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. 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.

Senator Woo: May I have a minute to finish?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Woo is asking for a minute to finish his speech.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 7:59 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you today from the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people at my home in Riverview, New Brunswick. I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

My sincere thanks to Senator Mary Jane McCallum for her leadership on this bill and for always educating and reminding us of the needs for acts of reconciliation.

The purpose of my brief speech is to offer support and endorsement of this important bill. I have discovered how very little many of us know about the historical events and the culture of Indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada. I am truly grateful to be in this place and to have ongoing opportunities to expand my knowledge.

As a woman, I recognize the need to honour women through rituals and celebrations that speak to them in various ways. I believe Bill S-219 encourages and clearly provides opportunities for women and girls to wear their ribbon skirts to celebrate their culture. It also provides an opportunity for education, decolonization and reconciliation. The preamble of this bill states that:

Whereas Indigenous women are life-givers and are entrusted with traditional knowledge to care for their families, their communities and the environment;

Whereas the ribbon skirt is a centuries-old spiritual symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival and is a way for women to honour themselves and their culture . . .

But first, I want to share with you that I was especially touched by the testimony of one of our committee witnesses, Isabella Kulak, an 11-year-old girl from Cote First Nation, Saskatchewan, who shared her story about her experience of wearing her ribbon skirt for school for her formal day.

She told us that when she woke up she was so proud and excited to wear her skirt that day; she couldn’t wait to get to school. However, when she got to school, she was ridiculed by an educational assistant who told her that her outfit wasn’t formal wear.

Of course, this was deeply upsetting for Isabella. However, with encouragement from her parents, Isabella turned this experience into a positive outcome. She began speaking out publicly and gained a lot of support and recognition on the importance of honouring and wearing a ribbon skirt.

Her compelling story was heartbreaking as I thought about how many young girls like Isabella may have their self-esteem quickly diminished by a single act. Anouk Bella, my 11-year-old granddaughter, reminded me of Isabella. These are precious young girls with big hearts and passionate ideas. Isabella used her voice and became a young leader, speaking out about her experience, and helped many to understand the value of wearing a ribbon skirt.

What could have been a devastating event was turned into a positive result by Isabella. I do believe that Bill S-219 will provide opportunities to honour these women and girls who have been so often silenced. This could be even more difficult for marginalized First Nations girls and women who were affected by intergenerational trauma and their voices have not been heard.

As I researched more about ribbon skirts, I found interesting articles from across Canada and I will share a few of the highlights with you.

Indigenous ribbon skirts have become a permanent fixture in many parts of Canadian society. The resurgence of Indigenous ribbon skirts have different meanings for the women who wear them. For example, in Western Canada, Suzanne Life-Yeomans, Chair of the First Nations Women’s Council on Economic Security and a member of the Alberta Joint Working Group on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stated that her mother lost her Indigenous culture due to residential schools and the Sixties Scoop:

. . . when I wear my ribbon skirt it is healing my spirit and connecting me to Mother Earth. I hope to help other Indigenous people to be proud of their culture and to embrace the teachings around making and wearing ribbon skirts

Georgina Lightning, a First Nations film director, screenwriter and actress, stated:

. . . wearing a ribbon skirt symbolizes great strength, pride and hope in a better tomorrow as we stand united to speak out for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and all future generations to come.

I was so pleased to find some examples in Eastern Canada as well.

Annie Bernard-Daisley, the first female chief of We’koqma’q First Nation in Nova Scotia, spoke about how:

. . . a ribbon skirt makes you feel empowered, and you’re not just wearing a skirt, you’re wearing your culture and your traditional beliefs and what we are as Mi’kmaq women. It’s an expression of our history, our resilience, and especially . . . what you stand for . . . .

Before becoming chief, she worked with the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association around advocacy work. Her ribbon skirt was created by Candia Flynn from Healing Stitches to reflect the things the chief holds dearest: her role as a mother of three daughters; her advocacy work for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls; and her family roots.

On March 6, 2022, the CBC reported a story from Fort Folly First Nation, just 30 kilometres from my home here in New Brunswick. The report spoke at a new regalia-lending library in Fort Folly First Nation, New Brunswick that is providing access to cultural attire for anyone who needs to borrow it, or they can teach them how to make their own.

Nicole Porter, who works as a cultural coordinator and is the project lead, explained how it works. The idea of the lending library seemed important as her community was seeing a resurgence of cultural interest and the need to access regalia for ancestral ceremonies or sweat lodges, where women may be required to wear ribbon skirts.

Not only does Nicole have skirts to lend, she also teaches women how to make them. She said reducing, reusing and recycling is a big part of the project.

Laura Lymburner learned how to make her own ribbon skirt from Nicole and she said that it:

. . . really helped provide me with a sense of my role as a woman in my community, that we are sacred, that we are powerful and it’s really tying the culture back to me, through this skirt.

In closing, I want to share an inspiring story about Agnes Woodward, a Plains Cree seamstress from Kawacatoose First Nation in Saskatchewan who now lives in North Dakota.

Through her business, ReeCreeations, she designs and sells ribbon skirts. Woodward says:

The skirt is mostly about representation, and how Indigenous women choose to represent ourselves. That’s why they’re so important today, because their voice has been taken away.

Agnes had the great honour to make a ribbon skirt for the first Indigenous cabinet Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland of the United States, for her swearing-in ceremony. That moment was historic by so many standards, because the first female U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, was swearing in the first Indigenous Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland. Deb’s beautiful royal blue skirt, wrapped in a rainbow of satin ribbons overlaid with an artful corn stalk, deep blue butterflies and stars, had been carefully crafted by Agnes Woodward from Canada.

Back in Canada, that ceremony was deeply appreciated by many, including Chief Annie Bernard-Daisley, who watched the swearing-in with a group of women from Nova Scotia. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house.

Those kinds of events and connections are so important, especially to show young girls the role models that are possible. There are so many stories that I found so interesting on this subject.

Dear colleagues, the ribbon skirt has great power and agency in moving toward reconciliation and greater equality for Indigenous women and girls. Let it be a beginning by offering support to this important bill. Welalioq.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I am speaking today at third reading of Bill S-219, an Act Respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

I am going to begin by describing the origins of the ribbon skirt, which is the subject of the bill. The ribbon skirt appears to date back to the 18th century when relationships between Great Lake tribes and French settlers expanded. The practice of incorporating ribbons into Indigenous clothing seems to have become widespread after silk fell out of fashion following the French Revolution. At that time, more goods, including ribbons, were exchanged. Indigenous clothing makers in the Great Lakes and Prairie regions began to use the colourful silk ribbons in their work.

However, there is evidence that ribbons were used in Indigenous art work much earlier. In the east, 17th century Mi’kmaq women began replacing hides and furs that made up their clothing with cloth that they occasionally decorated with glass beads and silk ribbon appliqué.

According to the Milwaukee Public Museum:

The first recorded instance of ribbonwork appliqué was on a Menominee wedding dress made in 1802. Ribbonwork reached its peak in the last quarter of the 19th century, having moved out from its epicenter in the Great Lakes to several tribes in the Prairies, Plains, and Northeast.

Although the materials used to make ribbon skirts are not native in origin, the method of appliqué used to make the folded look of the ribbon has become a visual marker of identity for centuries.

Senator McCallum, in testifying at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, referred to a Métis elder who spoke about the significance of the shape of the skirt:

She says it’s like a teepee you wear as you’re walking, because it tapers at your waist. As you’re walking over the earth and wearing the skirt, it signifies protecting the Earth and connecting with her at the same time. It’s those kinds of teachings people will seek out as they move towards this conversation about the origin of the ribbon skirt.

It is important to recognize that the ribbon skirt holds a great significance to Indigenous communities and to the women who wear them. The ribbon skirt represents strength, resilience, cultural identity and womanhood. That background is necessary to understand the significance of an incident that occurred in Saskatchewan on December 18, 2020. While you have heard the story a number of times previously — and in addition to Senator Hartling a few minutes ago — it’s a story of inspiration that deserves retelling.

It is the story of Isabella Kulak, a 10-year-old First Nation’s girl from the Cote First Nation in Saskatchewan. On December 18, 2020, Isabella’s school sponsored a formal day. Isabella proudly wore a traditional ribbon skirt. Unfortunately, Isabella was shamed by an educational assistant who was unaware of the significance of the ribbon skirt. Sadly, Isabella removed her ribbon skirt, placing it in her backpack. When she returned home, she told her parents what had happened.

As details of the incident became known, Isabella received support from her community and from around the world. As Isabella said at the Aboriginal People’s Committee: “It’s like the world woke up.”

The following month, on January 4, 2021, Isabella returned to her school for the first time since the incident, accompanied by her nation’s leadership and many women in her community, all of whom walked her to school wearing their own ribbon skirts, hence the significance of establishing January 4 as national ribbon skirt day.

On January 4, 2022, Isabella’s school celebrated their first Ribbon Skirt Day as an act of reconciliation and education, and encouraged other students from other nationalities to wear something that represented who they are. As Isabella said, “It turned out to be the best day ever.”

Last month on March 21, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met to study Bill S-219, an Act Respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day. Bill S-219 conveys to us the importance of ribbon skirts, educates us and provides us with the opportunity to learn more about Indigenous cultures and heritage.

Lisa J. Smith, a senior director at the Native Women’s Association of Canada, said during a committee meeting studying the bill that:

Indigenous culture must be celebrated in the way that Isabella demonstrated. . . . there are currently no federally recognized days of celebration of Indigenous culture during winter. NWAC submits that recognizing January 4 as national ribbon skirt day will be a welcome means to advance reconciliation.

. . . this is truth and reconciliation in action. . . .

As Senator McCallum said during her testimony at a committee meeting:

. . . having January 4 of each year set aside to recognize the ribbon skirt is fundamentally both an action of reconciliation and conciliation. It not only upholds and honours a highly important cultural item for many Indigenous people in Canada but simultaneously acknowledges and values our self-determination.

Before I conclude, I would like to reference the Pope’s historic apology of April 1, which received much media coverage. There were a number of videos on media sites showing women wearing ribbon skirts, while another site had a photo gallery that also included photos of women wearing ribbon skirts. I would not have recognized the ribbon skirt had it not been for this bill.

Bill S-219 proposes to establish January 4 as national ribbon skirt day. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Mercer: Senator, it seems to me that this is an opportunity for us to continue to engage Canadians in defence of our very important agricultural sector.

Would this not be an opportunity to educate Canadians to ask their grocers why they have products on the shelves that are from elsewhere when there are products available being grown here in Canada?

I am the grocery shopper in my house, so excuse me if I get too detailed. I go in to buy cherry tomatoes for my recipes at home. I always read the label; I see Mexico and the southern parts of the United States. In this country, there are some huge greenhouses, for example just north of Trois-Rivières in Quebec; there is a huge greenhouse there that is about the size of five Canadian football fields. All they grow is cherry tomatoes.

When I go to the Sobeys store in Nova Scotia and I pick up cherry tomatoes, I seek out the produce manager and ask, “Why are you selling me Mexican cherry tomatoes when they are available from Quebec or Prince Edward Island, where a lot of cherry tomatoes grow?”

Isn’t this an opportunity, having a food day in Canada, to call our fellow citizens to the battle in making sure that our grocers are not taking the lazy way out and buying food from other places when there is a product being grown right here?

Senator Black: Senator Mercer, thank you for that question. The short answer is absolutely, yes.

I’m hopeful that a food day in Canada celebration would encourage people to ask those very questions of grocers across this country, that day and all year. I know that there are times in the cold parts of our year when we can’t access produce grown in Canada.

We certainly do need to ask those questions more often than not. I am delighted that, as the food shopper in your family, you do that. I do the same thing. Sometimes they get very annoyed with me, but I think it’s so very important.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Food as reconciliation.

Harry S. Truman said, “In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more prosperous than its farmers . . . .”

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-227, which seeks to establish food day in Canada.

I would like to thank Senator Black for his continued and committed advocacy toward the land, soil safety and the agriculture community on Turtle Island.

Farming has always been and continues to be a key part in the solution toward producing nutritious and free-range food for Canadians. My interest in farming has a personal connection. My mentor and surrogate father, Dr. Robert Glenn, was a farmer around the Russell area in the Interlake region of Manitoba.

One day, when he was in his late seventies, he was talking to me about his farm while we were in the dental clinic. I asked him:

Dr. Glenn, why do you continue to do this hard work that starts at four or five in the morning and continues late into the night without so much as a guaranteed income when the season is over?

He answered, “It’s in the blood, my girl.” At that moment, my profound respect for farmers and the hard, tireless — and many times unappreciated and thankless — work that they do was born.

Farming, as I understand it now, is land-based education. Like Indigenous knowledge, there is knowledge and wisdom garnered in this setting that you will never learn from a textbook while sitting in a classroom.

Honourable senators, it is a little-known fact that one of the most significant contributions that America’s Indigenous peoples have made is in agricultural farming. Many foods, such as chocolate, potatoes, corn and tomatoes, are native to the Americas, and were initially cultivated or domesticated by Indigenous farmers.

The three sisters — corn, beans and squash — were typically grown together by Indigenous farmers. Going back to the earliest days of first contact, settlers frequently relied on Indigenous people’s knowledge of food and the land to survive in this foreign terrain.

As is stated in The Canadian Encyclopedia’s submission on First Nations, it says, in part, that during the 1600s Indigenous technology and knowledge of hunting, trapping, guiding, food and disease proved crucial to the survival of Europeans and early colonial economy and society.

Without the sharing of their knowledge and bounty, including Indigenous food preparation techniques such as harvesting wild rice in the fall and maple syrup in the spring, Europeans would not have survived, let alone thrived.

Dr. Diana Bizecki Robson at the Manitoba Museum, in her book A Brief History of Indigenous Agriculture, stated:

After Europeans arrived in the Americas, crops from the “Old World” (e.g. wheat, barley, oats) were brought here while American crop plants were transported to Africa, Asia and Europe; this process was known as the Columbian Exchange.

However, colleagues, it should be acknowledged that despite their contributions in this field, Indigenous peoples have a complicated and misunderstood history regarding farming in Canada.

In the book entitled, Lost Harvests, Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy, well-known author Sarah Carter stated:

The Indian farmer has been accorded an insignificant role in Canadian prairie history. Although the Plains Indians were among the earliest and largest of groups to attempt farming west of the Red River Settlement, immigrants from Europe and the older provinces of Canada are routinely credited with the pioneering efforts to farm the prairies. Not only were the Indians excluded from histories of the sodbusters, but they were not even recognized as having the capability to farm.

She continues:

. . . the Plains Cree were anxious to acquire the skills and tools that would allow them to farm but that eventually they gave up agriculture because of restrictive government regulations including the permit system, the subdivision of reserves, and the ban on the use of machinery.

Colleagues, the reason Indigenous farmers were not as successful as their settler counterparts was, as Sarah Carter states:

. . . not that the Indians’ culture limited their capacity for farming, but that along with environmental setbacks, Indian farmers were subject to regulations that denied them the technological and financial opportunities to form a strong agricultural base.

The author frames this issue concisely when she writes:

The prevailing view that the Indians of western Canada failed to adapt to agriculture because of their cultural traditions is in need of revision . . . .

Those who stress that the fundamental problem was that Indians were culturally or temperamentally resistant to becoming farmers have ignored or downplayed economic, legal, social, and climatic factors. Reserve agriculturalists were subject to the same adversities and misfortunes as their white neighbours were, but they were also subject to government policies that tended to aggravate rather than ameliorate a situation that was dismal for all farmers.

Honourable senators, I have given a very brief history on food and agriculture as it relates to Indigenous peoples. This includes their willingness to share their food production insights and provide sustenance to earlier settlers, Indigenous people’s capability, ingenuity and willingness to thrive in the farming arena, and the many barriers that existed beginning in those early days, which were insurmountable forces working against Indigenous success in this realm.

Colleagues, I would now like to touch on the issue of food security and its reliance on a healthy environment and biodiversity.

In the book Saving Farmland: The Fight for Real Food, the author quotes Vandana Shiva when she describes the rights of nature:

The Earth’s living systems and human communities face multiple crises of climate change, mass species extinction, rampant deforestation, desertification, collapse of fisheries, toxic contamination with tragic consequences for all life. Under the current system of law, Nature is considered an object, a property, giving the property owner the right to destroy ecosystems for financial gain. The Rights of Nature legal doctrine recognizes that ecosystems and plant and animal species cannot simply be objects of property but entities that have the inherent right to exist. People, communities and authorities have the responsibility to guarantee those rights on behalf of Nature. These laws are consistent with indigenous people’s concepts of natural law and original instructions as well as the understanding that humans are a part of Nature and only one strand in the web of life.

Colleagues, it is understood and accepted now that the health of our surrounding natural environment has direct and profound impacts on our own health. The loss of diversity, whether culturally, biologically or environmentally that continues to occur in Canada, has been detrimental to our food supply and production.

When these fundamental supply chains become compromised, we suffer a severance in our connection to the land as well as to the animals that are integral to a healthy and thriving biodiversity.

It should also be noted that food security can often take different forms for different segments of our population. Considering the traditional, land-based lifestyle that many Indigenous peoples still live and strive to uphold, it will come as no surprise that Indigenous peoples face a greater threat of food insecurity. This is explained in an article entitled The History of Food in Canada Is the History of Colonialism from the online publication The Walrus, which states:

In a large city, food choices are horizontal, like a buffet, each option available independently of the others. In many Indigenous food systems, the menu is much more vertical, like a Jenga tower, in which many pieces support the entire structure; removing one element can topple everything. Within this food system, an animal like seal is not just a source of protein but also of fuel, clothing, tools, and commerce — all of it devastated in 2009, when the European Union, prompted by environmental activists, banned the import of seal products.

Colleagues, the reality and importance of the seal is but one example to show the intricacies and the intersectionality that biodiversity has on the overall well-being of countless Indigenous peoples across Canada.

Senators, many Canadians feel that our food systems are secure so long as the grocery stores are full, often showing indifference as to where and how these stores come by their product. However, it is critical that we ask ourselves: What is our relationship with food? It is to our benefit that we question things such as how has the wheat been grown or the meat been raised? Is it organic or free-range? Is it local? Is there genetic engineering involved?

To best support our local businesses and especially our local farmers, it is important to ask such questions. Supporting and understanding local businesses helps us to appreciate and respect that nutritious food is not to be taken for granted. It is the result of the marriage between a healthy biodiversity and those individuals who nurture and cultivate it.

Colleagues, the preamble to Bill S-227 states:

. . . the people of Canada will benefit from a food day in Canada to celebrate local food as one of the most elemental characteristics of all of the cultures that populate this nation . . . .

This is an important feature of this bill. Celebrating with and through food is an inherent act shared by First Nations and other Canadians. We often do this through feasts, which have always been a time of gathering, celebrating, sharing, laughter and joy.

With food at its heart, people come together to share stories, to listen, to learn and to heal. In this way, the celebration of food contributes to building relationships and bridging differences. It also underscores the importance of working together, whether it is harvesting, hunting or gathering. Food is always a conduit to find time to bring us together and to share our humanness.

Honourable senators, the importance of food is obvious, but the concept of celebrating and commemorating its past, present and future in Canada is a valuable initiative. I want to acknowledge all farmers across Canada for the massive undertaking of their work, all small local businesses across the country who make available local produce, goods and food and all chefs across the country, whether they are in our homes or restaurants for the part they play in resourcing local foods.

In closing, colleagues, I would like to quote Frances Moore Lappé when she wrote:

The point of commons care is to prevent harm before it occurs. And means learning to “think like an eco‑system” . . . .

We come to see natural treasures no longer as merely divisible property but as gifts protected by boundaries we create and honor, knowing that all life depends on their integrity.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: When they talk to Senator Boisvenu and myself about the programs they have, they work with the men who have committed the violence. They have a very high success rate. They also work individually with women. They work with youth. And there is so much potential.

One of the reasons we met with her was to look at what resources were needed. I think that if we do more work like this, working with the community, with the legislation that we’re working with, that there is much more success, our legislation will have fewer gaps, and that we will see if these interventions will work. They are willing to go through this and work with the system. So I think it’s a great step ahead.

Senator Pate: I’m not sure there was a question, but I’m happy to add that I think it’s true. The challenge is, as you have already experienced in talking to those women, when the only response you provide is a criminal law response, women who have had a history of not having any kind of avenues to get support often will leap to that and cling to that, when in fact as you have already experienced, when you go and speak to them, that’s the last thing they want. They want a whole host of other supports and services to prevent them from ending up before the courts in the first place.

My concern is offering electronic monitoring as though it will solve the problem creates that false sense of security, and creates a sense that it actually will be effective when, as I hoped to lay out, in fact, there is ample evidence that is not true. If at the committee we take the opportunity to say, what should we be doing instead of this, I think that would be a fabulous opportunity, so thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator McCallum: Many Canadians feel that our food systems are secure as long as the grocery stores are full, no matter where we got it from. We just have to look at the flooding that occurred in B.C., which cut off the city of Vancouver, to understand how precarious our food supply is.

In the book by Ms. Chambers entitled Saving Farmland, she states:

In fact, on Vancouver Island, we have only enough food collectivity for about three days, should it stop being delivered from other places, and even now, many people are not getting enough to eat. There is a crisis looming, and it is, in fact, already upon us as we continually appropriate the best farmland for development and erode and damage already restricted food-production areas.

Supporting local businesses helps us to appreciate and respect that food is not indispensable. Eating locally reduces the carbon footprint because the food doesn’t have to travel as far.

According to a study by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the Iowa State University, a local carrot has to travel only 27 miles, while a conventionally sourced carrot has to travel 1,838 miles to get to your plate. Eating local means that money stays in the local economy, and local businesses thrive instead of a corporation.

Farmlands contain whole parts of ecosystems —

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise to speak as critic of this bill. I agree that this is of the utmost importance and that we not resile from tackling the issue of violence against women. As underscored by Senator Dasko’s recent survey and by the Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, violence against women, especially violence against Indigenous women, is dire and requires immediate and systematic actions by all levels of government.

Bill S-205 places an emphasis on the use of electronic monitoring devices for men who have committed violence against women. It’s a plan to use these devices when people are not in custody and is prescribed as a method of keeping women safe. Bill S-205 does not do the necessary work, however, of unweaving the fabric of misogyny, racism and class bias which fuels violence against women and which is perpetuated in and by the criminal justice and penal systems. Bill S-205 does not address the economic, social, racial and gender inequality which abandons women to violence, poverty and racism. Nor does it deconstruct the values and attitudes that reinforce it. Building services and approaches that enable safety and support must instead be prioritized.

Physical violence is only one aspect of a wider net of coercive and controlling conduct. The tactics used against women include intimidation, isolation and control, and these factors are more predictive of intimate homicide than the severity or frequency of physical violence.

Social and cultural messages that privilege patriarchal ideas and attitudes, the hyper-responsibilization of women from childhood to consider themselves responsible for preventing their own victimization, combined with behaviours that control, isolate or intimidate via emotional, physical, social or financial means, abuse of inequities, or a combination of these, contribute to gross underreporting of violence against women.

As studies of the use of electronic monitoring to address male violence against women in other jurisdictions reveal, one of the fundamental challenges of using this approach is the reality that:

Victims of domestic violence typically do not report to the police or leave abusive relationships as they recognize that it generally places them at a higher risk of assault.

The myth that women would leave if the abuse were really dangerous is debunked by the evidence. In a study that underscores the inability of electronic monitoring to prevent violence against women, data revealed that, in the year before they died, 75% of homicide victims and 85% of women who experienced severe but non-fatal violence had left or tried to leave their batterers.

Violence is of particular concern for women who are disadvantaged in intersectional ways, whether that is race, class, poverty, language, ability, sexual orientation or other forms of discrimination. Indigenous women are particularly at a high risk. In order to stem violence against women, we must disrupt and address the deeply rooted inequalities that are foundational to their oppression. Bill S-205 does not.

We put an enormous burden on women who experience violence. Too often their cries for help are not met with an adequate response from the criminal justice system. Victims describe how the violence and harassment they experience are minimized and even discounted. Research from Western University revealed a mere 25% of women who called police to report violence experienced “positive” interactions with police, whereas 45% indicated their experience was “negative.”

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Native Women’s Association of Canada have documented that women — particularly those who are poor, racialized or have a disability, including a disabling mental health issue — are hyper-responsibilized by the legal system.

The Canadian legal system fails to adequately protect women. For example, if women report violence, there is a constant fear that it will be used against them in determining the safety and custody of their children. A report from 2008 found that being the victim of domestic abuse was used 46% of the time as a risk factor to legitimize child welfare interventions. Mental health issues, including those related to domestic violence, accounted for 27%.

Worse yet, police continue to charge women after effectively deputizing them to protect themselves and their children. When they respond to violence with physical resistance, they face the very “zero tolerance to violence policies” introduced under the guise of providing battered women with protection.

Bill S-205 calls for increased police intervention while doing nothing to address the issue of hyper-responsibilization for women or to improve their experiences with the legal system.

Senator Boisvenu indicates that women were the ones who requested — even wrote — Bill S-205. When women are only offered a criminal legal enforcement model, particularly in the face of millennia of inadequate responses, it should not surprise us that they may agree to grasp for the only option provided rather than effective and comprehensive approaches to addressing violence against women. This is a case where the inadequacy of options makes the illusion of choice and safety just that — illusory illusions.

There are a multitude of other approaches — evidence-based approaches — that could actually address and prevent violence against women far better than what is proposed by Bill S-205.

For example, Senator Boisvenu quoted expert Dr. Elizabeth Sheehy in his second reading speech but failed to include her perspective that:

Criminal law alone cannot prevent domestic violence: it is an after-the-fact response to violence that has already damaged, and sometimes ended, the lives of women and their children . . . .

What women urgently need are resources, such as safe housing, social welfare and legal advice to escape violence and navigate the criminal justice system. They need the family court and child protection systems to “see” the violence and coercive control that places them at risk and they need the police to respond effectively to keep violent men away from them.

The call from Dr. Sheehy is not simply for criminal law changes but for systemic change to prevent violence against women instead of inadequate after-the-fact efforts. We can prevent violence against women by transforming attitudes, beliefs and norms. We need change so that women who seek help from the police don’t have their complaints of violence minimized — change that does not require heavy sanctions but allows for prevention to keep women safe.

Women’s groups have long demanded that responses address root causes of violence against women. The legislative framework required to prevent and respond to violence against women must be framed to also recognize and redress women’s poverty and economic insecurity, which structures and shapes women’s experiences of violence, especially those of groups of women who are particularly vulnerable to violence against women in many forms. Ensuring that the historic and current context is well understood is essential to informing this analysis, particularly in relation to colonialism and the ongoing impacts of colonization, including how they impact violence against Indigenous women. Women’s groups have also noted that all violence against women law reform in Canada must respect and reflect intersectional feminist analyses and be grounded in human rights, specifically women’s human rights.

Any meaningful change must address the underlying cognitive and behavioural issues that lead to violence. Strapping an electronic monitor to a person’s ankle does nothing to stop a person from continually committing violence, both while the electronic monitor is attached to their ankle and after it is removed. Experts urge that we should not confuse technological aid with meaningful treatment. Meaningful treatment must address why a person commits violence in order to truly stamp out the root causes and break the cycle.

Addressing economic inequality of women is a critical aspect of reducing violence against women. As UN Women and the World Health Organization have noted, “The links between poverty and violence against women (VAW) are well established . . . .” According to research from the group Surviving Economic Abuse, 95% of British domestic abuse victims experience economic abuse. This is not a number that should be taken lightly. This means that nearly all victims of violence have had the common experience of economic abuse. In order to address the root of this issue, it is paramount that women have economic alternatives to remaining in dangerous family situations, economic alternatives and supports that, unlike current programs, are not threatened with removal should they seek help, and that meet the needs of themselves and their families.

The role of economic resources in facilitating access to physical safety is clear, underscoring the need for things like guaranteed livable basic income, which would reduce the financial burden on women and allow them to make decisions about how best to care for themselves and their families and look further than short-term safety. We need to first do everything possible to prevent violence instead of routinely focusing on inadequate after-attack interventions such as electronic monitoring. Access to meaningful choice afforded by things like guaranteed livable income is not only a matter of dignity and equality; for women who are trying to escape violence it is a matter of safety as well.

For decades, multiple recommendations have been tabled in efforts to empower women and provide supports to enhance independence and end relationships of violence. These include increasing resources and funding to established battered women’s shelters and other supports that enable women to safely extricate themselves from situations of violence.

In Quebec, a similar bill to Bill S-205 was recently tabled. During committee meetings on that bill, a representative from L’Alliance des maisons d’hébergement de 2e étape pour femmes et enfants victimes de violence conjugale advised that in Montréal alone, 75% of requests for shelter are refused due to lack of space. This means that three out of every four women who need safe and secure housing to escape violence have no access. A recent Globe and Mail article states that in Quebec:

. . . amid a surge in hotline calls and texts from victims seeking support this year, women are being turned away from shelters that are stretched beyond capacity.

This illustrates that even in Quebec, which Senator Boisvenu states supports Bill S-205, there is a drastic need for proper supports to truly end violence against women.

For those who can access these short-term shelters, a snapshot from April 18, 2018, provided by Statistics Canada shows that for 36% of women, either the facility or the women did not know where they were going upon departure from the facility. For 21% of women, returning to the residence where their abuser continued to live was the only option for them and their families. It has only worsened since then. Being in the same location as your abuser regardless of electronic monitoring will not make those women any safer.

Violence against women has further been defined to extend from being a violation of women’s rights to a public health issue. The World Health Organization clearly states the negative impact of violence on women is manifold. It affects women’s physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health. There are not the resources to help women deal with these health-related issues. It is essential that women have the resources to leave violent relationships, not that we merely attach inadequate band-aids after the fact. Chronic underfunding of services to women keeps women at increased risk and pushes them back into situations that are dangerous — too often lethally so — for themselves and their children. Again, Bill S-205 does not address this.

Electronic monitoring does not work. It most definitely does not protect women from violence when it is being used as a stand-alone solution, as proposed in this bill. Legislating increased statutory authority for imposing electronic monitoring is not the missing piece in preventing violence, nor is it effective. Electronic monitoring and other measures impact people differently. The negative impact of surveillance and control is particularly acute for individuals, their families and communities who are already marginalized, and particularly if they are racialized. Studies from the U.S. show the disproportionate use of electronic monitoring on racialized and poor people. This leads to increased incarceration and harm for those groups.

Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in the criminal legal system. The same issues that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls documented, giving rise to Indigenous women being disappeared, murdered or rendered homeless at a much higher rate than the average person, are the same that led to Indigenous women being the fastest growing prison population, such that they now represent one in two women serving federal terms of imprisonment. Women, particularly Indigenous, Black and other racialized women, are less likely to experience state protection when they experience violence. Paradoxically, although they are essentially deputized to protect themselves and their children from violence perpetrated against them, they are also more like to be criminalized when they do so. Many end up being the ones charged with violent offences when they are trying to defend themselves. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry have all revealed the multi-generational systemic impacts of colonial racism, socio-economic marginalization and gender bias.

In the Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, witnesses that represent various Indigenous groups identified racist policing, abuse of authority, failure to assist victims or inaction in cases of sexual violence, and much more. Chief Doris Bill of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation explains that citizens in the community experience strong distrust of police based on ongoing events.

The lack of support for Indigenous women in the criminal legal system persists. Their credibility and their worth as victims are often questioned. The Public Safety and National Security Committee report also noted how in some cases Indigenous women feel unsafe reporting their own victimization. This is well documented in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

As the former president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the late Dr. Glenda Simms, warned us:

Violence against women is the single most serious issue of our time. Do you realize that some Black women choose not to report the men who batter them because they know that Black men are victimized by racism and violence at all levels of the justice system? Who do you turn to when you don’t trust those entrusted with justice?

Bill S-205 will do nothing to address these issues for Indigenous, Black and other racialized women in Canada. Instead, it puts increased use on a system that is already distrusted, already failing many groups and asks that they simply trust this system.

At face value, the use of electronic monitoring to monitor violent men and protect women from abusive partners may sound appealing. It is vital to recognize, however, that electronic monitoring is far less effective than community-based supervision offered by such interventions as bail supervision or probation.

Some argue that other countries have made use of electronic monitoring devices with favourable results. It is imperative to recognize that in such instances, electronic monitoring devices were not used in isolation; rather, electronic monitoring was but one component of a multi-pronged approach to a complex issue. Studies actually demonstrate that electronic monitoring alone is not effective.

In a report on the use, challenges and successes of electronic monitoring, the Scottish government found that it was not an effective strategy to reduce reoffending but that it definitely contributed to net widening. In other words, it increases the numbers of those who are criminalized — usually those who are also most marginalized — but does not reduce violence against women.

A recent study out of Norway found that those released with electronic monitoring who received supervised community integration supports were less likely to recidivate. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to say whether electronic monitoring was actually a factor, or if the success was due to the earlier release and the attendant advantages of supportive and supervised community integration.

There is also a presumption that electronic monitoring will somehow deter violence against women. This presumes that a man who has ignored all other social and legal norms will suddenly become compliant due to strapping a band around their ankle. A study in France concluded that electronic monitoring is mostly effective for individuals who know what is at stake should they reoffend. There is nothing in Bill S-205 that provides for such community value changes, much less individualized, enhanced rehabilitative resources or accountability mechanisms.

In 2012, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the other place conducted a study on electronic monitoring and its usefulness.

After hearing the testimony of all 29 witnesses, including government representatives and multiple manufacturers of electronic monitoring devices used in Canada, the committee recommended that it never be used as a stand-alone measure and that, if used at all, it only be used when paired with adequate programming and as part of a more fulsome plan for community supervision and reintegration — not used as a stand-alone measure.

This is not a recommendation that should be ignored.

Bill S-205 ignores this recommendation and proposes stand-alone measures — the implementation of which, as we are already hearing, creates a false sense of security that it will result in the protection of women. The potential for inadequate and even horrific results is, quite frankly, terrifying.

Let us also examine the many technological issues with electronic monitoring devices.

A study in California found that the electronic monitoring devices used in half the state, ostensibly to monitor thousands of men convicted of sex offences, were so inaccurate and unreliable that they placed the public “in imminent danger.”

They found that batteries died early, cases cracked and that reported locations were off by as much as three miles. Officials also found that tampering alerts failed, and individuals were able to disappear by covering the devices with foil, deploying illegal GPS jammers or ducking into cars or buildings.

These alarming findings are made all the more so by the fact that in a lawsuit, corrections attorneys persuaded a judge to seal information about the failures, arguing that test results could show criminals how to avoid being tracked and give parole violators grounds to appeal convictions. They also argued that it would “erode public trust” in electronic monitoring programs and mitigate any deterrent effect on those wearing them if they knew how ineffective they were. So much for the focus being on the well-being and safety of women or addressing violence against women.

“Well, that’s the U.S.,” you might well say. But the company involved with that study, 3M, operates in Canada. Indeed, they were witnesses at the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In addition, they are not the sole providers, but they do provide services for electronic monitoring and they share the same issues.

Electronic monitoring devices use geolocation services in order to function. Many communities across Canada have limited or no access to the technology needed. While speaking to the Quebec national assembly about the bill, Quebec Native Women raised issues regarding the impact of poor access to geolocation technology in many remote locations, particularly for Indigenous women in Indigenous communities. They also pointed out that many Indigenous victims and perpetrators of violence live in the same community. Police responses and response times are already significant issues in those communities.

There are also connectivity issues and false alarms at the heart of these complications. When a person loses connectivity, a false alarm can be triggered that can be a danger to the wearer as well as to others. False alarms can lead to false arrests for breach of parole, officers arriving at the place of work of a wearer, or even dangerous or fatal incidents. There is also the well-documented history of false positive alerts leading to further decreases in police responses.

Studies out of Tennessee, Colorado and New York show that false alerts led to repeated missed or ignored alerts of device failures and no intervention in breaches of the law by those supposedly being electronically monitored. In the case of Florida, police and correctional authorities were so overwhelmed with alerts that one man not only broke his curfew 53 times without any intervention in one month but also then killed three people.

The issue of false positives is so problematic that in a 2019 review of such approaches, the Scottish government quoted findings from Germany where, on average, there were false alarms every three days for each person supposedly being supervised via electronic monitoring.

Moreover, persistent delays in responses by police and/or correctional authorities were found to nullify any suggestion of a deterrent effect of electronic monitoring. Most significantly, the research revealed that such persistent delays create risks for victims — most particularly when they fail to respond at all.

It is clear from these examples that Bill S-205’s encouragement of increased use of electronic monitoring is likely to have the opposite effect of what is intended — a very laudable intention — and may, however unintentionally, further overburden the system and consequently risk the further endangerment of women.

Senator Yussuff brought up the issue of the false sense of security that electronic monitoring can create. Having worked and advocated with and for countless victims of violence, I must underscore the very real and profound dangers of trusting in electronic monitoring to protect women and children from violence.

Passing Bill S-205 could risk endorsing the use of electronic monitoring. I cannot in good conscience do so, as it is tantamount to telling women to trust in this system. At best, it could bring false hope and risk endorsing an approach that, as the evidence reveals, fails more often than it succeeds. I consider this approach irresponsible and dangerous for those women.

Finally, let’s talk about another horrific paradox. In some jurisdictions, it is the victimized women who are then electronically monitored. In Spain, women were understandably hesitant to use the device because it further traumatized and harmed them — frequently triggering traumatic stress in abused women.

One of the largest shortcomings of electronic monitoring is the effect it has on the device wearer, their family and the ability of those parties to rehabilitate or reintegrate into the community in a positive way. To lower recidivism, it is crucial that a person have these types of supports. However, the use of electronic monitoring stigmatizes and impacts entire households, which inhibits this.

In Scotland, co-residents of those subject to electronic monitoring were made to feel they were responsible for ensuring that the monitored person complied with their conditions. The sense of responsibility caused anxiety, guilt and stress.

Research conducted in Winnipeg revealed that young people experienced isolation because their acquaintances refused to associate with them — not because of their actions, but because they feared the electronic monitoring device would mean they, too, may be subject to police surveillance and breaches of their privacy.

The importance of family to the re-entry to society and the decrease in recidivism is well documented. The removal or decrease of these support mechanisms during the police intervention, judicial interim release or bail, or the re-entry process can push people further to the margins and may consequently render them greater risks to public safety.

Electronic monitoring can also interfere with employment. A study conducted by the National Institute of Justice in 2011 noted that many individuals on electronic monitoring had to take breaks from work to reconnect lost signals; and 22% were fired or asked to leave their job due to ankle monitors.

Honourable colleagues, allow me to summarize the five main reasons why this bill will fail to achieve its sponsor’s and supporters’ worthy objectives.

First, as ineffective as it is as a tool to prevent violence against women, electronic monitoring is already available and used in some jurisdictions. This bill is not necessary and, in any event, adding statutory authority for imposing electronic monitoring is not the missing element or key to preventing violence against women.

Second, the bill ignores the continuing technological problems with electronic monitoring and thus runs the clear and predictable risk of promoting a false sense of security for those believing it might protect them.

Third, it ignores the inability of police to respond immediately — no matter how well-intentioned and how good the police force — when an alarm is triggered, be it due to geographical remoteness, insufficient police resources, competing emergencies and/or sometimes stereotypes, biases or conclusions regarding the efficacy of responding to situations where they may have had repeated calls, for instance, including some judged by authorities to be false alarms.

Fourth, it assumes that a man who has ignored all other social and legal norms will suddenly become compliant because we put a bracelet around their ankle or wrist.

Last, it does nothing to address the central systemic issues that give rise to and perpetuate misogynist violence, much less ensure modification of management of the rage and other factors that fuel individual men when they perpetrate acts of violence against women.

To conclude, thank you, Senator Boisvenu and colleagues, for your commitment to ending violence against women. There are several ways we could tackle the issue in ways that address the concerns raised here today. Regrettably, as I have already detailed, the approach proposed by this bill is not one best to pursue. Instead, let’s ensure that we address the issues, attitudes and ideas that fuel misogynist violence in society and our criminal, legal and penal systems, while simultaneously implementing the sorts of robust social, health and economic support systems that can truly assist women to avoid and escape violence. Meegwetch, thank you.