Senator Gold: The motion before us only contemplates hybrid committees, senator. There is nothing before us that contemplates virtual committees, even though it’s the position of the government that this would be a good additional element to allow more committees to sit for more hours. That said, it remains the case that in addition to the technological and room size limitations, there are human resource limitations, including translators and others.

This is a matter, as you know, which is overseen by the Speaker’s office and through the administration. My understanding is that this has been discussed at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and other places and will continue to be brought to this chamber. For the moment, this motion only contemplates hybrid committees.

(On motion of Senator Wells, for Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

(At 4:07 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond introduced Bill S-207, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Marilou McPhedran introduced Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer introduced Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Cordy, for Senator Mercer, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Senator Saint-Germain: I would like some clarification on the first clause of the motion, which says, and I quote:

 . . . as soon as practicable after the adoption of this order the Senate begin to hold hybrid sittings . . .

We have been holding hybrid sittings since the fall of 2020 and have all the equipment and resources required. I would therefore like some clarification on what specifically could delay the implementation of hybrid sittings. When do you think we can expect to hold hybrid sittings?

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, for today’s sitting, Routine Proceedings extend beyond 30 minutes, until the end of business related thereto.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. The government is very aware of the serious situation that’s posed by flooding and mudslides in British Columbia, as well as the impact on transportation networks and supply chains.

Transport Canada, I’m advised, is optimistic about the news of rail lines gradually restarting, and with key industry partners and members of federal and provincial governments, the Government of Canada has formed a joint Supply Chain Recovery Working Group to assess transport networks and plan for the prioritized movement of goods. I have been informed that the government continues to work closely with these partners to address the broader supply chain issues going forward.

Hon. Lucie Moncion introduced Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold. A couple of days ago, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said her government was in discussions about boycotting the Beijing games because of the disappearance of tennis player Peng Shuai.

I’m perplexed as to why this decision was not taken much earlier, in light of the kidnapping of our two Michaels, or the genocide of the Uighur people, or the suspension of democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong. But here we are.

My question is a simple one: Will the Trudeau government take action and boycott the Beijing Olympic Games, yes or no?

Hon. Jane Cordy, with leave of the Senate, for the Honourable Senator Mercer, introduced Bill S-226, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speaker of the Senate).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the unacceptable situation that this young Canadian faces in Cuba. The Canadian government continues to make every effort to ensure that Canadians who are detained abroad receive equitable treatment. Every consular case is unique and the assistance we’re able to provide will vary with the circumstances.

I’m advised that the Canadian government is engaged with Cuban officials and continues to work to seek consular access to the individual, and that consular officials maintain regular contact and will continue to provide support to the individual’s family. I’m also advised that, due to privacy considerations, no further information may be disclosed at this juncture.

Senator Patterson: Thank you, Senator Gold. I appreciate your noting that there is also a longer-term issue here due to shifting permafrost that is damaging our underground utilidor system, decreased precipitation as a result of climate change and increased population. So a new system would require a new source of potable water, additional storage and a distribution system. The city estimates that a significant sum of $180 million is required to respond to the need for a new long-term water supply in one of Canada’s capital cities.

Senator Gold, will your government make the necessary investments during this parliamentary session — in particular, a commitment to funding a new long-term water supply for the capital city of Nunavut? Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, the November 15 edition of The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian government had intercepted a shipment of clothing from China for the first time since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, was signed 15 months ago. There were suspicions that the shipment contained goods produced using forced labour. Canadian authorities did not disclose the date of the seizure or the company that was importing the goods. Meanwhile, U.S. authorities have made several seizures and published the dates and names of the companies involved. Why the difference between the two countries? One factor is that in order to stop a shipment, the U.S. requires information that reasonably, but not conclusively, indicates the presence of forced labour, while Canada requires legally sufficient and defensible evidence. This high standard of proof makes intervention very difficult. We even run the risk of becoming a top destination for these suspicious shipments.

Why does Canada have a standard of proof that makes it almost impossible to seize goods produced by forced labour?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising this very important and troubling issue. Every country has the right to choose how to implement its international legal obligations, as Canada has done. The Government of Canada is committed to upholding human rights and international labour standards, and it is actively working to implement the ban on forced labour. I have been informed that officials at Employment and Social Development Canada are actively working with CBSA officials to monitor and search for evidence related to problematic supply chains. As for why Canada has chosen such a high burden of proof, if I can put it that way, I’ll have to look into that question and try to get an answer.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. I would like a written response, if possible. In the meantime, we still have a choice about the standard of proof, since, as it now stands, Canadian authorities basically have to prove the existence of forced labour abroad. For example, they have to prove that a shipment of cotton clothing or tomatoes from Xinjiang, where Uighurs live, actually contains goods produced by forced labour. The problem is that no consultants or journalists can conduct an investigation because the Chinese government will not grant them access to that province. How can Canada hope to stop the importation of goods produced by modern slavery if we’ve set standards that are impossible to meet?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I would respectfully submit that I cannot accept the premise that these standards are impossible to meet. As I said, we are working closely with the CBSA to ensure that goods produced by forced labour do not cross the border, because they are banned in Canada. We will continue to do just that.

Senator Batters: I will try to make myself heard over this mask.

How many committees are able to sit at once under this revised virtual system or hybrid system? I’m wondering why the Senate previously was a lot further behind the House of Commons. They got back to many simultaneous committees functioning at once, and they were able to have hybrid committee hearings, whereas a lot of times the Senate was forced to have only virtual committee hearings. I’m wondering if that has changed.

We’re one of two chambers of Parliament. We have excellent committee hearings, and I want to make sure that our committee hearings are treated equally.

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, “sharing” implies sharing and equality, not subservience to the House of Commons. I’m hopeful that we will be in a situation where our committees are also able to be hybrid, so if we’re here we can choose to attend in person or be virtual.

I’m wondering if you have any more information with regard to that. Will our committees be able to be hybrid or will they be mostly virtual?