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.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions. I would first like to thank Senator Moncion, who introduced this bill. A vibrant, world-class post-secondary education system in Canada is vital to our country’s future, to our productivity, to our international competitiveness, to the health of our society and to the success and well-being of our young people.

[English]

While the intention of the bill — to ensure financial stability for the post-secondary sector — is certainly laudable, how we accomplish that is, potentially, another matter. The bill asks the minister, in consultation with the institutions themselves — municipal and provincial governments, and groups and associations representing faculty, staff and students — to develop a proposal for federal initiatives to reduce the risk that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; protect students, faculty and staff in the event that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and support communities that would be impacted by an institution becoming bankrupt or insolvent.

You will not be surprised to learn, mainly because the bill’s sponsor mentioned it in detail in her speech, that the immediate impetus for this bill is the situation of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario.

In February of last year, Laurentian filed for protection from creditors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. It was the first ever publicly funded entity in Canada to do so. In the process, it fired 100 academics, cut 69 programs and, as one observer put it, “. . . shattered what it proudly billed as its tri‑cultural mandate by disproportionately cutting back francophone and indigenous offerings.”

As the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario pointed out in its report on Laurentian University:

Until Laurentian’s filing . . . the CCAA process had been used exclusively in the private sector. However, there are no restrictions in the act that limit its use by a government-funded and broader public sector institution.

Laurentian University, as the Auditor General of Ontario also flagged, is one of the primary post-secondary institutions serving northern Ontario, a tri-cultural — English, French and Indigenous — and bilingual post-secondary institution. Moreover, it is one of Sudbury’s largest employers, so, as Senator Moncion pointed out in her speech, its insolvency issues are devastating for the community. They are also devastating for its student body, 19% of which is composed of French students.

This is a tragedy for the community, and for all staff and students who are a part of the Laurentian community — that we can all agree on.

I believe Senator Moncion’s bill has flagged an important issue, but I also believe there is some room for debate around the source of the problem her bill seeks to address, and perhaps even the solution that her bill seems to propose.

In short, things are more complicated than simply a lack of or a decline in government support.

Let me begin with the problem first. In her speech, Senator Moncion placed the source of the problem squarely at the feet of the government. In Laurentian’s case, the Ontario government:

Despite the emergence of institutions by and for francophones such as the University of Sudbury, which has clear unified community support, governments have been slow to act.

For example, the Government of Ontario, she continued:

. . . took over one year to intervene in the case of Laurentian University and only intervened because it was compelled to. Laurentian University was losing its operational funding, which would have accelerated the actual bankruptcy. This waiting game lasted a year with the Government of Ontario.

Elsewhere in her speech she pointed out that, over the past 20 years, the portion of funding coming from provincial governments for the post-secondary sector has decreased, and federal funding has been stagnant since about 2008. In real dollars, funding of the official languages and education programs has been in steady decline.

I don’t doubt that, but also in decline are the number of francophones living outside Quebec. Statistics Canada projects that if present trends continue, the number of francophones living outside Quebec will decrease from 4% in 2011 to 3% in 2036. This decline will have an impact on funding as well, at least in some provinces. The reason for that is the provincial funding formula for post-secondary education differs from province to province. In Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec, core funding is related to enrolment levels.

As The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada 2021 report notes:

. . . the amount of funding an institution receives is mostly based on the number of students it has in different types of programs. . . .

In the other seven provinces, funding is largely historically-driven: that is to say that what a school receives in any given year for core funding is largely a function of what it received the previous year . . . .

This does not negate the point Senator Moncion is making with her bill: the need for stable funding. But it does illustrate how complicated the situation is, especially when you understand that education is the exclusive purview of each province, as we all know.

So we are getting into jurisdictional issues as well. While there are similarities in the education systems across each province and territory, there are also many differences in legislation, policies and programs, not to mention geography, history, language, culture and the unique needs of the population in each province.

Again, this does not take anything away from Senator Moncion’s bill. It may, in fact, reinforce it. But it also hints at the fact that the way forward may not be straightforward.

I would suspect that, at the outset, a federal government initiative in this area might be viewed suspiciously by the provinces and territories who — once the feds start down this road — may well, at the very least, want to add their own particular issues to the agenda based upon those issues I just cited.

Finally, I want to say a word about the specific situation of Laurentian University. As I mentioned before, Senator Moncion was quick to point out the Ontario government’s tardy and half-hearted reaction to the university’s dire financial situation. This may be true. But the situation was also not so cut and dried, at least according to what I have read.

University World News, for instance, reported that Laurentian was plagued by mismanagement for years prior to seeking creditor protection. Also, as a former professor at the university commented, “The university had been so non-transparent with their finances for so long, that it was like crying wolf.” As a result of that mismanagement, the university had accumulated a debt of $322 million.

Furthermore, it did not do itself any favours in this debacle. For instance, in May of last year, according to the University World News article, Laurentian requested a loan of $100 million from the government which, in turn, requested an independent third-party review of Laurentian’s finances. The university refused. That obstinacy continues today.

The provincial Public Accounts Committee called upon the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario to look at the university’s finances, and its report is less than flattering. After noting that given the level of government funding the university received, there was an expectation of transparency and accountability. The report said:

Unfortunately, our office has been denied access by Laurentian to information we consider absolutely necessary for the conduct of our audit work . . . In many instances, it has also declined to provide non-privileged information on the basis that to review documents to determine if information is privileged would be too resource intensive . . . Such a pervasive restriction of our audit work is unprecedented.

The report further noted that the university had created a culture of fear among university staff around interactions with their office.

I do not think the situation of Laurentian University is the best test case of the need for a bill like this. However, as stated earlier, I do worry that some will get their backs up about the jurisdictional issues that a bill like this may raise.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I don’t doubt the difficult financial situation in which our universities find themselves, especially in the last two years, because of the pandemic and the drop in international student enrolment. I support the idea of sending this bill to committee where it can be studied in depth. Thank you.