THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:33 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment, natural resources and climate change.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. It’s nice to see you all here.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Thank you all for your cooperation on that.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that our work in Ottawa takes place on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. The Algonquin peoples have lived on this land since time immemorial. We are grateful to have the opportunity to be present in this territory.
I’m Joan Kingston, senator for New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I’d like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We’re pleased to have our colleague Senator Mary Coyle as a witness here this evening. She’s been involved with this particular issue for a long time.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, we are studying the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly final report. We’re pleased to welcome today, for our first panel, as an individual, our colleague the Honourable Senator Mary Coyle; from MASS LBP, Jasmin Kay, Director, by video conference; from the Apathy is Boring Project, Erika De Torres, Director of Impact and Development; and from Environmental Leadership Canada, Leticia Deawuo, Executive Director.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to be here. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks. You have a maximum of five minutes each. They will be followed by questions from senators. We’d like to begin with Senator Coyle.
Hon. Mary Coyle, as an individual: Honourable colleagues, it’s great to be with you today, albeit in a different seat, to discuss the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly. I speak to you today, not as a standing member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, but as co-chair of Senators for Climate Solutions.
As many of you know, and since many of you are members yourselves, Senators for Climate Solutions brings together, informs and supports Canadian senators who want to find effective solutions to climate change. We currently have 60 senators involved from all groups and parties, representing all regions of Canada. Our idea was to create a big tent with room for a variety of senators. Senators for Climate Solutions was inspired by the U.K. House of Lords climate group called Peers for the Planet.
Our work is multi-faceted. We provide briefing notes and sessions with expert speakers on a wide variety of climate topics. We collaborate with other parliamentarians in Canada and internationally. We collaborate with research groups, civil society organizations, the private sector, think tanks and universities, among others. Through these avenues, we provide valuable insight into climate science, mitigation and adaptation strategies, and work to demystify emerging technology trends to help meet our climate commitments.
Just yesterday, our new Governor General Louise Arbour said:
Young Canadians are citizens of the world — they are well educated, with both a deep climate awareness and remarkable digital literacy.
One of our most exciting collaborations took place in 2025, when we were a key partner alongside MASS LBP and Environmental Leadership Canada in the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly. After three online sessions in the summer of 2025, 33 young Canadians, selected through a civic lottery process from 700 applications, deliberated for five days in Ottawa, debating one central question: What do young Canadians want Parliament to do to meet Canada’s climate commitments in a way that reflects their values and priorities?
Their recommendations were presented to parliamentarians in the Senate Chamber on September 21, 2025. There were 21 parliamentarians present. Speaker Gagné was there, as well as other invited guests.
This was the first national citizens’ assembly on climate in Canada and the first anywhere in the world designed specifically for young adults 18 to 25 years old. There have been citizens’ assemblies on climate in many countries around the world, including France and Ireland.
You’re going to hear from the assembly members directly in the next panel about their recommendations. MASS LBP will soon be presenting about the process, and Environmental Leadership Canada about their leadership participation and ongoing support, along with a member of the advisory and oversight committee, who is sitting right here beside me: Erika De Torres. But I want to speak about why Senators for Climate Solutions was involved and why the Senate Chamber.
By design, our Senate looks beyond the electoral cycle. It considers the long term and pays close attention to regional realities and under-represented voices. Climate policy requires exactly that perspective: steady, durable decisions that reflect Canada’s different regions while moving us together in the same direction.
Citizens’ assemblies build trust between citizens and their representatives, and they build democratic muscle. Given that climate change is a defining challenge of our time and can be a polarizing issue, a citizens’ assembly that brings together young people from across the country with different perspectives and views provides them with solid information and allows for productive conversations to take place. That’s a good thing. The report of the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly is addressed to parliamentarians — to us. It’s up to us to receive these recommendations and give them consideration. The report also outlines principles for parliamentarians when considering the report. These are collaboration, transparency, non-partisanship, pragmatism and equity.
Honourable senators, my colleague Jasmin Kay will speak about the citizen assembly process and how it can be a powerful tool for democracy. I look forward to hearing your questions on the process of the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly and its impressive final report. I hope you had a chance to look at it. Once we’ve heard from assembly members in the next panel, we can further consider how to advance the recommendations of the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly. Thank you.
Jasmin Kay, Director, MASS LBP: Thank you for this invitation and for these proceedings. My name is Jasmin Kay, and I’m a director with MASS LBP, a Canadian democracy organization that has spent the last 18 years inviting Canadians to step up and take a seat at the tables where decisions get made. We believe that people are our most fundamental resource and that our democracy gets stronger when people have an opportunity to shape the policies that shape their lives.
As you heard from Senator Coyle, MASS was pleased to work with Senators for Climate Solutions and Environmental Leadership Canada to design and lead the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly. It was my privilege to chair this assembly. This meant that I worked with our oversight and advisory committee to design the program and curriculum, and once in session, my role was to protect the integrity of the process by ensuring that we stayed on track and on time, and to ensure that all voices could be heard.
Engaging members of the public through a deliberative process like a citizens’ assembly is quite different from a town hall or focus group meeting. First, people have come together to solve a problem, not just voice an opinion. An assembly is tasked with coming to consensus, rough but stable, on a set of recommendations to guide decision makers. This is as much about learning as it is about dialogue. Learning from experts and from one another matters because it gives the assembly a shared foundation of facts or evidence that helps members find common ground and consider interests and needs that differ from their own.
Another way an assembly differs from typical consultation is that it deliberately convenes a socio-demographically representative group, so that diverse perspectives and lived experiences are brought into the deliberation. The Canadian Youth Climate Assembly put Canada, aged 18 to 25, in a room. We had youth from every region. They came from big cities and small towns, bringing urban, suburban and rural experiences. Demographically, they were also diverse — across gender, ethnicity, indigeneity and other key dimensions of identity. They also arrived with varying degrees of knowledge of climate change and Canada’s climate solutions: Some were already deeply engaged in climate action; others, not at all.
The assembly ran a 35-hour program, but we heard that conversation carried through the breaks, into the evening and, in some cases, on to the dance floor.
Any curriculum for a citizens’ assembly must credibly speak to multiple dimensions of an issue. So while this assembly took, as its starting point, that climate change is real, we invited speakers who had genuine disagreements about how to address it. With the help of the advisory and oversight committee, we identified three broad categories for the assembly to consider recommendations: preparing for climate risks, reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector and engaging young people in shaping and tracking climate action. The curriculum included presentations and panel discussions related to all three topics, as well as sessions about understanding climate change through both Euro-Western and Indigenous ways of knowing, Canada’s climate commitments and our system of parliament and government.
All told, the assembly engaged with 22 guest speakers over the course of 10 hours. The remainder of the time was spent in small groups and plenary conversations. In the early sessions, members focused on building relationships because empathy and trust are important enablers of these processes. Once in Ottawa, conversation turned to the task at hand. We had facilitators to support small-group discussion, including bilingual facilitators to support our francophone members.
Everything in the members’ report reflects what the assembly could collectively agree on, written in their own words.
As Senator Coyle shared, the five days in Ottawa culminated with a readout of the report in the Senate Chamber, a truly special experience for all of us. After this, we had a final online group review and discussion of their report, and there was time for an independent review.
I hope each of you has found something useful to take away from their report. I reread it to prepare for this evening, and was struck by their thoughtfulness. Youth will bear the brunt of the decisions we make today and the assembly’s calls for increased investment in mental health services, journalism, good jobs and sustainable agriculture reflect a recognition that inaction on climate change is a multidimensional threat to all of us.
When I read the report, I hear them asking parliamentarians to ensure the federal government considers climate risks and the downstream economic impact of these risks in its decision making. I hear them asking parliamentarians to prioritize what already works: yes, to support evidence-based innovation, but also to scale existing projects that will reliably accelerate a transition to cleaner renewable energy. All of this strikes me as eminently sensible. This report is not the folly of youth. They are serious, and I hope you will recognize their work as such. I know you’ll be hearing directly from them soon, and I’m pleased you’ll have the opportunity to learn, be impressed and moved by the members, as I have been.
Thank you, and I do look forward to questions later.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kay.
Ms. De Torres.
Erika De Torres, Director of Impact and Development, The Apathy is Boring Project: Thank you very much for having me and taking the time to listen to us as an adviser.
My name is Erika De Torres, and I am the Director of Impact and Development with Apathy is Boring. Apathy is Boring has served youth across Canada for over 20 years by connecting, educating and activating them in our democracy. Our work is non-partisan, national and grounded in a simple belief that young people have an equal stake in how our country, provinces, territories and municipalities are governed.
We also believe that, because young people are so often excluded from political decision making, they are well positioned to lead a movement to re-centre the public interest in our politics. I represented Apathy is Boring as an adviser for the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly, providing feedback on how to best engage youth both virtually and in person, including social media tips and recruitment tips, as well as extending our resources and time to support this opportunity with our learning from our own programs, including our environment focus Net Zero and You(th) project. I want to thank all of you, especially Senator Coyle, for providing us with the space to have so many thoughtful young people to engage with you and offer innovative recommendations on how to move forward with one of society’s most pressing challenges today.
The Canadian Youth Climate Assembly is a powerful example of why activating youth in democracy matters. At its core, this initiative shows that young people are not disengaged from democracy; in fact, they are ready to participate in serious, informed and constructive ways when institutions create meaningful opportunities for them.
Participants from every region of our country with a wide range of lived experiences and background developed 23 recommendations to one of the most complex challenges we’re facing today in Canada: climate change. Just as important as the recommendations is the process itself. For Apathy is Boring, this assembly is a reminder that youth engagement must be more than just symbolic. Young people don’t want to be consulted after decisions are already made. They want to be trusted as contributors to the democratic process.
This assembly created a structure where this could happen, and I was so proud to be a part of it. It gave young people time, support, legitimacy and direct access to parliamentarians and decision makers like you. That matters because, all too often, the dominant narrative is that young people are apathetic or disconnected from public life. But what we see in initiatives like this is the complete opposite: Young people care deeply about the future, especially on issues like climate change, affordability, equity and democracy. The real challenge is not youth apathy; it is whether our institutions are willing to create the conditions for meaningful participation, which you folks have done.
This is why our work connects so clearly and why we were thrilled to support the assembly as an adviser. We exist to support young people in becoming active participants in civic and democratic life, working to remove barriers to engagement, creating inclusive opportunities for participation and strengthening the relationship between young people and the institutions that help shape their lives. The Canadian Youth Climate Assembly really reflects that vision.
It also highlights something super important about democratic renewal. If you want a healthier democracy, we need more spaces where people can deliberate across differences, learn from one another and contribute to public decisions in real ways. Deliberative processes like this can help rebuild trust, reduce polarization and show that participation can both be inclusive and impactful.
The assembly and the report are strong examples of what youth-led democratic innovation can look like, and that’s something that we are big proponents of. Young people are not only participants; they’re also the organizers, leaders and decision makers helping to shape a better future.
For us, the key takeaway is simple: Young people are ready to engage and help solve complex challenges facing this country, as well as lead. The responsibility now lies within our institutions to take that participation seriously. Apathy is Boring sees the Youth Climate Assembly as a strong model of meaningful youth engagement and a call to build more democratic spaces that are participatory, representative and connected to real decision making.
I know we have incredible young people here that will share their experiences as well as their report and their recommendations, but I wanted to share one quote from our participant Noel, who lives in Calgary and wanted to share this with you:
The different sessions we had were packed with learning but some of my best realizations came from the other members themselves . . . . We are ready to step up to the plate and eager to be contributing members to our society.
Beyond this report, I hope we can continue supporting youth-led initiatives like this one. Youth are ready; we’re all ready. The kind of democracy we believe in, and the kind of future we want to help build, is one in which young people are given opportunities to engage meaningfully. I’m excited to do this with all of you together.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Leticia Deawuo, Executive Director, Environmental Leadership Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
At Environmental Leadership Canada, or ELC, our core mission is simple: We build the political leadership and civic capacity required to tackle the environmental crises of our time. We do this by breaking down silos, encouraging non-partisan action and investing in the next generation of leaders.
We believe that to achieve lasting climate solutions, our democratic institutions must actively engage the people who will inherit the future. That is exactly what brings me here today.
This effort, of course, was made possible through the generous support of our foundation partners who were not able to join us today, but hopefully they’re listening in online: the Ronald S Roadburg Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation and the Catherine Donnelly Foundation.
We brought together these young Canadians from across the country. I think it has been said already by Senator Coyle and Erika that they’re not professional lobbyists. They are everyday young Canadians.
Why did we collaborate with Senators for Climate Solutions on this? It was because we knew that, for youth engagement to be meaningful, it cannot just be symbolic. It requires a direct pipeline to policy-makers and lawmakers who are willing to listen.
The high point of the assembly occurred right here in the Senate Chamber on September 21, when these young leaders presented their historic consensus report directly to parliamentarians. There is a postcard on your tables that has a QR code on the back so you can access the full report in French and English as well.
They prove that, even on highly polarizing topics like the climate transition, a deliberate process can yield practical, shared solutions, but as Senator Coyle so beautifully reminded the chamber recently, the high point in September was not the end; it was just the beginning. So we ask the question: What now? I’m sure you’re all wondering what now.
The CYC demonstrated the youth are not just waiting for the future; they are ready to participate in the decisions of today. So our focus is, of course, on continuity. We must ensure that the momentum built last September transforms into ongoing, institutionalized opportunities for youth to engage with parliamentarians. Young Canadians want their voices embedded in climate policy-making, and they want to know that democratic institutions have a permanent door open to them.
We are actively looking for ways to sustain this model, to ensure the recommendations from the assembly continue to inform legislative debates and that future cohorts have a path to bring their lived experiences directly to you.
A proven example of how ELC bridges this gap every single day is our Parliamentary Internship for the Environment program and our Municipal Climate Internship Program. Our PIE program, as we call it, is now entering its ninth year, and the program places youth, aged 18 to 30, in offices of MPs across major political parties. For 10 months, they receive full-time, paid placements where they work directly on sustainability, environmental and climate files. They write briefing notes, support committee work and conduct research while adhering to the standards of non-partisan integrity. Some of the interns are in the room also with us today; Michel and Encosi are here.
The Canadian Youth Climate Assembly and PIE program share a common thread: They prove that when we give young people the platform, the resources and a seat at the table, they don’t just complain about the climate crisis; they help solve it. We are incredibly grateful to the Senators for Climate Solutions for your support and leadership. We just ask that we continue to build on the foundation we laid last September and ensure that youth in Canada remain active partners in shaping a resilient, sustainable future.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Some of the youth from the assembly today are with us this evening, and they’ll be sharing key pieces of the recommendation with you. I really hope that you take the opportunity to listen and to hear them on the recommendations. They’ve worked tirelessly alongside all the many tasks — school and work — on their plates to really pull together this recommendation and to present it to you today.
Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. I like your open-door idea. That’s one thing I think we can provide. Thank you for that.
We will start with questions.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for being here, and thank you for all the work that has been done. Before I get specifically into the climate questions, I wanted to tell you that I’m fascinated by the process and approach of the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly.
You talked about it, but I wanted to know this: How did the idea come about to develop principles for parliamentarians? You talked about the replication of other files and replicating this process in other areas or in other approaches to democracy. We just came back from the House, where we discussed a study to lower the voting age to 16.
Tell me a bit about the process. Most importantly, how did you develop the principles for parliamentarians? That would help us see how we can replicate this approach.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Are you asking how it started? Where the idea came from in the first place?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Briefly, yes. You have developed seven principles that underpin decision-making by parliamentarians. How did the discussion unfold to lead to you developing these seven principles?
[English]
Senator Coyle: I will answer the first question, and perhaps Jasmin could answer the second question. You can also ask the young people when they appear.
Thank you for the question. Thank you, everybody, for the opportunity. It is a historic thing that we did here, and people around the world are watching us right now. They are excited about what the Senate of Canada is doing.
When we started Senators for Climate Solutions, there was a senator from Calgary in the Senate who is no longer here: Senator Grant Mitchell. Senator Mitchell introduced me to the concept of citizens’ assemblies because he was interested in climate and engagement. He was interested in how you engage young people. We met with Jasmin’s organization, MASS LBP, to learn about it. This was years ago. Over time, Senators for Climate Solutions members started to learn about citizens’ assemblies. We had a session to learn about them. People were excited about this opportunity. Some senators really wanted to be involved in some direct engagement with young people.
It is a longer story than that. I won’t get into all of the details, but we were fortunate to find a partnership with Environmental Leadership Canada and with MASS LBP in order to come up with a design, with the help of a pretty substantial advisory and oversight committee. Maybe, Jasmin, you could also mention the members of the oversight committee. They helped design this specific opportunity for parliamentarians to obtain this input and for young people to participate.
The Chair: Ms. Kay, do you have something to add to what Senator Coyle has been talking about?
Ms. Kay: Sure. Thank you for the question. I’m thrilled that you are fascinated by the process. Thank you for that.
The idea of principles for parliamentarians and citizens’ assemblies is quite a structured process. With regard to how the youth got to those seven principles, I agree with Senator Coyle: It would be great to ask them about their conversations and how they arrived at those seven principles.
We include the idea of principles or values in the deliberative process, both as a way to help the members understand how they might work with each other, but also as a way to encourage whoever the decision maker is who will eventually receive the report and consider the recommendations, to help them have a guiding North Star around how to make decisions. We understand that the policy development process is long, complicated and things can change. Sometimes, having those principles that help decision makers know which decision to make that will still align with the spirit, if not the letter, of the recommendation is a useful thing. I encourage you to ask the members about why those seven principles.
We’ve found that principles or values in these processes are also useful things that help decision makers get underneath in order to understand the intentions behind what many of the members are looking for. I hope that helps.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Senator Coyle and colleagues, well done and congratulations on this initiative. What came out of it is really interesting. I was just wondering if we could discuss it further or if you had any ideas. This is an example of how young people have been able to influence or could influence our decisions or future bills. On top of repeating this experience, can you see any other ways of consulting these young people? How could they inform us in various areas as climate change worsens and parliaments progress? That question goes out to everyone.
[English]
Ms. De Torres: Thank you for that question.
As I said, we are super thrilled to be a part of this. We have a network of thousands of young people we work with who are interested in many different things. Many of them stem from their understanding and passion for democracy.
When it comes to engaging young people in democracy, we see it in what we call the youth-led democratic innovation framework. This framework sees young people as creative organizers. They see them as movement leaders, as well as decision makers. It’s up to our institutions to provide avenues where they can take up those roles, all of them at any given time or just one of them at any given time, to be able to freely participate.
One good example I have that the Senate has been working on was with Senator McPhedran and Vote 16, Bill S-222, where youth as young as 16 were able to voice their thoughts and support for the bill and directly connect with their senators, as well as their elected officials. That is one great way for a young person taking up a role of being a movement leader to state their passion for democracy and to be a part of these conversations. I know it’s not climate related, but it is a great example of how young people are engaging with our decision makers.
Other aspects that we have seen, apart from showing up to protests or showing up to sign petitions, are many of our young people being active in creating community projects around issues they care about. One example is our RISE program. Through this, in Montreal, young people across the city created a Beat the Cup campaign, where they campaigned within their local institution, which is the university, to get rid of disposable cups.
Young people are organizing and mobilizing in ways that are not necessarily formal, but they are community oriented and immersed with the people around them. They are also finding more ways now to connect with their elected officials. Organizations like ours and like ELC have been providing these resources to help them understand how they can connect with their elected officials: that it’s free to send an email over to your local MP, how to formally address your senators and how to have conversations with them.
Those are some of the examples at Apathy is Boring that can concretely be used and be useful when we think about how we want to move forward and the next steps for these initiatives around climate.
Ms. Deawuo: I don’t have a lot to add to what Erika mentioned.
Youth have been using every avenue that’s available to them to ensure that their voices can be heard by our leaders. The question for all of us in the room is this: Are we listening?
From Erika’s examples, everything you can think of has been done by Canadian youth across the country, including this climate assembly. Now the floor is yours in terms of how much you are willing to listen to their voices.
Senator Coyle: To round that out, thank you to my colleagues and thank you for the question, Senator Aucoin.
In terms of other ways to engage with us, let me answer it first by saying why this way. To me, the citizens’ assembly model is so attractive for a number of reasons.
First, you are getting a diverse group of people, whom we represent. We represent diversity across the country: diversity of opinion and diversity of background. We had farming kids, we had city kids, we had Indigenous kids — sorry, not kids — young people. Even my grandchildren are these ages now, and I still call them kids. Young people. I wasn’t being disrespectful — not intentionally, anyway.
The diversity that you get through this lottery choice, where you had 700 people say, “We want to be a part of that.” Then they are selected not for whether they are climate smart; not at all. They are selected for their diversity across the country: geographic, et cetera. Then they are well informed because you do not just ask them for their opinion; you want to get their informed opinion.
You pay a lot of attention to ensure people are very well informed. You have a very balanced advisory and oversight body, including the former Conservative minister Lisa Raitt, who was on that, and other climate experts, et cetera. So you have this very legitimate advisory and oversight body ensuring that the curriculum is balanced and whatnot.
Then you have the expert organization MASS LBP, which has done citizens’ assemblies on other topics, such as online harms, other forms of voting and a whole variety of things. That combination made this something very special.
Now, are there other things? What we’re used to is people coming at us. I think what is so special is us inviting people in. Maybe that’s what we need to think about collectively as well, in addition to making sure we follow up well on this. What other ways can we, as Canada’s upper chamber, as senators, invite young people in to help inform us on the work that we are doing?
What I liked about this is that we were inviting a diverse group. It was not the people knocking on our doors. There is nothing wrong with that. People knocking on our doors is important. We are used to people knocking on our doors. But these are the people who are not knocking on our doors. It is a really valuable thing to invite them in for a change.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Senator Coyle, Ms. De Torres, Ms. Deawuo and Ms. Kay, for explaining these processes to us; it’s very interesting.
I’m going to ask you a question as a former journalist. Obviously, you make calls for interest, you look for candidates, but those who came forward — the young people who came forward — by definition, had an interest in the environment. That means we aren’t talking about a “representative” group; we’re talking about a diverse group of people who have an interest in the environment. As a result — and correct me if I’m wrong — we’re talking about a segment of young people.
What I find terrific is that you put resources in place so that everyone had the same level of environmental knowledge and the conversation took place on a common basis. Still, the fact remains that we have here — and this is very good — a segment of young people who are particularly passionate about environmental issues, I imagine. I wanted to hear your thoughts on that. That in no way detracts from the legitimacy of the process; I just wanted to know whether you had tried to get people who were more skeptical about environmental issues and who would rather we focus on the economy, or whether, from the outset, these were people who were concerned about the environment.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Social media was one means, because we were trying to get at young people. Then Jasmin will tell you about the mailing that was done. With citizens’ assemblies, you are trying to get out to a broad range of households across the country. They didn’t have to be knowledgeable about climate. They just had to be interested in being part of something on climate. Just like people who would have applied to be a part of the online harms assembly; they would not necessarily be activists in online harms, democratic innovation or other things that they’ve done citizens’ assemblies on. But, yes, they are going to have to say, “I’m interested.” That does not mean that they have one perspective or another. They are interested in participating. That is the first thing. It does not mean that they are a climate activist or that they have climate knowledge.
I will pass it over to Jasmin, if I may, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kay: Thank you, Senator Coyle.
Thank you for the question. It’s a very fair question and one that we get not infrequently.
I agree with Senator Coyle. So, yes, we had youth sign up who were interested in participating. But to her point, not everyone had climate knowledge; not everyone came with an opinion on what should be done. As the chair, I did one-on-ones with everyone, asking them why they volunteered, and one said:
It was my year of saying yes, and I got this letter in the mail and so I said yes. And oh, my gosh, I have been selected.
Other people said they wanted to participate, or meet others or wanted to learn more. It was a sense of curiosity, I think, that drove some people to sign up.
Others, absolutely, were doing environmental science or had a climate background and were already active. But we definitely had a good group of people who were not as engaged or knowledgeable and who were interested in participating.
I would say, for sure, there were disagreements on what should be done about it, much like there is in the broader population. Not everyone felt the same way about what we need to do to address climate change.
So, yes, I agree. People had to be interested in arguably the question and in participating, for sure.
Senator Coyle pointed to how we did the recruitment. Yes, there was definitely social media. We had a list of close to 170 youth-serving organizations; not necessarily climate organizations, but organizations who had relationships with youth, and we sent out invitations through that.
Then we also had a mail-out sent out through Canada Post. It went out to 4,000 households, again, randomly selected through Canada Post list service to households where we knew there were people aged 18 to 25. We sent those out kind of randomly and invited those people to consider signing up.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your comments and congratulations on pulling this off. It was something that took a lot of organizing. With the report and so on, there is a lot of success to talk about with what has happened here.
Patience is a hard thing for any of us to have, especially in youth, to your point. How do you manage expectations in a situation like this? That is the worst part of this. You have a whole bunch of engaged people, and apathy is boring but it is difficult to not let it start up again, or to get people once they are engaged. With your work and so on, in your experience, how do you manage expectations and try to get these people who are engaged now, not lose them and not let them leave this and say, “Well, there is no hope”?
Ms. Deawuo: That is a big question and an important one, for sure. For those of us in this line of work, it is also trying to keep our hope alive at the same time as well. I’m sure everyone can agree.
For us, one important piece of this work is recognizing that we still had youth who were interested and not just saying, “We have the report. Now what?” We wanted to ensure that the youth are engaged in whatever process that comes out of this. This is also a learning opportunity for them: understanding how our parliamentarians work, how decisions are made and all of that.
We have set up a What’s App group, for instance, where the youth are able to engage with each other on the recommendations and on some key next steps for themselves in terms of how they can support this work from the recommendations to seeing how decisions can be made on some of it.
They are the ones who actually keep hope alive in all of us in the sense that, despite the current political climate, they are here. Seven of them are here in Ottawa with us. Many of them who couldn’t make it were supporting their colleagues online, developing and helping them with their remarks and things like that so that they can put their best foot forward to speak here today. They are the inspiration. They are the hope. They are here. They are committed, despite what is happening politically.
This will also be a good question for them. I hate to put it on you guys, but I think this would be a really good question for them to answer in their session.
Ms. De Torres: As part of the advisory committee, one of the things I enjoyed about Jasmin’s and MASS LBP’s way of facilitation is a commitment to having a sandbox for participation. This looks like a structured way of communicating with young people throughout the facilitation about what their expectations could be. That was super helpful.
From our experience at Apathy is Boring, we found that in the voting perspective — that is what we’re mostly known for — the earlier a young person starts with voting and participation, the more likely they are to continue with that participation. The young people who are in here, they will probably likely, hopefully — knock on wood — be here for life as a voter would be.
This is a testament to many of the young people we work with whom we developed relationships when they were just 18 and now they are turning 30, for example. I heard about Apathy is Boring when I was 12, and look at where I am now, continuing this democracy journey.
I will say that hope is super alive in young people. It continues. The younger we get them to participate and engage in their community, the more likely they are to further engage. It is great to have this community, and I think that community itself is firing itself up and continuing those conversations.
Ms. Kay: I am happy. I completely agree. That is a wonderful question to put to the members who will be with you shortly, asking them what they need to see from folks.
They get it. They are not expecting to see change overnight. They are savvy and political, and they understand the context and all of the navigation. They might be able to tell you nicely what they need to see.
From our experience, there is something about just engaging. Keep being in touch. What you are doing here is wonderful. This is wonderful to have this audience and to be having this conversation with folks.
Then to continue to try and remain engaged: to continue to engage you so that it is not a one-and-done, so that it is an ongoing touch point, so when things do go awry, they get it because they are a part of the conversation. There was such generosity in that room, and it is about meeting that, I think. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question. I am not sure if it is a fair question, but I will ask it anyway.
Have you or anybody around you thought about a second cohort? I am thinking to myself, if I were one of these 38 young people, I would make a great mentor to somebody else. You have done it once successfully. In my optimistic way, I would think it is easier to do the next one because it is building an army. One thing about demography is everybody gets one year older every year, so pretty soon, you are not technically a youth anymore, even though I still think of myself that way. It is long past the time when I should. Have there been thoughts of a second cohort of this particular assembly?
Ms. Deawuo: Definitely, yes. It is about getting the resources to make it happen. It is resource intensive, as you can imagine. If we are able to get the right funding partners at the table, that is definitely something we would like to explore, yes.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for coming in. Congratulations.
Since it is climate change, I wanted to ask if you have had any conversations with oil and gas. The reason is that so many people think that if they shut down oil and gas, then things would be fixed, but that’s not true. Oil and gas will be around for many years.
We know that renewables — hydro, for example — are not ready to do a system to go across the country for EVs or whatever.
Have you engaged them to see if they are going to be more climate- and environment-friendly? If they did, I think that could resolve some of the problems that we’re having. It seems it is hard to get through to them.
Senator Coyle: Do you mean that oil and gas could be more environmentally friendly?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Senator Coyle: Okay.
Senator McCallum: One of the other things I raised when I was in Toronto was about why. Have you reached out to the people? Combustion has a lot of emissions, and people are driving around across the country. Have you engaged ordinary citizens about their use of vehicles whenever they want? Even in the city, you can see many cars with just one person. It’s consumption. I think the country needs help to look at that and to see if there could be any resolution.
Ms. Deawuo: For us at ELC, we have not had any conversations with oil and gas. Our main focus has been with youth.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Ms. Deawuo: From the assembly and also the internship program that we provide as well, that has been the main focus for us at ELC on this.
I would also be curious to know in terms of the work that Senators for Climate Solutions are doing if there have been opportunities to engage oil and gas in that way.
Senator Coyle: Some of the experts who met with the youth did talk about the oil and gas industry. We had a professor from Alberta who is an expert on energy, including oil and gas. That was a part of it.
In terms of getting at issues related to consumption, I don’t know whether there were discussions about that, but the young people might be able to tell you whether they had those conversations.
The Chair: With that, we can draw this panel to a close. I would like to thank you for being here. It has been great. You have set the stage now for us to hear from the young representatives who will form the next panel.
We are lucky to welcome four young people who were a part of the assembly. I’ll introduce all four of you, and please do the same thing you did in the Senate because it all seemed to be quite seamless from one to the other. I’m going to introduce you in the order that you provided.
We have Victoria Romero, Kessiena Kama, Toshibaa Govindaraj and Hargun Rekhi. Victoria will begin, and you will follow in the order that I’ve talked about.
Victoria Romero, Youth Representative, Canadian Youth Climate Assembly: I’m Victoria, and I’m from Treaty 1 territory Winnipeg, Manitoba. My passion for the environment comes from my lived experiences in nature at Whiteshell Provincial Park within the Canadian Shield in Manitoba, and my studies of the development of human rights post-industrialization.
The CYCA brought together a statistically representative sample of Canadian youth to define our priorities for climate action. While we come from different backgrounds with differing views, we collectively understand that our current way of life is fundamentally incompatible with a livable future. We call on you to see climate action not as its own issue but something inseparable from all facets of life. When we don’t consider the climate and consistently prioritize profit over living beings, our collective well-being is in jeopardy. While no one is safe from these risks, the people who are being harmed first and worst by the climate crisis are the people who contribute least to its causes. Whether it is rising food costs, housing issues or health risks, it’s the most vulnerable in our society who are the ones to pay the price of reckless decision making by parliamentarians. Young people are increasingly anxious and apathetic regarding the climate crisis, as we’re inheriting a future we’re told will cease to exist. We cannot stand here in good conscience while ignoring how the decisions of our leadership and projects paid for with our tax dollars have contributed to this crisis.
We cannot continue to reject the insurmountable amount of scientific evidence around climate change in favour of maxing the fiscal bottom line. The Canadian government has the capacity and tools to be a leader in the green transition, but we have repeatedly declined this role in favour of continued dependence on oil, gas and high-emitting industries. There is no strong Canadian nation or economy without a livable planet. As senators, you have the ability to apply checks and balances to dangerous legislation. We beg you to listen to our voices before our forests are all burned, our clean water polluted and our fresh air thick with smog.
Kessiena Kama, Youth Representative, Canadian Youth Climate Assembly: My name is Kessiena Kama, and I’m here representing Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island. My background in environmental studies on such a small island has given me both a theoretical and practical perspective on the interconnectedness of climate change disasters, which is a central theme throughout our report. The section on climate risk preparedness prioritizes intergenerational resilience and pragmatism in emergency preparedness, which is crucial to ensure that all communities, especially the most vulnerable across the country, are resilient to the intersectional effects of climate change unfolding in real time, particularly from wildfires, flooding and drought. Thus, we urge parliamentarians to establish an intergovernmental agency to ensure that federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and Indigenous governments coordinate their efforts to maximize the efficiency of emergency communication, resource allocations and initiatives to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters.
Building on interconnected systems and resilient infrastructure is critical in the face of climate disasters. Every time an extreme weather event strikes, we rebuild, only for it to be destroyed again. This costly cycle must end sooner rather than later.
As such, we are asking parliamentarians to establish and fund, through redirected oil and gas subsidies, national policies that prioritize developments of climate-resistant infrastructure. By investing in deep retrofits and sustainable building technologies for our existing public spaces, homes and businesses, we can withstand the more frequent and severe environmental challenges that we’re currently facing.
This will not only reduce recurring rebuilding costs and provide career development for youth; it will give at-risk communities the peace of mind that their daily infrastructure will remain standing for years to come.
Toshibaa Govindaraj, Youth Representative, Canadian Youth Climate Assembly: I grew up on the traditional territories of the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council and the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, also known as Whitehorse, Yukon.
The section on reducing oil and gas emissions focuses largely on decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and transitioning to clean energy. I’ll be speaking to recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 9.
Young people across Canada recognize the disastrous consequences of exploitative resource extraction, and today we call on you to do the same. Federal subsidies to oil and gas prolong our dependence on an industry that is killing us.
As youth, we demand that you phase out this industry and transition towards a green future without placing the cost burden on us as consumers. There is no path forward except climate action now. We must transition to clean energy now. However, clean energy also requires resource extraction, which has historically come at the expense of the environment, Indigenous rights and the well-being of communities and consumers.
We ask that you respect constitutionally protected rights, and work with Indigenous nations to return lands, stewardship and natural resource management to enable economic and social reconciliation. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past and change the way that Canada approaches and undertakes resource extraction during this transition.
We also ask that you ensure that the clean energy transition creates opportunities for young people who are currently facing unprecedented unemployment rates. Young people deserve to be a part of the solution, and we deserve opportunities to contribute, innovate and lead.
Hargun Rekhi, Youth Representative, Canadian Youth Climate Assembly: Hello, I’m from Toronto, Ontario. My interest in the climate movement was inspired by the Canadian natural landscapes provided to me after immigration.
As climate-related disasters intensify and threaten human, planetary and economic health, effective organization is critical to mobilizing global action.
Our recommendations on climate accountability focus on prioritizing trust, accountability and action. Trust is the glue that holds collective climate action together. Accountability ensures that sweeping climate promises translate into measurable emission reductions rather than remaining empty rhetoric.
Action is the lifeblood of the climate movement, as it translates scientific warnings into tangible solutions and forces global leaders to prioritize a sustainable future.
I want to highlight recommendations 2, 5, 7 and 8. We are calling on parliamentarians to provide access to reliable information about climate policies in Canada to combat misinformation. We demand that large corporations, high-emitting industries and public sector organizations publicly disclose all scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions, making climate impacts more transparent and enabling better public and government oversight.
We also emphasize the vital role Indigenous knowledge, leadership and self-determination play in advancing sustainable development and want a commitment to free, prior and informed consent as described in the UNDRIP Act.
We are, lastly, advocating for the early and meaningful engagement of youth in decision-making processes through accessible, representative and low-barrier participation opportunities.
The systems that have brought us here are incompatible with preserving the land for younger generations. Forward thinking, rooted in conservation and preservation, will ensure the success of young Canadians. We do not want to live in a country that prioritizes and pushes for capital accumulation because we would rather live on a livable planet.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your initiative and your presentation, which was very interesting and informative. You may think I’m anti-environment and not in favour of limiting pollution, but that isn’t the case at all. After listening to your speeches, I wonder if you could clarify your thinking. If we were to end oil and gas development and turn to resources that are better for the environment . . . . There’s no perfect system, not even hydroelectricity. We’re going to produce a lot of greenhouse gases if we flood forests or even if we cut down forests beforehand; all that carbon stored in the forests will be released into the atmosphere. We may end up digging trenches in the ground or in the mountains.
As for wind turbines, they have to be anchored in the ground or in the sea; they have to be anchored to the ocean floor, and that creates problems for fisheries and fish. For example, what do we do about electric cars? We need more mines for precious metals, but what about all the batteries that we’ll have to get rid of? What are we going to do with them?
I’d like to hear what you have to say about that. How can we balance oil and gas development today with the position we would like to occupy in the future with greener energy?
[English]
Ms. Rekhi: Your phrasing of the question was very interesting because you highlighted all the issues with renewables, but then chose to omit the issues with oil and gas. There are substantial drawbacks to even using oil and gas as an industry; however, because you’re older and you’re familiar with particular systems, you choose to accept those drawbacks and instead opt into continuing those options.
However, with renewables, although the drawbacks that you mentioned exist, the advantages also exist. We’re proposing an alternative pathway to policy-making, because as younger people, we’re able to think of a future that is different from what the present looks like.
When you’re looking at policy, you should consider the opportunity cost. It’s not just about what you lose when you make a decision, but also about what you gain. When you opt into renewables, the substantive number of gains that you’re earning are far greater than any of the drawbacks that you’ve mentioned.
Oil and gas, as it currently stands, are posing a threat to the way that we operate, and it’s the primary reason why a lot of our discussions went into the recommendations that we presented in front of you today. We want a different reality, and we’re asking you to help support and shape that reality, rather than stay rooted in systems that are no longer working.
The Chair: Would others like to add anything?
[Translation]
Ms. Romero: I’m sorry. I’d like to answer in French, but I think I would need my Bescherelle, so I’ll have to answer in English.
[English]
You’re right that there is no perfect solution, but as my colleague has mentioned, the harms from the oil and gas industry are immense, and they often impact those most vulnerable in our society.
In the Final Report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we saw that there was a direct link between resource extraction projects like pipelines and missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and violence towards Indigenous women, but this is not something that is unique. In Manitoba, we are big on hydroelectricity. I have friends whose relatives have been deeply impacted by the same kind of violence towards Indigenous women and girls that come from these projects. However, that is not necessarily an issue of the resource itself but how we are applying this issue and how we are looking at it.
When we are passing bills such as Bill C-5 and policies that fast-track these projects without the informed consent of Indigenous Peoples or full consultation with communities and bypassing environmental regulations, these are dangerous ways to do these things. Fast-tracking a project is not in the national interest because it ignores all the factors of health, justice and equity that are also in the national interest. There are ways to do this by applying a climate lens when we look at these factors and what we want to accomplish, when we are ensuring these projects are Indigenous led and led by those in the communities that they will impact most. Of course, the green energy transition will require mining. It will require resource extraction, so we need to find a way to navigate these realities without further harming more communities.
There is an epidemic of not only violence to humans but violence to nature and to the planet, and these things are inseparable. We cannot continue to ignore the science, evidence and facts that have pointed out the many flaws with the way of life we are living right now.
One of the recommendations we have outlined in our report is if we cannot end the oil and gas industry, then we must end federal subsidies to oil and gas. We cannot have billions of taxpayer dollars going into these projects that are unchecked. There is no official directory of how much money goes into these subsidies for oil and gas. There is no transparency on how much we are spending to jeopardize our future.
There are certainly ways within this transition, and even as it stands now, that we can be doing better. Thank you.
Ms. Govindaraj: At the end of your question, you asked how we can balance clean energy and oil and gas. To add on to everything that’s been said, I don’t think we need to. I think we can choose the better alternative over the other. You did list off many different ways of getting clean energy, and I think that is a really big strength of clean energy. We don’t need to invest all of our funds and effort into one thing or the other. There are so many different ways that we can get clean energy, and I think the solution is to try to diversify and be able to invest in as many different avenues as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Actually, my question is quite timely after the points raised by my colleague.
In fact, you have worked on various challenges and problematic situations. I was wondering: How did they come to a consensus? How did you manage to find the best recommendations to make following your discussions? Can you tell us which ones sparked the most difficult discussions? How did you come to a consensus?
At the end of your report, there’s a section on minority reports. You were asked to submit your specific interests. Was that a way to reach that consensus? Tell us a bit about the process that enabled you to develop these recommendations.
[English]
Ms. Govindaraj: It was hard, but it was also very easy. I think there’s a lot more consensus when it comes to climate action than you might think. We all, more or less, understand the drivers and the problems of climate change. At the core, I think we all came together and we had more or less the same principles. We had the same ideas for how to tackle this. There might have been small differences, but I think, by and large, we had a similar idea of what kinds of recommendations we should make, how we should prioritize them and what’s important.
We built top down from the way you read the report. We worked on what our principles were first, and then we used those to determine what our recommendations were going to be. There were some recommendations that needed a lot more deliberation than others. A lot of them were very easy to come to consensus on, but there were some that we did have to go back and forth on. I think it was very valuable to see all the different perspectives that came together. I guess that’s how I can answer the first part of your question.
With respect to the minority reports, we only had a week to deliberate and come together on these recommendations. Really, we only had a day or two to make the recommendations. Much of the week was taken up by presentations, so there was only so much airtime we could get for any specific issues that we wanted to raise.
The minority reports are kind of a way of, yes, reaching consensus, but also kind of saying there’s a lot more nuance to many of these things. There are certain things that maybe we didn’t have time to touch on or certain priorities that certain people had that maybe weren’t shared with the entire group.
I think the minority reports are all very well written. When you read them, I don’t think most of them say, “I disagree with something that we said or something we did that’s in the report.” I think, for the most part, young people are in consensus about climate change and what we need to do moving forward.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being here.
Two of your recommendations are, in fact, key priorities for this government. The Youth Climate Corps is something that you recommended, as well as a national electricity grid. We just saw the electricity strategy come forward.
How do you see it right now with the current status of both of those? What’s your assessment of the status of those two recommendations now, with the government having announced some things? What further needs to happen there?
Ms. Romero: In terms of the Youth Climate Corps, we were all pleased to see that initial investment made in the fall. However, there’s always room for more money to be put towards this. I’m sure many of you are aware that there is an unemployment crisis, particularly for youth, in this country. Not only are we facing the threat of a planet that is no longer livable, but while we are here, we’re struggling to get jobs, start our careers, start a family and live what is supposed to be a normal life.
Having opportunities where youth can be involved, not only in the process, such as with the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly in making or suggesting policy, but in achieving these goals and outcomes that we want to see is invaluable. The Youth Climate Corps is a great opportunity to hit two birds with one stone.
We really do appreciate that initial investment. I know some of that money is tied up right now — it’s on its way out — but that was something that we did notice, and we thank all the parliamentarians who were involved in that effort.
However, there’s never enough money that could go towards this. Again, back to the recommendation of ending subsidies for oil and gas, this is also a place where that money can be redirected.
Ms. Rekhi: I can add on to that.
Today, we were fortunate enough to also meet with Minister Julie Dabrusin’s office. At ECCC, we also discussed the possibility of the Youth Climate Corps and what that would look like in execution. Our conversations were centred around meaningful youth engagement that stayed consistent beyond just participation in the corps and how to actually formulate that and make that a reality. Conversations like that are important. Although money has been allocated to the Youth Climate Corps, we also need to ensure that we’re involving youth voices in what that climate corps should look like because, at the end of the day, we are the ones who will be participating in it.
Speaking on electrification, we added that recommendation because we noticed a lack of connectivity between the youth from coast to coast to coast. Many of us were not aware of how other provinces operated. For me personally, as an Ontarian, a massive blind spot was the Maritimes. The only thing I knew about that area was that it had the ocean, and then I met people who elaborated on that a little bit.
In terms of electrification, the lack of connectivity across the provinces was something we wanted to fix. If we are creating a provincial and territorial grid, that connects that. It solves a lot of the issues we have in terms of reliable electricity and allows us, in the long term, to opt into alternative forms of providing energy that we currently cannot try because electrification is not connected.
Senator Coyle: You mentioned that you met with people in Minister Dabrusin’s office today, and I understand that you will have a virtual meeting with the minister herself in early July. I think you were here for the first panel and Senator Lewis’s question about managing expectations. It is amazing how much work you are continuing to do. It is wonderful. What would the top of your list of expectations be for that meeting with Minister Dabrusin?
Ms. Govindaraj: May I ask a clarifying question?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
Ms. Govindaraj: Do you mean in terms of our top recommendation we would bring forward or in terms of engagement?
Senator Coyle: Both.
Ms. Govindaraj: In terms of engagement, when we met with the office today, we talked a lot about what meaningful youth engagement looked like. One thing that kept coming up was that it needed to be a back-and-forth dialogue. It is not going to be just one meeting, and we never hear from you again. If we bring forward recommendations to you, we ask that you send a reply about those recommendations, what you think about them, constructive feedback or anything so that we can feel like we were actually heard and actually engaged with rather than having one meeting and then we never hear from you again. That is my answer for expectations.
In terms of the top recommendation to bring up, I cannot speak for the entire assembly, but one thing that kept coming up a lot when we talked and deliberated was the importance of reconciliation and respecting Indigenous rights, ensuring that Indigenous voices are heard, respected and engaged with meaningfully and that there is a push for Indigenous sovereignty and a push for Indigenous Peoples to be in a seat where they can make decisions. They are not just being consulted. They are actually given power over their lands. That was something that kept coming up over and over again.
The government right now has made pushes to roll back on environmental regulations and Indigenous consultation. That was something that was a point of consensus. I don’t think there was any argument in our assembly about the importance of any of that. That will probably be one of the top recommendations we bring up.
Senator Lewis: To your point, what if they only do see you one time and don’t pay attention? What are the next steps? I was on your side of the desk for years before I was here. I have only been here for one year. It is a long process. Patience is very hard to develop, but it is a reality of what you are all going to face as you move forward. You are going to get told no a whole bunch of times. It is not going to change overnight. How does this process help you learn, going forward? You have a whole life in front of you, and you will be asking these questions and trying to push these positions forward. How do you see that? You are at the pinnacle right now. You are seeing ministers. You have been in the Senate. You have done all of these things, but do you go home and try to do it locally? How do you see this playing out as we go forward? Have you thought about that?
Ms. Kama: Thank you for that. There are thoughts and comments on that scale. Whenever we hear no, we have heard it all our lives. Whenever we do, that gives us enough juice to try again, try harder, restrategize and change.
If anything, the assembly will see it as fuel to figure out how we can get engagement, to figure out how we can promote and have our voices heard. With regard to practical steps to get a response, with the guidance of the process and how we all came to consensus with the recommendations and the recommendations we prioritized on, the general theme I wanted to touch on earlier about the spirit of how we even had disagreements or issues was that we realized we were fighting on the same side and for the same thing. I feel like that is one of the important things that the process in coming up with these recommendations has taught us. Anytime we get pushback, it is easier to refer to that and then figure out how we can manœuvre our way into having our voices heard and really seeing that engagement we want to see.
Ms. Romero: There are many different pathways for engagement. We may not be able to secure a follow-up meeting with the minister or we may have to turn to a more public push for mobilization, but the responsibility entrusted to us as youth on this assembly is a great one. We all individually understand the impact we have and can continue to have and the duty we have to continue to represent the voice of youth.
For today, we would ask that you please take our recommendations back to the Senate and formally report them to the Senate. We have other channels for mobilization, whether that be petitions or writing op-eds, but, as someone said in our first meeting this morning, if we all stopped talking about climate change, that would not necessarily be the one-and-done deal because it is an evolving issue that will continue.
There will be new issues as we develop new industries. There will be new concerns as we continue on the way forward. It is your duty as parliamentarians. Members of Parliament and public servants have a duty to listen to the public: whether that be us as youth right now or those younger than us who will come in the future, we hope that our parliamentarians do fulfill their civic duty in listening to their constituents.
Ms. Govindaraj: You said that we were at the pinnacle right now. I both agree and disagree.
Senator Lewis: You are at the pinnacle of this process. Please do not misunderstand me. I’m just talking about this process. This is far from the pinnacle of where you are going to end up.
Ms. Govindaraj: Thank you, yes. The climate assembly stopped after the report was out, which was last October. Everything that happened after that was because we wanted to stay engaged.
We published a report. We have not heard back from many people, which is okay. But we have stayed engaged, found different avenues and made it so that we come here to the pinnacle of this report. We’re going to keep pushing. Even if we do not get another follow-up meeting, it is okay in the sense that, yes, my feelings will be hurt, but we will move on and find different avenues, and that will not be the end of our climate action.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for all your work. My first question, like Senator Aucoin, is not because I’m pro-oil and gas. I have been on the Energy Committee for, it will be almost 7.5 years now. The first thing I noticed was the impact of resource extraction on First Nation lands. When I first came, 80% of the people who came to present were oil and gas, and 1% were First Nations. It has slowly changed. At one point, oil and gas didn’t want to come to the Energy Committee. That is why I asked if you had met with them to see if they could be more climate oriented.
I wanted to turn to the electricity grid. We have the same problem there with Manitoba Hydro. I have met with the premier, the minister and First Nations people who are impacted. I wrote a letter over a year ago. They have not responded. With Manitoba Hydro, there is a projected deficit of $1.6 billion for the province, and it is because of losses attributed to lower water levels, drought, wildfires requiring infrastructure repairs and a decline in export revenues to Minnesota. Manitoba Hydro is now going to increase its rates for the next three years. It is going to come. If they are the only ones, they are going to raise their rates. It is not going to be low all the time.
With the work I do with First Nations, there are 40 communities impacted. You spoke about reconciliation and that their voices need to be heard and respected and have power over their lands. They have fought for that. Nothing. And now people are saying that we need more mega dams. That causes me a lot of concern because the people I work with don’t even have water to take baths. You know that that would be Tataskweyak and that group in South Indian Lake. The wildlife and fishing are gone, as is their traditional lifestyle. One of the communities was displaced because they have to keep the reservoir dam high. There’s no water. They cannot get off where they are because they need a ferry. If there are fires this summer, I do not know what is going to happen. They have addressed that with Hydro — no answer.
When we look at how we have attempted to meet with the province to look at this, it is very discouraging for me.
But it is young people like you who are engaged and know, do your homework and give all of us hope that things will change. But, in meantime, I am actually going there next week to go out on the land with the people, so I am spending the weekend there just to see what it is like to go out.
That is my concern for the electricity grid. I don’t know where we’re going to go because, when you look at the Site C dam, Quebec and then Newfoundland, they are the four provinces with the highest grids. I just want to bring this up so you know our realities.
Ms. Romero: Thank you so much for your continued work and for doing that. This is my province. Many of my friends, their relatives and their communities are deeply impacted by these issues.
I was out protesting last summer, I believe, with the people of York Factory First Nation who were stranded.
Senator McCallum: That’s the one.
Ms. Romero: Yes. These are issues that continue to be ignored by all levels of government.
We have the new development of the Churchill LNG pipeline coming in Manitoba. We have our premier calling the Indigenous opposition “haters.” I think the bare minimum responsibility that we, as settlers on this land, have is to elevate Indigenous voices to ensure that our climate action cannot happen without First Nations leadership. Indigenous Peoples are the original stewards of the land. They are consistently excluded from climate policy and climate adaptation policy, whether that be wildfire evacuation or flood prevention. First Nations people make up some of the largest numbers of wildfire evacuees in Canada, despite being a very small portion of the population.
As I mentioned, these resource extraction projects, whether they be oil and gas or hydro, have led to an increase of violence against Indigenous women and girls and Two-Spirit. These man camps are not safe places. They bring in an influx of misogyny and violence to communities that are already facing isolation, elevated grocery prices, a lack of clean drinking water — the bare minimum standards of human life that have not been achieved. It is a disgrace. We cannot talk about nation-building projects if they are only building up prosperity for some parts of our nation, especially when they exclude those who are the stewards of the land. We cannot exclude the First Peoples in building up a nation.
What we have tried to express in our report is that climate action is inseparable from reconciliation. These things are not two different things. The transition to green energy must be led by Indigenous communities and Indigenous people. Whether that be green transition or not, if there is a new pipeline, it should be led by Indigenous Peoples. It is their choice if they would like to engage and reap the benefits of whatever economic reconciliation that may present.
But we cannot continue to make decisions and carry on modern-day colonization on these lands. That is effectively what we are doing when we see a policy like Bill C-5 that completely bypasses the rights of Indigenous Peoples without giving them a second thought. It is exactly that: modern-day colonization. There is no effective way forward should we continue to do this. The health of our nation, justice of all our people and our two-leggeds and four-leggeds: this is all the same question. It cannot happen without that.
That is a big part of what we have tried to remind parliamentarians about. One of our recommendations is reminding them of the fact that Canada has signed on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and we have the UNDRIP Act in Canada. We are supposed to be following through on these commitments. They cannot just be empty words because that is what they have been for the entire history of what we call Canada.
Ms. Rekhi: I would like to add a little on to that. Like Victoria said, I would like to echo her words on thanking you for the work that you have done and your service to the Senate.
In terms of working with Indigenous Peoples, I have been fortunate enough that I was introduced to a lot of Indigenous perspectives in my masters program, and I spent all of last week taking an international political ecology and economy course where multiple land defenders from across Ontario were invited to speak at our university. They discussed the issues they were experiencing from Attawapiskat First Nation to Neskantaga First Nation to Batchewana First Nation in the Lake Superior area. Many of them brought up the issues they are experiencing and the problems they are trying to solve.
My professor, who works in close collaboration with these communities, ended up discussing solutions to these problems. A common thread that we identified was the idea of demanding jurisdiction back. When you described the issues, you identified how the hydro company didn’t respond to your calls to ask them to provide responses. In that case, we’re placing the jurisdiction in the hands of the hydro company. But as people who are part of government, you are also in a privileged place to say that we can reshape whom that jurisdiction lies with. Should that power be with hydro, or should that power lie with someone else to determine how those policies and on-the-ground actions take place?
By asking the bigger questions and fundamentally reshaping how settler-colonial law operates, we can then create a better reality for these Indigenous communities. The answers and solutions are already there. If you look at Anishinaabe legal traditions, where there are prioritizations of more collaborative discussions, answers already exist; it is that there is a lack of implementation and a lack of agency in determining who holds jurisdictions regarding these complex problems.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: In terms of next steps, Ms. Romero mentioned earlier that your final report would be tabled in the House. How do you see that? Do you see the report with specific recommendations? For example, do you want to emphasize the priority that you have identified with First Nations?
This morning, you said that you would support Bill C-241, if I’m not mistaken, the bill on drought and flooding. Have you identified any other bills on the list that would correspond to your recommendations? What do you want us to do?
[English]
Ms. Romero: To start, part of what I have tried to stress in the opening and through the report is that we hope that you do not see climate action as its own issue any longer. It is something that is intertwined in all facets of our lives and government business, whether that be health care, education, job creation, infrastructure — all of these things — food security and agriculture.
There is something for every single parliamentarian to get involved in with this issue. If you have a passion in a certain area, please apply a climate action lens to that passion, because we can’t have any of this business if we don’t have a livable planet. Climate change is what is known as a threat multiplier, meaning it exacerbates already-existing issues, whether that be gender-based violence, food-production systems, water security or infrastructure — these things are all going to be made worse by the arrival and ongoing reality of the climate crisis.
Therefore, we would hope that you are able to make a personal connection to the recommendations to see where you see yourself and the people of your region in them, and what you most resonate with. Take that and do what you find to be best based upon your interest area.
The recommendations are broad. They are there for all parliamentarians to hopefully engage with, and we would hope that you would do that as you see fit.
The Chair: I will ask the last question myself. I’m not sure whether you will be able to cover it, but you did lead into it nicely. It has to do with whatever your passion happens to be.
I’m a nurse by background. One thing that I think about over and over again is the talk of climate anxiety that you presented by different people. The thing that struck me and stayed in my head was when the young woman from Saskatchewan stood up and talked about standing at her farm, looking at the fires and how that made her feel. I think about what that did to her sense of thinking about the future.
You have a recommendation, and I was going to read it. However, you can probably recite it for me. What are you thinking about in terms of starting to have the health care systems in the provinces — which, as you know, are mostly provincial jurisdictions — beginning to move mental health resources in that way?
What is actually needed? What is actionable in terms of climate anxiety now and in the future? We’re talking about things that are going to take years to address. What do we do in the meantime? How do we start? How do we put it on the radar?
Ms. Romero: As the recommendations mentioned, the need for action on mental health regarding climate crises, disasters and simply as a whole is something that certainly needs to be addressed. Whether it’s eco-anxiety or elevated rates of PTSD and major depressive disorders, we see those in youth after the impacts of wildfire or other climate disasters.
We also see that young girls, and gender-diverse and queer youth, experience these at a much higher level, so it is an intersectional issue. We do need to see this addressed. There already are elevated rates of mental illnesses. It is only going to continue to get worse with how the climate is changing.
Like you mentioned, for someone who may see and feel the anxiety standing at their farm, another person in a different part of Canada may see that at the grocery store with increasing prices.
These are going to impact youth in a multitude of ways, and we need a coordinated strategy to address the many mental health concerns that are currently arising and will continue to arise.
Ms. Rekhi: In terms of gaining traction on the report, if there is anything that you get from the report — maybe you disagree with chunks of it — the primary thing I want to highlight is that there are certain perspectives when it comes to Canadian governance that are never brought to the table that we need to include. By creating the citizens’ assembly, Senator Coyle and her team were able to bring a significant chunk of the Canadian population that has been largely ignored when it comes to Canadian policy-making.
When creating systems like that, we’re incorporating people who aren’t just part of the people in Ottawa or in positions of power, allowing them to contribute and actively participate in democracy. That is essential.
To gain traction on the report, that could be an avenue to say that, yes, these other perspectives exist, they are worth noting, and they are worth bringing to the tables where they haven’t previously been included.
The Chair: Thank you all so much on behalf of my colleagues and myself for being here. This is the start, not the end. We can say that we are an open door. We will be talking about how we can take action on some of the things you have suggested in terms of what we can do next.
Thank you all for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)