Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. I will certainly make inquiries.

Colleagues, the issue of whether the justification, which was multifold and included economic considerations, did or did not pass a test was, first, one that we assessed as parliamentarians and decided in light of the legislation and the progressive elements in the back-to-work legislation as sufficient to pass a Charter test. It is also the role of the courts to so assess.

I would remind colleagues that, first, this back-to-work legislation was an absolute last resort. The government did not take it lightly. Secondly, as colleagues know, the Port of Montreal is Canada’s second-largest container terminal. It handles 35 million tonnes of cargo representing $40 billion worth of goods a year. The work stoppage had the potential to cause severe and lasting damage to our economy. It was highlighted by the declaration provided on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.

The damage to the economy was estimated, through the modelling, to be somewhere between $40 million to $100 million per week. There was a judgment of the government, supported in Parliament, that the legislation was essential to safeguard the public interest. To the extent that a court would disagree, we would, of course, respect the decision of the court, but I think the government remains satisfied that it had met the standard under the Charter.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P., Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, will take place on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, at the later of the end of Routine Proceedings or 2:30 p.m.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016. In my remarks today, I will address several issues related to this bill. First, I think it is important to review the government’s rationale for the legislation and to understand that this bill has come to Parliament very late, with the result that there is a legal gap in Canada’s border enforcement. Secondly, I want to touch on some of the serious questions and challenges that arise from certain provisions of this bill. Finally, I would like to comment about the way in which the legislation has been brought forward and what, I think, this reveals about the very serious problem we have with the government’s reactive approach to policy-making.

Unfortunately, colleagues, this bill fits a pattern. The pattern is that of a government that is both highly reactive in its policy-making and extremely slow in its policy implementation.

First, let me address government’s arguments in relation to the purpose of the bill. The government’s arguments were presented by Senator Boniface here last week. In her remarks, Senator Boniface reviewed the fact that Bill S-7 arises from a decision rendered by the Alberta Court of Appeal in October of 2020 finding that examination procedures used by the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, when it comes to the content of personal digital devices was unconstitutional. These devices were, until recently, examined under the terms of paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The court’s reason for striking down this provision of the act in relation to personal digital devices was that the act itself imposed no limits on such examinations.

For many years, CBSA officers have been using section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act and its definition of “goods” to incorporate personal digital devices.

As Senator Boniface pointed out, digital devices have the ability to hold documents which might contain an individual’s entire life history and include the most private information about any person.

The Court of Appeal found that although persons crossing international borders must have a lower expectation of privacy than is normal in a free and democratic society, the scope of information that border officers have access to when examining personal digital devices suggests that some reasonable limits are required.

Senator Boniface quoted the Court of Appeal decision as follows:

We are mindful that protecting the privacy interest in an individual’s personal electronic devices while recognizing the need for effective border security will involve a complex and delicate balancing process. It will be up to Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach that imposes reasonable limits on the ability to conduct such searches at the border.

Colleagues, this is what we are doing today with this bill.

While the court referenced the fact that Parliament must decide whether it wishes to enact a law on this matter, the reality of our political system is that it is up to government to bring forward legislation to address the legal gap that has resulted from the Court of Appeal’s decision.

In this regard, we should be under no illusion that we do now, indeed, have a significant legal gap. That is because, although the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal is only applicable to Alberta, the Ontario Superior Court has now also ruled that the same section of the Customs Act is unconstitutional, thereby extending this legal limbo to Ontario.

Colleagues, here I think it is important to note the nature of the cases that have triggered these rulings in both Alberta and Ontario. Each of these cases involved the importation of child pornography. I know that every senator in this chamber will agree that these offences are among the most disgusting and dangerous crimes which can be perpetrated. They are also crimes which prey upon the most vulnerable and innocent in our society.

In her remarks, Senator Boniface stated:

It is imperative that we take this incongruity seriously in the meantime. I implore you, colleagues, not as the sponsor of this bill, but someone who was involved in law enforcement for a long time, to prioritize Bill S-7 for our consideration. We can’t let this incongruity stand for a day longer than necessary for two reasons. First, training modules can’t occur for CBSA officers until the finalized version, and the finalized wording, of the bill passes through Parliament. Second, and most importantly, each day that passes from here on out can be used by those actors seeking to import obscene materials, such as child pornography, into Canada.

Naturally, I agree with that, colleagues. I think we all do you. However, I must point out that the court gave the government 18 months to respond to its ruling. It initially gave the government 12 months and then extended it for another 6 months. Yet, we now have a situation where Senator Boniface first spoke to the bill on behalf of the government on the very day that the court’s extension of the provisions of paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act expired. How does this happen? In fact, I approached Senator Gold two days prior, noting that the expiry was on our doorstep. Colleagues, I’m just the critic.

In my view, there is no excuse for this. There is particularly no excuse for this given the fact that what the government is now proposing to legislate in Bill S-7 is — to use Senator Boniface’s own words — already being done. What Bill S-7 does is take the previous internal policies of CBSA when it comes to the examination of personal digital devices and proposes to put them into law. Somehow, doing this took 18 months and counting.

In relation to this, I, again, want to quote the Alberta Court of Appeal:

We are mindful that protecting the privacy interest in an individual’s personal electronic devices while recognizing the need for effective border security will involve a complex and delicate balancing process.

There is not any complex and delicate balancing process at all in Bill S-7. Instead, what we have is merely a cut-and-paste of the existing internal policy of CBSA into law. That’s what I was told in the departmental briefing and in the critic’s briefing.

This is extremely unfortunate because there are very serious privacy concerns which are at play here, and I will highlight a few. First, there are the legal criteria that will be used to justify the initiation of an exam of a personal digital device. The threshold for that will be there must be “a reasonable general concern.” That’s a quote, colleagues: a reasonable general concern. CBSA briefing notes state that “a reasonable general concern” could be triggered by a multiplicity of indicators or such concern could be triggered by one more significant indicator. No specific contravention is required. The concern need only relate to a contravention of legislation related to the import or export of goods.

This means that the term “reasonable general concern” could, in fact, mean almost anything. Each of those words reasonable, general and concern are the lowest possible bar you can come up with. If the CBSA officer said a traveller looked nervous, that would be grounds for a full search of a device — not just for the bad guys, but for every Canadian who is subject to a secondary search. During debate last week, our colleague Senator Busson stated that “. . . it worries me that this bill will create difficulties for border officers to search questionable personal digital devices . . . .”

Yet, our colleague Senator Simons stated:

I’m worried that might open the door for searches that are more aggressive than they were under the regime of regulations that border agents were using beforehand.

In fact, colleagues, it wasn’t even under regulation, it was simply policy and there were no controls or protections for Canadians whatsoever.

Senator Omidvar stated that if a reasonable general concern is to be triggered by the behaviour a border officer notices, that is “. . . hugely subjective.”

I would agree with that since it is made all the more subjective because the triggers could be multiple indicators, which are not defined for us. Or it could be a singe indicator, again, not defined. Or as one of our colleagues correctly stated in the briefing, it could be racial profiling. It could be nothing. Colleagues, if a Canadian is pulled in for a secondary search, it could be for no valid reason.

What is contributing to the confusion is the fact that, as Senator Simons correctly argued, there is no precedent in Canadian law for the legal use of the term “reasonable general concern.” The government has rejected the idea of employing the more familiar legal term of “reasonable grounds to suspect” by arguing that this term is not appropriate for the border context. Here, I think we need to understand the specific legal arguments. The fact that the Alberta Court of Appeal apparently declined to impose a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in its ruling may support that argument. What we need to understand as legislators is precisely why that is the case and why the simple codification of CBSA’s policy is the best approach. We have had no explanation from the government on that important point and the question was asked directly to them. We can’t really be sure about what the term “reasonable general concern” actually means. As I said earlier, “He looked nervous” could be enough.

This issue will be examined in committee if we were to conform to the court’s guidance to “. . . devise a new approach that imposes reasonable limits on the ability to conduct such searches at the border.” Reasonable limits, colleagues. Reasonable limits, the court said. Reasonable general concern is, in fact, no limits. I believe that government has actually not engaged in such an exercise in drafting this bill, having pulled it directly from their policy. It will be up to Parliament; it is up to us, colleagues, to fill the void, all the while, operating under the pressure of the gap in law that the government has created by waiting more than 18 months.

In relation to the examination of personal digital devices at the border, there are fundamental questions as to how exactly officers will perform these examinations. We are told that the examinations will be determined by regulations — regulations which we have not seen and will not create.

Colleagues, as you know, legislation like Bill S-7 allows regulations to be made, but we will not have a say in those regulations because our role is simply to make the law that permits regulations to be made. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure fairness to Canadians in the question of searches while permitting the necessary searches to take place where warranted. And this must be greater than reasonable general concern.

In relation to these regulations, the government has indicated just two things. First, that when the officers examine personal digital devices, they will be obligated to take notes during such examinations. Second, that these examinations will be limited to material that is present or stored on devices at the time that an individual is crossing the border.

At this point, we know very little about the tangible protection that note taking will provide and how the limits imposed on material that a border officer may examine on a personal digital device will be governed. Will it include simple links to a website or files stored on the cloud, which, of course, would not be resident on a digital device?

What we want, in this context, is it to provide border officers with sufficient capacity to intercept obscene or otherwise illegal materials but, at the same time, give Canadians the assurance that their privacy will not be compromised where there are absolutely no grounds. That is the balance we have to strike.

In that context, I was told in the critic’s briefing that CBSA officers that search a personal digital device must first turn off mobile connectivity — or as it is more commonly called “put in airplane mode” — so that there is no access to material that might be simply accessed via the web and not stored on the device. Colleagues, if it’s stored and accessible on the device, it’s fair game. Indeed, that is what I was told.

Colleagues, here is a personal story. I was stopped at the border a number of years back. In fact, in filling out the customs form, I said I had $1,000 worth of goods. I knew the limit was $800, so I went in and said I want to pay the taxes and duties on the additional amount. I went in for a secondary search. They asked for my phone, and I gave them my phone. They asked me to unlock it, and I unlocked it. They searched through my Visa statements. I wasn’t aware of the policy, and I have no reason to be aware of the policy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but perhaps ignorance of CBSA policy. The CBSA officer went through my Visa statements and asked, “Where did you buy this? What is this? What is that charge?” So that was a violation of my privacy. They didn’t tell me that they had to turn it to airplane mode, which, of course, they didn’t do. I don’t think they do it in the majority — perhaps all — of the cases.

I asked Senator Boniface after her speech whether it would be appropriate for CBSA officers to also advise travellers to shut down their connectivity. Of course, I wasn’t advised. This might improve the confidence of travellers that their privacy is being protected, but also ensure that illegal material stored on the device is accessible by CBSA officers.

Senator Boniface suggested that we look into this at our committee study, and I believe we need to do just that because it is a critical element. We need to be sure that the regulatory process will be transparent and provide Canadians with the assurances to which they are entitled.

There are other questions on the provisions of this bill that need to be asked. One of the measures incorporated in the bill is a decrease in the maximum fine for interfering with a CBSA officer conducting such a search. Colleagues, it is proposed in the bill that it drop from $50,000 to $10,000 for a summary conviction, and from $500,000 to $50,000 for an indictable offence.

I am not sure how a significant reduction in fines for the smuggling of child porn serves to protect children who are subject to these heinous abuses. In fact, I’m not sure what this provision has to do with any of the purposes of this bill. Colleagues, if anything, offences for crimes such as this should be stronger, not weaker.

In the Senate, we have witnessed a pattern on numerous bills that have come before us with sudden, proclaimed urgency, often arising from last-minute panic associated with poorly thought-out measures or looming deadlines. Colleagues, we saw it more than a year ago on the bill for offshore health and safety. The government had five years to implement offshore health and safety regulations. They sought two additional years and were granted them in a budget implementation act. Then in Senator Ravalia’s bill, which was obviously introduced in the Senate, they sought two more years. We said “no,” and told them to do it in one year. That was passed unanimously in committee, in this chamber and in the other place.

We are clearly seeing the looming deadline in relation to this bill. In fact, the deadline has passed. I have not heard any argument that such an approach was unavoidable in this case. I don’t want to get too far off topic, but, colleagues, we have become so used to this occurring that many of us scarcely blinked when we learned that — by the way — today is the deadline.

The Court of Appeal of Alberta signalled 18 months ago that it expected a very different approach from the government. To reiterate, the court said:

We are mindful that protecting the privacy interest in an individual’s personal electronic devices while recognizing the need for effective border security will involve a complex and delicate balancing process.

Colleagues, I couldn’t agree more. It now falls to us in Parliament, as the court said, to devise an approach that imposes limits on the conduct of searches at the border but at the same time ensures that our border is protected.

Colleagues, we have seen that this cannot include loose definitions such as “reasonable, general concern” that have no basis in Canadian law and even less so in practice. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Wells: Senator Dupuis, you’re absolutely right, that’s what the Court of Appeal said. The new concept chosen by the government is “reasonable general concern,” and that’s what I have issues with because, to me, there is no limit to what might trigger a search. We’re supposed to be given comfort by the fact that we are told they’ll take notes. Well, the notes will be there to protect CBSA, for sure; they won’t be there to protect the individual, in my opinion. They will say the person looked nervous or that it didn’t appear that he was from Canada or whatever. He was sweating and fidgety.

I think that the bar of reasonable general concern — which, exactly as you said, is the new concept presented by the government, which, I guess, follows advice from CBSA — is too low for the protection of the individual’s privacy rights that every law-abiding Canadian should be afforded.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much. It’s so difficult to talk about issues of child pornography because it is such a grotesque and exploitative crime. Online child sexual abuse is a scourge in Canada. There is no one in this chamber who is in favour of it.

What I am concerned about is a question of balance and volume. Every day in this country, thousands of pieces of child pornography are bought and sold and traded online. The amount of it available online is practically infinite.

Yet over the last five years, from May 5, 2017, to May 5, 2022, Canada Border Services Agency seized 392 examples of child pornography at the border that came in on digital media, some on cellular phones and computers but others on hard drives, USB sticks, CDs and DVDs, that kind of thing. That’s 392 seizures in five years, not all of which are on phones and computers. Probably the minority are on phones and computers. I’m not sure.

It seems to me that we are potentially breaching the civil liberties of every international traveller for the sake of stopping a very small hole in the dike, while over here millions of pieces of child pornography are coming over the internet. I want you to tell me whether you think the abridgement of our civil liberties is sufficiently balanced given the minute amount of child pornography that is actually being detected in this way.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Senator Wells, you did speak a little bit about airplane mode. I don’t know if your phone is different from mine, but switching to airplane mode is just the flick of a finger. However, border officers can also flick it off. Then airplane mode is off, and they can go through your phone. You didn’t touch a lot on this. As critic of the bill, I would like to hear from you on this.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Moncion. You’re correct; it’s easy to do. Unlocking a phone is easy to do — the facial scan or, on some, the thumb print or simply the password.

From my understanding — and I think it was in Senator Boniface’s second reading speech, and indeed in one of the two briefings I had from departmental officials — you are required to give your password to unlock the phone. That is a requirement. If you choose not to give the password, then CBSA has the right to hold the phone and unlock it in whatever ways they unlock phones.

I can’t remember the exact term, but CBSA told me that their policy was that they would only search it in non-connectivity mode. I call it airplane mode, and, yes, it’s easy to switch it off. If they do that, then obviously they would be violating their own policy, as they did in my case. In fact, I didn’t even put it in airplane mode because I didn’t know that was a choice I had. I think it’s a fundamental right, and Canadians should be told that they have a choice, certainly if it’s under policy. If it’s under law, they may not have that right.

You’re right that taking it off airplane mode is simple, but their policy — and this is what they told me — is that their searches can only be conducted without connectivity. Taking it off airplane mode is very simple, and perhaps if we make an amendment to the bill, it will be in law that they have to be informed. I think that would be an amendment that would be worthy of consideration for the protection of the rights of Canadians.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Busson. You make an excellent point. This needs to be law as quickly as possible. I don’t want to say it could have been done 18 months ago, but it should have been done long before now, and I see no reason to delay the process of sending it to the committee.

Obviously, we all have a right to speak on it and that could take time. I don’t know if any of my colleagues that sit with my caucus are going to speak on it. I don’t think so — I haven’t been given any indication — but let’s get it to committee and give it the scrutiny that it deserves. It’s an important issue. It’s not something trite. It’s a serious issue that worst-case scenarios happen. I have no reason to want to delay it or to see it delayed.

An Hon. Senator: They didn’t like that tape.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Senator Wells, in your speech, you stated that Bill S-7 introduces a new criterion. That is the case.

You referred to the comments of other senators who criticize this bill for introducing a new concept. Wouldn’t you say that the study you would like a committee to carry out — and I believe it is important to carry out this study — should not focus on whether a new concept is being introduced?

The problem is not that this is a new concept, because it was the Court of Appeal itself that introduced it. When the Court of Appeal states that the existing concept may be too strict for the situation we want to address, the legislator could favour a less-strict concept that creates fewer obligations for customs officers.

The fact that it is a new concept is therefore to be expected, but shouldn’t we focus instead on whether the concept chosen by the government in its bill is legally appropriate for the situation we want to address?

We should also not be engaging in scare tactics. As new concepts are often introduced into new laws, should we not instead determine whether this concept chosen by the government is appropriate in the context we want to cover in this bill?

[English]

Hon. Éric Forest: Colleagues, I would first like to thank Senator Marshall for her speech and her comments, which are always relevant. I would also like to congratulate our colleague, Senator Gignac, on his maiden speech in this chamber. His experience will allow him to make a very valuable contribution to the Senate and to the Finance Committee.

I would like to speak briefly today on Bill C-8 to express my discomfort with the tax on underused housing. I would first like to point out that the bill to implement the economic update and budget tabled last fall contains several measures that I deem to be essential. I am thinking in particular of the northern resident tax deduction and the fuel charge refunds for farmers, although this does not apply in Quebec, which is exempt from this charge because of its own carbon pricing system.

Of course, I also support increasing the Canada Emergency Business Account, which saved many businesses during the pandemic by providing over $49 billion in interest-free loans with partial write-offs.

Finally, as you know, in eastern Quebec, as in many regions of Canada, there are several seasonal industries. I think it would be important for the government to renew the flexibility of Employment Insurance so as not to penalize seasonal workers. These transitional measures are essential, but I must say that this patchwork tinkering with the program frustrates me. I look forward to the end of the government consultations on EI reform so we can finally have a modern EI system that affords proper coverage to seasonal workers and self-employed workers, as well as other workers in precarious situations.

Allow me to digress for just a moment. I noted with interest that Senator Bellemare recently introduced Bill S-244 to strengthen social dialogue by establishing an employment insurance council where EI contributors could sit down as equals and discuss the level of coverage they wish to have. This proposition is a nice contribution to the debate and I urge you to consider it.

Coming back to Bill C-8, my problem is with Part 2 of the bill, which seeks to enact the underused housing tax act. Essentially, the government would implement an annual national tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property owned by non-resident non-Canadians. I share the objective sought by the government to reduce housing prices in this manner to make housing more accessible to Canadian residents. My problem is the way the bill is going about it. First, there is the regulation of housing law. That is a provincial jurisdiction that falls under private law, specifically, property and civil law, and, more generally, social policies and local affairs.

Furthermore, to penalize a practice that is deemed to be undesirable in the housing sector, the government is imposing a punitive tax on the value of the property. It is an area of taxation that, by mutual agreement, had always been reserved for local authorities or local governments. I would like to quote constitutional expert Patrick Taillon on this aspect of the bill:

I see two possible scenarios. The first is to frame the measure as a way of regulating housing law, which would likely make the measure unconstitutional because it goes beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament.

The essential character of the bill, its pith and substance, is provincial.

That is the most logical way of framing the measure. Ultimately, only the courts can confirm that interpretation of the situation, after the fact, and if they do, it will automatically lead to the nullity of the measure.

Otherwise, the second scenario, or possible interpretation, is to conceal the true character of the measure behind the tax penalty associated with this federal regulation of housing law. To do so would be to claim that this is merely a tax, setting a dangerous precedent. Introduced without the benefit of co-operative federalism, the measure would likely upset the delicate fiscal balance of the Canadian federation.

[English]

In other words, if the bill is interpreted as a new tax, the bill will be unfair. Without negotiations and the co-operation with the provinces, a federal property tax compromises our fiscal balance. Since Confederation, the property tax has been a local and provincial tool. It’s not a good idea to borrow this tool from local authorities.

[Translation]

As you know, history has taught us that once the federal government wades into an area of taxation, it never leaves. Senators will recall that, during World War I, corporate income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure. The same thing happened during World War II, when personal income tax was to be short-lived. You know as well as I do that these areas of taxation are still the purview of the federal government, even though its tax base is far greater than that of the provinces, which are grappling with exponentially huge health care costs.

I appreciate that the underused housing tax does not represent a significant source of revenue for the government. I object more to the principle of it. I have a hard time imagining how the federal government can meet its objective without interfering in an area of taxation that is already too narrow to meet the needs of municipalities, which have been handed an increasingly long list of responsibilities over the years.

As you know, it is well documented that municipalities rely on property taxes. Cities in Quebec draw nearly 70% of their revenue from property taxes, according to a 2018 estimate by UMQ. This reliance is exacerbated by the dematerialization of the economy. Online shopping, remote work and Airbnb-type short-term rentals all contribute to a loss of commercial spaces and a shrinking municipal tax base. Municipalities’ reliance on property taxes has adverse effects in terms of real estate development, which is often done at the expense of the environment, wetlands and agricultural areas.

I fear that by acting like a pickpocket, the federal government is depriving municipalities of revenue sources and accelerating the fiscal imbalance phenomenon I described earlier. In fact, the underused housing tax act does the exact opposite of what the municipalities were asking for in the municipal white paper presented 10 years ago by the Union des municipalités du Québec. At the time — and it is still the case — they called for tax and financial reforms to allow them to diversify municipal revenue sources. This request was based on the idea that the municipality is the most appropriate political body to meet the needs of citizens at the local level.

Furthermore, in this capacity, municipalities should have the jurisdiction and authority necessary to respond to the present and future needs of their citizens, the discretion to make decisions in the local public interest, and the means to put in place to respond to those needs. They should also have the autonomy to establish and finance these measures. Another thing they need is for higher levels of government to refrain from dipping into their local sources of revenue.

Ultimately, the UMQ hoped to obtain new sources of independent funding to allow municipalities to move away from property taxes. No one ever imagined that the federal government would dip into the tax base normally reserved for municipalities. The Union des municipalités du Québec wrote to Minister Freeland on April 19 to express its opposition to the federal government’s proposal to impose a tax on the value of underused residential buildings.

I would like to quote the letter:

On the one hand, the proposed tax would set an unfortunate precedent, given that property taxes represent the only significant source of independent revenue available to municipalities.

On the other hand, municipalities already have a competent and efficient bureaucracy to administer property taxes. Duplicating this bureaucracy would represent additional costs for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, at a time when municipalities are already facing recruitment difficulties in several areas. This measure would exacerbate this concrete issue that is affecting many municipalities.

According to the UMQ:

It would be more appropriate for the federal government to use tools other than property taxes to positively affect the housing market. Such tools could include increased investment in social and affordable housing, as was the case in the 2022-23 budget.

To conclude, I believe that the federal government is playing a very dangerous game by intruding into an area traditionally reserved for local governments. Even if the courts were to rule that the bill is valid, there is a risk that the federal government would compete with the very modest fiscal capacity of municipalities. We cannot forget that. At the very least, the federal government must have an ongoing conversation with the provinces on this issue and consider other more respectful and effective ways to address the country’s significant housing shortage.

[English]

At the very least, I invite my colleagues who will study this bill in committee to seriously consider this issue which calls into question the foundations of fiscal federalism in the country.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise on behalf of Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard to deliver her debate on Bill S-203, as she could not be with us today. She has spoken on autism spectrum disorder on a number of occasions in the Senate.

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder. This bill will call on the federal government to prioritize a national framework and develop a national autism strategy that will create long-term solutions for autistic people in Canada regardless of where they reside.

Today, I would like to share some of the impactful witness testimony heard during committee that has strengthened the bill, and I hope it will help this bill to be passed. I will also share the importance of reframing disability and autism with a strengths-based perspective and the importance of additions to the bill, such as intersectionality and inclusion.

During the committee stage of this bill, we heard essential testimony from self-advocates. Vivian Ly, the co-founder and organizing member of Autistics United Canada, reminded us that the phrase “nothing about us without us” is not just a saying; it is a call to action. This call to action is meant to be taken seriously and practised by consulting autistic people and including them in all stages of policy development. Senator Petitclerc added an observation that captures this call to action by urging the involvement of autistic people in the framework’s development stage.

Self-advocates gave compelling testimony and urged senators to consider using a strengths-based model for the bill. Vivian Ly informed the committee that the way language is used in this bill is based on a deficit model of disability. They shared that autistic people are not suffering because of autism; they are suffering because of “. . . systemic ableism and a lack of access, acceptance and supports.”

We must shift away from the deficit model towards a strength-based model that affirms and supports autistic people while addressing the systemic issues. These lessons are important for the upcoming development of this framework.

They are also an important reminder to shift our mindset for any future legislation we develop in the Senate that impacts autistic people or other people with disabilities.

Although I supported this bill in its essence to create a national framework, I believed that it needed to be more inclusive. We heard many times from witnesses that a challenge with legislation like this is that autistic people are a very diverse group, and it can be difficult to find the balance of making changes without excluding part of the group.

Inclusivity and intersectionality were important additions that ensure particular attention is paid to create equitable access to services for autistic people with unique cultural, linguistic and regional needs, while steering clear of being overly prescriptive. This addition should guide the development of a framework that considers the barriers faced by autistic people who experience intersecting oppressions such as racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism. Some people at risk of falling through the cracks are Indigenous peoples, especially in the North, or francophone Canadians who require services in French. I believe the changes made at the committee stage account for this diversity and will ensure that more autistic people benefit from the development of the national framework.

In addition to an amendment specifically indicating the necessity of consulting with Indigenous communities, some of the other promising changes made at the committee stage are ensuring:

. . . sustained, accessible and culturally relevant resources, available online and elsewhere, on best available evidence-based information to support autistic persons, their families and caregivers, including information on effective treatments and ineffective or harmful treatments . . .

Honourable senators, when I reflect on the rigorous process my family has gone through to secure a continued support network for my grandson, I saw just how easily people can slip through the cracks without adequate support. I know from experience the constant energy it requires to monitor the services available and to adapt the plan as challenges arise. Not every autistic person experiences the same level of support my grandson has received. That is why I continue to stress the importance of ensuring this national framework is as inclusive as possible and considers all the barriers this diverse group of people experience.

I am very hopeful for the future. Between this framework and the recent announcement of Canada’s first accessibility commissioner, there are positive changes coming for people with disabilities in Canada.

Bill S-203 has the capacity to create enormous strides for autistic people in Canada, and I support the adoption of this bill with the amendments and observations made in committee.

Thank you, asante.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Housakos and all of the committee members who studied this bill.

The autism framework proposed by Bill S-203 includes as one of its principles the provision of equal access to medical and financial supports. This bill would require the government to implement an autism framework including financial support for autistic persons and their families and support for caregivers of autistic persons. Poverty is a barrier to meaningful access to services, promoting injustices and inequalities that prevent too many people living with autism from thriving.

Testifying before the Social Affairs Committee, as Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard just mentioned via Senator Cordy, Vivian Ly of Autistics United Canada noted that 25% of autistic people in Canada live below the poverty line. In identifying a status quo of “state-sanctioned poverty and violence” against autistic people and others with disabilities, that creates a “school-to-institution pipeline and a school-to-prison pipeline” for too many economically marginalized youth whose families navigate barrier after barrier while trying to secure adequate care.

I want to dedicate the rest of my words today to Bev and her 4‑year‑old son Weston. Bev’s daily efforts to address systemic barriers starkly illustrate the observation of Autistics United Canada at committee; namely that siloed supports for those with autism and their supporters are wholly inadequate to redress the intersection of systemic ableism and economic marginalization.

Bev is a 39-year-old Métis woman born and raised in Saskatoon. She describes herself as a proud mother to seven beautiful children, aged 4 to 21, and kookum to a 1-year-old grandson.

This is what she had to say:

I am a survivor of child abuse, sexual abuse, [the] foster care system, juvenile incarceration, prostitution, domestic violence, drug addiction, I am an ex-gang member and have served time in a federal penitentiary. . . . I have survived intergenerational trauma. . . .

I was fortunate to have met a support system that believed in me, that wrapped me in services, held my hand and helped me face my insecurities.

I am currently employed at Métis Nation Saskatchewan as a Systems Support Navigator. I am also in my first year of studies at the First Nations University of Canada taking the Indigenous Social Work program. . . .

I am no stranger to advocacy, to demanding that my community be treated like humans. Fighting a system that is stacked against Indigenous, vulnerable, marginalized peoples and the voiceless.

. . . [W]hen I found myself fighting for answers, demanding treatments for my son, I did not know that I was going to be not only his mother but also his advocate and his voice. His quality of life depends on me. . . . Each path I went down, I was hitting barriers, meant for me to give up and surrender and accept that my son didn’t deserve proper treatment and therapies . . . because I come from poverty, we continue to receive mediocre care. I cannot accept this.

Weston was born on October 22, 2017, a preemie baby he thrived and excelled in his little milestones. At 35 weeks, Weston came home. . . . [A]t eight weeks old, he contracted a virus. I remember calling 911 at lunchtime because he had stopped breathing.

. . . It seemed as though almost every week or two we were in the emergency room with Weston having troubles breathing[;] each visit to the hospital we were given the same treatment, a combination of inhalers and steroids and sent home.

[When he was] 10 months . . . [a] specialist realized that Weston’s lungs were full of fluid. . . . Weston underwent surgery . . . [He] was on a feeding tube for four months and had a nebulizer and oxygen at home. Weston was drowning every time he drank or ate.

. . . I became more concerned when Weston was just a little over a year old and was not making any types of baby noises or trying to say any words. . . . [W]hen he played, he would line his toys up in a very particular order. When he ate, he did not like any of his food touching. . . . Weston was having meltdowns if a routine wasn’t followed or if we did something sporadically or spontaneous. By a year and a half, he was not making any eye contact with anybody, chose to play by himself, and did not like certain lights, noises, and places.

It took almost 2 years on a waiting list to be seen by the specialists at the Alvin Buckwald Center. By then, COVID was here. . . This meant that all appointments had to be done over virtual video calls.

In February 2021 Weston was diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and he remains non-verbal.

Let me enumerate just a few of the barriers to adequate resources and care for Weston:

Being a single mom with four children at home, working full-time. . . and attending university full-time, I am stretched paycheque to paycheque. . . . I cannot afford the $125-$350 an hour to seek private therapists for Weston. The recommended therapy time is 2 hours a week x 52 weeks. And currently there are waitlists of 6-36 months. Weston is currently in need of a behaviour intervention specialist; this can cost upwards of $500 per visit.

I cannot access services for Weston through Autism Services because I need to complete a parenting intervention program. Currently they are only offering this program during daytime hours at three hours a day for 6 to 12 weeks. . . . I cannot budget to lose three hours a week of work. . . . I was told that I need to prioritize my son, that if Autism Services means that much to me, I will find a way to make it work. I felt like I was [failing] . . . my son by not being able to commit to that parenting program.

Weston is a “runner” meaning he will run in any open space. I currently rent a home on the corner of a very busy street. I applied to the Jordan’s Principle to have a fence installed around the front of my home for the safety of my son and was denied. I put an appeal in in July 2021 and I am still waiting for a response. . . . [Weston] is currently enrolled in Project Lifesaver, a program that put a GPS monitor on Weston so he can be tracked by the Saskatoon Police Service if he were to go missing.

In October . . . Weston really needed to see a dentist. But because he would not sit in a dental chair and have a check up completed, I was told the only way he was able to have his teeth checked and fixed was to have him sedated and have dental work done that way. The catch was that I had to pay $3000 upfront for them to book the appointment. . . . I was at work . . . in tears after I got off the phone with the dental office and had no idea how I was going to help my son. My boss . . . overheard the conversation and started a GoFundMe page [and raised $3500] to have my sons’ teeth fixed. . . . The total was $3990. I still owe $440 for this visit for Weston. I am told that because Weston will require sedation for all dental work, that each visit will cost $3000. This is outrageous.

Weston is diagnosed with aspiration, meaning that when he swallows, fluid enter his lungs . . . which causes aspiration pneumonia and resulted in dozens of admissions to the hospital. There are no supports in place to assist with purchasing special bottles, cups and dishes to assist with his aspiration.

Because Weston has a very hard time eating . . . I am currently purchasing protein powder, [many] . . . vitamins, . . . and probiotics to help him try to be healthy. He is also lactose intolerant. There are no services in place to help with the increase of money needed to purchase these items.

Weston is diagnosed with auditory processing disorder. At first, we were told he was hearing impaired [and] . . . we had to purchase $3000 hearing aids. . . . [A]fter multiple appointments and no improvements I requested a follow up hearing test. I was told that this would take 18 to 24 months, so I paid for a private hearing test. . . . [W]e found out that . . . he can hear[;] he just cannot process the words or sounds we are making. Saskatchewan does not have any therapies that specialize in this disability for young [children].

Weston has been to 4 early learning centres in Saskatoon and was asked to leave all 4 centres due to insufficient staff to provide adequate care.

In 2021 I organized a fundraiser for Weston to allow us to purchase an IPAD and app program to help Weston with communication through pictures. This fundraiser raised $1200. I rely on YouTube and self-taught techniques to teach Weston.

Weston is currently attending a special-needs preschool . . . but with no access to a special needs kindergarten in the fall. I am being told that he will have to attend regular kindergarten classes with the hope —

— the hope, honourable colleagues —

— that we get connected with an educational assistant.

I have also been told that if Weston is not fully toilet trained, he will not be allowed to attend school at all.

Honourable senators, some of you will remember Bev. Bev was the one who coordinated the Faceless Doll Project that was donated to all of you. Bev is a smart and tenacious woman. Her challenges navigating disparate and inadequate systems are grossly unfair and highlight the urgent need for comprehensive economic, social and health supports that are accessible to all.

During committee study of Bill S-203, Autistics United Canada called for “cross-disability supports and services, and universal, equitable access to financial security, basic needs, housing, employment, education and health care,” naming in particular:

. . . basic income, universal pharmacare, housing-first policies and full compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The government has committed to implementing the Canada disability benefit, a form of guaranteed livable basic income for persons with disabilities. It has committed to implementing the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, including Call 4.5 for a national guaranteed livable basic income. These are the sorts of financial supports that Bill S-203’s proposed framework must incorporate if it is to make a difference for Weston and too many others.

Bev’s tenacity is remarkable. She proudly describes her son:

Weston is the sweetest, most observant, and kindest little boy. I have learned from Weston the true meaning of patience, understanding and I have a whole new perspective on how I view the world by watching through my son’s eyes.

Weston . . . is beautiful inside and out.

And I want you all to know that.

I honestly feel that my son does not get to have the opportunity to access services, programs, and therapies because I am low-income. He, unfortunately, has a mom that cannot give him a privileged life with unlimited resources and money to access [what he needs, let alone] the best of the best. Being an Indigenous woman brings so many barriers, we have faced racism, discrimination, and a lack of empathy during this journey. But I refuse to give up.

Colleagues, this bill is just one step, but without equitable access to all necessary supports, we risk continuing to leave behind those who need it most. Let’s not fail Bev and Weston and too many others.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe, for the third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, the following debate is on behalf of our colleague, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, who was unable to join us today.

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age). Thank you to our colleague Senator McPhedran and the Canadian Council of Young Feminists for their tireless advocacy on this issue and for bringing this issue to the Senate. Your dedication to young people’s leadership and civic engagement is admirable.

Earlier this spring, I had the honour of participating in a virtual round table on voting age and civic engagement with our colleague Senator Clement, the Deputy Mayor of Shelburne, Steve Anderson and representatives from Operation Black Vote Canada. There were Black youth from across the country present for that event. The message I heard was loud and clear; Black youth want the opportunity to engage in the decision-making processes that impact them. Being able to vote sooner would be incredibly empowering and engaging for young Black people looking to make change in their communities. I would love to see a future with more Black leaders in municipal, provincial and federal politics. Creating space for this type of civic engagement early on for youth is a promising start.

During this round table, young people shared their aspirations to be involved in politics after the voting age is lowered. They shared their stories and concerns on big issues like climate change, poverty, food insecurity, mental health and the impact of the pandemic on youth. Young people are faced head-on with these issues and are well capable to understand the democratic process.

Many of these young people feel disenfranchised because they cannot vote and are very supportive of the recommendation for the voting age to be lowered to 16. They talked about the fact that they are already making decisions in their lives that require responsible and critical thinking, such as driving, working and engaging in sexual relationships. Some of these young people are already stepping up to the plate by being the responsible adults for other family members. They believe that lowering the voting age aligns with their current realities and responsibilities as contributing community members. Senator McPhedran highlighted in her speech the evidence that supports the maturity and responsibility of young people, so I will not speak further on this point.

Black Canadians have historically been pushed outside of political processes since our first arrival in this place we now call Canada. The history of racism, segregation and marginalization has left us feeling unwelcome and disengaged in most public and private spaces. Given this long history, one of my main priorities as a senator has been getting involved in engagement sessions with young Black community members about leadership and civic engagement. I focus on strategies to build brighter, more engaged futures with these young people. Many young people are ready and willing to become strong leaders in their communities and just need an opportunity to be meaningfully involved in our democratic process.

The third pillar of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent is development. Given our long history of disenfranchisement from politics, I believe empowering young Black people to become involved in politics is a valuable component of that development. Many young people who attended the round table are already involved in local political campaigns despite being unable to vote for the politicians for whom they are campaigning. The youth in this session expressed frustration that they are not taken seriously because they are not yet of voting age. A lower voting age would give space to these young people to voice their opinions and reflections on critical issues. Making this change would allow young people to have a meaningful impact on their communities and their country.

Honourable senators, I am in support of Bill S-201. After having participated in this valuable round table consulting with Black youth, I have confidence that this bill has the power to mobilize Black youth — an important demographic who is ready to have a say in leadership in their communities. Supporting this bill is supporting a future of strong leadership and civic engagement.

Colleagues, Senator Bernard has thanked me, as she writes, “for generously delivering” her debate on this important issue.

Before closing, I want to add my support to hers of this bill and say that I, too, have done much consultation with young people across the country, in the North and with Indigenous young people. To Senator Bernard, I say “thank you” for her viewpoint. To Senator McPhedran, I say “thank you.” On behalf of Senator Bernard, I say “thank you, colleagues. Asante.”

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Third Reading, Order No. 4:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, for the third reading of Bill S-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, that the bill be read the third time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you for your speech. I’m quite open to the idea of sending this bill to a committee like the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I am open to finding a solution to this terrible situation. As you so eloquently said in your speech, the situation in Xinjiang demands draconian measures, and it was sad to see that this chamber chose not to recognize the existence of a genocide in Xinjiang last year. Even worse, it is sad to see that our government will not recognize that fact.

Do you agree that now is the time to act as quickly as possible, as a country and as a government?

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada. I thank the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for their due diligence on this very important bill. As I said in my second reading speech, I fully support Senator Black’s bill in establishing a food day in Canada. It is a great opportunity to share with Canadians the crucial role our local food sector plays in our everyday life. Whether it be fisheries, blueberries, apples, potatoes and more, they are a staple of our daily diets.

Colleagues, as you may recall in my second reading speech, I highlighted the cultural importance of local food. Please allow me to share with you some of the food initiatives from around the country in order to showcase how, as a society, we hold local food at high value.

In British Columbia, a clear-cut example is the Penticton Farmers’ Market in the Okanagan Valley. It is one of the most farm-to-city markets. Every vendor is required to make, bake or grow their products locally. They are part of a growing movement in B.C. that works to protect and enhance local and small-scale food systems. And I do have to mention the Granville Island Public Market, which serves as a local food market but also is a major tourist attraction.

As well, the farmers markets across the country are leading the way for local food security in our country. In Ontario alone, there are 180 member markets, and since 1991, Farmers’ Markets Ontario has been leading the way, advocating for markets with municipalities and potential funders to help ensure the health and sustainability of the markets and supporting the growth of farmers’ markets for the benefit of local farmers, local food and Ontario consumers.

Of course, every summer we see a host of festivals to celebrate food, such as Alberta on the Plate, the St-Albert Curd Festival in Ontario, the Grand Falls Regional Potato Festival in New Brunswick and so on. There are also important local food initiatives such as the Canadian Food Focus, an outreach initiative led by Farm & Food Care Saskatchewan. They host farm tours, community events, online activities, classes and seminars as well as share our Canadian food and farming stories, explore how food is grown and raised, share recipes and provide useful advice from experts to help people make confident food choices. Their goal is to improve food literacy and to build trust in Canadian food chains from farm to plate.

A concrete example I need to share, colleagues, is Little River Polyculture in Bathurst, New Brunswick. They are a locally owned microgreen polyculture that offers fresh products year-round to their community. They grow various greens for restaurants and residents: arugula, sunflower, peas, broccoli and the list goes on. Not only do they help in providing fresh and healthy products, but they recently set up the first hydroponic system at the local high school. The students are learning how to grow salad for their salad bar thanks to a local food initiative. Local food producers like Little River Polyculture become important social engineers for our communities.

The reason I am sharing the various markets and festivals, honourable senators, is to demonstrate that, with Bill S-227, these events won’t be happening separately from each other. Once a year, they will be linked through food day in Canada. We could maybe see further collaboration between various local and provincial food markets and festivals on the national level. Maybe there is a collaboration already that I am not aware of. But in a vast country like ours and with the social and cultural importance of food, they will all be celebrated jointly on one day.

Furthermore, before I finish, I do need to say a few words on the importance of food security. I trust food day in Canada will also be an opportunity to further the conversation on food security in our country and how local food can help us tackle the issue of hunger. In a country as plentiful as ours, we must strive to do better in reducing and eventually eliminating hunger. For example, according to Statistics Canada, in fall 2020, 9.6% of Canadians reported having experienced some food insecurity in their household in the prior 12 months. It is lower than the estimate of 12.6% from 2017-18, but I think almost 1 out of 10 Canadians reporting having experienced some food insecurity is still too high. Just here in Ottawa, the demand for food banks went up 20% in March 2022 compared to March 2021. That is significant, honourable senators, and it is important for a day like food day in Canada to celebrate local foods but also to recognize what more can be done to help those in need.

In a time when inflation is on the rise at the rate of 8.7% more for food purchased from stores on a year-over-year basis in March, everyone is feeling the tightening of the wallet due to inflation. Prices for dairy products and eggs rose 8.5% while butter grew at 16%, cheese at 10.4% and milk at 7.7%. Food day in Canada would be a great opportunity to have a conversation about food security in a time of rising inflation. I’m not an economist or a food policy specialist, but I am from a rural community, and in my experience, whenever a community supports itself through local food markets, the local farmers support the community. Everybody wins by supporting each other.

Honourable senators, as Senator Black said in his third reading speech, Bill S-227 is about people. It is an opportunity to bring people together to celebrate our local food, to show our appreciation to farmers and to say thank you. I support this bill and hope you will join me in supporting the establishment of a food day in Canada. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I am speaking today about Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff regarding goods from Xinjiang.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Housakos, and I am the critic. I volunteered because Senator Housakos and I both spoke in this chamber, at about the same time early in the session, about the issue of forced labour and the all-too-common human rights violations. A total of 25 million people are victims of forced labour around the world. We share this grave concern, but we have chosen different ways to respond.

Through Bill S-211, I have proposed a broad, step-by-step approach to combatting modern slavery by requiring companies doing business in Canada to report on the risks of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. Bill S-211 does not target any particular region of the world, although we know that forced labour and child labour is particularly prevalent in Africa and Asia. That said, no country on the continent is completely free of it, and we have had disturbing cases of forced labour in Canada, notably in agriculture and hospitality, and even among undocumented personal support workers working in Quebec during the pandemic.

Senator Housakos chose a much narrower and more draconian approach. His bill would prohibit the importation of goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region of China.

I agree with my colleague that the human rights violations against Uighurs are extremely serious. These violations have been labelled as “genocide” by the Canadian House of Commons and the British House of Commons, as well as by the European Parliament, the U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. President Joe Biden. I agree with that assessment.

[English]

In fact, the treatment of the Muslim Uighur minority by the authoritarian Chinese regime should worry every citizen in the world who believes in human rights. As Joanna Chiu writes in her excellent book China Unbound: A New World Disorder:

If its treatment of Uyghurs is any indication, China is willing to criminalize religious practices . . . torture and harass camp inmates, sexually abuse detainees, and illegally harass Uyghurs around the world. But the international community has been slow to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis, raising the troubling question of what the CCP might get away with in the future.

In addition to assimilation and detention camps, there is ample evidence that many Uighurs are forced into labour. The situation is difficult to quantify, as reporters and experts on these issues are prevented from entering facilities in Xinjiang. We must therefore rely on other sources to get a sense of scale.

According to a report by Australian Strategic Policy Institute, more than 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of the Xinjiang region between 2017 and 2019 to work in Chinese factories. Despite China’s claim that their work is voluntary, abundant evidence shows that their freedom of movement is very limited and that they are under constant extreme surveillance, with their families threatened and at risk of being detained.

[Translation]

Some major, well-known brands have been suspected of being connected to supply chains that use forced Uighur labour. The list of suspected products includes cotton, tomatoes, tomato products and polysilicon. These products have a high risk of being tainted by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. This region produces nearly half of all polysilicon, a material used to manufacture solar panels, and nearly 20% of the world’s cotton.

Unfortunately, as Canadian consumers, we all contribute to this exploitation. Cotton clothing labelled “made in China” is found in all of our stores, and this cotton is highly likely to have been harvested in Xinjiang, where more than a half a million Uighurs are reportedly being forced to work. Major brands like Uniqlo, Walmart, Zara and Sports Experts remain silent when asked to account for their actions.

CBC’s Marketplace uncovered some more alarming news about tomatoes and tomato products that are very likely to be found on our grocery store shelves. Consumers cannot make informed decisions about the tomato products they buy in grocery stores. Well-known brands like Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever are buying tomatoes from Xinjiang and processing them in a third country, like Pakistan, the Philippines or India, before reselling them.

Other situations around the world are just as appalling, such as children working in open-pit mines or on cocoa or sugar cane plantations, but the fact is that these forms of exploitation are not systematically organized by states. Governments may be often passive or complicit with regard to these situations, but the exploitation of the Uighurs was clearly orchestrated by Chinese authorities.

That is why Senator Housakos introduced his initiative in a very short bill that boils down to one sentence:

 . . . the importation of goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China is prohibited.

This bill was born of a frustration I share, because our own border officers are not enforcing the existing legislation, which already prohibits goods made by forced labour from entering Canada from any country in the world.

This amendment to our Customs Tariff Act arises from the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement, which has been in force for 22 months now. To date, Canada has seized one single, solitary, shipment of clothing from China suspected of being made by forced labour. By comparison, the United States has intercepted over 1,300 suspect shipments from China within that same time period.

According to the experts consulted by The Globe and Mail, Canada has not invested sufficient funding or made enough of an effort to enforce this law, nor has it put enough effort into gathering intelligence to make seizures.

Where Bill S-204 differs from the current law is that it does not propose seizing shipments that simply might contain goods produced using forced labour, but rather all shipments originating from one region, Xinjiang, assuming from the outset that these goods are likely to be the result of forced labour.

It is true that it is very difficult for border officers to distinguish between the two. There is no visible evidence that goods have been produced by forced labour. If the bill passes, it will also be important to ensure that companies, Chinese or otherwise, do not circumvent the law by routing their products through other intermediate countries.

What is interesting about Bill S-204 is that the importer has no way to prove that the seized shipment is not the product of forced labour.

However, on the face of it, such a ban seems contrary to World Trade Organisation rules, which prohibit discrimination and quantitative restrictions.

We could always justify the existence of Bill S-204 by invoking Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows for exceptions necessary to protect human life or health or public morals, for example, or relating to the products of prison labour.

Bill S-204 would completely ban all products from Xinjiang, so it could be difficult to invoke any exceptions. In this case, it would be up to Canada to prove to the WTO that the ban does not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.

Only one country so far has acted in a way that reflects what Bill S-204 is proposing. In the United States, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act passed unanimously in the Senate, and the law will be in force at the U.S. border starting in June. The U.S. law includes a presumption that all goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region are inadmissible. The law also states that businesses located elsewhere in China could be blacklisted if they profit from the forced labour of Uighurs. However, unlike Bill S-204, U.S. importers can rebut this presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that their factories and those of their suppliers do not use forced labour. If Bill S-204 included similar relief, it would no doubt be more likely to be deemed compliant with WTO rules.

The U.S. bill generated heated debate between multinationals that rely on China for their supplies, legislators who want the United States to take a firmer stance on defending human rights, and those who are primarily concerned about supply chain disruptions and inflation. Fortunately, defenders of justice and human dignity won the day, for once, against defenders of commercial competitiveness and low prices at all costs.

Human Rights Watch supports the U.S. legislation and considers it to be a powerful new tool for combatting forced labour. The NGO recommends that there be serious consequences for companies that cannot provide transparent information about their supply chains and forced labour in China.

Other countries are looking for measures they can implement at their borders to fight modern slavery.

In Australia, a Senate bill introduced in 2020 sought to prohibit the importation of all goods produced in Xinjiang, similar to Bill S-204. There was no consensus for this Australian bill because it targeted only one region in the world. A new version presently being studied would prohibit the entry into Australia of any goods produced with forced labour, no matter where they come from.

In late April, the British government adopted an amendment to eradicate forced labour from National Health Service supply chains.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Bill S-204 should be referred to a committee that can study and amend it, if required, to prevent it from clashing with our international trade commitments.

However, I would add that, at the same time, we should also reflect on the weight we want to give social and environmental considerations in our trade agreements. For decades — and even today — the economic imperatives of growth, competitiveness and low prices have often outweighed issues of human dignity and sustainable development. Ecological and ethical considerations, which of course include the revolting human rights violations in China, should never be partisan or ideological issues. We must therefore find effective ways to fight for progress. We must not remain passive. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Clearly, that is not really the goal of your bill, Senator Housakos, but, yes, I am one of those who believe that our foreign policy should respond to human rights violations, whether in China or elsewhere. I do not believe in targeting a country purely because of its regime, but I do believe in intervening when it comes to serious issues like human rights violations.

I am one of the Quebec women who supported the mission in Afghanistan. That debate sharply divided Quebec. Many pacifists said no, but I said yes. We had to intervene on behalf of Afghan women. In general, I am someone who advocates for intervention and, given all that we know about the abuses suffered by the Uighurs, we must speak out, especially now that our two hostages are no longer in China. Of course, there are also Canadian interests. I know this is a sensitive issue, but I am one of those citizens who wants Canada to speak out strongly against China.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.