Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement).

As explained by Senator Cordy, this bill is straightforward. It contains only one clause that amends the definition of the word “income,” and now even in one clause, Senator Griffin has found out that the government again has messed up. Nevertheless, the bill amends the definition of the word “income” in the Old Age Security Act in order to exempt pandemic relief benefits from the calculation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement or Allowance benefits beginning in July 2022.

Any payments received by seniors under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act, Part VIII.‍4 of the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, or the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act will not be counted as income when determining eligibility for benefits under the Old Age Security Act.

These changes will not impact Old Age Security payments because OAS benefits are not income tested. They will, however, impact Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits and Guaranteed Income Supplement Allowance benefits.

Colleagues, the Conservative caucus supports this initiative. We have been saying for months that seniors who relied on the pandemic relief programs should not be penalized for doing so. It is cruel public policy to offer support to our most vulnerable in the midst of a public health crisis only to claw it back later.

But we do not support the incompetence that made this bill necessary. We are again being asked to fix mistakes that have been made due to the Liberal government’s bad management and habitual contempt for Parliament.

Let me remind you that no sooner had this pandemic begun than the government attempted to grant itself the power to raise taxes, debt and spending without parliamentary approval for almost two full years. January 1, 2022, is when the powers that they were asking Parliament to approve would have expired. Even wartime governments did not have such sweeping powers. Yet, on March 4, 2020, they had the nerve to ask for it in the very first COVID bill, Bill C-13.

It was in this same bill that Conservatives had to fight to get sunset clauses placed on COVID programs, because this government does not place value on being responsible regarding the expenditure of tax dollars. We had to insist that the government table regular COVID spending reports to the House of Commons Health and Finance Committees, because this government does not place value on transparency. We had to insist that the House of Commons Finance Committee have the right to recall Parliament if any abuses were identified, because this government does not place any value on accountability.

We should have known right there that we were in for quite a ride during the pandemic, because, as it turned out, this was only the beginning of their incompetence and their undisguised disdain for Parliament.

In bill after bill throughout this pandemic, the government quickly established a clear pattern of introducing flawed legislation at the last minute without consulting the other parties in Parliament and then demanding that it be rushed through. Senators — with a metaphorical gun to their heads — complied repeatedly for the sake of Canadians.

You may recall the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program for small businesses. It was announced on May 20, 2020, as a program to “provide important relief for small businesses experiencing financial hardship . . . .” The only problem was that the program contained two major flaws that would limit its effectiveness.

First, the program was designed so that businesses would not be eligible for the rent assistance until they had a revenue drop of at least 70%. Second, only landlords could apply for the assistance, not businesses.

Although the Conservative Party flagged these problems within 24 hours of the Prime Minister’s announcement and called on the government to fix them, the government did nothing for 26 weeks. It wasn’t until November 19, 2020, when we found ourselves in this chamber considering legislation to fix the problem identified six months earlier.

The only problem was that the new legislation that introduced the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy also had a fatal flaw. It required businesses to pay their rent before they could apply for assistance to pay that rent.

If you recall, the government was informed of the error after it had already introduced the bill in the House of Commons. They then scrambled to fix the error by creating an amendment. But after erring in the drafting of the bill, they also erred in the drafting of the amendment. So the Deputy Speaker of the House had to rule it out of order.

We ended up with a flawed bill being tabled in this chamber and had to watch the spectacle of the Minister of Finance telling us she was going to instruct the Canada Revenue Agency to ignore the problems in the bill we were about to pass, because the government was going to introduce legislation to fix it at some point in the future.

Let me give you one more example: Bill C-17. This bill was introduced in the House of Commons on June 10, 2020. It did four things: made changes to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy; enacted the Time Limits and Other Periods Act; authorized the Canada Revenue Agency to share information with other government departments to facilitate a one-time payment to persons with disabilities; and, finally, made amendments to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act. The problem was that it did none of these things well, because of the government’s failure to consult.

At the time, the House of Commons was only sitting a couple of days a week. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer suggested that the government take a few more days to debate and amend the bill in order to get it right, but the government refused.

Bill C-17 never made it to second reading. Instead, the government reworked the bill in an attempt to fix the problems and reintroduced it six weeks later as Bill C-20. But once again, although improved, it was still flawed. The government had now delayed pandemic supports for a month and a half because of their refusal to work collaboratively.

Colleagues, I don’t have time to go through all the examples of this government’s incompetence, because I am scheduled to retire in a few more years; we would run out of time before I got to the end of the list. But suffice it to say that all through this pandemic we have had to fight with this government for accountability, transparency and reasonable time frames to consider legislation it wanted passed.

That brings us to the legislation before us today. Bill C-12 is the government’s fix for a problem they created almost two years ago when they introduced the CERB program. Seniors who qualified for CERB payments would find these benefits being included in the calculation of their income, which would impact their eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS.

In the Economic and Fiscal Update tabled in Parliament on December 14 last year, the government reported that approximately 204,000 seniors ended up having their GIS benefits cut for a cumulative total of $742.4 million. This comes out to an average loss of about $3,639 a year, or $303 per month.

Colleagues, I want to underscore that the GIS is intended to help low-income seniors make ends meet. A single senior qualifies for GIS if they earn less than $19,464 per year. In other words, they are trying to live on only $1,622 per month, which I think most of us can appreciate is next to impossible.

But remember, this is the upper threshold, which means many GIS recipients live on even less. You can quickly see how a loss of $303 per month would be a crushing loss of income for many seniors.

Now in fairness, this was the very beginning of the pandemic when we were all scrambling to deal with a very uncertain situation. The bill passed through the House in one day and the Senate the next day. There was an urgent need to reassure Canadians that there would be government support available for those who needed it throughout the pandemic. It was not a time to delay legislation in order to get things perfect.

That, colleagues, was almost two years ago. As early as May 12, 2020, the government acknowledged that these benefits were going to cause a problem for Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, recipients. The benefits would be included in the calculation of their annual income, which would impact their eligibility for GIS.

In a briefing document from members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, the Minister of Seniors at the time noted the following:

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit is intended to replace income that has been lost due to COVID-19. It is considered to be taxable income and must be considered when determining entitlement to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances.

This being said, this will not affect the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowances for about a year. Income received from the Canada Emergency Response Benefit in 2020 will only affect GIS and Allowances benefit amounts beginning in July 2021, as those benefits will be based on 2020 income.

So they knew the problem was coming in May 2020. They knew well ahead that it would hit the pocketbooks of seniors in July 2021, and yet they did nothing about it until February 2022.

February 2022 was 23 months after the CERB program was created. It was 20 months since the government admitted that these benefits were going to diminish the income of hundreds of thousands of seniors receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement and nothing was done to address this shortcoming until the government tabled Bill C-12 in the other place on February 8.

Still, then, they didn’t move the bill to second reading for another seven days on February 15.

Then, before the bill even got to second reading, the government moved a programming motion in the House to shut down debate and deemed the bill referred to Committee of the Whole, considered in committee, reported without amendment, concurred at report stage, read a third time and passed. In other words, they just waved the bill through.

Then once the bill was headed our way, Senator Gold, our leader here, asked if we could shorten our speeches and maybe just have the sponsor and the critics speak so we could rush it through this chamber as well.

I found this curious at first, because the bill has nothing to do with getting the $742 million back into the hands of seniors. That allocation will reimburse seniors for money clawed back from them during the July 2020 to June 2021 GIS program year and does not require additional statutory approval.

Yes, senators, you heard right. The $742 million that will be paid out to seniors to reimburse them for GIS clawbacks can be disbursed to seniors with no additional approval by Parliament other than passing the usual interim supply bill that will come to us shortly. This expenditure is already authorized under section 7 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act which reads:

The Minister may, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned by this Act, establish and implement programs designed to support projects or other activities that contribute to the development of the human resources of Canada and the skills of Canadians, to the social development of Canada or to service delivery to the public, and the Minister may make grants and contributions in support of the programs.

If Bill C-12 contains no actual money for seniors and will not change any GIS payments before July of 2022, then why would the government be ramming this bill through the legislative process? The reason we were given was that it is imperative that this bill be passed by March 4 because the Canada Revenue Agency needs to make updates to its programming, which must be completed before that date. If the bill is not passed by March 4, then CRA will not have the legislative authority to make the necessary changes and the window to implement these changes for the next GIS benefit will close. This means seniors would have to endure another year of their GIS benefits being clawed back.

Colleagues, this is unbelievable. For almost two years, the government watched a train wreck approaching in slow motion. They saw it coming as early as May 2020 and yet did not bother to act until now. Now, just before the moment of impact, they are running around flailing their arms in desperation because we have an urgent situation on our hands. We, senators, are compelled to comply with their now-urgent timetable in order to protect seniors from the impact of this government’s incompetence and ambivalence.

Colleagues, as I said earlier, our caucus supports this initiative. It passed unanimously in the House of Commons, and I expect we may see the same outcome in this chamber. However, this support should not be conflated with confidence in the government. For seniors in general, this government is a disaster. Inflation is eating away their purchasing power while low interest rates pushed by the Minister of Finance are preventing seniors from getting a return on their investment that matches the inflation. Each year, seniors get further behind thanks to Justin Trudeau’s reckless policies.

This is regrettable, colleagues, and before you write that off as a partisan viewpoint, I wish to point out that it is being shared by increasing numbers of Canadians, including prominent Liberals. Just two days ago, Stephen LeDrew, the longest-serving president of the Liberal Party of Canada, wrote the following:

The Canada that Canadians now view every day is not the sensible, reasonable, and generous society that Canadians of all stripes have built up over many generations.

It has become polarized, nasty and barely recognizable.

Just listen to people talking in stores, on the street, and in meeting places.

Just walk or drive through cities and villages and the countryside, and see the Canadian flags — paired with signs expressing vehement disapproval of our federal government. Loyal Canadians are fed up with their federal government.

And one person is responsible for this — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

He has drastically altered Canadian institutions and norms so considerably that usually calm people are raising their voices in protest.

The core of the protestors in Ottawa and other Canadian centres were angry not only about government heavy-handedness in its pandemic policies, but also the changes being brought about by Trudeau.

He has cheapened public discourse and public life.

He talks so high-minded, yet has a lifelong history of deplorable acts.

He has arbitrarily ruined the lives of many other people who have been supposedly guilty of far less egregious acts than have been proven by photographs against him — perhaps to deflect his own guilt?

Does “do as I say, not as I do” strike home? How about “one standard for the masses, and another for the elites like me?”

His intolerance, and high-handed and ill-founded rectitude has led many to regard the government with disdain, and doubt its ability to get things right.

Colleagues, Mr. LeDrew goes on, but I think I have read enough for you to understand his message. This government does not seem to have the ability to get things right, and the fact that this bill is before us today at the eleventh hour is just one more example of this.

I support this bill. I support it going to committee, but I reject the government’s incompetent, cavalier approach to enacting public policy and I hope that all honourable senators will as well. Thank you.

Senator Plett: Sure.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos moved second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (goods from Xinjiang).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.

This bill is very straightforward. It seeks to amend the Customs Tariff Act to prohibit the importation of any and all goods produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Some of you may be asking why I’m proposing this be done by the Parliament of Canada; others may wonder if it’s necessary given current law; and others may wonder about retaliation, so I would like to address each and every one of those issues.

First, why am I proposing this ban? The answer is simple — because of the mounting evidence that a genocide is being committed in that region by the Communist Party of China, and it’s being committed for no reason other than the people indigenous to the region are Muslims. They’re being raped, enslaved, tortured and murdered because they’re Muslim, full stop.

Integrated with this genocide is incontrovertible evidence that hundreds of thousands — perhaps up to 1 million — members of the Uighur minority are being compelled to engage in forced labour for the benefit of the Communist authorities and for the benefit of businesses that are implicated in this activity.

In my view, by not taking action, by remaining silent, we are being complicit — even if inadvertently — in the face of this outcry, and that is not who we are as Canadians. This bill is necessary to single out and further expose what may be the most serious violation of human rights occurring in our world today.

I will begin by quoting from only a few of the many eye witnesses testifying to what has been happening in Xinjiang.

Rukiye Turdush is a Canadian citizen who emigrated from China to Canada in the 1990s. She has testified that her brother was killed by Chinese soldiers in 1992, and she has talked about the brave decision she took to leave China in the 1990s. She has spoken about being expelled at gunpoint with her baby from her Beijing hotel room for no other reason than because she was a Uighur.

She has spoken openly about the continued harassment she has experienced, even here in Canada, at the hands of those who are in the service of, or supportive of, Chinese Communist authorities.

She has been harassed because of what she has dared to say about the repression that has accelerated since 2017, and I quote:

Since 2017 [the Chinese government] started to arrest everyone in East Turkestan [otherwise known as Xinjiang] . . . I asked my dad, how many of them are inside, and he said, you have to count how many are outside, because all of them are inside.

Mrs. Turdush’s accounts are hardly unique.

The BBC has reported accounts of systematic rape and torture in those camps, and countless reports of rape and sexual abuse have been catalogued by human rights organizations.

Canada’s own former minister of justice and attorney general, Irwin Cotler, has argued that in his view the Peoples Republic of China has committed every one of the five acts found in the United Nations Genocide Convention. Mr. Cotler stated:

Uyghurs suffer unlivable conditions, torture, and sexual violence inside the camps, and are subjected to institutionalized enslavement across China. Since 2017, the Chinese government has forcibly transferred Uyghur children — many of them ‘orphaned’ as a result of losing both parents to internment or forced labour — to a network of state-run facilities in Han Chinese settings.

In other words, the minority population is in the forced service of China’s ethnic majority.

Mr. Cotler further states:

The government is simultaneously subjecting Uyghurs to systematic mass forced sterilization and coercive birth‑prevention policies, destroying the group’s reproductive capacity.

. . . Senior officials have issued orders to “eradicate tumors,” “round up everyone,” “wipe them out completely” . . . .

Other Canadians have also witnessed first-hand what is going on in Xinjiang.

[Translation]

Canadians Gary and Andrea Dyck lived in the Xinjiang region from 2007 to 2018. They told Agence France-Presse what they saw when they arrived in China.

They noted that the traditional Uighur neighbourhoods had started to be dismantled and residents were being relocated to buildings far from their communities — and then the measures started to escalate. The couple said that in 2016 there was an increase in police presence, with checkpoints at all major intersections and more security cameras in the cities.

[English]

They personally saw the internment camps being built. Gary Dyck stated:

As the camps were being built, and people were being taken away months later, there was no pushback, there was no fight because there was so much security and they were overwhelmed as a people.

One detention centre was built close to their home. They described it as having a wall 15 feet high, topped with barbed wire and monitored by security cameras as well as guard patrols.

Gary said:

A few of our (then) 15-year-old son’s friends were turning 18 soon, and they were fearful because they would be legal age and they were wondering if they were going to be taken to these camps next, and so they were actually dreading turning 18.

Where (else) in the world does a 17-year-old dread turning 18?

We just felt we were living in a huge penitentiary.

I very much regret to say, colleagues, that the body of evidence supporting this very disturbing assertion is considerable.

I want to quote from what international human rights organizations, who have been cataloguing the witnesses’ testimony, have told us. Last June, Amnesty International released a 160-page report on the scope of the repression. That report concluded:

Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region face systematic state-organized mass imprisonment, torture and persecution amounting to crimes against humanity . . .

Other research work carried out by Human Rights Watch, together with Stanford University’s Law School, found that the Chinese government has committed — and continues to commit — crimes against humanity against the Turkic Muslim people. Human Rights Watch noted that under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC, crimes against humanity:

. . . serious specified offenses that are knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population.

Crimes against humanity are considered among the gravest human rights abuses under international law. The specific crimes against humanity documented in this report include imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty in violation of international law; persecution of an identifiable ethnic or religious group; enforced disappearance; torture; murder; and alleged inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to mental or physical health, notably forced labor and sexual violence.

Here in Canada, in 2021 the NGO Above Ground published a study on forced labour around the world. As part of its study, it found that in Xinjiang Chinese communist authorities have sent:

. . . hundreds of thousands of the region’s Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic minorities, who are predominantly Muslim, to detention camps to have their thoughts “transformed.” Survivors of camps report being kept in crowded dorms, deprived of food, forbidden from praying or speaking their language, and harshly punished for transgressions.

The study noted that Chinese authorities have also allegedly:

. . . transferred hundreds of thousands of ethnic minority citizens, including former detainees, into involuntary work placements across China.

The workers are said to have little choice but to comply given the ever-present threat of extrajudicial detention.

Also, last year, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights released a report by more than 50 independent global experts in international law. The report concluded:

. . . the People’s Republic of China . . . bears state responsibility for committing genocide against the Uyghurs, in breach of the Genocide Convention.

Colleagues, democratic states and international organizations are taking note of these reports. Last June, the White House issued the following statement:

. . . The United States believes that state-sponsored forced labour in Xinjiang is both an affront to human dignity and an example of the PRC’s unfair economic practices. The PRC’s use of forced labour in Xinjiang is an integral part of its systematic abuses against the Uyghur population and other ethnic and religious minority groups, and addressing these abuses will remain a high priority for the Biden-Harris administration. These systematic abuses go beyond forced labour to include sexual violence and large-scale detentions, and the PRC continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in turn, has stated the following in relation to the position of the British Government:

We are seriously concerned about the widespread and systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang. These violations include — but are not limited to — the extrajudicial internment of over 1 million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities; severe restrictions on culture, religion and language; pervasive surveillance and monitoring; the use of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities as forced labour; and the enforcement of birth prevention policies.

Evidence of gross human rights violations and extra-judicial detention and forced labour has been growing, including leaks of China’s own classified internal documents.

Colleagues, a December 2020 Resolution by the European Parliament states:

. . . the suffering of the Uyghurs also extends to the younger generation . . . young children have been sent to state-run orphanages even if only one of their parents has been detained in the internment camps . . . by the end of 2019, over 880,000 Uyghur children had been placed in boarding facilities . . .

[Translation]

The resolution of the European Parliament also emphasizes the Orwellian nature of the Chinese government’s surveillance measures, namely, and I quote:

 . . . measures to ensure the ‘comprehensive supervision’ of Xianjiang through the installation of Skynet electronic surveillance in major urban areas and GPS trackers in all motor vehicles, the use of facial recognition scanners at checkpoints and train and petrol stations, using software based on artificial intelligence camera systems aimed at identifying Uyghurs and other members of ethnic minority groups . . .

Finally, I would like to mention a statement issued this June by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the findings of human rights experts. It referred directly to, and I quote:

 . . . exploitative working and abusive living conditions that may constitute arbitrary detention, human trafficking, forced labour and enslavement by the use of forced labour.

It also recognized the following, and I quote:

 . . . hundreds of thousands of members of the Uyghur minority have been held in “re-education” facilities. Many have also reportedly been forcibly transferred to work in factories in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and in other Chinese provinces.

“Uyghur workers have allegedly been forcibly employed in low-skilled, labor-intensive industries, such as agribusiness, textile and garment, automotive and technological sectors” . . .

[English]

Colleagues, this is the evidence we have before us, and it is evidence that both world bodies and democratic countries are acknowledging as credible.

I submit that what is happening in Xinjiang should terrify us all the more because the actions we are hearing about now are consistent with actions that Communist authorities in the People’s Republic have taken for many years. My intent is not to be inflammatory or dramatic, but I believe we need to be honest when it comes to the historical record, because the historical record helps us to fully comprehend what is happening in Xinjiang today.

The Chinese Communist Party has ruled mainland China for more than 70 years. The generally accepted fact is, in that period of time, it has murdered between 30 and 45 million people. Some argue that the number is even higher. No one will likely ever know the precise number. It doesn’t matter what the exact number is; it is horrifying.

[Translation]

The thing that concerns us in the history of the Communist Party is that the regime that committed these acts is still in power today. It has never been held accountable for its actions. We have nonetheless decided to strengthen our relationship with that regime. I wonder why. I imagine that we wanted to believe the regime would change on its own, that it would recognize the need to change. Although it now says mistakes were made in the past, this does not change one of the core guiding principles of the regime, specifically, that any action to defend the interests of the Communist Party is justified.

This fundamental position is what makes what is happening in Xinjiang so terrifying. That is why we cannot simply turn a blind eye yet again. We cannot convince ourselves that the regime will change on its own. It has sent a clear message that it does not believe it needs to change. That is the difference between what is happening in Xinjiang and what is happened to residential school survivors in Canada, for those who want to make that comparison. I would say that it is because of our own history and the deeply rooted repercussions that are still felt today, that we feel compelled to denounce the situation when we see it elsewhere.

[English]

Unlike Canada, the Communist regime in China doesn’t believe it is doing anything wrong. They believe their actions are justified. A few months ago, published secret remarks reportedly delivered by Chinese President Xi Jinping show his active engagement in the actions being carried out in Xinjiang today.

According to The Guardian newspaper, the leaked documents include three speeches delivered by the Chinese president in April 2014. These reference security, population control and the need to punish the Uighur population. Some of these leaked documents were reportedly marked “top secret.”

The transcript of one speech from May 2014 quotes President Xi as saying that the Communist Party “must not hesitate or waver in the use of the weapons of the people’s democratic dictatorship and focus our energy on executing a crushing blow” against the forces of so-called religious extremism in Xinjiang. When one considers the history of the Communist Party in China, these remarks are chilling.

Last year, when my motion concerning the genocide of the Uighurs was considered in this chamber, it was rejected by the majority — which I think was a shame. I believe part of that is because there has not been a full appreciation as to the scope of what has been happening in Xinjiang. Perhaps it is because we have been so hopeful for a People’s Republic of China that, with time, would more closely resemble our values, that we have lost sight of what the Communist regime has done in the past and of what it is capable of doing today.

As I have said, the regime has never been held to account for its past atrocities, yet there appears to be a tendency to forget them.

Recall that our Prime Minister once called Communist China the country he admired most in the world. I’m not recalling that remark in an attempt to be cheeky — it shows our naïveté and misguided approach. I cite it as an example of that naïveté, engendered by the blind eye that we turn to this history of the Communist Party of China — a naïveté that I find extremely worrisome and dangerous. This naïveté has even given rise to a belief that there is a moral equivalence between democratic states and tyrannical regimes.

In this regard, last June, the former leader of the government spoke of the supposed “tone of moral superiority and self-righteousness contained in the motion,” in reference to my motion concerning the Uighur genocide.

The argument that somehow, because Canada has not been perfect, we then have no right to judge what is taking place in Xinjiang today, is one of the most morally paralyzed responses I’ve ever heard.

As I said earlier, it is because of our own history of residential schools and the ongoing damage and trauma caused by them that Canada is not only well positioned but is actually obligated to call out and take action against what is happening to the Uighur people.

Imagine the consequences for the entire world were such a position adopted during the 1930s. Could we have ever opposed the rise of fascism?

Then there is the naive — if not spurious — argument that we must “engage” with the Chinese regime and help them understand that the path they are on will not be successful for them.

My colleague Senator Woo made this very argument last June, saying that he preferred to seek to convince the Communist regime that their methods are unlikely to achieve a successful outcome. As I said, spurious or, at the very least, extremely naive.

With all due respect, Senator Woo, I would perhaps be disquieted had I been one of the senators who, last June, was complimented by the Chinese ambassador as “people of vision,” people who were described by the ambassador as having “seen through the despicable schemes of a few anti-China forces.”

The regime does not acknowledge the truth, or even the facts, of what is going on in Xinjiang. How, then, are we to somehow convince them to change their ways?

I fear that our government’s own moral ambivalence — by abstaining on a motion in the House of Commons last year that condemned the Uighur genocide — has only encouraged further repression. There are not many Western governments, colleagues, that have refused to recognize what is going on there as a genocide. The Canadian government continues to refuse.

[Translation]

What is happening in Xinjiang is reminiscent of similar actions we’ve seen from this regime in the past, and it is terrifying. Much has been written about what the Chinese Communist Party’s ultimate goals in Xinjiang might be. Is it simply to suppress and eradicate a minority culture? Does it have a broader objective, for example, to replace the Uighur population with a majority Han Chinese population? No one knows for sure. What we do know, however, is that millions of people who are part of a minority population are being detained and subjected to intensive re‑education. That is one of the findings of a recent study by the Brookings Institution.

[English]

In the face of that, I believe we must respond, and we must respond firmly. In my view, we must actively oppose and sanction what is happening in order to begin to protect the Uighur people and other ethnic minorities.

I agree with what former senator Roméo Dallaire has argued in a very morally clear way. He said:

When there is massive abuses of human rights by a state . . . we all have the responsibility to go in and protect them.

What does “protecting them” mean in the context of a great power like the Chinese Communist state? In my view, at a minimum, it means we should not be co-participants in their repression, even if inadvertently.

This bill proposes to stop the importation of goods from a region where crimes of genocide are taking place and forced labour practices are evident. This is certainly a modest measure, but I believe the bill can play a part in opposing what is happening in Xinjiang. In my view, the measure proposed in this bill is entirely consistent with Canada’s obligations to the World Trade Organization, or WTO.

Article 21(b)(iii) of the WTO permits member states to take trade actions to protect essential security interests in a time of war or in order to respond to other emergencies in international relations. The existence of a genocide, one that is widely reported and acknowledged, must certainly be regarded as one of those international relations emergencies. Historically, Canada has taken such measures before, for instance, against Myanmar/Burma in the face of egregious human rights abuses. I submit that what is happening in Xinjiang also constitutes an egregious abuse of human rights.

Many of Canada’s allies agree and are already acting. Just to reference some examples, in 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act imposing various restrictions on the import of goods from Xinjiang. The senate in Australia has passed a bill seeking to prohibit the importation of all goods produced, in whole or in part, by forced labour. The European Parliament has called on the European Commission to adopt measures, including a prohibition on goods produced through forced labour, in the European market.

Just as is occurring in relation to those measures, as this bill advances, I am certainly more than willing to listen to suggestions to improve the bill and to strengthen it. However, in my view, what is most important at this stage is to move the bill forward from second reading to committee consideration.

I know there are some concerns that this bill goes too far and that we should be focused on stopping the import of products that we know are specifically manufactured using forced labour. Some opponents will argue that we already have a law in place to deal with just that. The problem is that the current law isn’t sufficient or simply isn’t being enforced. Whether that’s through lack of resources or lack of political will, only the Minister of Public Safety, previously Bill Blair and now Minister Marco Mendicino, can tell us for sure.

Consider that in the year since we changed our customs law, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, has stopped only one shipment from China with goods deemed to have been manufactured using slave labour. Colleagues, something’s clearly not working — whether it’s the law itself or the inability to enforce it. I’m referring to the changes that were made to our customs law after an agreement to halt the importation of goods manufactured with forced labour as part of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

In the United States, the onus is on anyone importing certain goods from the Xinjiang region to prove that those goods aren’t the product of forced labour. Whereas, here in Canada, CBSA has taken the position that it doesn’t have the authority to put the onus on the importers. Would it surprise my colleagues to know that CBSA argued this position before the Federal Court after a refugee group filed legal action last year?

That’s why I wanted to introduce this bill. I want to make sure it is very clear to CBSA that they have the authority to stop all goods from Xinjiang and that there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. I want to make it as clear and as simple as possible for our agents on the front lines to be able to do their job in fighting this egregious behaviour, and I want to send a clear and unequivocal message to the communist regime of China that we, a G7 country, will no longer tolerate China’s egregious and outrageous human rights abuses. We will use the leverage we have, which is access to our wealthy consumer markets and which is considerable leverage, colleagues.

I acknowledge that if this bill is enacted, the communist regime will retaliate. We should be under no illusions about that since, in the face of the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in 2018, the regime retaliated against Canada by taking two Canadians hostage. It’s ironic that I speak of this during anti-bullying week here in Canada, because there is no perpetual bully in the world right now bigger than the Chinese regime.

We know and should expect that the regime may take similar bullying steps again. It is also likely to impose its own economic measures against Canada, just as it has done in the past in order to intimidate Canada, Australia and many other of our allies. Australia, however, has responded confidently by diversifying its markets. It has engaged closely with like-minded allies in order to make its stance even more effective against this brutal regime. This is what Canada must do as well. We should partner with like-mind allies, countries like Australia, the United States, Japan, India and others. The government should take steps to protect Canadians by urging them not to travel to China if at all possible or to leave that country as soon as possible.

I agree we need to act multilaterally, but we must also be prepared to lead. That’s what Canada has done in the past. In the face of the moral challenges we are facing, I do not believe that we have any other option. That also includes calling on Canadian companies to stop investing in Chinese companies implicated in gross human rights violations.

Thanks to the research and subsequent report done by Hong Kong Watch, we know that some of the largest Western pension funds, including CPP Investments, the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec maintain substantial investments in Chinese banking and business concerns that are allegedly complicit in human rights violations, including a number of Chinese companies that have been sanctioned by our allies around the world, like the United States.

We know that many well-known Western companies are heavily invested in Xinjiang and are benefiting from direct and indirect forced labour. Well-known figures, such as basketball star Enes Freedom, formerly Enes Kanter, have been speaking out against Nike and other major corporations who have been implicated as a result of their investments in China, activities that only serve to strengthen and embolden a communist regime. We should not permit these activities to continue, because if we do, we are complicit in these human rights violations and in this genocide.

Colleagues, I believe that we have a moral obligation to act, as well as have a legal obligation.

As Sarah Teich, an international human rights lawyer and legal adviser to the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project has pointed out, Canada has not only ratified several treaties that impose international legal obligations to suppress and eliminate forced labour, but are also a state party to the UN Genocide Convention, which means that we are obligated not just to not commit genocide but also to prevent it, to speak out against it, to take action against it.

Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

“Undertake to prevent,” colleagues. It is not enough to wait for the punishment to be doled out once the UN has established that a genocide has been committed. We are obliged under the law and obligated to prevent it from happening in the first place. Canada should not be signatories to these agreements for fun. They should mean something. Our word, our signature, should mean something.

I know that many of you are disquieted by the idea of confronting China. The communist regime is a powerful one. They have their economic tentacles in all areas of our society and institutions in Canada and around the Western democratic word, but this regime is also increasing its repression, not just against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities, but also in Hong Kong and against all dissenters throughout China and around the world. Simultaneously, the regime is becoming more bellicose in its actions against neighbouring states such as Taiwan, India and Japan, and against neighbours in the South China Sea.

Threats and intimidation are a hallmark of this bully, but we can no longer be silent in the face of repression. We have a moral and legal responsibility to do the right thing. We know the millions facing repression in Xinjiang are calling on us to do the right thing. They’re calling for help. We shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand. We shouldn’t turn our backs on them. We should hear their cries. These are people who are being tortured, oppressed and used in labour camps. Often many of those products find their way to our shelves.

Canada can lead by example, and I believe this bill is just one step in doing that. In that spirit, honourable colleagues, I urge you all to support this legislation and send a message to the Uighur people that the Senate of Canada and the Parliament of Canada hear their cries, and we are ready to do something about it. Thank you.

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte, pursuant to notice of February 10, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate:

(a) The current state and future direction of production, distribution, consumption, trade, security and sustainability of Canada’s energy resources;

(b) Environmental challenges facing Canadians including responses and adaptation to global climate change, pollution, biodiversity, and ecological integrity, and the cumulative environmental effects of energy and natural resource development;

(c) Sustainable development and management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources including but not limited to water, minerals, soils, flora and fauna;

(d) Pathways to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and ways to address the human and environmental impacts of climate change and manage the transition to a low carbon economy;

(e) Opportunities and challenges for women, Indigenous Peoples, Black and racialized Canadians, newcomers, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQ2 Canadians, in the energy and natural resource sectors; and

(f) Canada’s international treaty obligations affecting energy, the environment and natural resources and their influence on Canada’s economic and social development; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2025 and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Boehm: Thank you very much for an interesting and, I would say, comprehensive speech. My concern, of course, is also with the treatment of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang province, and I have worked on this for some years and in fact, on the famous case of Hussein Jalil, I go back to 2006.

My question is, however, a very specific one. I ask because I simply don’t know the answer. You cited some U.S. legislation and measures that other countries have taken. I know there was a declaration from the European Parliament because I have read that as well. But I’m wondering whether you have any sense of the impact of that legislation in the U.S. — in other words, how it has been applied — because it would raise, I think, certain resource questions — and I don’t have answers to that either — but in terms of how, whether it is through CBSA or other entities or in fact through our missions and consulates in China that this would be applied. I’m just very curious. Thanks.

Senator Housakos: As you know, it has only been a few months now since the United States legislature passed their legislation banning all products coming in from Xinjiang. The truth of the matter is I’m not sure how that legislation on the U.S. side has been applied. I’m by no means an expert on how the Americans conduct their trade.

One thing I do believe is that this particular bill will make it a lot less time-consuming and a lot less bureaucratic for CBSA because any bill of lading coming to any Canadian port would be turned back. This is an acknowledgment, after tons and tons of international evidence from groups of everything that’s going on right now in the food industry, in the cotton industry, in that area — all of that activity is being done using forced labour of the Uighur people.

I think this would be the simplest thing. Right now, we have a complicated bill in place which places the onus of proof on CBSA to come up with evidence that the products coming in from Xinjiang are basically products that have been manufactured or put together by slave labour.

This bill simplifies the actual application of what we’re trying to do, which is to make sure that no product made by forced labour comes to our shores. No one can convince me that, over the last two or three years, with the law that we currently have on the books, only one container identified as having products manufactured in Xinjiang by slave labour has arrived here. I find that outrageous. It’s hypocritical for us, knowing all the evidence of what’s going on in that region to assume that the vast majority of products — as I said, tomatoes from the agricultural industry, cotton from the area, solar platforms, industrial equipment — that nothing else has been imported from Xinjiang. All of this stuff is well known around the world. There’s nobody that denies that these products are being built, manufactured and produced, on the backs of slave labour of the Uighur people.

I hope I answered your question. I think this bill will simplify our response for managing the risks of accepting products that are coming here, having been manufactured by slave labour.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Housakos, may I commend you on both your determination and your dedication to addressing what is happening to the Uighurs in China.

My question relates to technical human rights terms — “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” When I discussed your bill with other parliamentarians, this question has arisen. I have a second question if time allows.

About a month after you tabled this bill, in this place, President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, as you mentioned. There is no specific reference in that act to genocide per se. We know your position on naming what is happening to Uighurs in China. Could I ask you, please, to help us understand better the terminology that you’ve chosen to use in this particular bill?

Senator Housakos: Regarding the terminology of recognizing that what’s going on in Xinjiang right now is a genocide, I literally just stole that from experts, like Amnesty International and from Irwin Cotler of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre. When they have done their evaluation of all the evidence that’s before us, they will tell you that every single criterion recognizing this as genocide has been met in this particular instance.

My bill, of course, is not so much preoccupied by that reality as by the reality of forced labour camps that are used in the area right now. I think, at the end of the day, if we want to send a message that Canada will not tolerate this kind of egregious behaviour and using forced labour of men, women and children, for whatever the reasons may be, this is the best way to do it. I think there’s no ambiguity. It’s not flexible. It sends a clear message to the regime that, in their industrial capacity in Xinjiang, in their agriculture centres and everything they’re doing and producing and exporting, that we will not be complicit and a partner in encouraging the abuse of these people.

Senator McPhedran: In the act that President Biden signed into law in December, it specifically mentions coordination with Mexico and Canada to effectively implement Article 23.6 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to prohibit the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labour.

I wonder if you might comment on the nature of your bill in relation to the American bill in this regard.

Senator Housakos: This bill is very similar. Obviously, the bill we have on the books right now, which we passed only a couple of years ago, was in response to, of course, the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement. It was done as a reflex, trying to be compliant with the agreement. But, again, was this done — implicitly, explicitly, I really don’t know — by our government, but that bill certainly doesn’t meet the objective of combating forced labour. The American bill is far more rigid, the one that was just passed, than what we currently have in the bill.

You will forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what the Mexican position is in regard to this. It just became, to me, common sense: Why is the onus on CBSA agents to try to implement what currently is on the books, when it cannot be implemented? They, themselves, in all good faith, have expressed that view. I’ve had discussions with people from CBSA who tell me that they consider this bill really window dressing because the government knows that they can’t actually execute this in an effective fashion. The proof is in the pudding because, over the last year and a half while the law has been on the books, they have confiscated and stopped one container of what I suspect is a significant amount of imports that come in from that region.

[Translation]

Hon. Percy E. Downe rose pursuant to notice of December 9, 2021:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to:

(a)The importance of the federal government as Canada’s largest single employer, with over 230,000 civilian employees;

(b)The fact that, although everyone understands that a significant portion of federal employees would be based in the nation’s capital, in recent years a trend has developed whereby the distribution of jobs between Ottawa and the regions has become more and more disproportionate in favour of the National Capital Region; and

(c)The role of the Senate in examining and discussing the opportunities for decentralizing federal government jobs and services, and urging the Government of Canada to restore the historical distribution of employment to one third of jobs in the National Capital Region and two thirds in the rest of the country, thereby contributing to the economic growth and stability of the regions of Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I want to take this opportunity because I’m the last on the Order Paper and this opportunity may not present itself for a number of weeks. I want to say a few short words about decentralization of government departments across Canada. Basically, the message will be anticipation that the federal government will reallocate departments as they have done for Prince Edward Island, and other provinces and regions can benefit from that.

The Government of Canada, colleagues, is the largest employer in the country. Even without counting the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, over 246,000 Canadians work for the federal government. From the Atlantic to the Pacific to the high Arctic, Canadian public servants are spread throughout the country performing the various tasks that make a nation function.

That said, these public servants are considerably less spread throughout the country than has been the case historically. Not surprising, a significant proportion of federal employees have been concentrated in the Ottawa area, many within sight of Parliament Hill. This is understandable. One would expect the nation’s capital to have a large number of federal employees.

However, the various provinces and regions of Canada also value the well-paid and stable workforce that the federal public service represents. Such a workforce can provide a foundation around which a healthy regional economy can flourish. Indeed, that has been the case in Ottawa and the National Capital Region.

Unfortunately, the economic benefits flowing from these jobs are not being shared as evenly as they used to be. Historically, one third of federal public jobs were based in the Ottawa area while the remaining two thirds were across the rest of Canada. However, statistics show that ratio changing to the favour of the National Capital Region, rising to 47% last year. So instead of one third of Government of Canada jobs being located in the Ottawa area, we are closer to one half.

This change has come at the expense of the regions. For example, in the period 2008 to 2021, the federal public service experienced a net gain of over 46,000 jobs. Of that number, over 30,000 — almost two thirds of that total — ended up in the National Capital Region.

This presents two related problems for Canada’s regions and the people who live there. The first is that the financial benefits of the federal workforce are concentrated, like the jobs themselves, in one area of the country. All regions of Canada should share in this prosperity and opportunities to work in their own region, particularly for young people who are trying to start their careers.

The best example of the beneficial impact of the decentralization of government jobs was the 1976 relocation of the national headquarters of Veterans Affairs Canada to Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island was very fortunate decades ago with that decision. Veterans Affairs Canada is the only national department headquartered outside the Ottawa region. That long-ago decision to move Veterans Affairs to a province had a profound and lasting impact on P.E.I. both economically and socially. Currently some 1,600 people work for Veterans Affairs on Prince Edward Island. That represents a yearly payroll of $122 million. These employees buy cars, homes and the various goods and services associated with everyday life — $122 million flowing through the Prince Edward Island economy year after year that would not exist were it not for a decision made 45 years ago.

Obviously, there is more to a healthy economy than federal government jobs. Meaningful economic development can only come from a balanced economy that respects and welcomes the role of a robust private sector, which invests the time and money necessary to create the jobs that will keep Canadians at home, building their futures.

That said, a balanced economy also means there is an important role for government to play. Hundreds of thousands of federal jobs and the purchasing power they represent make the federal government a significant buyer in the Canadian economy. The way those jobs are distributed across Canada has a major impact on regional economies. Thus, it is theirs and our responsibility to ensure that distribution is fair.

Colleagues, beyond the economic contribution, the presence of Veterans Affairs has also made a significant contribution socially to Prince Edward Island. Veterans Affairs has broadened the Prince Edward Island society to include a vast array of highly trained professional public servants who contribute their every working day to public affairs and their evenings and weekends to Prince Edward Island’s society. One of the many positive effects of Veterans Affairs’ relocation to Charlottetown can be seen in the remarkable growth and the use of the French language. Prince Edward Island has always had a thriving Acadian community, but the addition of Veterans Affairs deepened the role of the French language.

According to Statistics Canada, Prince Edward Islanders are third among the provinces in English-French bilingualism after Quebec and New Brunswick. There is no doubt that the strength of the Acadian community assisted in that regard, but the single greatest contribution to the growth of the French language in P.E.I. in the last 40-plus years is the presence of Veterans Affairs.

One cannot talk about decentralization without talking about the past two years. With every aspect of life, the pandemic has profoundly changed work for many Canadians. For example, Shopify, one of Canada’s top companies — it used to be located down the street on Elgin Street — has shifted its operation to allow its employees to work remotely as much as possible. Technology helps. Indeed, five years ago the Government of Canada itself stated in a response to a written question that “with video messaging and email, there are several avenues available for virtual and instant communications between offices.” That was long before we ever heard the words “Zoom” or “MS Teams.” Colleagues, it can be done.

We need to ask why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with some 1,500 employees, has hundreds of their employees located in an office tower on Kent Street in downtown Ottawa and not, say, in downtown Sydney, Cape Breton. Why is the federal Department of Agriculture located in Ottawa and not Saskatchewan? Why is the Department of Environment located in Gatineau as opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador? Why, given a growing trade with Asia, is the Export Development Canada office on O’Connor Street rather than in British Columbia?

Colleagues, relocation makes sense, not only as an economic development tool, but also because it reflects the challenges of a geography that is as diverse as our nation. Canadians are looking for a fair distribution of federal service jobs. By the government’s own logic, there is no reason for so many of these jobs to be in Ottawa’s National Capital Region. They can just as easily be performed in any corner or region of our country.

Continued pressure on the government, particularly from the Senate, with our regional responsibilities, can help bring this about and spread the benefits of public service employment throughout Canada. If we decentralize government employment and departments, all regions of Canada can enjoy the same benefits Prince Edward Islanders are currently enjoying and have enjoyed for the last four decades. Thank you, honourable senators.

(On motion of Senator Griffin, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:41 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, March 1, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced in this place by my colleague Senator Boisvenu. With this bill, he is starting another chapter in his mission to defend abused women. I salute his long‑standing commitment.

Like everyone else, I was horrified by the 18 alleged femicides committed by intimate partners in Quebec in 2021 alone. Domestic violence is a scourge that illustrates how little progress we have made towards achieving gender equality. It can even become a matter of life or death. According to Statistics Canada, 47% of female murder victims in Canada were killed by an intimate partner, compared to only 6% for men.

Eighteen femicides is eighteen too many, but that is just a drop in the ocean. Every year, a staggering 20,000 offences against the person are reported and committed in a domestic violence context in Quebec. That is extremely difficult for the police and the justice system to manage, given that they are constantly struggling with limited resources and somewhat subjective risk assessments.

For years, I have been trying to come up with possible solutions to this fear that too many women experience.

I am not a supporter of minimum sentences and harsher sentences. There is no evidence demonstrating that an even more punitive approach would have a deterrent effect and reduce the number of such crimes.

However, I have seen the pervasive fear in victims of domestic violence when their partner or former partner is released. I have met these women and listened to them. They constantly relive the trauma of being spied on, monitored and attacked by an abusive partner, and fearing for the safety of their children.

Until attitudes change and assault is no longer used a means of control by violent men, there absolutely needs to be better prevention and a system that supports and protects victims as much as possible.

It is for this reason that I am prejudiced in favour of using electronic monitoring devices, as Bill S-205 proposes. I see it as one more tool, though not a magic solution, so victims do not have to live in fear when their former partner is released. Many women’s groups have been calling for these monitoring devices for years.

However, it is important to note that Bill S-205 would allow a judge to require an accused to wear the electronic device at every stage of the legal process, including before the verdict. After some consultation, I think it would be more appropriate if the device were only required as part of the parole conditions for persons found guilty of domestic violence, at least initially. I will come back to that.

I also think that the addition of the electronic monitoring device could represent a wise use of our technological advances. For once, technology would be used for the public interest, to protect vulnerable individuals, rather than for inappropriate surveillance, whether it be for commercial or security reasons.

Some people are concerned that these monitoring devices may be too intrusive and may negatively affect the offenders’ rehabilitation. Based on a study conducted by Spanish criminologist Lorea Arenas, it seems those concerns are unfounded. The offenders who participated in the study found that wearing the monitoring device was not as bad as prison. They felt that there were more advantages to not being in prison, even if wearing the device 24-7 can be uncomfortable or disrupt their family life.

Electronic monitoring devices use geolocation technology. They are made up of two parts: a bracelet worn by the offender and a device provided to the victim. The device establishes two zones: a pre-alert zone and an alert zone. As soon as the offender enters the pre-alert zone, he receives a call telling him to turn back. If he does not comply and enters the alert zone, the police will intervene.

What is most reassuring about the way the electronic monitoring device would be used is that it puts the women at the centre of decision making. Subclause 2(3.1) of Bill S-205 states that victims must be consulted about their safety and security needs before the justice makes a decision.

As I was saying earlier, electronic monitoring devices cannot be seen as a magic solution. Yes, there were some very positive results in Spain, where only 2 of the 800 women equipped with the monitoring device were killed. However, there may have been other factors involved, such as the existence of specialized courts, training for judges, support for victims, and police resources.

I want to point out that the bill introduced by Senator Boisvenu goes further than Bill 24, which is currently being studied in the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec wants offenders to be required to wear one of these electronic monitoring devices once they are convicted of domestic violence, serve their sentence in a provincial jail and become eligible for parole.

Bill S-205 would expand that requirement to the accused in cases of domestic violence.

According to the experts I spoke to, the use of an electronic monitoring device before a verdict is much more controversial. I want to share a quote from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale au Québec. I quote:

 . . . in many cases, these former partners will do whatever it takes to try to maintain their hold over their former partners. It is actually at the time of separation, when the abuser feels like their partner is slipping away from them, that the woman and her children face the greatest risk of lethal violence.

Abusive spouses are more dangerous, more likely to act out, when there is a change in their situation. This may be when the separation occurs or the abuser is reported to the police, when they lose control over their partner, when their life falls apart and financial and housing problems start to pile up.

All this usually happens before the trial, that is, before the verdict is pronounced. According to the people I consulted, this is when releasing the accused with an electronic monitoring device would be too risky, because it could give the victim a false sense of security in the face of a former partner who is still far too dangerous.

An alarm going off at the police station does not guarantee a response in time to prevent tragedy every time. For this reason, again according to the people I consulted, it is better to keep the accused in prison than to release them with an ankle bracelet.

I would again like to quote the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale on the use of ankle bracelets prior to the trial:

 . . . there may be a temptation to use [the electronic monitoring device] when the abusive partner would otherwise have been kept in custody because of the danger he poses to his former partner or children.

In many cases, violent men become less dangerous over time, especially if they have served a sentence. At that point, the authorities are in a better position to assess the actual risk of release because these men are monitored for a longer time by various agencies. The electronic monitoring devices seem like a useful tool for correctional services.

There is another reason these devices might not be a cure-all, especially in the many parts of our vast country that have low population density.

In cities, where population density is high and everything is close, it seems likely the police could respond in time when alerted that the offender is in the prohibited zone. However, the devices may be much less effective in rural areas, where there are fewer police officers and greater distances to cover. It’s far less likely that an alert will enable officers to get to the victim in time. In addition, remote areas have very bad cell service.

That said, it’s clear that the only option available right now, a peace bond, also known as an 810, does a poor job of keeping women safe.

Every stakeholder told us that there is often no follow-up to the numerous complaints filed by victims and no proactive monitoring system because of staff shortages.

Abused women do not always want to resort to the courts to obtain justice. It is a lengthy and difficult process that, in many cases, prolongs the trauma. They want to move on. That is what makes the electronic monitoring device so attractive, but it would certainly be best to take it one step at a time.

First, we need to assess how this tool works for offenders released on parole after being convicted, before we start using it in cases where it is harder to do a risk assessment of the abuser.

I am aware that many femicides occur long before trial and that we are stuck using inadequate monitoring instruments in the short term.

Because of the presumption of innocence, the majority of accused are quickly released on bail. It is at this point that a serious evaluation of the danger they pose is essential. Bill S-205 provides that a judge can require an accused to attend domestic violence counselling or addiction treatment at the interim release stage.

I have not consulted experts on this aspect, so I will leave it to them to speak to the effectiveness and legality of requiring treatment before sentencing.

In closing, I believe that my colleague’s bill deserves serious review in committee. We need to ensure that the measures we use strike a pragmatic balance, and not let ourselves be enticed by a trendy new gadget that is also not without risk.

True protection for victims needs to be the priority, in a manner respecting our rights and freedoms.

Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Would you take a question from Senator Boisvenu?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Thank you, senator.

I very much enjoyed reading your brief. However, I have some questions about some of the information you provided.

Yes, it is true that most of the women, nearly three quarters, are murdered before the accused can appear before a judge. It is also worth noting that, in the majority of cases, there will be no trial. Instead, the court will impose an 810 — an order to keep the peace.

That means many of these women will never see their husband, partner or former partner go before a judge and be tried.

In many cases, 810s have replaced the trial process. Without a monitoring tool like the one I am proposing in the bill, I believe that many, many women will die in the next few years.

That said, you state in your brief that the electronic monitoring device could be dangerous and, in the same sentence, you state that in a Spanish study of 800 women who were given an electronic monitoring device only 2 were murdered.

Do you not see the contradiction in these two statements? On the one hand you say that the electronic monitoring device is dangerous but, on the other, there were only two murders in Spain where they have been using such a device for 15 years.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your question.

As I said in my speech, there are other criteria involved in the situation in Spain that we should probably take into account if we are to more closely examine the impact of a far broader use of these monitoring devices. That is one thing.

That being said, you are right that I have concerns. I am concerned because, as you know, the Government of Quebec has conducted a more thorough analysis of the situation and has also determined that electronic monitoring devices would be used after a verdict is rendered.

Obviously, I do not know all the reasons behind that, but I am fairly certain that the issue I raised is at the root of their concerns. For now, we need to know how electronic monitoring devices work.

If we give a whole lot of these out to the accused without assessing how dangerous those people really are, then the real danger is that the victims will take more risks because they believe they are protected by the device. That is where the danger lies, Senator Boisvenu. What it comes down to is that it is dangerous for the victims to put too much faith in a tool that does not fully protect them. Making this tool available could mean that judges let more of the accused go free when they are, in fact, dangerous.

With that in mind, I think that we must be prudent and implement this tool in stages.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I’m sorry, Senator Miville-Dechêne, but your time is up.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of S-220. I would like to thank Senator Carignan for introducing this bill, thereby giving senators the opportunity to discuss and debate bilingualism. It also gives senators the chance to confront the elephant in the room: the central question around the history of languages in Canada, their uses in the historical and current colonization of First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status peoples, and the effects of this continuing assimilation and oppression in the present day.

As parliamentarians, we have an opportunity to end the ongoing subordination of Indigenous languages and identities in Canada. I first want to reiterate, as expressed by Senators Downe and Dalphond in their speeches, that the French and English were not the founding nations of Canada, as was stated by Senator Carignan in his speech. The First Nations and Inuit have been living here on these lands from time immemorial. They had their own distinct systems of government, including laws and constitutions, their own distinct societal structures and functions in their strong collectives, and a close link to territories and surrounding natural resources.

The Métis were to come later as the children of First Nations and Europeans. Initially, the Métis had the great gift of being a bridge between the two worlds until racism and competition marginalized them. There were no non-status people at that time, as the Indian Act was not yet an idea.

As you will know, this law would come to have a profoundly negative effect on First Nations, paving the way for the sustained disenfranchisement of the original peoples and their descendants.

First Nations and Inuit were the original inhabitants of this land, so why are their languages not officially recognized as are French and English? First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status have their own ancient, unique and unparalleled traditional knowledge that is passed down through language and culture. We are not saying that everyone must learn these languages; we are saying that our languages are just as important as English and French. We have struggled greatly to maintain them through centuries of colonialism. We now have federal legislation supporting their survival and resurgence. Should we not, then, entrenched them accordingly? In South Africa, as an example, 11 languages hold official status under their 1996 constitution, and an additional 11 are to be promoted and developed.

Honourable senators, First Nations no longer want to be prevented from the ability to integrate and reflect our own ethnocultural diversity. Language plays an important role in giving identity but also in removing it. The dominance of the French and English languages and the power they carry continue to lessen and diminish Indigenous cultures. I do not want our future generations to continue to exist for others.

The prevalence of language domination is a form of exerting one’s sovereignty. In that case, why are Indigenous peoples expected to continue to suppress ourselves as a third level of government and suppress our languages? First Nations, Inuit and Métis are self-determining peoples and sovereign nations. The word “sovereign” in Cree is e-ti-pee-thi-mi-soot, which means “he or she belongs to themselves.”

At its foundation, colleagues, language is used for connection. It is meaningful because it is useful. Language is powerful. That is why the fight exists for some to retain their mother tongue while others work to suppress or extinguished it.

Honourable senators, you are all aware that I was interred in a residential school for 11 years, from age 5 to 16. I was prevented from speaking my language, immersed into an English-speaking world and forced to adopt the English language by French nuns and priests.

When I was about eight, I was home for the summer and speaking Cree to my dad, and he turned to me and said, “Speak English.” I remember being surprised. I was later to learn that he meant for me to master the English language, because we had no choice. In residential school, the use of Cree resulted in punishment. My dad later told me that I could relearn my Cree language, as it would always be with me since I had been fluent in it at one time. I am still relearning how to speak it to this day.

Colleagues, do you know how difficult it is to relearn your mother tongue once it has been forcibly removed from you? I have the words clearly in my head, but I’m unable to voice them, mostly from shame but also because it has been a long time since I have used the muscles required to pronounce them.

My language was made foreign to me. I still carry the shame of being told at a very young age that my language was that of the savage and uncivilized person. By whom? By the French nuns and priests who ran Guy Hill School, a residential school.

Overcoming shame is a difficult and convoluted process, especially if you do not know the genesis of that shame. My difficulty in relearning my language is deeply entrenched in shame.

On December 10, 2021, I headed out by car to Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, travelling alone for the first time. I have travelled there on different occasions with my daughter to visit the nuns that had been at Guy Hill. These were nuns with whom I had a spirit-bound relationship. One in particular, Sister Evelyn, was a surrogate mom to me because of the loss of my own mom at the age of five.

In my search for Sister Evelyn, I tracked her down in 2013 at the retirement home of Sisters of Saint Joseph and Saint-Hyacinthe. As I drove into Quebec and saw the French-only signs, a language that I am not well versed in, the feeling of fear and vulnerability overcame me. It was truly an “a-ha moment” for me. I realized I still remembered deep within me the fear of French people and the French language. My loneliness came back in waves as if I were back in residential school, with little control over my life and decisions.

On that day, the weather was inclement, and since all the signage was in French, I was unable to determine what the roadside warnings were saying. I thought, “For all this talk about respecting bilingualism, why are the signs in Quebec not bilingual?”

Honourable senators, as I had previously mentioned, my mother was Métis and her family fled to Brochet, Manitoba, when they were forced off their land in Selkirk, Manitoba. I had my family tree done in 2018 and found out that my mother’s side was traced back to France, where my ancestor departed in 1500. I thought, “Now I have a reason to learn French. But first, I must relearn my mother tongue, the Cree language.”

As part of my own journey of reconciling myself with my Cree identity, I have looked at ways of dissecting why structures in Canada, inadvertently or not, continue to contribute to the elimination of First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status cultures, politics, identity and connection to the land.

First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status peoples cherish their language the same way the French and English do theirs. We see language as inseparable from our bodies and minds, our culture, our history, our land and our environment, as do you. And yet, we have two separate histories. Yours is more privileged than mine, and it seems that we will be forced to continue down these two separate paths.

The French retain their culture and language because they had that privilege through the unilateral application of legislation based on the incorrect assumption that they are a founding nation. But we could not keep ours, even though we were the original inhabitants. Instead, both the French and English conveyed their thoughts, beliefs and customs through language as a cultural tool of oppression. Yet, the First Nations people have never fully accepted this violent, cultural and linguistic sovereignty. Instead, we continue to make our own way back to our own sovereignty as more and more of us retain our languages.

In his second reading speech, Senator Carignan stated that he wants to add the Governor General of Canada to the list of the 10 officers of Parliament who must be bilingual at the time of their appointment. The Governor General, Mary Simons, is currently bilingual; she speaks English and Inuktitut. I heard from many people across the land about the pride and hope they had that one of their own was now at the top of our constitutional hierarchy. I wish Indigenous peoples had a commissioner of languages so we could hear both sides of this conversation.

Mary Simon is the ideal person to lead the reconciliation-conciliation process in Canada. It is important that she —

Senator McCallum: Canada should be proud of an Inuit woman appointed as our Governor General. This will deepen people-to-people ties and strengthen Canada’s relationships both domestically as well as internationally with partners who have their own Indigenous populations.

I would like to state that I understand the ongoing fight of the French for linguistic rights and recognition. Indigenous languages deserve those rights and considerations as well. If we want Indigenous youth to be encouraged and empowered to retain their own languages, it should be signalled by codification into the Constitution. Doing so would bring further social cohesion to this country. It is worth repeating that one of the Senate’s constitutional roles is to protect and uphold the voices of minorities, such as Indigenous populations.

Colleagues, I believe this bill should be voted on and subsequently sent to committee where it would be well served to hear from the Indigenous and all other perspectives. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Senator McCallum, I appreciate your speech and where you want to go with this. I just wanted to raise a point. I don’t know whether you’re aware of this or not, but the use of Aboriginal languages has been allowed in the Senate for years, and we encourage it. We do have to arrange for translators so that it can be translated into English and French and vice versa. I would encourage any of our colleagues who speak one of the Aboriginal languages to explore this and help expose the rest of us to your languages.

This is more by way of information as opposed to a question. I don’t know if you are aware of it or not. Since I’ve been in the Senate, I’ve heard Aboriginal languages spoken a number of times, but again, we need to make arrangements to have the proper people here who can do the translation for the rest of us in English, French and the Aboriginal language.