Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved third reading of Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill S-211, which seeks to fight against forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

I am relieved that this bill has finally reached an important stage in the Senate, given that its progress has been interrupted four times since 2018, first in the House of Commons and then in the Senate, due to elections and prorogations. In short, it followed the usual difficult path of any private member’s bill.

We must not forget that careful consideration of this issue started out in a House of Commons committee, which four years ago called for the elimination of child labour in the supply chains of Canadian-based companies.

[English]

I first want to thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan, who was not only the critic of the bill but the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights that devoted five meetings to the diligent study of this bill.

I was impressed by the diversity of opinions and the witnesses called. The committee heard supporters of the bill but also critical and articulate voices who wanted Canada to go further in the defence of human beings subjected to forced labour, including exploited children.

Here are some of the voices we heard during the committee study of Bill S-211.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports the objectives of this bill but feels it is too harsh in some respects and would like it to apply to fewer businesses.

Taking the opposing view, the committee also heard from Surya Deva, a United Nations expert who believes the bill should go further — in particular, to cover all human rights, to impose an obligation of due diligence on businesses and to give victims direct access to Canadian courts to obtain compensation from companies.

From a pragmatic perspective, lawyer and expert Stephen Pike said that he believes Bill S-211:

. . . is a reasonable, appropriate and evolutionary first step forward, using supply chain transparency reporting to . . . catalyze actions to address these human rights abuses.

I also note that World Vision Canada, an NGO promoting children’s rights with special expertise in child labour, also stated that supply chain legislation could begin paving our constructive path toward tackling the issue of child labour.

There was a clash of ideas, and the committee heard both the perspective of business and that of more committed activists. The comments received suggest that Bill S-211 embodies a certain compromise between the expectations of one and the other. By using the tool of transparency, the law aims to encourage companies to make the necessary efforts to prevent and reduce the risk of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains.

Members of the Human Rights Committee are well aware of the limitations of Bill S-211, but they supported this bill because it goes in the right direction. This is truly a first step, designed to raise awareness for all those who participate in the race to have goods manufactured at the lowest possible price all over the world. For companies that do not report or that provide false or misleading information, there will be penalties.

[Translation]

I thank Senator Gerba for introducing an amendment that clarifies and strengthens one of the most difficult issues related to implementing this transparency bill. What happens after the company removes the children from the production chains?

Several senators rightly repeated that a child who works can support an entire family. There is a risk that Bill S-211 will indirectly impoverish families, or that it will push children into lower-paying or more dangerous jobs in the informal economy. The amendment that was adopted adds a requirement for a company to report on the following:

For example, this might take the form of compensation for the affected family, including to allow a child to attend school.

Transparency legislation such as Bill S-211 requires companies to report on what it is doing or not doing to eliminate forced labour and compensate the victims. These reports are made public and become tools for human rights advocacy groups and consumers, so they can report offenders or simply switch suppliers.

The good news is that the movement has already begun. The committee was pleased to hear from Jennie Coleman, president of Equifruit, which trades in fair trade bananas. She explained that paying just a few pennies more per pound of bananas can have a direct impact on the working conditions of the children and adults who harvest them. I hope that I can count on the support of my colleagues in the Senate today in order to send this bill to the other place so it may continue through the legislative process and, who knows, maybe even get the government’s attention.

The Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Reagan, has just reiterated that legislation against forced labour is a priority for his government. He promised to review private members’ bills on this issue, including mine, before deciding whether to amend one of them or introduce his own bill. Whichever avenue is chosen, the most important thing for me is that there is a law and that it is passed as soon as possible. Private members’ bills are useful not only if they are passed as they stand, but also because of the pressure they put on the government to legislate without delay.

In my case, it was the first time I had ever sponsored a Senate bill. I learned a lot from Bill S-211. Over the two years that I have been on this journey, I have received valuable support from concerned citizens, advocacy groups, independent and Conservative senators, MPs of all parties as well as the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. This demonstrates the non-partisan consensus that exists regarding the need to combat these appalling human rights violations. Thank you to everyone.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise in the Senate today to pay tribute to hockey legend Guy Lafleur, who passed away last Friday.

It almost feels as though the earth stopped spinning last Friday, especially in Quebec. The news headlines are no longer about Ukraine, the 6% inflation rate or the next wave of the pandemic. There is only one subject that is getting all the attention, and that is the death of the Montreal Canadiens’ number 10, Guy Lafleur, who died of lung cancer at the age of 70.

Since Friday, the country’s television networks have been constantly running footage of the on-ice exploits of this gifted player, an extraordinary and spectacular goal-scorer who was nicknamed “The Flower” by anglophones and “Le Démon blond” by francophones.

Guy Lafleur was the last living superstar of the Montreal Canadiens, after Maurice Richard and Jean Béliveau. More than 35 years after hanging up his skates, Guy Lafleur was still the idol of Quebec hockey fans and revered by an entire nation. His personality, candour and great humility made him a larger-than-life character.

Tributes have been pouring in for the past five days and will probably continue until next week, when a state funeral will be held on May 3 at the Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral in Montreal.

Looking back on Guy Lafleur’s career, it is easy to see how incredibly talented he was. At 12, the young hockey player from Thurso was already dazzling fans at the Quebec City peewee tournament, where he scored 64 goals over three seasons.

In the junior ranks, in 1971, he had a season where he scored 130 goals in 62 games with the Quebec Remparts, in addition to winning the Memorial Cup.

As a Montreal Canadien, Guy Lafleur made history by scoring 50 goals or more for six straight seasons. He won all the individual trophies possible from the National Hockey League, and no less than five Stanley Cups, including four consecutive cups from 1976 to 1979.

By the way, he won his first Stanley Cup in 1973 with teammate Frank Mahovlich, whom several senators know since he sat here for 15 years.

Beyond hockey, Guy Lafleur was a major figure in Quebec pop culture. As far as I am concerned, he contributed as much as or more than Maurice Richard to motivating francophone Quebeckers to succeed in every aspect of society.

Since Friday, tributes have been pouring in for our hero, Guy Lafleur. I felt it was important to join in the accolades here in this chamber.

Thank you to Guy Lafleur for giving so much to hockey fans and to all Canadians. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to offer condolences to his wife, his children and his entire family.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, spring is usually the time when flowers bud and bloom. Unfortunately, last week, one flower was lost to us.

Guy Lafleur, known to fans as “The Flower,” passed away on April 22 after a battle with lung cancer.

The “Thurso Turbo,” as he was also known, played 15 seasons with the Montreal Canadiens, winning five Stanley Cups and topping 50 goals and 100 points for six consecutive seasons. He also won three Lester B. Pearson Awards, two Hart Memorial Trophies, the Conn Smythe Trophy, the Maurice Richard Trophy, and the Ted Lindsay Award. He played in six NHL All-Star Games, had his number retired and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Guy Lafleur touched the hearts of many people. All the kids talked about Guy Lafleur and wanted to be like him. Many Quebeckers of every age idolized him.

When fans saw his blond hair flowing behind him as he sped down the ice, they knew that something special was about to happen. Not only was Guy Lafleur one of the best players in the world, but he was and always will be a legend.

I had the opportunity to meet Guy Lafleur and to play against him. When the Canadiens Alumni team went to Maniwaki a few years ago, I had the honour of playing against my childhood idol for $1,000.

Fans lined up for the opportunity to shake Guy’s hand or take a picture with him. As it got closer to game time, some fans started getting nervous because there was still a long line of people waiting to meet Guy. All of a sudden, Guy stood up and called, “Don’t worry, the bus won’t leave for the arena unless I’m in it!” That was a relief to everyone waiting to meet their idol.

I’ve met a lot of beloved public figures, in different lines of work, but when I met Guy Lafleur, I knew I was shaking hands with someone very special, a living legend. I had never seen someone as famous as Guy Lafleur treat fans with such class.

He treated every fan like an old friend. He would show interest in them, which you don’t see too often. He would ask them as many questions as they asked him. Here was an athlete who was one of the best in his sport, who had won multiple trophies and Stanley Cups, but that day, he was just another guy. I was touched by this interaction and wanted to share it with you today.

Guy Lafleur inspired us throughout many springs, but this spring, we are asking him to rest in peace and thanking him for all of the memories.

I offer my condolences to the entire Lafleur family. Our hearts go out to them.

Thank you.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, today I rise to pay tribute to Nicole Gladu, who died of natural causes on March 27 at the age of 76. Her funeral was held last weekend in Montreal.

I didn’t know her personally, but everyone knew of her, and her name will always be a part of the conversation about medical assistance in dying.

Together with Jean Truchon, she challenged the constitutionality of the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion for eligibility for medical assistance in dying.

Ms. Gladu contracted poliomyelitis at the age of four back when there was no vaccine, but the incurable degenerative disease did not stop her from achieving her dreams. Despite post-polio syndrome, she had a very full career as a journalist, a union leader, a director of communications and more. She left her mark on Quebec and internationally.

Although her health was declining, she found the strength to fight with determination, and she won her case on September 11, 2019.

Despite her victory, Ms. Gladu did not avail herself of medical assistance in dying. She fought for the right to choose her end of life and to extend that choice to all people for whom existence would become intolerable, people like Mr. Truchon.

Ms. Gladu chose to live out every moment of her life. She left us peacefully and naturally.

In her obituary, Ms. Gladu paid tribute to her family and to all the friends and colleagues who remained by her side and supported her through the various stages of her life. I want to join Ms. Gladu in thanking them for their dedication, and I offer my deepest condolences.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the caregivers in Canada and recognize their courage, sacrifice and selflessness. I would point out that April 5 is National Caregiver Day.

I had the privilege of working alongside my patients’ caregivers during my medical career. Their support is crucial for ensuring that sick people can remain at home safely and that those in palliative care can die with dignity.

I salute all the caregivers in Canada. May Ms. Gladu rest in peace.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, and without affecting progress in relation to Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization:

1.the following committees be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of the following elements contained in Bill S-6:

(a)the Standing Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce: those elements contained in Part 1;

(b)the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources: those elements contained in Parts 2 and 3;

(c)the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: those elements contained in Parts 4, 5 and 6;

(d)the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans: those elements contained in Part 7;

(e)the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: those elements contained in Part 8;

(f)the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade: those elements contained in Part 9; and

(g)the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: those elements contained in Part 10;

2.each of the committees that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill S-6 submit its final report to the Senate no later than May 30, 2022, and be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting; and

3.the committee to which Bill S-6 may be referred, if it is adopted at second reading, be authorized to take into consideration these reports during its study of the bill.

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable, tabled in the House of Commons on April 7, 2022, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on April 26, 2022.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold.

As this pandemic has unfolded, we are coming to understand that the COVID virus has both immediate and long-term negative impacts on health. “Long COVID” is a phrase that has now entered our vocabulary. Early studies suggest that substantive numbers of those who contract COVID can develop long COVID, even those who had mild cases. Recently, I spoke with Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Peter Hotez about the need to better understand the emerging impacts of the neurodegenerative effects of long COVID, including higher rates of dementia, Parkinson’s disease and mental illnesses, to name a few. Others have raised similar concerns about negative long-term cardiac and vascular impacts.

Simply put, we are facing an anticipated deluge of serious and expensive health impacts of long COVID, including in children, and we have limited knowledge about its epidemiology, pathoetiology and potential treatment.

What is the Canadian government doing right now to ensure that we have a comprehensive, integrated national strategy to improve our understanding and treatment of long COVID?

Senator Gold: As I said, senator, the Government of Canada is working with national and international experts.

With regard to your specific question, I’ll certainly make inquiries and I would be happy to report back.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for Senator Gold. In 2019-20, a number of newspapers reported on serious revelations about partisan judicial appointments by the Liberal government.

The Liberals were accused of vetting judges using the Liberalist, a database containing confidential information on candidates’ interactions with the Liberal Party of Canada over the years, such as supporting the Prime Minister, participating in federal campaigns and, most importantly, donating to the Liberal Party.

It was also revealed that François Landry, an adviser to the Minister of Justice at the time, wrote emails to his chief of staff saying that he and other aides were being pressured by the PMO about judicial appointments. He said, and I quote:

What we are doing is similar to what led to the Inquiry Commission on the Process for Appointing Judges back in 2010 in Quebec.

We have now learned that Paul Rouleau, the judge presiding over the independent public inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act, had previous involvement with the Liberal Party.

Do you agree with the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint one of his friends to head an investigation that Canadians have been waiting for and that is specifically meant to be independent?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government has full confidence in Justice Rouleau. For everyone’s benefit, I remind senators that he was appointed in 2002 and has since been subject to rules of professional conduct that bar him from participating in any sort of partisan activities. What is currently circulating on social media is fake news.

The fact of the matter is that Justice Rouleau is highly respected both in Ontario and across the country for his work as a judge and also as a lawyer who defended the rights of Franco-Ontarians in such cases as Montfort.

The fact that the government has called a public inquiry led by a highly experienced, highly qualified and renowned judge demonstrates that the government is committed not only to shedding light on its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, but also to ensuring that we draw lessons for the future.

That is a long answer to a short question. The government firmly believes in Justice Rouleau’s integrity and impartiality and has full confidence in the inquiry he will conduct.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Gold, you and I both know that, in justice matters, the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as damaging as an actual conflict. The revelations I mentioned earlier raised legitimate concerns in the court of public opinion in June 2020.

The Trudeau government responded to the criticism by stating that it would no longer use the Liberalist, but recent partisan appointments show that it did keep using that list. In fact, a friend of Minister Lametti’s who made a campaign contribution was appointed to the bench.

In order to allay any suspicion that politics might play a part in the judicial system, and to enable the Senate to get involved in the process, would you agree to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs conducting a study to uncover the truth about the Liberal government’s appointment of partisan judges?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader, Senator Gold. Earlier this year Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, stated that he would issue a clear directive to Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, that Canadians returning home would have the option to present in person to border agents, including any required documentation, in hard copy rather than being penalized for not using the ArriveCAN app.

Senator Gold, Canadians who are arriving by air are still being refused boarding by airlines unless they have used the app, and Canadians still face financial penalties if they arrive at land crossings without having used the app.

My question, Senator Gold, is simple: Why has this still not been communicated to CBSA agents?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, I would like to ask a question about Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. My question is specifically with regard to tailings ponds in the Athabasca oil sands region where the dams have reached holding capacity.

The oil sands operators have accumulated very large volumes of tailings water with no proposal for their effective treatment or management. I recently had a meeting with Minister Guilbeault’s staff on this matter, and they were unable to directly answer my question on this issue.

Would you please clarify whether the harmful chemicals in the tailings ponds are considered and listed on the schedule in Bill S-5, and under what part? If these chemicals are not currently being considered under CEPA, what legislation would be most appropriate to address the issue of tailings ponds?

I will also say that I do not believe the answer is the Fisheries Act, as that would not consider the harmful and cumulative health impacts of tailings ponds on the land, the animals and on the people who have had to deal with this issue since 1995, the Athabasca region First Nations. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for the faith you have in me to actually be able to answer this better than the minister with whom you have had a meeting, as I understand. I’ll do my best to at least provide some context to the issue.

The government is working collectively with Indigenous peoples, industry, the provinces and stakeholders to ensure that we protect the environment as we consider strict regulations on anything released from the oil sands tailings ponds. I am advised that the government is working to develop strict requirements for treated water to be clean, just as the government has for sectors like mining and the pulp and paper industry. This collaborative work continues, or aims to continue, throughout the regulation process, which is estimated to continue to 2025 and will support a healthy economy and a healthy environment for decades and generations to come.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to state my unreserved support of Senator Omidvar’s Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets, with the short title “Frozen Assets Repurposing Act,” or FARA. I will vote in favour of it, and I hope you will, too.

I applaud Senator Omidvar’s perseverance in bringing this important piece of legislation back for a third time and for proficiently shepherding it through this chamber with the aim of seeing it move through the other place in a timely manner. This bill has great potential to help displaced and harmed people globally. It can also help countries impacted by state and non‑state aggressors alike.

In my life prior to the Senate, I worked in some places where I was forced to face some of the horrible impacts of war and see its immediate and long-lasting effect on the health and mental health of those who were impacted by it. I have been changed by those experiences and, because of them, I have come to realize that it is our collective moral imperative to do whatever we can to actively support those who suffer during the fighting and after the combat has ended.

Today I also speak as a son of Ukrainian refugees who fled to Canada after World War II, where they met and raised their family. They left their beloved homes separately, each facing horrific circumstances and a number of near-death experiences. Both lost numerous family members, all their property and most of their friends and neighbours. They, however, were the lucky ones: They were able to escape and rebuild.

Today we are seeing yet another mass exodus of Ukrainians due to the genocidal war of aggression waged by Russia against Ukraine, against people who were living their lives in peace, who were going to work, having children, planting crops, falling in love — dealing with the everyday joys and tribulations of their lives, much like those of us in this chamber were also doing at the same time.

Now, many have died, have watched family and friends violated and executed, have had their homes turned into piles of rubble and have been pirated away against their will to be imprisoned in a foreign land.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, over 12 million Ukrainians have fled their homes. That is over one quarter of the total population. Over 7 million people are internally displaced, and 5 million have left the country. Some of my family members have left. The women left with their children, and their husbands remained behind to fight.

Ukraine is suffering immense human and economic losses because of Russia’s brutal, barbaric and unprovoked invasion. We have seen many countries come together in condemnation of this terror. We have seen many countries provide much-needed military and humanitarian aid. Canada has contributed, and personally I am very appreciative of that and keep urging us to do more.

When this war is over, and the Russian invasion has been beaten back, Ukraine will need to rebuild. As we know, the cost of defending against terror and the cost of rebuilding of homes, infrastructure and the lives that have been shattered is immense. If quickly passed here and in the other place to permit rapid and effective implementation, the frozen assets repurposing act can be an important tool that Canada can use to help secure funds that are needed to support Ukraine now as it defends itself, and in the future as it repairs itself.

Currently, millions of people across Ukraine or who have sought refuge in neighbouring countries are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. We are all aware that Russia uses terror, torture and murder as part of its military tactics directed against women, children and those unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The immediate and long-term impacts of these horrors will need additional supports to heal.

According to the Embassy of Ukraine in Canada, Ukraine’s economic losses since the Russian onslaught are about US$600 billion. The cost of rebuilding cities — such as Mariupol, which has been largely reduced to rubble — has not yet been calculated.

To help with these realities, Ukraine needs massive influxes of capital. Funds are needed now and will be required post conflict. When this war is over, Russia will need to make reparations, but it is unlikely to do so of its own accord. NATO and other western countries will need to take steps to ensure that these reparations will be made. Through the frozen assets repurposing act, Canada can be of help.

I and many members of this chamber have heard this call for assistance from courageous Ukrainian MPs who have talked to us directly and electronically and from the Ukrainian Ambassador-Designate to Canada, Yulia Kovaliv. They see the value this legislation.

Honourable senators, Canadians across this land have opened up their hearts, homes and wallets to personally help. Many of us have taken part in that support. Recently, speaking in this chamber, Senator Batters identified a specific need and encouraged us to give personally.

Similarly, by passing the frozen assets repurposing act, we in this chamber can additionally respond to these needs and help the Government of Canada provide support.

There are frozen Russian assets worldwide that could help address the needs of Ukraine and the needs of many harmed persons globally.

Governments require the tools to access these funds. This is where the frozen assets repurposing act fills a gap. The World Bank has reported that there is more than $20 billion worth of frozen assets sitting in limbo annually. Imagine the good this money could be doing if accessible for those who could benefit the most.

Canada and its global partners have taken the steps in freezing funds of the Russian regime and oligarchs in order to apply pressure to end the aggression. Now we must turn our thinking to how these funds can be lawfully used, through judicial oversight, to pay for the damage inflicted.

I believe the process of freezing, seizing and distributing these assets will be well served by the measures laid out in the frozen assets repurposing act. Senators, I am cognizant that this is just one conflict currently raging in the world and that there are millions of displaced persons globally. Our colleague Senator Omidvar presented the plight of globally displaced persons well in her second reading speech. She also educated us about monies that are appropriated by various global bad actors through embezzlement, tax dodging, bribes and payoffs. Canada should not be sitting by anymore when some of these funds find their way to our shores. We must move forward in finding just, legal and transparent ways to seize and repurpose these funds to improve the lives of those most impacted.

Ukraine and Ukrainians are simply one country and one people that would benefit from our global leadership in the passage of Bill S-217. Once law, it will provide help where help is so pressingly needed and signal that Canada is a champion for those who are negatively impacted by unjust events and evil people, and that Canada is no longer a safe haven for ill-gotten gains.

I encourage us to vote unanimously in favour of Bill S-217.

D'akuju, thank you.

Senator Woo: Broad-ranging sanctions and sanctions that have very ambitious goals, such as changing the fundamental policy direction of a country or regime change, rarely succeed. What is very clear, however, is that broad-ranging sanctions have devastating effects on ordinary citizens and lead to long-term immiserising effects on the population. They can also produce boomerang effects where resentment against the sanctions, combined with domestic repression, create popular animosity against the sanctioning states. If sanctions don’t really work, should we bother with them? The reality is that governments are not likely to give up on their use, if for no other reason than a need to play to a domestic audience.

But if sanctions don’t work, and we continue to use them, they will no longer be part of the diplomatic tool kit, but will rather have turned into a form of economic warfare. And if we are in a world where sanctions are used unabashedly as economic warfare, this bill, for all its good intentions, will become a lethal weapon in that arsenal.

Senator Omidvar: Your Honour, I know that Senator Woo’s time has expired. However, with leave of the Senate, could I ask a question?

Senator Plett: No.

(On motion of Senator MacDonald, debate adjourned.)

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.

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, third reading of Bill S-211 marks both another step towards its passage and an opportunity for some of us to clarify our position on this bill. My position is clear. I enthusiastically support this bill.

Once passed, this bill will require Canadian businesses with revenues of more than $40 million to file an annual public report concerning their activities and the measures taken to fight against forced labour and child labour in their supply chains.

Dear colleagues, this bill fills a void in our legislation. A number of Western countries have passed laws to address modern slavery, but Canada has not done so until now.

According to UNICEF, 160 million children — yes, 160 million children — or almost five times the population of Canada, are currently being forced to work. According to the data, the majority of these children live in the global south, in areas of the world where poverty dictates disastrous imperatives such as child labour.

Honourable senators, I myself worked as a child. I come from a big family, as is common in the global south. I was born in a small village in Cameroon called Bafia, located about 200 kilometres from the capital Yaoundé. I am the 18th of 19 children. As a child, I had to fight to get anything, and it was so difficult that by the age of eight, I was already required to contribute to our household. I did chores, fetched water, collected wood for cooking in forests that were sometimes far away, and sold produce or other goods in small, makeshift shops.

Esteemed colleagues, most kids my age were required to do this kind of work. On top of that, girls had to be meticulous so that they would be ready for marriage as soon as they hit puberty, at around age 13 or 14.

I am sharing this to illustrate how in Africa, children were and often still are used for labour and as income-earners for the family. That is one partial explanation, at least, for the heavy demographic burden holding back the development of the continent, which is why additional measures are needed to strengthen child labour laws.

Colleagues, according to the World Bank, nearly half of the world’s population lives on less than $5.50 a day. In low-income countries, the extreme poverty level is $1.90 a day.

Many families in the global south have no choice but to put their children to work, no matter what risks these children may face. Bill S-211 must take these realities into account in order to be effective.

During discussions with experts at the Standing Committee on Human Rights, two interventions in particular stood out to me.

Equifruit President Jennie Coleman, who Senator Miville-Dechêne just mentioned, talked about the need for fair trade certification for businesses’ activities. This certification would make products traceable, from harvest to manufacture.

This certification would also help identify and verify the working conditions of the employees involved in a business’ activities and supply chains. If implemented properly, this measure could help detect and sanction businesses that still employ children and promote those that pay producers a fair price and take measures to remediate the loss of income to families. Such a certification requirement could not be part of Bill S-211, unfortunately, but I think businesses should voluntarily submit to it and the government should think of a way to create this type of requirement.

As an entrepreneur and business leader, I often applied for certifications, and I can tell you that it works.

During his testimony, Professor Surya Deva, a member of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, told us that because Bill S-211 focuses on the end result, namely transparency in the form of reports, its ability to prevent child labour will be limited. He believes the bill should also include preventive measures that will do more to fight forced labour and child labour.

That is the goal of my proposed amendment. As I mentioned, most of the children in the target countries work to help their families or to survive. This amendment acts on the first of the United Nations’ 17 sustainable development goals, which is to end poverty.

This amendment also touches on corporate social responsibility, not only in normative documents, but in verifiable policies, particularly in identifying any measures taken to remediate the loss of income to the most vulnerable families that results from any measure taken to eliminate the use of forced labour or child labour in its activities and supply chains.

Effectively combatting child labour requires that resources be made available to support victims and their families. An income equivalent to at least the income generated by child labour must be available. Otherwise, the phenomenon will continue in other forms or through other companies that are not subject to the law on forced labour and child labour.

I decided to support this bill for two main reasons: to reinforce the transparency that companies need to maintain in their activities, and to get them to identify the specific measures they have taken to prevent child labour in a concrete and public way.

I also wanted to support this initiative to strengthen the mechanisms that contribute to the tangible and effective respect of human dignity everywhere and for everyone. In 2022, the thought of an eight-year-old girl working herself to death in a textile factory or a ten-year-old boy going down a mine is unbearable. It absolutely flies in the face of our understanding of human dignity.

Honourable senators, we are a country that stands for human rights, a country that stands for fairness and social justice. We are a country that is concerned with the well-being of children. Many Western countries, such as Australia, France and Germany, have passed similar legislation. It is urgent that we catch up to them. I therefore urge you to support this bill to fill the legal void in this regard in our country.

I thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her initiative and her leadership on this bill.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved third reading of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets, as amended.

She said: I understand that other senators would like to weigh in before me. I would like to speak last and close the debate, if I may.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, we are giving our consideration to Bill S-217 at a time of great stress in the international system and, more importantly, great human suffering in Ukraine due to Russia’s invasion of that country. It is no surprise that many commentaries on this bill start with the deplorable war in Ukraine and use the fact of Russian aggression as the reasoning — indeed, as a kind of slam dunk — for approving this bill.

There is a case for supporting this bill and you have heard different versions of the slam dunk, including from our honourable colleague and my friend Senator Kutcher just a few minutes ago. But this is not a basketball game, and I have reservations about the rush to the net. I believe this bill is an opportunity for us to think more broadly about the role of sanctions and how we should make laws that stand the test of time.

I will start with a heterodox view. It is that the Ukraine war should not be the reason for adopting this bill. One could in fact argue that with Russia continuing to wage war in Ukraine, this is possibly the wrong time to be thinking about repurposing seized Russian assets.

Let me explain. This bill allows for the seizure and repurposing of assets frozen under our sanctions regime, namely, the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, and the Sergei Magnitsky Law as well as the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as FACFOA, which is not strictly part of the sanctions regime but closely related to it.

There is nothing in Bill S-217 that increases our power to sanction Russia. Every sanction that we have imposed on Russia since the start of the war has been imposed under existing authorities, including a raft of additional sanctions that were imposed while we were on recess the last two weeks. That is why we have hundreds of Russian individuals and entities on the SEMA. Any Canadian assets of these sanctioned persons and entities are now frozen. They cannot be spent, sold, traded, pledged or transferred. They are in effect rendered useless to the Russian owners of the assets. If there are any additional assets in Canada that we want to render useless to the Russian owner, we can do so without this bill.

What Bill S-217 does is to give the Governor-in-Council the power to take the next step by seizing and repurposing the assets for ends to be proposed by the Governor-in-Council and approved by the courts. The goal of Bill S-217, in other words, is not to increase sanctions as such; it is to provide for justice, restitution and a measure of retribution. Some will argue that repurposing assets adds to the deterrent effect of sanctions, but it doesn’t. Any deterrent effect on the sanctioned individual or to a would-be corrupt oligarch has already taken place through the primary action of freezing the asset.

Colleagues, justice and restitution are important objectives, but so is the objective of inducing a change in behaviour. The latter is in effect the classical motivation for imposing a sanction. A sanctioned asset that is frozen has the potential for the asset to be returned to the owner if that person changes his or her behaviour in accordance with the objective of the sanction. On the other hand, a sanctioned asset that is repurposed removes any incentive for the owner to change.

Which brings us to Russia and why we should not be thinking about Bill S-217 as immediately applicable to Moscow’s ongoing aggression.

If it came down to a choice between (a), the current sanctions on Russian oligarchs having a positive effect in changing the course of war and reducing human suffering in Ukraine or, (b), removing the incentive for Russian oligarchs to influence a change of direction in Moscow, I would choose (a) in a nanosecond. We might chafe at the thought that the oligarchs are getting back their assets that they likely obtained through massive corruption and, possibly, human rights violations, but we should be clear that the recent sanctions on these oligarchs were specifically for the purpose of inducing them to put pressure on President Putin to stop the war, not for their previous activities.

I don’t know how oligarchs think, but I have to imagine that Roman Abramovich’s feverish efforts at informal diplomacy with Ukrainian interlocutors have something to do with the sanctions on his fancy homes, boats, clubs, companies and cash. Would he cease such efforts if there were no longer any prospect of retrieving his frozen wealth?

That is why I believe we should be thinking about Bill S-217 not in terms of how it is going to be useful in the Ukraine crisis, but in the broader terms of what we want from a sanctions regime.

As I intimated earlier, sanctions are imposed for a mixture of reasons, including domestic politics, to punish bad acts, as an inducement to change behaviour and as a deterrent to would-be bad actors.

Bill S-217 is consistent with the first two objectives, but it runs counter to the third and fourth.

For this reason, I proposed in committee a set of amendments that would have limited the scope of Bill S-217 to only one of the three acts referenced in the bill. The amendment was defeated, and I am not going to reintroduce it at third reading. However, I will state for the record that in our zeal to connect Bill S-217 with the Ukraine war, we risk muddying some important principles in the use of sanctions and in diplomacy more generally.

For example, Bill S-217 will apply to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or FACFOA, even though FACFOA is not actually part of the sanctions regime. It is, rather, a tool for mutual legal assistance and cooperation between Canada and a requesting country to repatriate improperly obtained assets from that requesting country through negotiation. It is inappropriate to impose a unilateral asset repurposing function on FACFOA, which should be about Canada working cooperatively with the requesting country.

In situations where the affected country is run by a regime that Canada simply cannot work with, it is preferable, in my opinion, to sequester the assets until such time as an acceptable regime is returned to power than to repurpose the assets unilaterally.

Bill S-217 will also apply to the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, which covers sanctions that Canada has chosen to impose on foreign states, persons or entities outside of a UN Security Council resolution. SEMA is very much a tool of Canadian foreign policy and is typically used in conjunction with diplomacy and other tools of statecraft. In this sense, a major but not exclusive objective of SEMA sanctions is to try and induce behaviour change, which is why it explicitly leaves open the possibility of reversing the sanction.

Did you know that a SEMA sanction can be amended or revoked by a motion signed by at least 50 members of the House of Commons and at least 20 members of the Senate? A SEMA sanctioned asset that is repurposed under Bill S-217 would render useless the behaviour change objective and, I believe, reduce the number of tools in our diplomatic tool kit.

On the other hand, Bill S-217 is well suited for the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky Law, since this act is very much about punishing bad actors. As the formal title of the act suggests, the goal of this legislation is to restore “justice for victims of corrupt officials.” Behaviour change does not appear to be an objective of Magnitsky. Hence, Bill S-217 is not only appropriate for assets frozen under Magnitsky, it is in fact the logical extension of that bill.

To the extent that you agree with my reasoning, we can take some comfort that the inclusion of FACFOA and SEMA in Bill S-217 — assuming it passes — does not compel the Governor-in-Council to repurpose any frozen assets, but only gives them the option of doing so. In other words, Bill S-217 is permissive, not obligatory.

Supporters of this approach would argue that we should trust the government of the day to not be imprudent in seizing and repurposing assets that may be better left frozen in the hope of inducing behaviour change. Perhaps. But already we see the near unanimous sentiment among politicos, opinion leaders and chattering classes that Bill S-217 is needed now because of Russian aggression. That would suggest to me that, at the very least, there will be public pressure to quickly sell off the assets of Russian oligarchs that are currently frozen under our sanctions regime — never mind that those assets are already rendered useless to the owners — and that the stated intention of the sanctions in the first place was to induce the oligarchs to persuade Putin to stop the war.

There is a deeper problem, which gets at the question of how we as senators should think about legislation and how we craft bills that can stand the test of time rather than responding to the emotions of the moment. It is that we should not be giving powers to the government that don’t properly belong in a piece of legislation, even if those powers are permissive as opposed to obligatory. It is possible that the Governor-in-Council will use the permissiveness we grant it through Bill S-217 in a judicious and beneficial way. It is also possible that the Governor-in-Council will use it poorly, swayed by public emotion rather than by broader and longer-term objectives. The proper question is whether a measure such as the power to repurpose assets is consistent with the purposes of the bills to which that power applies. A permissive approach simply means things could go right or they could go very wrong. That is why I believe that while Bill S-217 is consistent with the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the fit with SEMA and FACFOA is too awkward to even allow for permissiveness.

Some of you will be thinking about the repurposing of sanctioned assets in a different way, which is the question of how to pay for the costs imposed on victims of corruption and human rights abuses and on forcibly displaced persons, which is a special focus of Bill S-217. Regardless of the deterrent or compellence objectives of a sanctions regime, somebody has to pony up the costs of rebuilding cities that have been levelled; food, clothing and medical supplies for a war-ravaged population; resettlement of displaced persons in new communities and compensation for survivors of war. Why should we not seize the assets of perpetrators to pay for these very real and very substantial costs?

Recently in the United States, President Biden issued an executive order to seize Afghanistan’s $7 billion-plus foreign reserves that are held in America. Half the amount will be distributed as compensation for the American victims of 9/11 and the other half will be put towards humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan directed by the United States. None of the money will be returned to the Taliban government with whom the United States negotiated a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This action provides a form of justice, restitution and retribution and is consistent with the public mood in the United States after 20 years of a failed war in Afghanistan and the lingering effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is, however, rough justice at best and will surely mean more misery for the people of Afghanistan whose economy has effectively collapsed because of ongoing sanctions.

It is important to state that Bill S-217 would not allow Canada to do something similar with Russian central bank assets held in our country. The reason is not because the Russian central bank is not sanctioned under SEMA — it is — but rather because Bill S-217 only allows for the repurposing of assets owned by individuals and not by entities. The exclusion of entities is curious since it means that Bill S-217 will not apply to the vast majority of sanctioned assets under SEMA. I am actually happy to leave it that way, but I’m also certain that it will not take long before there is pressure to also include entities under Bill S-217 because of the immense desire to punish all of Russia and not just its leaders and oligarchs. Mark my words.

Proponents of the bill will counter that the rule-of-law process under Bill S-217 guards against wanton acts of asset repurposing because the court has a role in approving any orders issued by the Governor-in-Council. I think, however, that a court would be hard pressed to disagree with an order by government to seize assets on grounds that have to do with international peace and security and which will surely be couched in all manner of privileged and classified information. In such situations, I fear the court will be largely a rubber stamp dressed up as the rule of law.

If we truly believe in the importance of international law, the proper forum for compensation claims arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a war crimes and reparations commission, not unlike the aftermath of the two world wars — of course drawing on the lessons learned from those experiences. Russia must pay for the carnage wreaked on Ukraine, but that should be done in a way which makes a meaningful difference to reconstruction and resettlement while allowing for a durable peace.

Does the above mean we do nothing? No. If you agree that a seized asset is rendered useless to the owner even without repurposing, then we should focus on seizing more assets rather than on how to repurpose the assets. In that way, we continue to add pressure on the belligerent without giving up on the compellence objective of the sanction and without compromising the deterrent effect. That is, in fact, what is happening as the war drags on — without the necessity of Bill S-217.

The bigger question, of course, is whether sanctions even work. Scholarship on this question suggests the success rate is in the range of 20% and that success is more likely for sanctions that are very targeted and modest in scope.