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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: So ordered. On debate, Senator Omidvar.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic — albeit a rather friendly one — of Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence. I first spoke to this bill on October 16, 2018, after its original introduction. We thank Senator Manning for all of his work on this — in collaboration with and inspired by the indomitable Georgina McGrath.

Bill S-249 focuses on the too-often irreparable harm caused by violence against women. It calls upon the federal government — in consultation with federal ministers and representatives of the provincial and territorial governments, as well as other relevant groups that provide services to survivors — to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence. Particularly in light of the horrific realities exposed by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, it is imperative that Indigenous women leaders and governance bodies be included.

The need for a comprehensive and holistic national action plan was highlighted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, following her visit to Canada in 2018. Significantly, her findings have been underscored by too many inquests, investigations and inquiries — most recently, the Mass Casualty Commission.

Violence against women and intimate partner violence are pervasive, and we have consistently failed to offer adequate support to those in danger. The strategy proposed by Bill S-249 must interrogate the status quo, including economic, social, legal and health realities that facilitate continued victimization.

Honourable senators, if this initiative is to be more than well intentioned and informative, we will need to act with intention.

Thirty years ago, in 1993, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, or NAC — the largest national feminist organization of its time, with over 700 affiliated groups — formulated the 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women. NAC recognized that violence against women is fundamentally and inextricably rooted in women’s substantive inequality. The strategy recognized that poor women, women with disabilities, women of colour, and Indigenous women:

. . . are more likely to be victim of assault, we seem to have difficulty seeing the advantage men have over these women and how those legal, social and economic advantages become part of the weaponry of violent attacks. Every kind of entrenched advantage (whether because he is of the dominant race or because he is a professional) is too often used to harm women. No program to end violence against women can be effective if it does not disrupt and transform those power relations toward equality.

These are true words 30 years later.

Today, we have the assessments of the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia and the inquest recommendations from the Renfrew County triple murder, or femicide — which is also the subject of the inquiry launched by Senator Boniface — as well as the May-Iles and countless other investigations and inquests.

Commissions and front-line, grassroots organizations agree that intimate partner violence and violence against women are, fundamentally, an issue of equality. The reissued call for a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence, coordinated by Women’s Shelters Canada and released in 2020, states that:

Violence against women (VAW) and gender-based violence (GBV) are not only stand-alone harms. They both express and re-enforce inequality; this is a crucial factor in how to anticipate, combat, and prevent violence against women and gender-based violence, namely, through holistic law and policy.

Senator Manning described violence against women as an urgent and widespread public health issue. Violence against women is also, fundamentally, a crisis of equality that manifests itself and is perpetuated in multiple spheres.

It follows that crime prevention or public health models alone are not sufficient. Upholding substantive equality requires reducing the costs and barriers associated with leaving abusive relationships.

Senator Manning also noted that violence against women is perhaps the most pervasive form of human rights abuse, knowing no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. This is true. We also know that violence against women disproportionately, and too often fatally, impacts Indigenous women, women with disabilities, women of colour, 2SLGBTQIA+ folks and, most particularly, women living in poverty and women who are marginalized and oppressed, primarily through men using and abusing power.

We must situate intimate partner violence and violence against women in the broader power structures and systems that enable ongoing violence against the most marginalized and vulnerable. We must move beyond temporary, targeted and restrictive solutions, and we must recognize the systemic inequalities that affect an individual’s ability to avoid or survive intimate partner violence.

We must also acknowledge the difficult truth that those who perpetrate violence are often themselves victims of abuse. A holistic strategy must ensure that survivors receive support as a means to disrupt intergenerational patterns of abuse.

As Senator Dalphond reminded us, in 2018, this bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, where it died because of the subsequent election. The reintroduction of Bill S-249 allows us to consider what has changed since 2018 and, tragically, what has remained the same or become worse.

Between 2018 and 2021 — unfortunately, these are the most recent statistics available — at least 251 people living in Canada were killed by an intimate partner. According to the 2019 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, “Approximately every 2.5 days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner.” This, colleagues, is femicide.

Those killed were predominantly women, and devastatingly, they were disproportionately Indigenous women. Indigenous women account for approximately 5% of women in Canada, but approximately 20% of women killed by an intimate partner. Worse yet, 12% of unsolved homicides involve non-Indigenous women victims, but 40% involve Indigenous women.

A strategy to address violence against women must reflect commitments by Canada to implement the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including vital economic, social, health, legal and governance reforms. The National Inquiry was our country’s response to the “. . . staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people,” and recognizes this violence as no less than genocide.

The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated inequality, and so, horrifically but not surprisingly, worsened violence against women. It became known as the “shadow pandemic,” a term that was adopted to capture this intensification of violence against women through a perfect storm of conditions perpetuating abuse, such as stay-at-home orders and closures increasing both the rate and severity of intimate partner violence, increased circumstances of isolation, intensified economic and other stressors and made services of support increasingly difficult to access.

A Toronto-based support group called Women at the Centre reported a 9,000% increase in calls for help by the end of 2021. A national strategy must account for the increased demand for support services in the years to come, the systemic gaps in support laid bare and exacerbated by the pandemic and the spectre of future public health and other emergencies.

Researchers at York University have also identified that the “pre-pandemic tendency of decision makers to focus on incident‑based physical violence instead of patterns of coercive control” heightens the risk posed to survivors by making it more difficult to prove the existence of violence in court:

Limited access to medical, counselling, mental health, and other services during COVID-19 negatively impacted women’s ability to prove domestic violence to the satisfaction of decision makers. . . .

A national strategy must re-evaluate what is needed to provide meaningful access to justice and safety for women and children.

A national strategy must also address social assistance, family law, child welfare, criminal law and civil protection orders — the domains of state action with which survivors of domestic violence most frequently engage — and must demonstrate sensitivity to the unique ways in which violence manifests in the aftermath of the shadow pandemic.

To seek help, survivors must be confident that social, financial and legal support is not only available, but also accessible. As the Mass Casualty Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and countless research works underscore, the shadow pandemic also exposed particularly insidious new tactics of monitoring and coercive control, which have been evolving with technology.

A national strategy must account for the duality of technology, simultaneously offering a lifeline to individuals in need of support and a new sphere for violence and abuse that constitutes an additional barrier to survivors’ ability to escape.

In 2021, police in Canada reported 114,132 victims of intimate partner violence — this exceeds the population of St. John’s, Newfoundland — and 2021 marked the seventh consecutive year that intimate partner violence increased in prevalence.

It is no accident that, at the same time, and as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls underscored, the incarceration rate of Indigenous women continues to escalate. Indigenous women are too often jailed for incidents of personal violence, predominantly in response to or to prevent violence being perpetrated against them or others for whom they are responsible.

We know this, and we know that approximately 70% of incidents of domestic violence and 81% of incidents of spousal violence are never reported to the police. This is especially true for Indigenous women, who learn early on that the legal systems are unlikely to protect them. They are, consequently, essentially deputized to protect themselves. This reality also needs to be part of the development of a comprehensive plan to address violence against women.

We must also remember that statistics do not come close to painting the whole picture. The nature of intimate partner violence is such that it is too often hidden from view. It is covert. It is coercive. It is deplorable.

In exploring how intimate partner violence has continued to increase, both in prevalence and intensity, we must ask another difficult question: Why?

Senator Manning noted that those unfamiliar with power dynamics surrounding abuse may wonder why women do not simply leave these abusive partners. Those unfamiliar with racism or immigration insecurity may fail to understand the pressure on women in communities to not report for fear of the potential negative impact on victims and entire families. Those unfamiliar with poverty too often make similar assessments. Economic insecurity routinely and systematically restricts the choices of those who lack financial security and directly and negatively impacts equality.

The feminization of poverty is a devastating and compounding risk factor for individuals who are already subject to violence at the highest rates. As Senator Manning mentioned, Statistics Canada found that:

Indigenous women experience violent victimization at a rate . . . 2.7 times higher than that reported by non-[Indigenous] females.

Indeed, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls revealed, Indigenous women and girls are more likely than other women to experience violence and poverty. Indigenous women were also more financially impacted by COVID-19 than other Canadians, with 46% of Indigenous women reporting a moderate or major financial impact, relative to 34% of the broader Canadian population.

As the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls identified, in order to achieve substantive equality, we must provide guaranteed livable incomes to allow women and gender-diverse individuals to move out of poverty. The inadequacy and uncertainty of social assistance schemes were brought into plain sight as we recently debated the Canada disability benefit act.

This inadequacy must be part of the issues examined at committee review of this bill.

A 2012 study reported that over 80% of the costs of intimate partner violence in Canada — an estimated $6 billion per year — are borne by victims themselves in the form of medical interventions, lost wages, lost education, stolen or damaged property and pain and suffering.

According to a 2021 study by the Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment, 80% of survivors of intimate partner violence surveyed in the National Capital Region reported that their partner displayed more controlling and coercive behaviours related to their finances and economic stability during the pandemic. Horrifically, a striking 10% returned to their partners because of financial constraints.

Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women’s 99 Federal Steps to End Violence Against Women noted:

Federal government initiatives must reflect the current facts that it is the vulnerability of women and children, particularly [Indigenous] women, women of colour, women trapped in poverty and women with disabilities that are the definitive factor in preventing this type of crime. Therefore, monies should be allocated directly to ameliorating those conditions. Monies must not be directed to police, jails, deputising the community, social worker programs, research on these vulnerable groups, or new bureaucratic bodies. Those measures do not reduce violent crime . . . .

This was reiterated at a public hearing of the Mass Casualty Commission by Professor Isabel Grant, who noted that “economic self-sufficiency for every woman in this country” is a vital part “of facilitating women’s abilities to escape both physical and sexual violence.” This perspective was reiterated today by anti-violence workers at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Liberation from abuse requires choice. Poverty is antithetical to choice.

In addition to incorporating the findings of far too many commissions, investigations, inquiries and inquests, the strategy proposed by Senator Manning must account for the need to provide women and victims with financial autonomy and stability. A national strategy must acknowledge the inadequacies of existing social supports and assistance that underscore the need for measures like guaranteed livable incomes, health care, housing options, universal child care — ameliorative approaches that provide increased options for women to leave abusers.

Along with financial concerns, we must recognize the role of the housing crisis, homelessness and shelters with respect to violence against women and intimate partner violence. As Senator Manning noted, on any given night, 4,600 women and their 3,600 children are forced to sleep in emergency shelters as a result of violence. On a single day, 379 women and 215 children are turned away from shelters in Canada, usually because the shelters are full to capacity.

Women’s Shelters Canada reports that:

The lack of adequate shelter and housing options is one of the most significant barriers preventing women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals being able to leave situations of violence and rebuild their lives.

. . . Across Canada, 13% of homelessness shelter beds are dedicated to women, while 68% are co-ed or dedicated to men.

The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls noted that within Canada, “the lack of adequate services to welcome women victims of violence with their children,” especially Indigenous women, leads to concerns about losing custody of their children when seeking protection.

Of the 215 shelters that responded to the 2018 “Shelter voices” survey, 47 per cent declared that they had no space available, which resulted in 75 per cent of requests for residential services not being accommodated.

Furthermore:

Of the 552 shelters for victims of abuse operating in Canada in 2017-2018, just 6 per cent served women and children in indigenous communities.

Women and gender-diverse individuals — everyone — attempting to leave abusive relationships should have the power to do so. But they need the means to do so, and they need somewhere to go. The lack of accessible and affordable housing units makes people more vulnerable to precarious living arrangements and more susceptible to abuse.

Women with disabilities are at particular risk in Canada. As articulated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur:

Because there is a lack of accessible and affordable housing, women with disabilities are forced into institutions and become even more vulnerable to abuse.

Women with disabilities are twice as likely as women without disabilities to be victims of violent crime and to be sexually assaulted.

A national strategy must recognize affordable and accessible housing as an economic priority for the government to ensure that women and gender-diverse persons, particularly those with disabilities and particularly those who are racialized, are not subject to further abuse.

Another element that demands our attention is the role of the criminal legal system in worsening circumstances for survivors and rendering victims more susceptible to further violence. Far too often, the risk factors for victimizing go hand in hand with the risk factors for criminalization, as 91% of Indigenous women and 87% of women overall in federal prisons have histories of physical or sexual abuse. For most, this underlying and unresolved trauma had a significant role to play in their criminalization, whether due to the lack of support from health and social services prior to being in crisis or as a result of being charged with a crime while defending themselves or their children from an abuser.

According to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, within Canada:

Indigenous women and girls . . . are three times more likely to be victimized by violence, including intimate partner violence . . . .

They are also approximately six times more likely to be a victim of homicide — also known as femicide, as I’ve already discussed — relative to the Canadian population. Of the incarcerated women in federal custody, 50% — and growing — are Indigenous.

The UN Special Rapporteur documented several additional patterns following her visit to Canada, namely, the victimization of women who request state protection against violence; the tendency of the best interests of the child when determining issues, including custody and access to be considered in isolation from abusive circumstances; and the lack of accessibility and inadequacy of legal aid services.

Furthermore, UN Special Rapporteur emphasized provisions in the Criminal Code requiring that judges consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment. She also noted that sections from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act designed to allow people to serve sentences in the community exist, but, unfortunately, this legislation is both underutilized and underfunded and often not communicated to the very women it is aimed at assisting.

As emphasized by the Special Rapporteur, there is an urgent need to provide alternatives to imprisonment and incarceration as a response to women with mental health conditions, especially those related to past trauma, and that incarcerating them actually violates international human rights standards. A national strategy must acknowledge the ongoing role of the criminal legal and prison systems in inadequate interventions to address the perpetration of violence, inadequate intervention to prevent violence and the worsening effects of abuse and violence for those who are victimized.

Furthermore, while abortion is not criminalized within Canada, there are both a lack of access to safe abortion services and ongoing instances of forced sterilization of Indigenous women, as we know well from our colleague Senator Boyer. Reproductive and sexual health should be part of a holistic strategy to address violence against women. The UN Special Rapporteur recognized these as part of the ongoing violence occasioned against women and girls within Canada, especially in the context of systemic discrimination, most particularly, against Indigenous women.

While international attention has been drawn to Canada’s ongoing epidemic of violence and abuse against women and girls, we have long had local voices, incidents and inquests alerting us to such danger. We need to listen to them. Following the coroner’s inquest into the triple murders of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk in 2015, Renfrew County named femicide as an epidemic and highlighted the urgent and irrefutable need for an all-of-government and all‑of‑system approach to end the violence against women.

Neighbouring Renfrew County, Lanark’s campaign is “See it. Name it. Change it.” It recognizes that when violence is seen, it must be named in order to create change.

We see it all the time. In the 52 weeks preceding Lanark’s declaration of an epidemic, 52 women within Ontario alone were killed — 52 femicides.

Honourable colleagues, let’s all insist on naming and changing these realities if we truly wish to develop a national strategy to prevent and address intimate partner violence and violence against women.

The Mass Casualty Commission reiterated the need for all levels of government to “declare gender-based, intimate partner, and family violence to be an epidemic” and the corresponding need for a “society-wide response” supported by “epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions.” The report illustrates the central purpose underlying multiple proposals: the elimination of gender-based violence based in a commitment to equality, commencing with recognition of the underlying structural and systemic forces that enabled domestic and intimate partner violence to persist.

Let us take this opportunity to lay the foundation for a national strategy that is inclusive in its recognition of victims and survivors of gendered violence and specific in its identification of forces that must be dismantled to allow for substantive equality. Thirty years ago, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women recognized that ending violence against women required disrupting power relations towards equality.

Today, the message remains the same. The National Action Plan on Violence Against Women & Gender-Based Violence: Reissued Call and, this year, the Mass Casualty Commission renewed this call for substantive equality. Thirty years from now I hope we, or those who are here following us, can reflect back on this national strategy as the start of a monumental shift in our approach to gendered violence. Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages), introduced by our honourable colleague Senator Brazeau.

I appreciate his initiative and offer my deepest respects to all of my colleagues who have shared their personal stories. I honour you for sharing your personal journey in a very public way.

Gùnáłchîsh, mähsi’cho. Thank you. I’m grateful to all senators for your presence and commitment to this debate and to Canadians.

Honourable senators have on several occasions mentioned the Yukon experience with labelling on alcohol. I believe sharing the full story and the Yukon experience will foster and contribute to the fulsome review of this bill as it moves to committee for further study.

As a sidebar, senators may be aware that on June 13 we will celebrate the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act. Senators may not be aware that part of the impetus for this act of Parliament was to regulate and collect taxes on alcohol in the Yukon Territory.

Yukon has a high rate of alcohol consumption to this day. It was also the high consumption of alcohol that prompted the territory to begin labelling alcohol more than 25 years ago.

Since 1991, liquor sold in the Yukon has had a warning label that drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects. I mentioned during my second reading speech on Bill S-253, the national framework on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder act, that Yukon legislators and Yukoners have been dedicated for many years — decades — to the message that abstinence during pregnancy is best.

The Yukon Liquor Corporation has long advocated, as have many provinces, for a responsible approach beyond the labelling initiative with the Be A Responsible Server, or BARS, program.

Honourable senators, the mandate letter given in January 2017 to the then-minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation, John Streicker, required him to consult the Yukon Liquor Board, business community, consumers and civil society organizations to assess whether the Yukon’s Liquor Act met current needs and provided an appropriate balance between economic opportunities and social responsibility.

The Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, an initiative of the University of Victoria, including researchers from Public Health Ontario, was developed and proposed in 2014. The study outline was to focus on the effectiveness of alcohol warning labels while also providing an opportunity to raise awareness about low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines, standard drink information and public health warnings.

Honourable senators, the preliminary survey of residents supporting the work of the study was conducted at both the Whitehorse, Yukon and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories liquor stores. The Northwest Territories had also been using warning labels regarding the risks of drinking during pregnancy for some time.

In the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study, the Northwest Territories was the control case and the Yukon was the test case. The study began upon receiving funding from Health Canada in 2017.

In November 2017, Yukoners were advised there would be new warning labels on alcohol in the Whitehorse liquor store. Information about the support campaign for the research study indicated it included information about Canada’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines, standard drink measurements and how to reduce alcohol-related harms.

The media release about the warning labels quoted lead investigator Dr. Erin Hobin, who said, “Many Canadians remain largely unaware of the link between alcohol use and serious health risks including cancer.”

It also quoted Yukon Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Brendan Hanley, who stated that:

Having the Yukon Liquor Corporation participate in this study is an opportunity to learn more about our citizens’ consumption and how we might help them further enjoy healthier lifestyle choices.

Dr. Hanley is now Yukon’s Member of Parliament.

About a month later, the Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study was suspended to evaluate the scope and messaging of the labels applied during the study.

Honourable senators, in February 2018, after discussions with the researchers, national brand representatives and other stakeholders, the Government of Yukon resumed the study. The study now used two labels to educate consumers, one that shows a standard drink size and a second that provided low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines. The health warning label about cancer was no longer part of the study.

The Yukon has a relatively small budget, few members in its legislative assembly and cabinet ministers usually have several portfolios. One subtle yet important difference between Yukon and the other territories and provinces is that the minister responsible for the sale of liquor in the provinces isn’t necessarily present at the cabinet table like they are in the Yukon. How does the Yukon cabinet minister responsible for the liquor corporation persuade cabinet colleagues to engage in litigation with a major Canadian industry rather than spend the territorial budget on health care, education or repairing highways damaged by melting permafrost? Although the health warnings about cancer were no longer an element of the study, the research work is of real value in assessing whether warning labels are effective.

In his speech earlier this week, Senator Plett made it clear that there are conflicting findings and opinions on warning labels, and the honourable Leader of the Opposition made some valid points. In my region, we saw the effectiveness of warning labels. From the study, I note that people remember what the labels said, people talked about the labels and people drank less. From the study:

Brightly coloured alcohol warning labels with a cancer warning, national drinking guidelines, and standard drink information help consumers make more informed and safer alcohol choices.

This is why I support the adoption of this bill at second reading and referring it to committee. Senator Plett and I are in agreement on that. Obtaining a consensus on the science, as was suggested, before we adopt the bill and send it to the other place is absolutely essential. Scientists tend to find points of contention on most issues, not unlike lawyers, economists and parliamentarians. By including diverging opinions and research findings in the examination of the bill, I’m confident that the committee will find an acceptable way.

The Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study is one of the scientific studies that absolutely should be considered, along with the experiences of the Yukon government.

I note that Senator Brazeau, in recent media discussions of this bill, had a can of corn in his hand, pointing to the label on it. As a regular visitor to the grocery stores in Ottawa and in Whitehorse, I read the labels, and I witness many individuals doing the same. We want to know just how much sugar, fat, fibre and sodium is in the food we consume. We all are, or should be, acutely aware of the warning labels on the cleaning products we use. We are advised to safely store the brightly coloured detergent pods as they are dangerous if swallowed, not to mention the warnings on and banning of gardening products like pesticides and herbicides that are known to be carcinogens. Canada announced yesterday that warning labels will now be affixed to individual cigarettes.

Honourable senators, clear, science-based, peer-reviewed evidence supports the link between the consumption of alcohol, be it wine or beer, and cancer. This bill calls upon Canada to have a warning label that clearly states that alcohol is a known carcinogen. I trust that the committee that receives this bill will have a thorough review of it. The urgency with which this study should begin has been noted by Senator Mégie and others.

I strongly recommend the committee consider the information obtained through the Northern Territories Alcohol Label Studies and the Yukon experience. I look forward to offering my support to the committee’s work, and, once the standing committee has done their due diligence, to send this bill to the other place for their support on this very important initiative. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you, gùnáłchîsh, mähsi’cho.

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

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved second reading of Bill S-259, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-259, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month. It is truly an honour to rise in this chamber to speak to my first Senate public bill. I want to thank Senator Housakos, who kindly seconded my bill and will serve as critic of the bill. I hope he will be a friendly critic.

In my remarks today, I wish to address four key points. First, I will briefly speak of my connection with the Hellenic community. This will clarify why I, a non-Greek, was asked to sponsor this bill. Second, I want to speak to how this bill came about, its genesis and its development. I will then provide a brief history of Canada’s Greek heritage. Finally, I will end my remarks by sharing with you some of the positive feedback I have received from Hellenic organizations and community leaders who support the passage of Bill S-259.

My connection with the Hellenic community goes back many years. In fact, it goes back a few decades. In my former life, I had the honour of supporting various community organizations and ethnic groups by sponsoring, donating and chairing numerous events and fundraising activities. Montreal’s Hellenic community was certainly one of the communities I had a deep connection with and close ties to.

Along with our colleague Senator Housakos, I am a patron and long-time supporter of the Montreal chapter of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, also known as AHEPA.

I also serve as a distinguished patron of the Hellenic Ladies Benevolent Society, a non-profit organization that celebrated its one hundredth anniversary last year, and that helps those in need within the Hellenic community and beyond. Over the years, I am proud to say we’ve helped the community raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for many worthy causes that have benefited various groups and individuals of Hellenic descent.

Professionally and personally, I have also built strong relationships with many leaders, entrepreneurs and advocates within the community. To this day, some of my closest friends in Montreal are from the Hellenic community.

A few years ago, I was deeply honoured to have been named “Philhellene of the Year” by the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal for my advocacy and commitment to the community. This award, which is proudly displayed in my home, is only given on rare occasions to non-Greeks and pays tribute to those who are committed to Hellenism, so I was particularly touched by the honour.

Most recently, in April 2022, I was privileged to accompany our former Speaker, along with Senator Housakos and Senator Saint-Germain, for an official visit to the Hellenic Republic. How fitting that my first official international trip as a senator was to Greece. It was a trip I will never forget.

We met with several parliamentarians and politicians including the Prime Minister, the President of the Hellenic Parliament, the Archbishop of Athens and various ministers and other officials. Eighty years after we formally established relations with the Hellenic Republic, our relationship is stronger than ever. We share the same democratic values, and both countries are collaborating in meaningful ways to enhance bilateral trade and investments and encourage wider cooperation in various fields, including education and business.

In some ways, my trip to Greece reminded me of the strong ties that unite our two nations and provided me with additional motivation to introduce this bill.

As you might know, a similar bill was introduced in March 2021 during the Forty-third Parliament by our colleague Annie Koutrakis, Member of Parliament for Vimy, a riding in the Montreal area. Regrettably, Ms. Koutrakis’s Bill C-276 died on the Order Paper with the dissolution of Parliament and the subsequent federal election. Ms. Koutrakis, along with other parliamentarians and members of Canada’s Hellenic diaspora, were committed to reintroducing the bill in the Forty-fourth Parliament.

Last fall I was approached by Ms. Koutrakis and Senator Housakos and asked to reintroduce the bill in the Senate. In light of my long-standing commitment to the community and love for all things Greek, they felt I was a natural choice to introduce a new bill and shepherd it through Parliament. I was honoured to be asked, and I happily agreed to do this for a community for which I have the utmost respect and admiration.

I know MP Koutrakis did a lot of community outreach prior to tabling her bill in 2021. I had confidence in her work, but I also felt I needed to reach out to community organizations and individuals on my own to seek their feedback on the previous version of the bill, especially the wording of the preamble.

After conducting some research of my own, I launched consultations earlier this year. I reached out to different organizations and many individuals across the country from a wide spectrum of sectors, including non-profits, academics and scholars, legal experts, community advocates, religious leaders and individuals of Greek heritage. In total, my office contacted nearly 150 different groups and individuals.

The feedback we received was unanimous: everyone supported this initiative, encouraged me to introduce the bill as soon as possible and — not to put any pressure on us — urged parliamentarians to adopt the bill as soon as possible. I will share some of these comments with you a little later in my speech.

Most importantly, I was delighted that we received some constructive suggestions and minor editorial changes to the preamble of Bill C-276, the predecessor of Bill S-259. Working with a few of our fellow parliamentarians, including MP Koutrakis and Senator Housakos, I feel we have properly integrated these changes to the bill we now have before us.

I am hopeful and confident that Bill S-259, in its current form, will meet the needs and aspirations of the Hellenic community. I trust the committee to which this bill will be referred will invite members of the community to hear their views on it.

For the record, I would like to take a moment to read the text of the preamble of the bill:

Whereas over 260,000 Canadians are of Greek descent and numerous Greek communities exist across the country;

Whereas Greek Canadians have made meaningful and lasting contributions to Canada’s political, economic, scientific, legal, medical, cultural and social fabric, and in numerous other areas of value and significance;

Whereas the origins of Canadian democracy can be traced back to the ancient Greek city-state of Athens;

Whereas the month of March is culturally and spiritually significant for the Greek community, as it was on March 25, 1821, on the Great Feast of the Annunciation, that Greece commenced its war of independence from the Ottoman Empire, leading to the creation of the modern state of Greece;

And whereas the celebration of Hellenic Heritage Month would encourage Greek Canadians to promote their culture and traditions and share them with their fellow Canadians . . . .

I want to publicly thank everyone who I think made the preamble better, along with MP Koutrakis who did a lot of the heavy lifting in the development of this bill.

Honourable senators, as you can see, Canadians and citizens from all over the world have many reasons to be appreciative of Hellenism, its legacy and impact on our democracies.

Canada, as you might know, established formal relations with the Hellenic Republic in 1942 at a time when the Greek government was in exile during the Second World War. Last year, we celebrated the eightieth anniversary of this partnership which also coincided with our Speaker’s official visit. Of course, prior to this bilateral agreement, Canada was home to a small, yet strong and vibrant Hellenic community.

The history of Greek Canadians goes back nearly 200 years when some of the first immigrants settled in Montreal in the 1840s. According to archival records, by 1871 there were 39 persons of Greek origin known to be living in Canada. This modest number increased over the years thanks to two waves of emigration from Greece.

A first one occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century in response to the 1893 economic crisis in the republic. The second wave occurred after the Second World War. Of the more than 1 million Greeks who left their country during this second wave, nearly 120,000 chose Canada as their final destination. I have many family friends and acquaintances whose families arrived in Canada during this time.

Today, there are over 260,000 Canadians of Greek heritage in our nation. They are strong, they are proud and they are an integral part of Canada’s cultural mosaic.

In a scholarly article published last year, the following account summarizes how Greek emigrants integrated into their new home country:

. . . Greeks in Canada tried to balance their efforts at integration in their new country and maintaining their Greek identity as many of them were hopeful that they would return to Greece within a decade. For this reason, they established churches, language schools, and many secular associations, where Greek is used to a larger or lesser degree. Of course, they also run Greek-related businesses, such as restaurants and grocery stores, where members of the community also congregate and socialize.

For various reasons . . . most of the Greek immigrant families stayed in Canada, and for the original immigrants and their descendants, integration became the main goal.

I think what is most telling about this statement is the fact that many Greeks who intended to return to Greece opted to stay in Canada. There are likely several reasons for this change of plan, but I like to think that many chose to stay in Canada because they felt welcomed, they felt right at home and knew Canada could offer them countless opportunities and a safe and caring environment to raise a family.

As The Canadian Encyclopedia explains:

Greek immigrants who were professionals typically worked as engineers, lawyers, doctors, university professors and civil servants. Canadian-born Greeks tended to enter higher professional and skilled occupations than their parents through higher academic attainment.

Naturally, as the Greek population increased in Canada, so did the number of Greek-centric associations, organizations and churches in communities across the nation.

I don’t like to single out any one group or individual, but I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to highlight the work of the Canadian Order of the American Hellenic Education and Progressive Association, which I referred to earlier. An important component of AHEPA’s mission, which includes chapters in every major city in North America, is to create an awareness of the principles of Hellenism to society.

These principles include a commitment to humanity, freedom and democracy. I have firsthand account of the Montreal chapter’s outstanding work in giving back the community, whether through fundraisers, scholarship programs, poverty-relief efforts and more.

The first Canadian chapter of AHEPA was opened almost 100 years ago in Toronto “to help immigrants to settle comfortably in their new country without sacrificing their Hellenic identity and heritage.” Not long after, the London chapter was opened, followed by the Montreal chapter in 1930. Montreal and Athens also have the distinction of being sister cities.

I would also like to say a brief word about the Hellenic Ladies Benevolent Society.

Since 1922 the HLBS has assisted thousands of families and individuals in need of financial support through the disbursement of funds generated through its various fundraising activities. In Montreal, this society is an important pillar in our community, helping some of the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised.

Beyond these two organizations, there are several other not-for-profit groups, associations and institutes that represent the Hellenic community, promote its values and safeguard its history. I will refer to some of them in the next section of my remarks. Naturally, and as stipulated in the preamble of the bill, Canadians of Greek descent have also made lasting contributions to our nation in various fields, and I know these organizations have played an integral part in those individual success stories.

Spiritually and religiously, the Greek-Canadian community is also supported and guided by the Greek Orthodox Church. Saint George’s Greek Orthodox Church, the first establishment of its kind in Canada, was founded in 1909 in Toronto.

The current archbishop is His Eminence Sotirios Athanassoulas, who has been serving Greek Canadians for six decades, and who recently wrote to me in support of Bill S-259. If you need any additional convincing that Greeks in Canada deserve a month-long celebration in their honour, no need to look any further than in Ontario where Queen’s Park became the first legislature in Canada to formally recognize March as Hellenic Heritage Month in 2020.

Since then, the Government of Ontario has also committed $325,000 to support the planning and development of a new Greek-Canadian heritage museum to house a collection of artifacts in Toronto, which is where we can find the largest pool of Greek Canadians.

The feedback that the province received from stakeholders confirmed the need for a public space to connect generations to the legacy of Hellenic culture. The museum will be located at the archdiocesan headquarters. I know that Archbishop Sotirios welcomes this new project.

As I mentioned earlier, I worked with a few of our parliamentary colleagues over the course of several months in putting this bill together. Not only did Senator Housakos second the bill when I introduced it, but he is also serving as the friendly critic of the bill. I very much look forward to his remarks at second reading. If I have yet to convince you of the merits of this bill, I’m sure he will.

I am also happy to report that Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal MP for Saint-Laurent in Montreal and a Canadian of Hellenic descent, will sponsor the bill in the other place.

The bill will be seconded by Dave Epp, Conservative MP for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. As you can see, we already have cross-party support, and I hope this bill will breeze through Parliament.

Through my consultations with the Hellenic community, I have amassed a great deal of support and formal endorsements from Canadians who welcome this legislative initiative. I think it’s important to share some of this positive feedback.

The Canadian Hellenic Congress, or CHC, a national institution that represents, advances, advocates and promotes the interests and concerns of Canadians of Hellenic descent, was very favourable to the bill.

Dr. Theodore Halatsis, the President of the Canadian Hellenic Congress, wrote that the CHC “proudly and wholeheartedly endorses” my initiative, and pointed out that “modern-day Canadians of Hellenic descent have proudly contributed to Canada’s wealth through various sectors.”

The Canadian Order of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, or AHEPA, also welcomed Bill S-259. As they pointed out, not only will this bill pay tribute to the contributions of Greek Canadians to the economic, social, political and scientific fabric of Canada over the past century, but it also pays homage to the contributions of Greek culture and civilization to Canadian values of liberty, democracy, education, civic responsibility and individual and family excellence.

The Socrates Educational Foundation wrote to me, indicating to what extent Bill S-259 “has elicited excitement and pride” with its members who reminded me of the fact that Hellenic ideas and concepts have been adopted around the world and form the basis of our Western civilization.

Vasilios Sioulas, President of the Ottawa Chapter of AHEPA, shared a touching story about his father who fought in the Second World War.

Like his father and countless others, Vasilios explained that:

Greek immigrants crossed the sea to seek better opportunities . . . and after a grueling ocean voyage, a “Welcome to Canada” sign appeared on the horizon at Halifax’s Pier 21.

As he wrote in his letter:

The history of Greeks in Canada is full of inspiring stories of accomplishment and success. It is a history of significant and important contributions to their adopted country.

Should Bill S-259 be adopted, he feels that:

. . . it will ignite the immortal spirit of our ancestors and fire our imagination to the beauty and mutual benefit of all concerned.

Vasilios’s colleague at AHEPA, Nicolas Pantieras, also endorsed this initiative. He feels that:

By recognizing March as Greek heritage month, we acknowledge and celebrate the rich cultural and historical contributions of the Greek community to Canada and the world. This recognition fosters a sense of inclusivity and their respect for diversity, promoting a deeper understanding and appreciation of Canada’s multicultural society. It also provides an opportunity for Greeks to share their culture and heritage with the wider Canadian community, promoting intercultural dialogue and understanding.

Tony Lourakis, President of the Hellenic Heritage Foundation — a highly respected and professionally managed foundation that encourages and provides higher education in Hellenic studies — reminded me that what isn’t shared, studied or recognized is ultimately forgotten.

Therefore, as he put it:

Recognizing Hellenic culture and history is vital to preserving it and vital to understanding the roots of a culture that influences our society to this day.

He added:

Recognizing Hellenic heritage month, gives us the opportunity to highlight Greece’s priceless history, both classical and modern, while emphasizing Canada’s greatest strength, which is undoubtedly its diversity.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Archbishop Sotirios, the head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada, offered his full support, both personally and on behalf of the archdiocese. He wrote:

This Act is not only important to the current Greek community of this country, but I believe it will be even more meaningful for future generations who are born and raised in this glorious country of Canada, but whose roots trace back to Greece and its unparalleled history.

Stanley Papulkas, President of Itoc Media Corporation, even suggested he would move the Greek International Film Festival Tour of Canada from the fall to March in order to build a nationwide celebration of Hellenic culture around Hellenic Heritage Month. As you can see, this bill is already getting the community excited.

Some have argued that bills to recognize special days, weeks or months are unnecessary. Obviously, I disagree with that opinion. Consider this testimony from Bill Molos, Program Director and Research Lead of the Hellenic Heritage Foundation Greek Canadian Archives at York University, when he said:

Heritage months offer Canadians an opportunity to celebrate different cultural groups’ contributions to our country. Empowering communities to share their stories, experiences, and perspectives helps to promote greater understanding and inclusion in Canadian society. And in learning about our differences, we nurture a sense of belonging to a shared Canada, blurring the contours of our vibrant mosaic.

National recognition of March as Hellenic Heritage Month will not only help educate Canadians about Hellenism and Greek Canadian history, it will enhance existing efforts to promote cultural understanding and inspire new initiatives throughout the country.

Scott Gallimore, President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Institute in Greece, or CIG, shared his organization’s full support for the bill, indicating that:

. . . the CIG believes this is an important initiative to further strengthen relationships between our two countries and to recognize the significant contributions that Greek citizens residing in Canada have made to our culture and way of life.

[Translation]

Professor Jacques Perreault from the Université de Montréal, who is also one of the directors of the CIG, endorsed my initiative, while reiterating that the Greek community is one of the most dynamic cultural communities in the country and that its contribution to the economic and cultural development of Canada and Quebec and the promotion of its cultural heritage have helped to build the Canada of today. Chris Adamopoulos and the staff of Montreal’s École Socrates-Démosthène shared the following testimonial with me, and I quote:

We think this initiative should be supported, of course, especially in this time of younger generations with Greek origins. There is a great need to revitalize their Greek heritage and also honour the contribution of past generations of Greek people.

I believe that Bill S-259 will make it possible to achieve this objective. Colleagues, I’ll stop here, but I could have shared many other testimonials from Canadians who welcome Bill S-259. As I have mentioned, I made it my duty to consult the community across the country before introducing my bill. It was important to me to get their support and their feedback. I sincerely believe I have truly incorporated their comments into the wording of the preamble, and I earnestly hope to win their support, and yours too, of course.

[English]

In conclusion, honourable senators — it’s getting late; the conclusion is here, and I do apologize, but many were expecting me to put it on the record, so it’s important to many in the community — it has been a personal honour for me to introduce Bill S-259, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month, and to speak to you about the lasting achievements and immense contributions of the Greek community to our nation’s social, cultural and economic fabric.

In my view, Canada’s outstanding reputation on the global stage is attributed to our rich history of immigration and successful integration policies. Immigrants have helped build this country of ours and shape it into one of the most envied nations in the world. Arguably, our diversity may be Canada’s greatest strength and most important asset, and we must be proud of this rich heritage. Our differences make us better. They unite us; they don’t divide us.

The Honourable Andromache Karakatsanis, the first Greek Canadian to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada, once commented on how her name always marked her as “different.” But she never allowed her name to be anglicized, and she was proud of its heritage. After all, Andromache was a strong woman in Greek mythology. Her parents always told her that “. . . different could be better.”

As Madam Justice Karakatsanis once said:

. . . in Canada differences are strengths. It is a land of astonishing generosity and diversity. And the daughter of Greek immigrants can become a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. This illustrates the opportunity of Canada.

Colleagues, Greek Canadians deserve this special recognition. They have helped make our country stronger, better and more vibrant. I hope you will join me in recognizing this lasting legacy by supporting this legislative initiative.

I think Parliament could send a clear, united and resounding message to Greek Canadians with the passage of this bill. Bill S-259 gives us that opportunity to thank them for all they have done, and to ensure that every March moving forward we take the time to celebrate Hellenism, honour Greek Canadians, past and present, educate Canadians on their many contributions to our society and indulge in all things Greek. Thank you, efcharistò.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, for the second reading of Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

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

Hon. Brian Francis, pursuant to notice of May 31, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or previous order, the Honourable Senator Gagné be replaced as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages by the Honourable Senator Audette.

Hon. Tony Dean, pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report related to its study on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic, including Canada’s military infrastructure and security capabilities, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.