disuse, it is also essential that the federal Indigenous Languages Act address the needs of Indigenous languages which currently have a better footing and are being more widely used in daily life — recognizing that those languages, like Inuktut, should also be recognized and supported in the new legislation. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s efforts to have these unique needs of the Inuit, whose language is healthy compared, sadly, to many First Nations languages in Canada — which is recognized in the appendix that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami proposed to be added to the bill — were not supported and not included in the bill. As Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated President Aluki Kotierk explained:

Nunavut Inuit, in close collaboration with others across Inuit Nunangat, have made every effort to work constructively with the Government of Canada to develop Bill C-91. Although we have attempted to engage in the process in good faith, this bill was, by no means, co-developed with Inuit.

Ms. Kotierk added:

This legislation, which is intended to help reverse the steady slide of Indigenous languages into disappearance, does not address issues of access to public services in Indigenous languages and does not reflect the needs which have been clearly communicated by Inuit.

While having the pleasure of hosting our colleague Senator Cormier in Iqaluit last week, I learned that the previously established funding amounts disbursed annually between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and now Canada and Nunavut — have persisted for all these years until recently. The last bilateral agreement for Nunavut was from 2016 to 2020 — a four-year agreement instead of the previous pattern of a five-year agreement. More recently, the renewed agreement has been reduced to two years.

There is a strong concern in the Government of Nunavut that the federal government will now be pushing, as they have done in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, to have Nunavut’s funding for official languages be sourced from the meagre national fund established under the Indigenous Languages Act — which is primarily geared to supporting struggling and threatened Indigenous languages. This would be contrary to the long-standing bilateral agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and through the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — to respect French and English as official languages in our territories, but also it would seriously erode support for the Indigenous language of the majority of our population in Nunavut.

Colleagues, we have begun debating Bill C-13 this week. It’s a good day to talk about languages and the long-awaited amendments to the Official Languages Act which, of course, is primarily about Canada’s two official languages. But it was noted by Senator Gold, and others, that the bill also contains a non‑derogation clause to affirm that the bill will not derogate from the rights of Indigenous language speakers. That’s good, but we must be on guard to protect and enhance our Indigenous languages as well.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity, through my reply to the Throne Speech, to put on the public record — as one who personally knows the history of official languages and Indigenous languages in the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — my profound concern that Canada must honour the solemn agreement which was made over 40 years ago, where territorial governments accepted official bilingualism for the minority of its French-speaking citizens in return for Canada’s commitments to also provide corresponding support for the recognition and enhancement of Indigenous languages, including, in my territory, Inuktut.

Honourable senators, it’s not enough to say that we support Indigenous languages in theory. We need to ensure that the government follows through with the actions required in order to ensure that we continue to properly resource the measures necessary to provide that support. I, for one, will continue to push the Government of Canada to honour and respect the obligations that everyone doing business in Nunavut, including the federal government, has under the Inuit Language Protection Act.

I’m delighted that Senator Cormier was there with me in my constituency last week to learn about the importance of both Inuktut and Canada’s two official languages in Nunavut. I will count on him for support in this cause.

Thank you, honourable colleagues. Qujannamiik. Taima.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on May 17, 2023.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Colleagues, I’m well aware of the late hour, so I’ll ask for your attention for only a short period.

I rise to speak today on the principle of Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. As you know, this bill seeks to prohibit the practice of keeping in captivity over 800 species of wild animals, such as elephants and big cats, in Canada.

I’d like to draw your attention to a few points of interest that, in my opinion, should be thoroughly examined during the committee study.

[English]

Colleagues, I am aware that, in essence, S-241 is a good bill. In fact, most zoos, zoological institutions and animal welfare organizations generally agree with its objectives. In his speech at second reading, Senator Klyne eloquently presented Bill S-241 and its coalition of supporters as “a big tent that puts animals first.” I like this analogy and salute Senator Klyne’s openness to working hand in hand with zoological institutions for the benefit of animals.

I also take this opportunity to personally thank Senator Klyne for his compelling answers to the many questions I asked him further to my meetings with some stakeholders. I appreciate that you took the time, senator, to reassure me, which, in turn, will make for a shorter speech.

I’m reassured that the planned implementation of this bill is measured and balanced and doesn’t impose drastic action. For example, it proposes to phase out elephants in captivity, which will give zoos time to adapt while not forcing the 20 elephants currently in captivity in Canada to be taken out of what is sometimes the only habitat they have ever known. I know the Granby Zoo in Quebec has already begun this transition, and I salute them for their initiative.

However, after listening to the arguments made by senators in this chamber and being contacted by stakeholders, I can’t help but notice that some issues need to be addressed and clarified regarding this bill. Notably, I listened to Quebec stakeholders and heard their concerns. In Quebec, there are some major zoos and zoological institutions. As I have mentioned before, most of them support Bill S-241. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Zoo de Granby, the Montréal Biodôme, Parc Omega and the Zoo sauvage de Saint-Félicien.

There is also, however, one institution, Parc Safari, that has expressed some criticism and, I must say, some very valid concerns. Parc Safari is a unique institution in the sense that it has a very large area of land for the animals to roam in. In terms of land capacity, few can compare, either in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. Parc Safari defines its mission as a means of conservation of endangered species, offering spaces and habitats as close as possible to the natural habitats of those animals. It is also a place to develop knowledge about those species and their reproduction. Over the years, Parc Safari has used its knowledge and experience to help endangered species reproduce, and they have sent some animals back into the wild — both in Canada and abroad — where nature intended them to be. That is not what I would qualify as a roadside zoo. On the contrary, it is rather a respectable institution dedicated to animal conservation.

It is important that zoological institutions like the Parc Safari be given a special status — one that recognizes their contributions to science and animal welfare and differentiates them from a regular zoo.

I know that Bill S-241 provides some solutions to this issue. In section 10.1(1), the bill would establish a legal framework for animal care organizations, and this framework recognizes the purpose of those organizations. Those chosen organizations would be designated by the minister and would have to promote wild animal welfare, support conservation, provide rehabilitation to injured or distressed animals, offer sanctuary to animals in need, conduct non-harmful scientific research and engage in public education. As well, they would have to satisfy numerous other eligibility criteria listed in section 10.1(2) of the bill.

I urge the committee to carefully study this section of the bill so that deserving organizations will be able to obtain this animal care organization status, which will ultimately benefit those captive animals.

It was also brought to my attention that provincial norms for zoos and animals in captivity can be widely different from one province to another. During my interaction with stakeholders, I was told that the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, which is the department responsible for caring for zoos, had recently imposed strict and rigorous conditions for animals in captivity. Many Quebec zoos have invested or are in the process of investing large sums of money to comply with those rigorous norms of the Quebec government. It seems unfair for those zoos and zoological institutions, after having invested large sums of money to comply with provincial captivity regulations, to lose this investment due to federal legislation making it illegal for some species to be held in captivity. I would like the committee to look at this situation and maybe for the federal government to work with the provinces to make the situation right and reassure those institutions that those investments will not have been made to no avail.

Colleagues, I support the principle of this bill. I believe that wild animals belong in the wild. I also believe they are entitled to respect and to a decent quality of life. I think Bill S-241, which has been on our Order Paper since March 24, 2022, will be overwhelmingly positive for animal protection and Canada’s reputation worldwide. That being said, we need to work in collaboration with zoological institutions and zoos for the benefit of animals. Those institutions still have a role to play in educating the public on endangered animals and the issues they face all around the world. Colleagues, I trust that the committee will thoroughly study these concerns, and I’m looking forward to their report to the Senate.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, 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).

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will also be brief considering the time, but I do want to say a few words about the bill that Senator Brazeau has introduced: Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). I want to thank Senator Brazeau for bringing this legislation forward for our consideration and for his leadership on this important issue.

As indicated in the title of the bill, Bill S-254 will amend the Food and Drugs Act to require a warning label to be placed on alcoholic beverages. The legislation mandates four components for this labelling requirement. One, the label must indicate the volume of beverage that, in the opinion of the department of health, constitutes a standard drink. Two, it must note how many standard drinks are contained in the labelled package. Three, the label must indicate the number of standard drinks that, in the opinion of the department of health, should not be exceeded in order to avoid significant health risks. Finally, the label must include a warning from the department of health that there is a direct causal link between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers.

Colleagues, I doubt that there is anyone in this chamber who has not seen first-hand the ravages of alcohol abuse. It has been mentioned by other senators who have spoken to this. It is a terrible scourge on our society which is all too common and extracts a heavy price from those who fall into its clutches.

We heard from a number of senators who shared their personal stories about their experiences, and I am certain that the rest of us could all add our own stories as well.

However, I want to point out that the objective of this legislation is not to launch a campaign against the consumption of alcohol or to revisit the question of prohibition. As Senator Brazeau said in his speech, he is not on his high, moral horse preaching abstinence, but rather he is concerned with reducing the number of cancers in Canada.

The preamble lays out the scope of this bill clearly in three statements. The first is that “ . . . Parliament recognizes that a direct causal link exists between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers . . . .”

Next, the preamble states that:

 . . . in light of the serious public health risks posed by alcohol consumption, the public must have accurate and current health information in relation to alcohol consumption in order to make informed decisions about consuming alcohol . . . .

Finally, the preamble says, “ . . . affixing a warning label to alcoholic beverages is an effective way of making consumers aware of this health information . . . .”

On the first point, there is no debate. A direct causal link exists between alcohol and cancer, and although awareness of this fact remains low, this is not a new discovery. It has been 35 years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified alcohol as a Class I carcinogen. Literally hundreds of studies have confirmed this fact since then.

On the second point, there is also no debate. The public should have accurate and current information about the health risks of consuming alcohol. But for whatever reason, this is currently not the case. In fact, according to Cancer Care Ontario, only one third of Canadians are aware that they can lower their risk of cancer by reducing their alcohol consumption. Other studies put this number as low as 25%.

However, this is only one of the health risks when it comes to alcohol consumption. There are many others, such as damage to the liver, brain, heart and stomach; high blood pressure; reduced resistance to infection; decreased appetite; disturbed sleep patterns; anxiety; depression; suicidal depression; fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and more.

Canadians should be aware of these risks and understand how to minimize them. However, colleagues, whether a warning label is an appropriate and effective way of informing the consumer of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption remains an open question. At last count, there were at least 47 countries around the world that have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products, including the United States, Australia, Portugal, France, Japan, Israel, Brazil and, of course, many more.

The United States has had health warning labels on alcohol products since 1988 when it passed the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. But whether Canada needs to follow suit is not clear for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is a significant lack of consensus on what constitutes a low-risk level of alcohol consumption. Only a few months ago, this number in Canada was 10 drinks per week for women and 15 drinks a week for men. Then, in August of last year, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction recommended this be changed to two drinks a week regardless of your gender. The current recommendation in the United States and the U.K. is still 2 drinks a day, whereas in Australia it is 10 drinks per week.

Everybody claims to be basing their guidance on science, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what the science says. One analysis notes:

In almost every well-conceived and controlled study done, it was found that when ex-drinkers were not included in the referent group (and the group consisted only of lifetime abstainers) . . . . there is a cardioprotective effect for regular light to moderate alcohol consumption.

The analysis also concluded that light to moderate consumption contributes significantly to reduced all-cause mortality.

Colleagues, from my own experience, my doctor has told me that one glass of wine per day will help my blood pressure. Two glasses of wine per day will increase my blood pressure. I had a perfect solution. I went and bought a larger glass, but he said that wasn’t the answer to my problem.

Now, I know there is a fair degree of disagreement on this issue. But that is just my point. It would be wrong to push ahead without first having a consensus on this science and the public buy-in.

It is clear that if you are looking for no risk, then you should not drink at all. But what is the appropriate level of alcohol consumption if a person is content with low risk? That answer is not clear.

The second reason for questioning whether health warning labels are an effective way of informing consumers about the risk of alcohol consumption is because the results of the current research on labelling are mixed. We are not venturing into uncharted waters here, colleagues. As I noted earlier, there were at least 47 countries around the world who have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products. And it would be wise to consider their experience and learn from their efforts.

A recent study entitled Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations was published last September in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study reviewed the existing research on health warning labels located on alcohol containers and found 2,975 non-duplicate citations. This is a significant body of evidence from which they examined 382 articles and focused their final analysis on 122 research papers.

What their review showed is that simply slapping a label on alcohol containers is not necessarily a winning strategy. There is a spectrum of variables which needs to be considered when contemplating alcohol warning labels. One example is the label’s design: Where is the label located on the container? How much space does it use? What is the font size? What is the colour? Does it include a logo or an image? All of these were factors in the effectiveness of the label.

The results were not always what you think they might be. For example, they found that using shocking pictures such as those which we have all seen on cigarette packages are not necessarily effective.

. . . negative imagery should be used with caution, since it does not appear to be generally beneficial in influencing the behaviour of those viewing the label.

Part of the reason for this outcome was the issue of believability and acceptability. If the label was not believable or acceptable, it was less effective.

Furthermore, in addition to the design of the label, there is the question of content. What message do the text and images convey? Bill S-254 mandates four aspects of the content of the message, but there are many more which are also possible. What about the dangers alcohol consumption poses to pregnant mothers? What about impairment, risk of hypertension, liver disease or heart disease? What about warnings that alcohol can be addictive? When it comes to labelling alcohol, you could easily focus on any of these issues and all of them are important. So what do we do? In spite of all the data, there remains significant uncertainty. Quite simply, the research is not conclusive.

Alcohol labelling does not always bring the results you think it will. For example, negatively framed messages had the greatest influence on those who were heavier drinkers. With young drinkers, strong warnings have been found to have a boomerang effect where exposure to the warning actually led to a higher positive perception of the product. In fact, one 2009 study found that young adults used standard drink information to maximize rather than minimize their alcohol consumption. The label helped them decide where they would get the most bang for their buck and they ended up increasing their consumption rather than decreasing it. They mainly used the labels to identify drinks with the most alcohol and the lowest cost so they could drink less liquid, get intoxicated faster and spend less money. This finding was corroborated in a 2014 Canadian study where researchers found that 46% of participants said they would use standard drink labels to identify the least expensive alcohol.

Honourable senators, the obvious lesson here is that labelling does not always give you the outcome you would expect. Rather than giving us a conclusive path forward, the existing research seems to indicate that there is much that we do not know about alcohol warning labels.

However, colleagues, this bill does address a very important subject matter. I do not think any decisions should be made before it is examined at committee. I really believe, colleagues, this is a perfect bill for a thorough study at committee to hear from witnesses what their recommendations are.

With that, honourable senators, I would like to see this bill move to committee at the earliest opportunity so that the committee can do a thorough study and report back to us. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I’m very pleased to participate at second reading debate on Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I want to thank Senator Batters for sponsoring this bill and for her work and advocacy on this file.

The protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind has been a top priority of the government, and I am glad to lend my support and the support of the Government of Canada to Bill C-291, which will give us additional tools in putting an end to such abuses.

The protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation is also a priority for the international community. The Government of Canada works closely with its international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. I am also pleased that Canada is a state party to several international instruments that seek to protect children from sexual exploitation. These include the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as its Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime.

[Translation]

While it is incredibly disheartening, it should come as no surprise that the pandemic led to an increase in sexual offences against children, in part because new technology has made it even easier to commit these crimes. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre received 81,799 complaints, disclosures, reports and requests for assistance relating to the sexual exploitation of children on the internet, representing a 56% increase over the previous fiscal year and a 854% increase compared to 2013-14.

[English]

As Senator Batters outlined in her speech, Statistics Canada police-reported crime data from 2020, which includes the first year of the pandemic, indicates that incidents of making or distributing child pornography had increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019, and represents a 146% increase since 2017. These numbers, colleagues, are profoundly disturbing.

We must take measures to fight sexual exploitation of children. Clearly, we need to have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it, we need to have strong and effective law enforcement and we need to continue to advance and support measures that seek to support victims.

Canada’s existing laws against child pornography are amongst the strongest in the world. But even with that, we as legislators should always be assessing and reassessing if even these laws can be further strengthened. That is why I appreciate that Bill C-291 is before us now because I see it as trying to make a small but important change that will help us more accurately and effectively name and prevent child sexual exploitation through child pornography.

There has been, over the years, both domestically and internationally, a move away from the term “child pornography.” There is a view that the term child pornography is too similar to regular pornography, which is, of course, legal when made by consenting adults and does not constitute obscene material. Therefore, the trend is towards terms that are more descriptive of the harm of pornography when children are in any way involved.

The Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, commonly known as the Luxembourg Guidelines, suggest using “child sexual exploitation material” as a more general term to encompass:

. . . material that sexualises and is exploitative to the child although it is not explicitly depicting the sexual abuse of a child.

[Translation]

Another example from the international context is Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires states parties to undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This measure is set out in detail in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The protocol requires states parties to criminalize the production, distribution, transmission, importation, exportation, exploitation, offering, sale or possession of child pornography for the purposes set out in the convention.

[English]

Following that example is the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, of which Canada is a member, which established Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

Looking at domestic legislation from other countries, the question of terminology is not settled. Neither the United Kingdom nor Australia, who are both state parties to the Optional Protocol, use “child pornography” in their domestic legislation. The U.K. uses the term “indecent photographs,” and Australia uses the term “child abuse material.”

In short, many terms are used in international fora and by our international partners to mean the same kind of material — material that involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. Moving away from the terminology “child pornography” would not place Canada out of step in the international arena. However, when considering Canada’s broad Criminal Code definition and protections, it is important that any new term accurately describes what is already established in the jurisprudence and in the plain text of the provision itself.

The Criminal Code definition includes materials such as written and audio forms of child pornography that either advocate sexual activity with children or whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a child. This latter category of materials normalizes the sexualization of children and, in part, helps fuel the demand for child sexual abuse materials and therefore puts more children at risk.

Bill C-291 proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” Although this is a simple change in terminology without substantive alteration to the definition, there is some complexity associated with it. For example, the Luxembourg Guidelines, in its foreword, recognize that changes to existing terms such as “child pornography” — especially established legal terms with a long history of judicial consideration — might cause confusion or hinder the prevention and elimination of child sexual exploitation if bad actors exploit legal technicalities. It is vitally important that any new term capture the full scope of Canada’s law as well as the jurisprudence on that term from the last 30 years.

[Translation]

I am aware that changing the terminology will also have repercussions on federal regulations and provincial and territorial laws in Canada. The term “child pornography” and the reference to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code appears in at least 50 provincial and territorial pieces of legislation. If the bill is passed, the provinces and territories may need some time to change their legislation to be consistent with the new terminology.

[English]

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the other place for providing us with an opportunity to review the Criminal Code’s definition of “child pornography” as well as the way that the provision is incorporated into both federal but also provincial and territorial legislation.

Once again, Senator Batters, thank you for accepting to sponsor this bill, and I hope we can refer this to committee as soon as possible. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That a Special Senate Committee on Human Capital and the Labour Market be appointed until the end of the current session, to which may be referred matters relating to human capital, labour markets, and employment generally;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that four members constitute a quorum; and

That the committee be empowered to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate; to send for persons, papers and records; to hear witnesses and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face and to the importance of understanding and redefining relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

I thank my colleague Senator Simons who introduced this inquiry, and, as I listened to her and others, I became more concerned about the issue. That is, the necessity of ensuring municipalities have the fiscal and political resources they need to lead Canada to a more prosperous, connected and innovative future.

Almost six years ago, as part of my installation as a senator I chose to represent the Region of Waterloo. This was a simple decision. I would represent seven municipalities and townships: They are connected and interrelated, and a regional approach was my best strategy. It also made me very accountable to quickly ensure I knew and understood the variety of needs across these townships. My understanding of these issues has certainly been put to the test several times.

I have made it a priority, like all of us, to know our community, the diversity of needs and the common issues, but, more importantly, the role and interconnection of each town and city. I have learned much from my meetings with seven mayors, along with well-known organizations large and small. My visits to 32 businesses and organizations during COVID were insightful beyond all measure.

The Region of Waterloo is comprised of three cities and four townships: The cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, and the townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich. This mid-sized community is in the heart of southwestern Ontario’s greenbelt. What I love is that we have the amenities of a large urban centre while maintaining the charm and character of a smaller rural community.

Imagine this for a moment: I can walk out my front door and continue to walk or cycle for a few minutes before I reach several university campuses, trails that can take me all the way to Guelph in the west or to Brantford or Hamilton in the south and deep into farming communities to the north. This is encompassed in one beautiful scenic trail system resulting in a community of communities connected by high-quality transit, cycling and walking trails with the captivating Grand River running throughout.

In a few kilometres, I can visit tech innovation hubs boasting the best and brightest talent from around the world, think tanks like the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Centre for International Governance Innovation. If I cycle only a little further, I can travel back in time, moving quickly from award‑winning architecture to a peaceful rural landscape of dirt roads and the horse-and-buggy world of our Mennonites. I can even purchase fresh flowers, homemade sausages, maple syrup, apple butter, cheese and Mennonite furniture and quilts at the roadside or in the large markets.

The Grand River winds through most of the region, a total of 365 hectares. You can travel the Grand by canoe or by the Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail. Live theatre, museums and Canada’s longest continually operating farmers’ market can be found in this area.

Kitchener, in the central area, is the region’s largest city: industry, collaboration and entrepreneurship are at the heart of the city. Many festivals, including the buskers, line the streets during the summer.

The local museum, the Kitchener Museum and the Centre in the Square host top talent, artisans and performers from around the world. A few minutes down the road, Chicopee ski hill provides a great winter skiing, tubing and summer hiking experience.

I would like to highlight our four smaller townships as well. Natasha Salonen is the Mayor of Wilmot Township. She speaks very proudly of her community:

The people who live in Wilmot make me proudest of our township. It is not only a very small town feel with rural roots, but we are a community who comes together to support one another and make Wilmot such a wonderful place to live, work, play and raise a family.

She continues to describe the location along the Nith River beside larger cities. They provide the green space and agricultural industry to keep food on the table for those in Ontario. They are proud of their cultural events that draw people from afar, including the Mennonite Relief Sale, Moparfest and the New Hamburg Fall Fair.

We talked quite a bit about the relationship between municipal, provincial and federal governments. In Mayor Salonen’s words:

The relationship between municipalities and the federal government is foundational to ensure Canada remains such a wonderful country to live in. I would argue that the goals of all levels of government is to improve the lives and wellbeing of all Canadians. Having a close relationship is mutually beneficial as we can help each other. It is said that municipal is the level of government closest to the people and that as we fulfill our mandates, with strong federal ties, we can also provide unique insight into federal policy and programs that could be enhanced, are working or perhaps need to be created.

Moving along the Nith River, Sue Foxton is the Mayor of the Township of North Dumfries, known as the community of Ayr to many. The homes are unique. It is a peaceful area. Fireflies still flutter through the summer months. Ayr is one of the rare communities in Canada that still hosts a huge school fair every year, and 2024 will be the two hundredth year of this fair.

While they are a very proud hockey community, Mayor Foxton is most proud of the heart of her people. Regardless of hardship or success, this is a community that respects the space of everyone.

Recently, Ayr desperately needed a new arena. The goal was to raise $1 million. The community pulled together, became aware of how important this was to their kids and raised $2.5 million instead.

As the mayor puts it, “As we plan, as we prepare and respond, as we do, our children learn that they can do.”

When we look at the role that municipalities play, Mayor Foxton is very clear:

The strong, purposeful, and two-way connection with the federal government is essential to the forward building of our municipalities, but this is way more than monetary. We must see and know our leaders, our representatives — who are you? We have not had a senator in over 70 years. What does this mean for us? What could it mean? How does it amplify our communities and the important connections for our towns, our provinces and territories, our federal decision makers and back? Our elected officials must remember why they were elected, where they come from and remember the impact of every federal and provincial decision.

When I reached out to each community leader, I listened to them talk about trust, empathy, communication, consultation and the supreme importance of feeling connected and responsible to someone and something much bigger than themselves.

Some of this language is not new, but the stakes — the impact of poor decisions, of information and disinformation and of fatigue — have never been greater. Great sacrifice is made in leading municipalities, and this is something we can never forget.

Over the past month, I have had some very difficult conversations. Every mayor and municipal leader I spoke with was able to give very provocative examples of the impact of federal decisions that made their work difficult or outright impossible. I pushed this hard to make sure I understood what I heard. Overall, they observed better relationships with provincial and territorial premiers. The general belief is that this relationship really improved as an essential part of the pandemic and recovery. The concern, though, is whether the effort will be made to communicate, to have premiers meet and to have mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities continue to be at the table. Or will we slow it down and revert to business as usual as time wears on?

For everyone one of us in the chamber, this inquiry reminds us of questions we may be asking ourselves over and over again: How are we making ourselves, as individuals and as a collective, accountable to and for our municipalities? How are we ensuring we are representing the needs of our communities and our municipalities? Are we consulting and inviting feedback that leads to a good bill review and follow-up process? Honestly, I believe we fall short on this promise to Canadians, but together we can really do something about this.

From my municipality discussions, housing, homelessness, treatment of seniors, end-of-life and long-term care, the welcoming of new Canadians, recent childcare announcements and services like food banks have all shared incredible stories of trying to patch together the best they can with limited resources and unanticipated announcements and legislation.

A few weeks ago, I visited the local Maison Sophia Reception House, a place that manages all the intake for hundreds of Afghan refugees, new Canadians and others. Something as simple as the facility, the hotel they stay in, the management and the facility not being able to get a commitment from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — IRCC — for more than four months puts their success in deep jeopardy.

An already-challenged health care system is pushed to the brink as we know the most vulnerable new Canadians arrive with many physical and emotional health needs. The promise to bring in hundreds of thousands of new Canadians without seamless, well-communicated federal support at times sets families and communities up for failure.

These are a few small examples that highlight what works well for communities and where things can fall apart quite quickly. At present, the challenges around housing can be a prime example of this.

This past weekend, over 1,500 municipal elected officials came together in Toronto for the national Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. Following this, I was reminded of all our common municipal challenges that come with a rapidly growing Canada. One of the biggest common threads was the priority for a new road map for a better-working country. The fiscal framework must be re-examined. The shoe no longer fits.

Municipalities want to lead to find the right tools to unlock the right kind of housing supply, to tackle homelessness, core infrastructure and climate change. The strongest message of the weekend was the message to the federal and provincial orders of government to continue to engage with municipalities in a national conversation regarding a new fiscal framework for municipalities. Their fiscal tools are simply outdated and are not designed to meet our modern challenges.

As parliamentarians, we all work hard to make sure we value our communities. We are trying to communicate the important links, the work we do and why we do the work we do, but this inquiry is about our municipalities. They must have the fiscal and political support to thrive while being efficient and effective. No matter the size of the municipality or the size of each one of your communities, the solution is the same: all governments working together in a respectful manner.

Municipalities are truly our first responders and are at the front lines of our politics. They are where business is done in our country. They are the economic engines of innovation for our confederation. Let us never forget this. Let us demonstrate that we understand this and that we all play an important role in the successes and struggles that are occurring every day from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Clement, 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. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise this evening to speak to Senator Gwen Boniface’s Inquiry No. 10 on the subject of intimate partner violence.

Let first let me introduce you to the situations of three women who experienced intimate partner violence in Nova Scotia, two of whom are still living, and one who tragically died just in the county next to my home county.

Here is what the first woman wrote about her experience:

For my first job interview at the CBC in 1981, I spent an unusual amount of time making sure I had just the right outfit: a collarless jacket trimmed in the style of a white Chanel suit. I paired it with a dark blue blouse that I could button right to the top. It wasn’t just a fashion choice. I needed to hide the bruises. There was a purple ring of them around my neck with my husband’s fingerprints left there after he tried to choke me a few days earlier.

At one point, he’d attacked me on a short vacation, and then left me behind. I returned home on an overnight train convinced that I could save our marriage by pledging to be a better wife. But he had his own message for me when I got home: He told me that if I didn’t leave, he’d kill me. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.

As for the second woman:

If we had a fight, he put the gun to my head to scare me and said he could blow off my head.

So I was scared. I’m not going to say anything.

And after years of enduring abuse:

He arrived at the cottage, he ripped off the blankets, yanked her by the hair onto the floor, kicked and punched her. “Get dressed,” he demanded. He shook gasoline all over the home and pulled her by the wrist out the door to the next-door warehouse. The log home exploded in flames. He ripped off her sneakers and dragged her by the hair. She squirmed out of her coat and raced into the darkness tripping and falling. He dragged her again, handcuffing her and firing his gun on the ground next to her and threw her into the back of the mock RCMP car.

And now, in the case of the third woman, we unfortunately don’t have her voice, because she was silenced before she could be heard. We know that in May 2016, her husband was sent to Ste. Anne’s Hospital near Montreal to try to stabilize his ongoing PTSD symptoms, including his struggle to manage his emotions. At that point, her husband had disclosed to medical practitioners that he was having nightmares about his wife cheating on him, and, in those dreams, he would kill her in retaliation. Her husband was an Afghanistan war veteran who ended up killing her, their daughter, his mother and then himself.

We do know that she had made contact with the Naomi Society in Antigonish, which provides support to people who experience intimate partner violence. She wanted to know how to obtain a peace bond. She had been clearly aware that she was in danger.

Some of you may have guessed who these three women are. The first woman, with the carefully hidden ring of bruises on her 24-year-old newlywed neck, is none other than the nationally and internationally acclaimed CBC journalist Anna Maria Tremonti. She was describing her efforts to hide evidence of her pain and her shame during the interview with the CBC Halifax’s “Information Morning” show, which launched her successful career with that national broadcaster. She only recently went public with her personal story of intimate partner violence, including a podcast series called “Welcome to Paradise.”

The second woman is Lisa Banfield, the long-time common‑law spouse of the perpetrator of Nova Scotia’s mass murders. She had endured years of violence at the hands of her partner, and, as we know, she was the first victim of his violent rampage, which resulted in the brutal and senseless killing of 22 Nova Scotians — the worst mass murder in Canadian history.

Lisa Banfield survived his rampage by escaping into the woods that night in Portapique in rural Nova Scotia. She was later further victimized by our justice system.

The third woman is Shanna Desmond from Upper Big Tracadie in Guysborough County, Nova Scotia. An African-Nova Scotian woman, she was a nurse, a mother and the wife of Afghanistan war veteran Lionel Desmond. As was the case with the tragic Renfrew County stories of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam that we heard Senator Boniface recount in her speech, the intimate partner violence that Shanna Desmond experienced was fatal.

In her speech, Senator Boniface highlighted the case of the murders of the three Renfrew County women — all former intimate partners of the same man — and set those against the context of the epidemic of intimate partner violence in Canada. She articulated particular concerns about intimate partner violence in rural areas, where there’s often a lack of access to support services, as well as how difficult it is to seek help on an anonymous basis in a small town.

She spoke about the coroner’s inquest into the deaths of the Renfrew County women and the 86 recommendations for change, including those related to the creation of an emergency fund for survivors, providing annual, sustainable funding to service providers, with recognition of differences in rural and urban realities; second-stage housing for survivors; education and training for justice system personnel on issues related to intimate partner violence, including unique rural factors; and the importance of expanding cell service and high-speed internet as a matter of enhancing safety for women in rural and remote areas.

Senator Boyer shared information on intimate partner violence against Indigenous women, and she also highlighted important Indigenous responses to that violence. Senator Seidman used a public health lens to show the significant gaps and bias in data, as well as the under-representation of women in research.

Senator Hartling spoke about her own experience of working with women victims of intimate partner violence in New Brunswick. She spoke of the often overlooked but critical issue of coercive control. My intention is to highlight some of the lessons from the cases of the three women in Nova Scotia. My emphasis will be on the findings and recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission that relate to intimate partner violence.

Colleagues, as a reminder, intimate partner violence includes a range of behaviours, including emotional, financial, psychological, physical or sexual violence perpetrated by an intimate partner. The overwhelming majority of intimate partner violence perpetrators are men, and the overwhelming majority of their victims are women.

The intimate partner violence described by Anna Maria Tremonti was one of repeated physical attacks, as well as the psychological manipulation she experienced at the hands of her former husband. It not only left her bruised and battered, but also overwhelmed with shame and self-blame. One of the main reasons she kept her painful secret for decades was her fear that, as a woman looking to advance her career in journalism, she would be accused of bias. She now says:

I believe my own experience made me a more empathetic and nuanced reporter, but the assumption of a harmful bias remains in many newsrooms when it comes to gender-based violence.

She also states:

When we talk about objective journalism, whole cohorts of journalists have made the long overdue observation that objectivity is a white man’s subjective construct.

The matter of intimate partner violence in the case of the death of Shanna Desmond is being examined as part of the Desmond Fatality Inquiry. The inquiry’s mandate is to try to prevent future deaths by considering whether the systems that the family interacted with, including health care and domestic violence prevention, ought to be changed. The final report on that inquiry is anticipated in the near future.

Questions guiding the inquiry include the following: Did Lionel Desmond’s spouse Shanna, daughter Aaliyah and mother Brenda have access to appropriate domestic violence intervention services? Did the many health care professionals and police officers who interacted with the family have the necessary training and information to spot the risk of intimate partner violence? Should a man with profound and complex PTSD symptoms, recently released from an in-patient psychiatric program, have been able to legally purchase a firearm?

While we don’t yet have the report on that inquiry, we do know that some witnesses have indicated that systemic failures and racism played a role in the tragic chain of events that resulted in the murders of Shanna, her 10-year-old daughter, her mother-in-law and also her husband’s suicide.

Finally, colleagues, we turn to the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission. Some of you may recall that at that time, Senator Colin Deacon, Senator Kutcher and I sent a letter to federal Minister Bill Blair and Nova Scotia Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mark Furey in early June 2020 — calling for the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia to launch a joint public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shootings and related events, as was requested by the families of the victims.

The Mass Casualty Commission, a joint public inquiry, was established that year. Its final report, entitled Turning the Tide Together — all 300 pages of it in seven volumes, including 130 recommendations — was released two months ago. Many of the commission’s recommendations focus on the RCMP, as was expected. On the topic of this inquiry, the report called for:

. . . a greater focus on addressing and preventing the root causes of violence in our communities, including gender‑based violence, intimate partner violence, and family violence . . . .

The report says:

. . . there is a growing body of evidence that many men who commit mass casualties have previously committed gender‑based violence, intimate partner violence, or family violence.

And many mass violence events begin with an attack on a specific woman. It points out that “Misogyny and unhealthy traditional conceptions of masculinity are root causes of mass casualty incidents.” It also acknowledges that “the division between public and private violence is illusory and problematic.”

The commission indicates that the first step in preventing mass violence is “in recognizing the danger of escalation inherent in all forms of violence.” It also calls for a “prevention-oriented public health approach” to the issue, which should include treatment for perpetrators.

Further, the commission concludes:

. . . that mandatory arrest and charging policies have failed in significant ways and have had unintended impacts that contribute to our collective and systemic failure to protect women and to help women survivors protect themselves.

In her article on the commission’s report, Canadian feminist lawyer Pamela Cross says:

It is gratifying to see how often the Commission report refers to the CKW inquest and its recommendations – maybe some of them will get the attention they deserve housed within this higher profile report.

I do not have sufficient time today to go through all the commission’s recommendations related to the prevention of intimate partner violence, but I can assure you they are worth studying and acting upon. Sustained, annual funding for community-based groups and experts in the gender-based advocacy and support sector is underlined as essential, as is the strengthening of firearms regulations.

Of paramount importance are the commission’s recommendations regarding accountability and ensuring the actual implementation of the recommendations. In that regard, the commission report proposes the establishment, by statute, of an independent and impartial gender-based violence commissioner with adequate, stable funding and effective powers, including the responsibility to make an annual report to Parliament.

Honourable colleagues, as I bring my remarks to a conclusion today, I want us all to take note of the valuable and potentially life-saving recommendations of the many inquiries, inquests and commissions on this epidemic of intimate partner and gender‑based violence. Among them, the May-Iles inquest, the Renfrew County inquest, the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Colleagues, let’s keep in mind the three women I spoke about today — Anna Maria Tremonti, Shanna Desmond and Lisa Banfield — the many other women in Canada impacted by this violent epidemic and our next generation of girls in Canada.

Honourable colleagues, let’s continue to work together so that the young girls of today can grow into women, who can count upon the right to live in safety in their communities and, most importantly, to live in safety in their own homes.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Klyne, calling the attention of the Senate to the ongoing business and economic contributions made by Indigenous businesses to Canada’s economy.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to Senator Klyne’s inquiry, which seeks to recognize the contribution of Indigenous businesses to the Canadian economy and more particularly to that of Quebec. Despite how late it is, I hope everyone will enjoy my remarks.

I will address three points: first, the context of economic reconciliation; second, Indigenous Economic Development Corporations; and third, examples of Quebec-based companies that are a model for others.

I will begin by talking about the global context. Within the boundaries defined by the colonial governments of what is now our country, where Indigenous peoples were well established long before Jacques Cartier’s arrival, Indigenous groups had their own economic relationships. However, colonial regimes, with their concepts and their laws, imposed different visions on these peoples and deprived them of full economic participation.

Moreover, the colonizers set up a system of land and wealth appropriation built on low compensation and under conditions that did not respect the rights of Indigenous peoples. When our system of governance was established in 1867, it was accompanied by racist policies and laws based on the principle of the supremacy of the white man and his religious, cultural and economic beliefs, which led notably to the residential school system, prohibition of the use of Indigenous languages and practices, and other forms of assimilation.

It’s time to talk about reconciliation, especially economic reconciliation, as called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action 92.

[English]

Canada has received strategic directions and made progress on these goals in recent years. In 2021, Senator Klyne and others addressed economic reconciliation in our debate on Bill C-15 respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Senator Klyne spoke about the importance of involving Indigenous business organizations in the UNDRIP action plan. We are looking forward to the government plan that will hopefully deliver on that commitment.

We also heard from Senator Klyne today about the importance of Bill C-45.

Senators, Indigenous entrepreneurs and business owners are key to self-determination and increasing Indigenous participation in the Canadian economy. This participation must be a priority for Canada. The Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business reported in its Business Reconciliation in Canada Guidebook of 2019 that the national Indigenous economy is growing exponentially, contributing over $30 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2019. As the Senate Prosperity Action Group noted in its 2021 report, Indigenous business leaders have set a $100 billion performance target.

[Translation]

This brings me to my second point, which relates to Indigenous Economic Development Corporations. These companies are owned and operated by Indigenous communities. They invest money from the community in community-owned projects, such as holding companies and social purpose parent companies. The Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business estimates that there were nearly 500 Indigenous Economic Development Corporations in Canada in 2020, 79% of which had generated profits in the previous year. In addition, 70% had business partners who hired workers from Indigenous communities, and more than 85% offered support services to community members.

[English]

With these statistics in mind, I move to my third topic: some successful Indigenous businesses in Quebec. The Listuguj Mi’kmaq fishery on the Restigouche River and Chaleur Bay is a multi-million dollar industry. It was the focus of a recent APTN documentary series. In 2021, the Listuguj government signed the rights reconciliation agreement on fisheries, acknowledging its Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish. We hope that, one day, we’ll see the same in Nova Scotia. The agreement further acknowledged that the Listuguj First Nation has a sacred and inherent responsibility for the stewardship of the land, waters and living things in their traditional territory.

According to a CBC article, with the agreement in place, the Listuguj Mi’gmaq Rangers, empowered by Indigenous law, meet fishing boats at the wharf and count lobsters every day during the lobster season. They collect 10% of the total catch to distribute it among the Mi’kmaq community of about 4,000 people. Community members cook the lobsters and deliver them to elders or are picked up by their families. The remaining 90% of the catch is sold commercially.

This is a success story of a community operating a prosperous industry based on its inherent and constitutional rights.

The second Indigenous business working in Quebec that I want to highlight is Avataa Explorations & Logistics Inc. AEL is a family-owned Inuit consulting firm in Nunavik that specializes in site assessments and remediation and sells fishing and hunting permits. The company’s Inuit family founders are outdoor enthusiasts who have lived all their lives in the North and are raising their family there.

AEL has a strong corporate social responsibility policy, which includes organizing community, social, educational and cultural activities for youth. In addition to this community impact, AEL has a large economic impact. It partnered with Sanexen Environmental Services Inc. to incorporate Avataani Environmental, which provides logistics, remote workforce camp and catering and environmental services to the mining and exploration industries. The partnership balances local traditional knowledge with technical expertise and provides holistic solutions to a wide range of environmental issues.

The third organization I would like to mention is CREED, the Cree Real Estate Entrepreneurship Development Program of the Eeyou Istchee Cree government. North of the village of Nemaska, near James Bay, but far southwest of AEL in Nunavik, the Grand Council of the Crees allocates a significant amount of funding to local Cree entrepreneurs.

The CREED program grants up to $100,000 to James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement beneficiaries whose businesses are based and operated in Eeyou Istchee as long as they work in private home construction, renovations, home materials, financial services, landscaping and design and commercial real estate.

As Grand Chief Abel Bosum said at the Senate committee pre‑study on UNDRIP in 2021:

It has been precisely because our rights have been acknowledged and because we are recognized to be fully legitimate participants in the economy and in the political life of our region that we have contributed to the journey toward peaceful coexistence and social harmony.

Before concluding, I’ll quickly tell four stories of smaller Indigenous businesses of note operating in Quebec: a restaurant, a bookstore, a beauty brand and an internationally renowned designer.

The next time you are near Quebec City, make a reservation at Sagamité, an Indigenous-owned restaurant. The original location is in Wendake — a well-known place to our colleague Senator Audette — an urban reserve 25 minutes northwest of downtown Quebec City, and the second restaurant is in a stone-walled building in Old Quebec. The restaurants use food to introduce guests to the culture of the Huron-Wendat, with a menu highlighting the First Nation’s traditional diet of wild game, including deer, caribou, moose, along with fish, native plants, herbs and berries.

Before a fire destroyed the original Wendake location in 2018, the business had seen its profits increasing by 20% to 35% per year. Owner Steeve Wadohandik turned the fire into an opportunity to expand the space. He doubled the number of his employees and recruited from the Wendake community. He and his partner now also own two nearby boutique hotels in Old Quebec.

A second smaller business is Sequoia, an Indigenous beauty brand founded by Michaelee Lazore in 2002. The company is 100% owned and operated by Indigenous women. Their products are scented with sweetgrass, cedar, red clover, blackberry and sage. The design, production and packaging are all done locally. The production is sustainable, and the ingredients are ethically sourced. She now has a shop in Kahnawake and also sells online throughout North America.

[Translation]

The third business is Librairie Hannenorak, which is also located in Wendake. It is the only bookstore located in an Indigenous community in Quebec.

The bookshop has a special section for Indigenous books, some of which have won the Governor General’s Award.

[English]

Finally, you may have heard of Mohawk designer Tammy Beauvais. She is a fourth-generation artisan and designer based in Kahnawake. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau owns one of her capes. In 2016, she gifted another one of Ms. Beauvais’ beaded capes to Michelle Obama, featuring three glass beads that belonged to Ms. Beauvais’ great-grandmother. Ms. Beauvais’ website features bespoke feather dresses, bags, ties, blankets and jewellery and includes her own designs and those of other Indigenous designers.

[Translation]

In conclusion, the examples I just spoke about represent only a fraction of the contributions of Indigenous businesses and also represent the hope that they will serve as examples for other Indigenous entrepreneurs.

Thank you, Senator Klyne, for initiating this inquiry. We must recognize the economic achievements of Indigenous peoples and work together to make economic reconciliation a reality. When Indigenous businesses prosper, all Canadians prosper.

I also support Bill C-45, which was introduced today and which seeks to provide Indigenous communities with more modern and effective instruments to create Indigenous wealth. Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)

(At 9:58 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)