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.

Senator Pate: I absolutely agree with going to committee. I think you know that in Manitoba alone, there are some incredible examples of where Indigenous communities have stepped in precisely because of what I have just spoken about and have taken the position that they will remove the men from homes and provide supports in the home for women and children. That impact, that approach has had hugely positive success, but it requires resourcing and requires supports for communities to do that. Looking at those sorts of approaches would absolutely be a fantastic opportunity, so thank you for suggesting that.

Senator McCallum: Senator Pate, my question is around the violence that occurs in the communities. Stemming that violence has many origins and they require different interventions, and some of those interventions go beyond legislation. They cannot be legislated. Those are societal responses. The communities need to play a part in what is happening in their communities. For that reason, I arranged a meeting with Senator Boisvenu and Indigenous groups in Winnipeg that are addressing this violence, and they are working hand in hand with Senator Boisvenu now.

I think that, like you said, it is not a stand-alone. I have seen this happen time and time again with legislation and there was no community involvement. The work that’s being done by the communities in Winnipeg is successful, and they are willing to work with Senator Boisvenu. Wouldn’t it be good for this to go to committee so that people can hear about what is happening at the community level?

Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, for both your speech and your ideas. I would love to work with you on that kind of initiative and I would welcome that opportunity. I am troubled, however, by your suggestion. Given that you know that there are many of us in this chamber who similarly have family members who have been murdered, sexually assaulted and victimized, as well as the fact that we know police organizations, women’s groups and victims’ groups do call into question the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, especially when it comes to the issues you ended your speech with, namely, Indigenous women — that is partly why it is one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

I am troubled by your suggestion that the bill would actually repeal mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, it is quite the opposite. You stress the importance of section 718.2(e) especially for racialized prisoners and, in particular, for Indigenous women. Yet, that is precisely what the impact, the import and the role of the bill would be. It would be to allow, in exceptional cases, those mandatory minimum penalties that the courts have already challenged, including the Supreme Court of Canada, when they said in R. v. Luxton that when considering the life sentence for murder, the only thing that saved it from being unconstitutional was the fact that there was a “faint hope clause,” and we now no longer have it.

Would you agree that you have perhaps overstated a bit the fact that this bill will repeal mandatory minimum penalties? In fact, it won’t do anything of the sort. In exceptional cases such as the ones discussed by a number of us in this chamber, it might provide judges an opportunity to give reasons as to why they would not utilize the mandatory minimum penalty.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, before I begin my speech on Bill S-233, allow me to express my great admiration for Senator Pate’s work on the penal system and her tenacity in promoting an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income program. I share her desire to see an end to poverty. I recognize, as she and others have pointed out, that receiving a stable basic income has positive effects on the physical and mental health of each person.

However, it is possible to achieve the same results with public policies that are less costly and more equitable and socially acceptable than the policy proposed in Bill S-233.

Even though I hold Senator Pate in great esteem, the socio-economic problems raised by Bill S-233 are so important to me that I cannot support the bill.

[Translation]

Bill S-233 would require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to provide all persons over the age of 17 in Canada, as well as permanent residents, refugees and temporary workers, with access to an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income.

Throughout history, a few philosophers and some economists have promoted the idea of an unconditional guaranteed basic income, or GBI. More often than not, they were described by their peers as utopians.

In the early 1960s, right-wing economist Milton Friedman gave new life to the idea of GBI when he proposed a negative income tax in his famous work, Capitalism and Freedom. He sought to reduce the role of the state and to privatize social programs. Certain right-wing and left-wing groups have praised him since.

In most industrialized countries, the social safety net we know was developed around concepts of mutualization, reciprocity and social inclusion. It relies on participation in the workforce, social insurance, targeted income-based benefits and social assistance for those in need. This system can be improved. Unfortunately, it is incompatible with a system based on an unconditional guaranteed livable basic income, as provided for in Bill S-233.

Several studies have shown that this idea is not economically realistic and is questionable in terms of fairness and social acceptability.

Why is a GBI is economically unrealistic? The answer is simple: its cost is prohibitive. A GBI would help just over 11% of those living under the poverty line by giving 100% of all adults a basic income. To fund such a GBI, we would have to completely overhaul the income tax system.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently calculated that it would cost $87.8 billion in 2022-23 to implement a GBI program similar to the pilot project that Ontario launched in 2017 for adults aged 18 to 64. These estimates are based on a basic income of $17,000 for a single person and $24,000 for a couple, reduced at a rate of $0.50 for every dollar earned on top of the basic income. The cost of a basic income increases rapidly as the clawback rate goes down, as was pointed out in another PBO report released in 2020.

In 2019, the Basic Income Canada Network estimated the cost of providing a guaranteed annual income of $22,000 for Canadians aged 18 and over at $187 billion a year if the government clawed back $0.40 per dollar earned. Bill S-233 takes a similar approach. That is the equivalent of all federal personal income taxes in 2021-22, which totalled $189.4 billion.

A universal benefit is even more costly. A guaranteed income of something like $22,000 for every Canadian adult would cost $637 billion according to the Basic Income Canada Network. That is almost twice the federal government’s total revenue. Even after taxes, that kind of basic income would absorb all federal revenue. In short, the cost of a guaranteed basic income is prohibitive.

That is the issue. To finance this kind of program, governments would have to overhaul the income tax system. The tax changes it would take to fund such a program would have a negative effect on labour market participation, not because people are lazy, but just because they are rational. In essence, the number of people supported by the program would exceed the number of people the government set out to help initially. Fewer hours worked means fewer hours taxed, and that means less revenue for the government. In short, paying for guaranteed basic income is unsustainable.

As you know, not long ago, the Government of Quebec struck a committee to come up with a plan for implementing a GBI, and the Government of British Columbia created a panel to set up a pilot project. Both groups rejected the feasibility of such a program. The British Columbia panel rejected the very idea. Why? Because no pilot project could capture all the macroeconomic consequences of financing a GBI system.

[English]

I quote from the B.C. panel:

Many Canadian basic income proposals suggest eliminating most or all tax credits, including the basic personal amount, to create a “self-financing” RTC basic income. This would be a fundamental reform of the tax system that would mean tax becomes payable with the first dollar earned, increasing disincentives to work for low-income earners not on Income Assistance.

The report adds that these taxes would generate insufficient funds.

The panel continues:

Eliminating programs could be another alternative, but we believe that the many services provided by the existing programs aimed at meeting basic needs—in combination with cash transfers—are essential to a just society.

The report concludes:

. . . as we have emphasized a basic income must be considered in the context of how it is financed and how the changes made to taxes and programs to cover its costs combine with the incentive effects of the basic income itself. Impacts of the financing aspects of a major basic income could exceed the incentive and economic effects posed by the benefits alone.

[Translation]

My second point has to do with fairness and social justice. The two provincial expert panels analyzed the impact of a guaranteed basic income from the perspective of social fairness through the philosophical principles of social justice that have been outlined by the well-known philosopher John Rawls. According to these principles and that philosopher, a guaranteed basic income can cause major social fairness problems. The short explanation is easy to understand. An equal basic income for all is not necessarily fair, because it does not guarantee equal opportunities for all. Let’s not forget that everyone has different needs. Conversely, a targeted approach can better ensure the principle of equal opportunities.

As the British Columbia expert panel pointed out, and I quote:

[English]

Moving to a system constructed around a basic income is not the most just policy change we can consider. The needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government.

The report further reads:

We are also concerned about the implications of a basic income for the society we will share in the future. A basic income emphasizes individual autonomy—an important characteristic of a just society. However, in doing so it de‑emphasizes other crucial characteristics of justice that must be, in our view, balanced: community, social interactions, reciprocity, and dignity. The basic income approach seems to us to be more individualistic than the way we believe British Columbians see themselves.

[Translation]

The work of American philosopher Elizabeth Anderson reached similar conclusions.

Our current system provides support to all people in need through a variety of different programs, which, I repeat, could be improved at both the federal and provincial levels. These programs are more responsive to the diverse needs of all those who experience hardship under different circumstances and at different times in their lives than an equal basic income for all at all times would be.

Because the guaranteed basic income is a one-size-fits-all solution, implementing this approach could have unintended and undesirable consequences.

Here is an example to illustrate my point. According to the latest report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which discusses the income distribution effects of GBI, a low-income single-parent family could lose $5,315 per year as a result of the implementation of GBI. However, it is precisely these families, which are usually headed by women, that we want to help.

Esteemed colleagues, I join Senator Simons in encouraging you to reflect on how Bill S-233 will affect young people. How will society be able to provide roots and wings for its children if they are handed a basic income as of the age of 18 without any corresponding requirement for education, training or participation in society? Would a parent, even a wealthy one, agree to finance their 18-year-old who decided to drop out of school or a training program and refused to work? To ask the question is to answer it. Should these be the principles on which our society is based?

I now want to talk about political issues. Colleagues, Bill S-233 raises issues of social acceptability and constitutional problems. In March 2022, I conducted a poll with Angus Reid on work ethic and GBI. The results will soon be available on my website.

I’ll give an overview of the findings.

Firstly, Canadians have a work ethic that has remained consistent through similar polls that I conducted in 1981 and 2014. Roughly 79% of Canadians think that every adult who is able to work should work to earn a living. However, 54% of Canadians would like to be able to live without working. That is why the idea of a guaranteed basic income polarizes Canadians. While 46% of Canadians support this idea, 37% are against it. When we ask Canadians if they are prepared to pay for this program through their taxes and reduced services, only 19% of Canadians are prepared to do so, while 62% are not. What is more, only 5% of Canadians strongly support the idea of funding a guaranteed basic income through increased taxes and reduced services, while 43% of Canadians are strongly opposed.

GBI is an attractive idea, but Canadians are not prepared to cover the cost. Who would pay for it then?

Bill S-233 also raises real constitutional issues. It involves eliminating many social transfers to the provinces. The federal government could unilaterally decide to do so. It goes without saying that the provinces would react vigorously. The provinces are not ready to accept this, nor are they prepared to hand over their social assistance responsibilities to the federal government. The discussions would be endless.

In conclusion, there are solutions we can work on to reduce poverty in Canada. The Poverty Reduction Act, which we passed in 2019, seeks to reduce poverty and sets targets linked to the United Nations 2030 Agenda. The British Columbia and Quebec reports describe many inspiring opportunities for action. For example, the two reports recommend the implementation of a guaranteed basic income, similar to what already exists for seniors and persons with living with disabilities, and it is quite feasible.

Recommendation No. 5 of the Quebec report proposes the implementation of a program to facilitate transitions in the labour market and training. It provides several realistic proposals for reducing and preventing poverty.

The current system, which is preferred by industrialized nations and promoted by the OECD, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations, has proven to be successful. It reduces poverty and, above all, it helps prevent it.

[English]

There are many solutions we can work on to eliminate poverty and inequality in Canada, but a GBI should not be one of them. It’s time we abandon this utopian dream for pragmatic, rigorously tested, targeted programs that will reduce and prevent poverty, provide skills and training and create an inclusive labour market. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Pate: Perhaps you could point me to where, exactly, that provision is. I know you read out part of a decision, but that was regarding one mandatory minimum penalty saying the judges did not have to apply it. One of the challenges is there have now been at least 43 court decisions striking down mandatory minimum provisions. We now have a patchwork across the country of where the law applies, and where it doesn’t. In fact, there is no ruling that says judges do not have to not impose mandatory minimum penalties, hence the reason for Senator Jaffer’s bill. Would you not agree?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Robert Black moved third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-227, which seeks to designate the Saturday of the August long weekend as food day in Canada.

At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Simons for taking my place as Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in order to allow me to act as a witness for Bill S-227. I would like to thank Senators Poirier and McCallum for speaking to this important bill, and I look forward to hearing from them in the near future. Finally, I would like to thank the agricultural industry for their widespread support of this bill and to the witnesses who appeared before the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to share their thoughts on the establishment of a national food day in Canada.

Colleagues, you have heard me time and again highlight the importance of the agriculture and agri-food industry in Canada. Food is at the heart of our homes, our communities and our economy, and one positive thing that has emerged from this pandemic is that many Canadians, especially those outside of rural and agricultural communities, have become far more interested in learning about where and how their food is grown.

In terms of access to food, we are so very lucky here in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the largest producers and exporters of agriculture and agri-food products in the world. I and many others, including industry stakeholders, believe it is high time we acknowledge the important role that agriculture and local food play in Canada with a cross-country celebration.

The establishment of food day in Canada will raise the pride and confidence that many of us have, and that many more of us need to have, in the food we produce in Canada, not only for our own domestic use but for international folks abroad as well. It will promote discussions around food sovereignty and food security.

While I mentioned that we are extremely lucky to have access to such a bountiful agri-food sector, there are still Canadians who struggle to access affordable and nutritious foods. This is something that must be addressed going forward. No Canadian should go hungry.

During the Agriculture and Forestry Committee’s meeting on this bill, we heard how important it is for our future generations to understand that our farmers, producers, processors and agri-food retailers work hard to produce good food. Canadians young and old need to see for themselves that their agriculture communities care about the land, the commodities they grow and the animals they raise.

We have some of the very best natural resources, countless talented leaders in the industry and highly innovative technology and equipment to feed our country and the world.

It is clear that having a nationally recognized food day in Canada can help our friends, neighbours and future generations understand that there is so much to learn about agriculture and food production in our country.

At the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, we also heard from witnesses about the value of such a tribute to Canadian ingredients and the good people in the food system, as well as the immeasurable value of positive support and trust in Canadian food and farming, especially in light of how much we have learned about our domestic food system over the course of the pandemic.

If established, this annual celebration would not only see Canadians join together in a celebration of our food — and the people who make it happen, from our farms to our forks — but also encourage Canadians to continue learning about our agriculture and agri-food industries. It’s a chance to highlight and appreciate the diverse and nutritious food products we have access to.

Agriculture and agri-food are critical industries that contribute not only to the whole of our nation but also to countries around this world, not to mention that increasing the awareness around the world of food produced in Canada and the good food that we grow is absolutely critical as we increase our reach and work to achieve the targets that were outlined in the Barton report a number of years ago.

Honourable colleagues, when we talk about local food, we are also talking about people in our everyday lives. We are talking about the farmers who grow the crops we drive by as we travel Canada, the agri-businesses that produce the food we see on the shelves, the restaurateurs and chefs who feed us and the vintners and brewers who brew the wine, beer and spirits we enjoy.

Local food is about much more than just what we eat; it is about Canadians. If passed, Bill S-227 would give Canadians a reason to celebrate not only agriculture and agri-food but also everyone who makes up the vast food supply chain coast to coast to coast together every summer.

At this time, I’m pleased to share that the bill has had resounding support from all parties in the other place. I’m hopeful that we can pass this expeditiously here in the Red Chamber to ensure that a nationally recognized food day in Canada will take place this summer.

However, regardless of the outcome of my bill, I would like to thank all of you in advance for your support in celebrating Canadian food from coast to coast to coast all year-round.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black: Senator McCallum, thank you for your important words. Would you comment on how you see the passing of the food day in Canada bill as a means of helping to support a healthy environment?

The Hon. the Speaker: We will suspend for one hour.

Senator Clement, when we return, you will have the balance of your time. Thank you.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

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

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Clement, but I must interrupt.

It is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair and suspend for one hour, unless it’s the wish of the Senate to not see the clock.

If honourable senators wish to suspend, please say “suspend.”

Senator Plett: Suspend.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Use of displays, exhibits and props in Senate proceedings, tabled in the Senate on April 5, 2022.

The Hon. the Speaker: My apologies, but Senator Bellemare’s time has expired. She will have to ask for time to answer questions.

[Translation]

Are you asking for five more minutes to answer questions?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?