Hon. Pierrette Ringuette (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): The Speaker sent a memorandum on Saturday, November 20. With your permission, honourable senators, I will remind you of the contents of this memo:

Please be advised that commencing on Monday, November 22, 2021, the Senate Chamber will return to full capacity. Senators will be required to wear a mask at all times while in the Senate Chamber, common areas, and in any situation where the 2 metres distance cannot be maintained. This means senators are required to wear their masks when speaking in the Chamber.

[Translation]

Any senator who is unable to remain masked due to a medical condition will be accommodated. In this scenario, should an unmasked senator take the floor, colleagues nearby will have the option to move to a free seat that is properly distanced prior to the beginning of the senator’s speech. Furthermore, senators who desire social distancing can be seated in the galleries, which is fully operational for Senate sittings.

[English]

That said, on November 22, 2021, and November 23, 2021, there will be limited attendance and 2 meters distancing maintained during the ceremonial components of the Opening of Parliament and Speech from the Throne. The portions of the sittings prior to and following these events are not subject to this exception.

[Translation]

This solution is made possible by the combined layers of protection that are provided by full vaccination, masks and optimal ventilation.

The contribution of all honourable senators is critical to ensure the safe return of the Senate.

It is signed by our Speaker, the Honourable George Furey.

I hope that answers your question, Senator Duncan.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith, for the second reading of Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise to provide my support for this bill. I commend Senator Housakos for introducing it and for his work in the autism community, particularly in Montreal.

Colleagues, this is not a partisan issue. Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, impacts families all across our country regardless of their location, ethnic background and how they may vote in elections.

For me, the appeal of the bill is that it is general, recognizing that there are jurisdictional issues and varying approaches in dealing with ASD across the country. Hence it is a framework within which a national autism strategy could be created.

It suggests general measures encompassing financial support for autistic persons, their families, appropriate tax benefits, a research network, a public awareness campaign, using online resources to highlight best practices and measures to ensure accountability.

It recommends consultations across the breadth of the federal government, but also with provincial jurisdictions; relevant stakeholders; experts; advocacy organizations, to which I would also add self-advocates, many of whom have been in touch with me; and, of course, important for us here and in the other place, a mechanism to report back to parliament.

As Senator Housakos has said, the idea for a national autism strategy is not new. However, while much has been talked about, very little has actually been done since the release of the 2007 report by the Senate’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled, Pay Now or Pay Later: Autism Families in Crisis. This is a well known and oft-cited report which our current colleague Senator Cordy had a hand in as a member of the committee at the time.

We need to recognize that the government has been preoccupied in the health sector for almost two years with a pandemic that is still not over as new COVID-19 variants emerge. This has engaged policy planners as well as federal and provincial government operational units full time, but, hopefully, this pandemic will soon become endemic. Work that may or may not have begun towards a national autism strategy could be encouraged by this bill. In fact, former Senator Munson and I had plans to meet with the previous Minister of Health to talk about a national autism strategy, and it was just at that point when the pandemic hit us with full force.

The intention is not to supplant any activity that may or may not be going on but to give it structure and, through the publicity for this bill, purpose.

A number of senators in this chamber have taken a great interest in ASD. Senator Housakos has mentioned a few, but I want to mention Senator Bernard, Senator Loffreda, Senator Harder, Senator Hartling, and my colleague and seatmate Senator Kutcher, who knows a lot about mental illness and mental health.

We cannot forget the great contributions made by our former colleague Senator Munson who championed the need for a national strategy, ensured the creation of an Autism on the Hill event and provided a voice for many advocacy organizations. In fact, Senator Munson was also a member of the committee in 2007 that produced the Pay Now or Pay Later report.

Work is not just happening here in the Senate. In the other place, Member of Parliament Mike Lake has been a tireless advocate in pushing the need for a strategy forward, not just in Canada, but also globally.

The Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance has set out some clear precepts for a strategy. Senator Housakos has touched on them. I will add a little bit.

On research, we need to realize that there is only fragmented knowledge sharing across the country, without national standards on research. A national leadership framework and regular federal, provincial and territorial ministerial meetings could change that and create a national advisory group that could assess accessibility standards as well as intersectional elements to ensure racialized immigrants and newcomers, Indigenous peoples and those in remote and rural communities are not discriminated against.

Affordability and access to services are important elements to ensure autistic individuals can reach their full potential and live a fulfilling life. This aspect could also include review, renewal or improvement of federal tax measures, including reforming the Disability tax credit, comprehensive training programs to provide greater access to the job market and introducing a national autism waitlist reduction initiative. The waitlists for therapy, assessment, training and placement in special education or living in specialized group homes as adults are horrendous. In my own province of Ontario, the current and previous governments have failed to address this challenge head-on.

Active consideration of placing treatments for ASD under medicare is also a subject that has been discussed by numerous advocates and should be addressed.

It is important to make sure early development intervention services are available on the autism spectrum through what has been called an Enhanced 18-Month Well-Baby Visit so that children can get access to early developmental intervention services. There should be a universal, standardized approach across the country.

As Senator Housakos mentioned, nearly 80% of adult autistic Canadians are unemployed, and many of the remainder are underemployed. This is both a reflection of the breadth of the spectrum but also the lack of pre-employment training programs and funding. There is much to do here and a concerted effort could be made to attract the private sector, including with some federal sectoral incentives.

Regarding housing, there should be a disability supplement to the Canada Housing Benefit. Canada Mortgage and Housing could also be brought into the picture with respect to supply, and establishing contacts between housing developers and autism service agencies.

Finally, data. Data is being talked about in the context of the COVID pandemic. Data systems should be linked to ensure better information sharing. There should be a media campaign to improve the public perception of ASD, equity and inclusion, as in fact the bill before us suggests.

Colleagues, for me this is deeply personal. The third of our four children, Nikolas, is autistic. He was born on posting in San Jose, Costa Rica. We had to bring him back here to have him diagnosed. He was misdiagnosed here in Ottawa. We had to go through more diagnostic procedures. He is now 33 years old and remains non-verbal, but he understands three languages.

Dealing with diagnoses, treatments and navigating supports in a foreign service life that has taken my family from his birth in San Jose to Ottawa, to Washington, back to Ottawa, to Berlin and back to Ottawa during his lifetime has been arduous.

Dealing with his lifelong disability has, without a doubt, been the greatest of challenges, certainly for him, his siblings, my spouse and myself. We have and he has particularly scrambled and persevered. Others have not been as fortunate. Families and relationships have disintegrated. Services have not been offered, diagnoses missed, waitlists extended in perpetuity.

In our travels and in living in other countries, we have learned how other jurisdictions approach autism spectrum disorder. Much can be gleaned from practices abroad in other jurisdictions. Indeed, Nikolas lived in a group home for two years in the state of Brandenburg in Germany, about an hour-and-a-half from Berlin where we lived.

Ironically, Nikolas now lives about an hour and a half away from Ottawa in a small group home. He is doing well. He sometimes comes home. We also go to him, as was the case this past weekend. The pandemic has made meetings difficult, but we were able to go out with him to a restaurant last Saturday. Like many of us, he doesn’t like the mask thing. I think the Point of Order just touched on that. You don’t have to be verbal to indicate that.

Like other parents of autistic individuals, we worry about his future and who will advocate for him in that future. Colleagues, we have a long history in our great country of helping those who are disadvantaged. In fact, we have built ourselves on this. There are many with disabilities who require our support.

Autism needs to be addressed in a straightforward manner. In my opinion, a federal framework can set the parameters for what will surely be a very tough path that lies ahead. This bill will provide the impetus to do just that; I support it very strongly, and I thank Senator Housakos again for introducing it and recommend that we send it to the committee as soon as possible so it can be further enriched as required.

(On motion of Senator Loffreda, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie moved second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day.

Philosopher George Santayana wrote that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” He is essentially saying that if our world is to move forward, it must learn from and remember the past. We must learn from this pandemic to avoid repeating the same mistakes with another future pandemic or with any coronavirus variants that may yet emerge.

March 11 was chosen because March 11, 2020, was the date on which the World Health Organization officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. As everyone knows, memories can fade, and establishing a pandemic day responds to the twenty-seventh recommendation of the Québec Ombudsman’s special report on COVID-19 in long-term care homes, which was released last week.

The recommendation states the following:

Propose that there be an annual day of commemoration for the COVID-19 victims and those who worked with them directly or indirectly, in order to remember what they went through during the first wave of the pandemic and the suffering and loss experienced by these sorely affected people.

It is normal for memories to fade over time, which is why Bill S-209 is necessary.

The Québec Ombudsperson entitled her report Identify the causes of the crisis, act, remember. Why commemorate the pandemic anyway?

I see three reasons: the duty to remember, the duty to get through it, and the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. Our first duty is to remember. Many health care workers in Canada died because of COVID-19.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has recorded many cases, some of which remain anonymous.

I would like to talk about some of those cases. They are the people who stepped up to help during the pandemic and who did so at the cost of their lives.

Dr. Huy Hao Dao was the first health care worker to die of COVID-19 in Quebec. Dr. Dao was a professor and researcher in the department of community health sciences at the Université de Sherbrooke. One of his achievements was obtaining a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for a project to detect opioids in order to “prevent overdoses in people who consume drugs alone at home.” He also supported colleagues working on epidemiological studies to track where people who tested positive for coronavirus contracted it. That’s when the disease took his life. He was 44 years old.

Marcelin François was a father who had recently arrived in Canada with his wife and children via Roxham Road. He was a machine operator in the textile industry through the week and a personal support worker on Saturday and Sunday. He was “dragged” to various seniors’ residences by his “agency.” He died from COVID-19 in April 2020 at the age of 40. La Presse columnist Yves Boisvert wrote the following about Mr. François:

He does not appear on any official lists, since he was neither a government employee nor a union worker. Nor anything else. Although I should say, “pending status”. . . .

In the meantime, they were denied refugee status. When you only seek refuge from misery, you are not a refugee under the law.

Victoria Salvan, who immigrated from the Philippines in the 1980s, had two children and had been working as a personal support worker for over 25 years. She died of COVID-19. She was 64 years old.

Yassin Dabeh was a housekeeping attendant at a long-term care home in London, Ontario. A Syrian refugee who came to Canada in 2016 with his entire family, he died in January 2021 after testing positive for COVID-19. He was 19 years old.

Honourable senators, these individuals who died helping to care for or save the lives of others who were ill from COVID-19 were working on the front lines. They are called “essential workers” or “guardian angels,” an expression our politicians often use to refer to them.

In contrast, other workers, such as security guards, remain an anonymous group that are not really regarded as “guardian angels.” They have not received the same treatment in their immigration cases. It is important to note that people in those jobs are often racialized individuals. They can be found on the front lines, at the entrances to stores, hospitals, long-term care facilities, COVID-19 testing sites and so on. They are taking care to enforce health guidelines to protect the public and contain the virus. Some of these people are verbally and sometimes even physically abused as they work to keep us safe.

We are also thinking about the truck drivers and the delivery people, who work in a sector that has seen marked growth with the rise in home delivery. They are far too often underpaid and undervalued.

In addition to workers, our duty to remember also extends to seniors who were hard hit by the virus in private and public seniors residences, as well as in long-term care centres. These seniors often died far from their loved ones, who were unable to be by their side as they took their last breath.

Given the current COVID-19 numbers in Canada, we can assume that everyone knows someone who has died from the virus. Many people in my office have also recently lost loved ones, either a mother, a grandfather, a grandmother or an uncle from the ravages of this disease.

Closer to home, in this chamber, Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, our late colleague, fought COVID-19 before returning home. I want to express my condolences to her family and her staff.

This pandemic has prevented many from carrying out the rituals of grieving. Far too many people have not mourned their losses. The grieving process, set aside by many, will take time to heal.

Our second duty is to get through this pandemic. With the sudden arrival of the new Delta and Omicron variants, we can see just how much our daily life continues to be far from normal. Until we manage to immunize the vast majority of people on the planet, it will be difficult to overcome this pandemic.

Given the new concerns over variants, there is only one way to emerge from this pandemic, and that is by doing so together. We must ensure that vaccination is accessible in all countries. This will help us combat the variants, restrict their transmission and reduce the rates of hospitalization and death.

Finally, our third duty is to draw lessons from this experience in order to be better prepared for a possible future pandemic.

The pandemic of 1918, known as the Spanish flu, caused the death of 50 million people around the world. That pandemic led to the creation of Health Canada. It is one example of the measures that helped ensure better health for Canadians. We must learn from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that we put the right measures in place or change the current system to save more lives and keep people healthy.

Honourable senators, I opted for the legislative approach in introducing this bill. I wanted to ensure that the subject would move forward in both chambers and that we would be able to reach a consensus quickly in order to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day.

In closing, you are familiar with the motto of Quebec, which is attributed to the architect of the National Assembly, Eugène-Étienne Taché: “Je me souviens.” That motto is very relevant today. In the words of former Quebec minister Thomas Chapais:

This motto has only three words, Je me souviens, yet in their simple brevity, these three words rival the most eloquent of speeches. Yes, we remember. We remember the past and its lessons, the past and its misfortunes, the past and its glory.

It is my hope, for the generations of today and tomorrow, that March 11 becomes a time to reflect on the impacts of the pandemic, on how to manage and prevent pandemics, as well as to remember those who have cared for and protected us and all those who have died. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Senator Simons: I’m very happy to see all the changes to the bill, because I think Bill S-210 addresses a lot of the concerns raised at committee around Bill S-203.

The preamble of the bill makes reference to online age-verification technology being extremely sophisticated and effective, but the bill itself doesn’t mandate that kind of technology. You will recall, because we had these debates together in the spring, that I’m very concerned about the implications of face-scanning technology that purports to guess someone’s age and what that means, not just for privacy but for the capacity of that kind of AI to guess how old one is. I’m wondering why you’ve returned to that model rather than having people simply provide photo ID. Is there something I’m not understanding about why having people upload a picture or photo ID would be a problem?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for the question, Senator Simons. I will respond in French.

Just because the preamble states that the technology must be sophisticated doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s referring to using face-scanning technology to determine a person’s age.

All technologies are now possible, and a range of methods are generally included in the regulations. The use of digital identity technology is one possibility. There is a Canadian company called Bluink, whose technology allows users to input certain information on a cellphone, and these users only share the information when they want to, for example, when they must prove that they are over the age of 18. There are other methods, such as adding a token to a browser. It is obviously important for a third party to conduct the verification.

Nevertheless, we do not advocate for one specific method. The beauty of this bill is that, because verification technology is evolving so quickly, the regulations are the only way to make sure that the latest technologies and privacy protections are taken into account.

You’re right about that being an important element. I will say that the reason it now takes a second to erase or encrypt all the information collected is that a lot of progress has been made over the past few years.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much.

[English]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Pate, would you take a question?

Senator Pate: Absolutely.

Senator C. Deacon: Senator Pate, I am looking at the Correctional Service Canada mission. It says they contribute to the protection of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens.

Do you know what key performance indicators they are monitoring to ensure they are fulfilling that mandate? Have you thought about the sorts of key performance indicators you would like to see to ensure that mission is fulfilled?

Senator Pate: In fact, Senator C. Deacon, Senator Forest-Niesing and I were working on a bill that I will likely be introducing coming forward that will hopefully try to address some of those very issues. I look forward to introducing those next week.

As you rightly point out, there aren’t necessarily performance indicators, but there certainly are principles and values that are supposed to be upheld by Correctional Service Canada. First and foremost is least restrictive measures and community integration as well as, of course, public safety and doing all of that within that construct.

As we learned when we examined Bill C-83, there is much work to be done in terms of holding accountable Correctional Service Canada in not just the most punitive areas of their work or the areas that are most restrictive, but across the board in the areas they work. Thank you.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved second reading of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading stage of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material.

I introduced the initial version of this bill more than a year ago. The now-defunct Bill S-203 was passed in the Senate, which was a huge step forward. However, that bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

We used this long break to conduct more consultations and present a new and improved version of the bill. This bill restricts the scope of the regime and further clarifies the intentions.

I want to briefly remind you why I wanted to take action to protect minors, children who are accessing porn sites that are increasingly hardcore and extreme without being asked for proof of age.

There are reportedly close to 4 and a half million porn sites around the world. The ecosystem changed around 10 years ago when the platforms chose to use content uploaded by users and made that content free. In turn, this removed any barriers to accessing these sites.

Kids are first exposed to pornography at age 11, on average.

These free sites derive their income from advertisements and video games of a sexual nature that target young people. In Canada, 40% of high school boys have seen pornography online, 28% search for it at least once a day or once a week, and 7% of girls say they have watched it. That was before the pandemic. It is worse now.

Renowned pediatrician Megan Harrison, from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, provided compelling testimony before the Senate Legal Committee. She said the following:

The developing brain is absolutely affected by the images that it sees. As they grow and develop, their brain continues to change at an impressive speed. Neuroplasticity is a process by which our brains create new neural networks and pathways, which means it is constantly optimizing itself. . . .

Neuroplasticity is at its highest in children and even more so in adolescents. This means that repeated behaviours, repeated images, repeated ideas and values that a brain sees and internalizes during childhood and adolescence can have lasting impacts, as compared to adults, where the brain might be less affected.

The pediatrician went on to say:

The teens I see who have accessed these sites either accidentally or on purpose — and it’s very, very easy to do and the images are very disturbing — have so much confusion about their bodies and what is expected of them sexually, what is normal, all sorts of things.

Quebec sexologist Marie-Christine Pinel also made troubling observations about young people in her practice. She said:

I am facing emerging and disastrous phenomena: a resurgence of domination, performance anxiety that generates pain on penetration and erectile dysfunction, an explosion of requests for cosmetic genital surgery; all linked to the influence of pornography.

Scientific research is making more and more worrisome connections between the consumption of pornography and the health or behaviour of young people. When adolescents frequently view pornography, it can lead to compulsive consumption, create unrealistic expectations about expected activities, generate fear and anxiety, damage their self-esteem by distorting their perception of their own bodies, cause symptoms of depression and impair social functioning.

What do young people, boys in particular, absorb from what they see? Repeated consumption of pornography by adolescents reinforces gender stereotypes and perpetuates sexist beliefs and the objectification of women.

In total, 37% of online porn scenes depict violence against one or more women. This distorted view of sexuality can traumatize children and teens and damage their own self-image and their understanding of sexual relationships.

[English]

According to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, and I quote:

Adult pornography is not only harmful to a child’s developing brain, it is also used to groom children for sexual abuse and to normalize sexual activity.

Just this week, in the U.K., the Children’s Commissioner was quoted saying that she had seen “the hugely damaging effects of porn on children, including a young girl who took her own life.” She added:

Kids are seeing things that warp what they think real sexual relationships are like. I’ve had girls say to me that during their first kiss with their boyfriend he’s tried to strangle her because he’s seen it on a porn video.

I have to say this disturbs me greatly. Despite the scandal uncovered a year ago, targeting MindGeek, a Montreal-based company, porn sites still do not verify the age of those who view their videos, even as sexual exploitation of children was uncovered on many platforms. For these platforms, it is a matter of competition, because losing customers, even minors, means fewer clicks and less revenue. This explains why porn platforms are apparently willing to implement age verification measures as long as they are imposed on the whole industry.

This is something government can do. Clearly, self-regulation has been a failure. Legal porn sites are supposed to be for adults only, but these platforms only ask users to check a box stating that they are 18. For all those reasons, we must resolve to control the access of minors to porn in the digital world as we do in the real world. Checking the age of users is a public health issue. Harm to children exposed to sexually explicit material is a real and urgent social concern.

Let’s talk about the bill before you. It is very focused. As stated in section 4, the objective is to protect the mental health of young people, and more broadly to protect Canadians, young people and women in particular, from the harmful repercussions of porn. It is a public safety issue. In section 5 the bill criminalized making sexually explicit material available to a minor for commercial purposes. The bill sets a maximum fine of $250,000 for a first offence. For those who might be concerned about the risk of censoring educational or artistic material, I want to be clear. It expressly states that sexually explicit material with a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts is not covered by this prohibition of the law. So there is no censorship or prudishness. I have always strongly defended the importance of comprehensive sex education in school.

In addition, case law shows that the term “sexually explicit material,” as used in the Criminal Code, cannot be applied to any nude scenes or tribal sexual contexts like has been mentioned in this house. In its Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court concluded explicit sexual activity refers to acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.

The Superior Court of Ontario has also held that the proximity of the camera to the genital or anal region, the duration, the closeups and the importance of these images in a film are additional criteria that help define a porn video — that is one where the dominant feature is representation with a sexual purpose.

Who is targeted by this offence? In the prior wording of the bill, a company or an individual could be prosecuted for distributing porn material to minors without verifying age. However, this wording could have undesirable side effects, as was mentioned by some sex workers. In light of this, we have revised the scope of the offence to exclude individuals and only target organizations as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. The word “organization” includes corporate bodies, society companies, firms, partnerships or associations of persons created for a common purpose. They have an operational structure and hold themselves out to the public as such. This approach makes it possible to directly target commercial distributors of porn.

Another significant amendment will better protect the right of porn sites to a full defence. Under the revised bill, the power to send notices to offending sites is given to a designated authority and not to the minister. This should minimize the risk of political intervention.

If the platforms, whether Canadian or foreign, do not comply after a reasonable period of time, the designated authority can seek a court order to block the site in question. This is the most efficient enforcement mechanism against foreign websites. Blocking a site means ordering internet service providers, such as Bell or Vidéotron, to use any means at their disposal to prevent their customers from accessing the site. The result is a blocked URL address, domain name or IP address. Internet service providers have told us that this kind of blocking is perfectly feasible from a technical standpoint. They are already working with authorities to remove images of sexual exploitation of children that end up on their servers.

So the real question is how should websites check the age of their visitor before they access porn material. This is obviously the crux of the problem. The good news is that technological advances have now made it possible to securely verify the age of online customers. Because technology is constantly evolving, it seems wise to set out the parameters of age verification processes in regulations, so they are not included in my bill.

From the outset, experts agree that age checks should not be done by the porn sites themselves but by specialized third-party service providers. The precaution is essential to prevent porn sites from gaining access to their customers’ personal data. Here is how the Age Verification Providers Association describes the process:

. . . age verification is not identity verification. They’re very separate. What we try to do is have the minimum amount of data used in the first place and then retained going forward. For quite a lot of uses, you wouldn’t need to retain any personal data at all. All you need to know is that person X—and we only know them as ‘X’—has at some point proved, to a certain standard, that they are over a particular age or within a particular age range or they have a particular date of birth.

[Translation]

The simple and fundamental purpose of this bill is to restore some consistency to the actions we are taking as a country to protect our children.

In the real world, people under 18 cannot go to the casino or buy lottery tickets. In the online world, they cannot do that either. It only makes sense.

In the real world, young people cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes. We do not allow them to do that online either. It only makes sense.

Some people seem to believe that even though young people cannot rent a pornographic movie in the real world, they should be able to click on a button and instantly have access to explicit pornographic material in the virtual world. That makes absolutely no sense.

In the past, three objections have been raised against legislation on age verification. Today, I humbly submit that they do not pass scrutiny.

First, it was argued that pornography is protected by guarantees of freedom of expression. That is a fact that no one is disputing, but that does not solve the problem.

In the real world, we limit minors from accessing pornographic material in a perfectly legal and defensible way. Why would such limits be unacceptable when they are applied on the internet?

Courts in Canada and elsewhere had no difficulty accepting the idea that we must protect our children from pornographic content by imposing reasonable limits on its distribution. This reasoning is based in part on the fact that pornography does not deserve the same level of protection as political discourse, for example.

Consider this excerpt from an article by Professor Cass Sunstein, the most quoted legal expert in the United States — a country that certainly does not take freedom of expression lightly. I quote:

The Court has drawn a distinction between speech that may be banned only on the basis of an extremely powerful showing of government interest, and speech that may be regulated on the basis of a far less powerful demonstration of harm. Commercial speech, labor speech, and possibly group libel, for example, fall within the category of “low-value” speech. . . .

Under this approach, or any plausible variation, regulation of pornography need not be justified according to standards applicable to political speech. The effect and intent of pornography, as it is defined here, are to produce sexual arousal, not in any sense to affect the course of self-government. . . .

These considerations suggest a conventional, two-stage argument for the regulation of pornography. First, pornography is entitled to only a lower level of first amendment solicitude. Under any standard, pornography is far afield from the kind of speech conventionally protected by the first amendment. Second, the harms produced by pornographic materials are sufficient to justify regulation.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the state has an interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors and that that interest extends to protecting minors from the influence of pornography. The government can therefore regulate its distribution, provided that it does so narrowly without unnecessarily interfering with the right to freedom of speech.

Our own Supreme Court expressed support for this idea in its policy decision on this issue, as follows:

 . . . the kind of expression which is sought to be advanced does not stand on an equal footing with other kinds of expression which directly engage the “core” of the freedom of expression values. . . .

The infringement on freedom of expression is confined to a measure designed to prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit materials accompanied by violence, and those without violence that are degrading or dehumanizing.

As I have already concluded, this kind of expression lies far from the core of the guarantee of freedom of expression. It appeals only to the most base aspect of individual fulfilment, and it is primarily economically motivated.

In conclusion, although pornography is protected by freedom of expression guarantees, it should be relatively simple to justify reasonable regulations for very good reasons.

Under the bill before us, online pornography would remain accessible to all adult Canadians, subject to an automated three- to five-minute age verification process.

I’m not aware of any inalienable right to instant access to pornography anywhere, at any time, by anyone, that would be violated by this modest proposal.

Let’s keep in mind that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, but a right that, according to the Charter, is subject to such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. When we are called upon to balance the rights at stake, protecting the most vulnerable members of our society is crucial and should take precedence over causing a minor inconvenience.

With respect to privacy, the second objection we sometimes hear is that, while it is desirable in theory to regulate minors’ access to online pornography, the means proposed in practice are too broad and infringe on privacy rights. Once again, I humbly submit that this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

First of all, consider how age verification works in the real world. Today, individuals suspected of being under 18 who want to buy cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets or pornographic magazines must show their face and ID to the store cashier. As far as I know, no one is seriously challenging that approach.

In the past, there have been legitimate concerns that providing personal information over the internet could expose people to identity theft or other forms of data exploitation. These are certainly valid concerns.

The good news is that technological advances have resulted in age verification processes that do not involve personal identification. In recent years, we have seen the development of effective, relatively unintrusive technology that provides the least restrictive means possible of protecting young people from the harms of online pornography. Nothing is ever perfect, of course, but privacy can be increasingly assured by data systems that are encrypted or destroyed by the age-verification providers.

As Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien said in committee, and I quote:

When it comes to privacy, the risk is generally not eliminated. You try to reduce it as much as possible. I think the structure of the bill is such that you can reduce the risk of privacy breaches without completely eliminating them.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill does not set out the acceptable forms of identification, leaving that to regulations. It is the only way to guarantee that our protections are consistent with best practices and emerging standards.

Then there is the famous parental responsibility. That is a topic I heard a lot about in presenting this bill. It may be the most important aspect. We were told that the responsibility for protecting minors from online pornography should fall to their parents. Again, that argument does not hold water.

Would Canadians like the sale of alcohol, cigarettes and gambling activities to be left to parental supervision only? Would Canadian parents like it if bars, casinos, and strip clubs simply required clients to click a button to enter? Of course not.

For years, we have left it up to parents to control minors’ access to online pornography. We know that this does not work. Many of us have experienced this with our own children. We should keep in mind that not every parent has the same level of digital literacy. If parental controls were working, we would know it, and I can assure you that we would not be here today to speak to this bill.

However, the evidence that the current approach is a failure is not just anecdotal.

A 2018 University of Oxford study suggests that internet filtering tools have practically no impact on the exposure of youth to online pornography, and it went so far as to question whether their limited usefulness justifies their cost.

The truth is that most parents have no idea what their children view on the internet, and they need our help.

A survey conducted by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection indicates that 60% of respondents are very worried about their children being exposed to pornographic or violent images. It is not just parents; pediatricians and specialists are concerned as well. Our many supporters include the Paediatric Society, the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Association des pédiatres du Québec and several Canadian and international experts. They are all demanding that the government play its part.

[English]

In fact, other countries have already acted or are in the process of doing so to protect minors from this bombardment of pornographic images online.

France adopted legislation a year ago that allows the blocking of porn sites wherever they are in the world if they do not verify the age of their customers. The implementing decree is now in force and the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel has the authority to request a blocking order from the court.

Germany is even further ahead and has begun the process of blocking access to the four biggest porn sites that have refused to ensure their customers are adults. We’re talking here about xHamster, YouPorn, Pornhub and MyDirtyHobby.

After a first failed attempt in the U.K., a joint parliamentary committee has just completed a pre-study of a draft bill called the Online Safety Bill, which should be tabled shortly. The new bill will impose a duty of care on porn platforms, requiring them to implement robust mechanisms such as age verification to ensure that children do not have access to harmful content.

Australia has adopted the most rigorous and ambitious approach to consultation and action. Last June, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Act 2021. At the same time, age verification guidelines have been developed by the eSafety Commissioner, and an action plan for porn sites and social media is expected within the year.

Moreover, for those who might worry about setting a dangerous precedent, know that age checks are increasingly adopted around the world. In Japan, those who want to use the Tinder app must prove that they are of legal age. Fans of the popular Roblox game must do so as well. Facebook is exploring age-verification options for adult-only videos.

Another reason to act: Canada has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, as such, we must consider the United Nations alert regarding threats in the digital environment. As stated in a recent general comment, state parties should ensure that appropriate protections are in place to prevent children from accessing products that are harmful to them such as strong verification systems.

In closing, I want to express my gratitude for the strong support I have had over the past year for the principles underlying this bill. Despite the constraints related to COVID, we had real debate in the Senate. The predecessor Bill S-203 was praised, criticized in some respects and ultimately improved. The bill succeeded in passing the demanding test of committee study, where we heard from a dozen witnesses over about eight hours. I want to thank Senators Carignan, Cotter, Batters, Jaffer and Dalphond for their suggestions.

Outside the Senate, the initiative generated significant interest and we succeeded in bringing public attention to this threat to public health. Until we took action, the issue worried many parents but was not often discussed in Parliament. But that is the past; let’s look to the future.

Dear colleagues, I respectfully invite you to participate in the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of this new bill intended to protect children and young persons from the harms of pornography. We can discuss the modalities, but it is high time to act.

[Translation]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Miville-Dechêne, my question is more of a political nature. I must congratulate you on the work you have done over the last year, and the searchlight that has been shone on this issue, particularly on MindGeek and other pornography sites. I don’t know the answer to this question, but you may: Do you know if any political party included this particular issue in their policy platform during the last election?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s a good question, Senator Omidvar. I have to say that Steven Guilbeault, when he served as Minister of Canadian Heritage, publicly said that this was an interesting bill, but he didn’t go any further. As you know, he was very involved and busy with Bill C-10, so I didn’t have an opportunity to discuss it with him any more than that.

I think one of his concerns was that we shouldn’t focus only on porn sites, but that all social media and the internet had harmful material and that our view should be broader. Obviously, it makes sense, but from my point of view, with a private bill, I couldn’t just go straight to the internet as a whole. It was too complicated, so I focused on porn sites. To be frank, half of teenagers go on porn sites when they want to watch porn. It’s not something that’s not used.

I have support among MPs from different parties. What I find incredibly interesting with this particular bill is that it’s non-partisan. I have support among people with different ideologies and who are in different parties, because obviously you could be a feminist, or you could be a more conservative person and still want to protect children. The way we do that can be the same. I really think this support is important. But no, there was nothing in the political platforms on that. I’m very sorry about that.

Hon. David M. Wells: Just to make a point on your last comment, you can be both a feminist and a more conservative person.

I understand the intent of the bill, and I agree with it. This would be a law that is obviously within the jurisdiction of Canada. With the prevalence and ease of use of virtual privacy networks, or VPNs, which can mask your IP address, how would you address that with respect to visiting any sites on the internet?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, let me say that obviously you can be a feminist, progressive or conservative. Anybody can be a feminist. I’m sorry if I was not very clear in the way I articulated that. I just wanted to say how non-partisan this bill was and that people came from different places. There are quite a few Christians, for example, who support this bill.

Your question about the VPN is an excellent one. The studies show that among younger children — less than about 15% — 13‑year-olds have access to a VPN or know how one works. For younger children, this would not be a big problem because most of them often stumble upon porn or just don’t know how to use a VPN. It’s obviously an issue for older teenagers, but this bill doesn’t pretend to stop everybody everywhere from watching porn. It’s like when one buys cigarettes. We know a child can buy them themselves, or they can ask an older boy to go and buy cigarettes for them. It’s the same thing for alcohol. The idea is to try to restrict access to porn as much as we can.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Kim Pate moved second reading of Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation. This bill will remove unnecessary obstacles to community integration for those with criminal records who have been held accountable for their actions, have fulfilled all aspects of their sentences and are trying to move on with their lives.

Bill S-212 proposes three key measures: one, the expiry of records rather than mere suspension, with some limited exceptions for records related to sexual assault; two, a return to the original wait periods for the Criminal Records Act, namely, two years for summary convictions and five years for indictable offences; and three, the shifting of responsibility to government actors to ensure expiry of records once these wait periods elapse without subsequent convictions or charges, rather than putting the onus on individuals to shoulder the current costly and onerous application process.

Bill S-212 underscores that record relief is a matter of justice and fairness, and should not be a matter of privilege accessible only to the most well-resourced. It acknowledges and seeks to redress the role of the current records system in entrenching systemic racism. It rejects knee-jerk reactions and assumptions about what it means to be tough on crime and insists on following the facts and adopting policies that will actually make communities safer and more just for all of us. It also saves money and resources, both for the people in need of record relief and for the government.

During the last Parliament, we referred a previous version of this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I look forward to working with all of you to ensure the timely study of this bill this session.

For today, I will recap frequently asked questions and corresponding reasons why Bill S-212 deserves this chamber’s timely attention and support.

One, what will record expiry achieve that the current record-suspension system does not? Two, does record expiry make sentences lenient? Three, will removing stringent application requirements put community safety at risk? Four, does deleting records mean that they will lose important data? Five, can the government afford a record-expiry system? Six, does Canada have the necessary record-keeping technology in place for record expiry? And seven, isn’t the government already working on criminal records legislation?

The first question is: What will record expiry achieve that the current system does not?

An expiry system would remove barriers to moving on from a criminal conviction that arise because record suspensions are inaccessible. People who have served their time and been held accountable for their actions need employment, housing, educational and volunteer opportunities. Their ability to integrate and contribute positively is vital for the safety, health and well-being of these individuals and their communities.

Despite this reality, more punitive and restrictive rules have increased barriers to record suspensions and, as we will discuss later, they have done so despite research indicating that past criminal convictions are not correlated with recidivism, the commission of additional offences in the future.

When pardons were introduced in 1970, Conservative Solicitor General Critic Robert McCleave insisted staunchly that the only cost, other than time, should be the price of a stamp. That was 6 cents then.

In 1995, the cost of applying for record relief was $50. This rose to $150 in 2010, to $631 in 2012 and today is $657.77, increasing each year through automatic cost-of-living adjustments. In addition to fees, individuals pay hundreds of dollars in associated costs such as fingerprinting, record search fees and legal supports, not to mention the thousands of dollars paid to companies that claim to have expertise in record suspension.

In addition to fee increases, wait times for applying have doubled and processing times have exponentially increased. Also, certain types of convictions became completely ineligible for record relief.

At the same time, use of criminal record checks is proliferating, increasing by 7% per year, further magnifying the effects of these restrictions. Three in five Toronto employers now require police background checks for all new employees. Individuals face record checks in every aspect of their lives, from parenting to applications for housing, school, volunteer work and even admission to nursing homes.

Of the 3.8 million Canadians with a criminal record, about 9 in 10 do not have a pardon or record suspension.

All of us, at some point, have done something that we know was wrong, that we regret. But most of us are fortunate not to be forever defined by the negative things we have done. Nor are these how we are introduced to would-be employers, friends or neighbours. A criminal record is not a comprehensive portrait of a person; it is a snapshot of a moment — usually the worst — of their lives.

Currently, only five jurisdictions in Canada — Yukon, British Columbia, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador — offer minimal protection against discrimination based on a record that has not been pardoned or suspended. In all other provinces and territories, and under the Canadian Human Rights Act, people from landlords to employers can discriminate against those who have not been able to access a record suspension, even if there is no public safety justification for doing so.

This discrimination intersects with other systemic inequalities. For reasons that have nothing to do with public safety, those who are poorest are least likely to be able to afford the costs of a record suspension. Systemic racism in the criminal legal system means that racialized people disproportionately bear the consequences of inaccessible record suspensions. Recall that African-Canadians represent 3% of Canada’s population, but about 7 to 8% of federal prisoners. Indigenous Peoples represent 32% of federal prisoners. This number climbs to 44% for Indigenous women.

Furthermore, when employers and others make discretionary decisions to give individuals with a criminal record a chance, these decisions too often operate in ways that reinforce systemic racism and other forms of inequality. One study from the United States found that the likelihood of a callback for a job interview drops by 50% for White applicants who have had to reveal a criminal record to a prospective employer. For Black applicants, it drops by 65%.

Where record relief is not accessible, marginalization as a result of criminal records becomes intergenerational. Parents struggle to provide economic and other supports for their children and children bear the consequences of their parents’ criminal records.

The record expiry proposed in Bill S-212 aims to ensure that timely record relief is available to all, including those most marginalized, by removing fees and the requirement to make an application. It aims to prevent a criminal record from becoming a lifelong sentence for those who have long since served their time.

This brings us to our second question: Does record expiry make sentences more lenient?

The short answer is no. First, the goal of sentencing is not to deliver the harshest or most punitive sentences, but rather sentences that are proportionate, fair and just. One of the key objectives of sentencing is rehabilitation, and overly punitive approaches interfere with this in ways that disadvantage all of us.

We also need to distinguish between sentences and the effects of criminal records, which linger beyond the end of sentences. Judges impose sentences based on what they determine is necessary and appropriate to hold a specific person accountable, knowing in theory — but not necessarily in practice — how sentences interact with other parts of the criminal legal system.

[Translation]

For example, judges may presume that people will assert their right to request parole and will have access to a suspension of their criminal record once they have served their sentence.

[English]

The reality stands in stark contrast. As a result of conditions of confinement and limited access to programs and services, sentences often end up being far harsher than what a judge anticipated and determined was fair and just.

Further, mandatory minimum penalties prevent judges from imposing a fit sentence. Overall, prisoners currently spend more time in harsh conditions of isolation and spend more time in prison, often waiting until well past parole eligibility dates before they are released.

Most relevant to our discussion today, the lack of accessible and timely relief from a criminal record extends the stigma and marginalization well beyond the end of a sentence.

Record expiry reflects the principle that when we, as a society, decide to hold someone criminally responsible and accountable for their wrongdoing, inflicting additional hardship perpetuates and perpetrates injustice. This is why section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents punishment for a conviction from extending beyond the end of a sentence ordered by a judge. The current record system violates this principle.

Our third question is: Will removing complex record suspension application requirements increase risk to community safety?

Current punitive record suspension rules are apparently motivated often by political desire to be seen as “tough on crime.”

Despite the rhetoric, however, it is important to underscore that these changes have not improved public safety. Before the 2010 and 2012 amendments to the Criminal Records Act, a very high proportion — more than 95% — of people who received pardons were never in trouble or criminalized again and continued to meet stringent good conduct requirements. Punitive legislative changes do increase punishment, but do nothing to improve community safety.

What did change was that the number of people applying for record relief fell by 40% after the cost increased and more onerous application procedures were introduced.

The more punitive rules effectively barred access for many who would otherwise have qualified for criminal record relief and who present no threat to public safety.

Research demonstrates that one of the best indicators that a person will not be criminalized again is simply having lived a few crime-free years since the completion of their sentence. People with historical convictions are no more likely to be convicted of a crime than anyone else.

Furthermore, timely relief from criminal records can help people find housing and ways of supporting themselves, which contribute to successful integration. Indeed, as the income of a person with a record increases, their likelihood of being criminalized again decreases significantly.

The negative consequences in terms of public safety of restricting access to record relief is precisely why a former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime described the 2010 and 2012 record suspension amendments as “a stupid thing to do.”

It also is for this reason that more than 60 community groups formed the Fresh Start Coalition to call for the type of measures proposed in Bill S-212. The coalition includes those working with and on behalf of those who have been criminalized, but also those who have been victimized, including the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Huron Women’s Shelter, Luke’s Place, the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, The Women and Children’s Shelter in Barrie, Timmins and Area Women in Crisis, Victim Services of Durham Region and Women’s Shelters Canada.

This brings us to question four: Does deleting records mean that we will lose important data?

Bill S-212 would apply to most types of records in the RCMP’s Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, system. It would also prohibit other agencies with copies of records, like police stations, from disclosing expired records. The Criminal Records Act currently provides for two key uses of pardoned or suspended records. Bill S-212 would continue to permit both.

First, where police find fingerprints while investigating a crime or seek to identify someone deceased or incapacitated, information about that person can continue to be disclosed to police even if their record has expired.

The bill also preserves the Criminal Records Act regime for vulnerable sector checks. When someone applies to work or volunteer with children or other vulnerable people, these checks detect and flag records relating to sexual assault convictions. We must recognize that, given the realities faced by women and children who are violently victimized from lack of protection and accountability of perpetrators, record checks alone, though, will never be an effective means of protecting people from harm.

Because of barriers to reporting sexual assault, Bill S-212 also provides one exception to permanent and definitive expiry of records. Records of sexual assault listed in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 can be retrieved based on subsequent information that a person’s behaviour should render them ineligible for record expiry.

The fifth question relates to cost: Can the government afford a record expiry system? Record relief is currently the only program within Public Safety Canada that is held to a full cost-recovery standard. The idea was introduced only a decade ago, among a host of other so-called “tough on crime” measures. This approach ignores both the public good of individuals integrating successfully into the community and the legal principle that punishment must not extend beyond the end of a sentence.

For many of us with the privilege of sitting in this chamber, an application fee of $657.77, plus hundreds of dollars in extra costs, may not seem prohibitive. Remember, however, that most people seeking record relief are doing so to try and help lift themselves out of poverty — to obtain training or employment.

Public Safety Canada data demonstrates that of the 11,158 people who had not obtained a pardon or record suspension 14 years after being released from federal prison, only 51% had been able to find jobs, compared to 69% for the general population. Their median income was zero dollars.

For those with paid work, the average income was $14,000 per year or $1,167 per month, well below the poverty line and less than half of the median income for Canadians who are not economically marginalized. Assuming monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment across Canada ranges from about $753 to $2,216, most people would be without housing, in inadequate housing, in debt or without food, clothing, transportation or other support for themselves or their children.

Could a friend or family member help with the cost? Even if this is an option for some, those on social assistance would be liable to having their already criminally low income supports clawed back if they receive this type of gift from friends or family. Too many are also at risk of being preyed upon by companies that present as supportive yet charge exorbitant fees for negligible assistance with the record expiry process.

Imagine how many months and years it might take to save up $657.77 if paying for basic necessities would put you into debt month after month. In a country as wealthy as Canada — a country that says it values justice — people who have served their time and who have been held accountable should not have to go hungry or end up homeless in order to get relief from a criminal record that continues to trap them in poverty and contain them in the margins of society.

In addition to the human and social benefits of no-fee record relief, there are at least two compelling financial reasons for the approach in Bill S-212. First, public safety officials recognize that every dollar the government invests in record relief translates into two dollars of revenue because individuals are able to secure employment and pay income tax.

Second, having records expire after a certain number of crime-free years stands to significantly lessen bureaucratic complexities that have driven up the cost and wait times of record expiry.

[Translation]

From a public safety perspective, it is more efficient for criminal records to simply expire after a certain amount of time passes.

[English]

Parole Board resources have been significantly stretched by piecemeal changes to the record system that have created four different application paths for the board to administer, each with their own intricacies. One is the general record suspension process; two is the former pardon process for those who are still entitled to use it; three is the expungement process for those criminalized as a result of historical discrimination against members of 2SLGBTQ+ communities; and four is those eligible for cannabis record suspensions.

Bill S-212 would replace these with one system that allows the Parole Board to redirect its limited resources to other key aspects of its mandate.

Question number six relates to this streamlined system: Does Canada have the necessary record-keeping technology in place for record expiry?

At the Senate Legal Committee, a previous public safety minister testified that administering record expiry without applications would require a comprehensive national record-keeping system. Bill S-212 would require that if police are going to disclose an unexpired criminal record, they must also ensure it is registered in the RCMP CPIC database. CPIC would then serve as the centralized record system required to support automated record expiry, without the need for an application by the individual.

Implementation of non-application-based record expiry is not beyond Canada’s technological reach. Countries like the U.K., France, Germany and New Zealand have all implemented automatic forms of record expiry into their systems. In fact, Canada already has this type of record expiry approach as part of our youth criminal records management system.

This brings us to the seventh and final question: Isn’t the government already working on criminal record legislation?

Bill C-31, introduced just prior to the last federal election, was a step in the right direction, but it simply fell short when measured against the government’s own public consultations. Over 80% of Canadians support some form of record expiry that is administered automatically, rather than requiring an application. Nevertheless, Bill C-31 would retain complex application requirements.

Likewise, 80% of Canadians describe application fees as a significant barrier for those seeking record suspensions; over 60% described the fee and the application process as a further punishment. The government has committed to reducing fees, but has not provided details regarding the amount or the timeline.

For evidence that Bill C-31 will not meet the government’s stated objective of addressing systemic inequities in the record system, we need look no further than past criminal record reform bills, particularly Bills C-66 and C-93, which made piecemeal changes, easing some but not all of the burdens of the current system for narrow categories of applicants whose convictions related to historical discrimination against 2SLGBTQ+ communities and those convicted of possession of cannabis.

These bills removed application fees, but Bill C-31 would not.

Even with these attempts to create easier to navigate, more user-friendly applications than what Bill C-31 would offer, shockingly few people have accessed these forms of record relief. When cannabis possession was decriminalized, an estimated 250,000 Canadians had possession records, yet Bill C-93 was expected to help only about 10,000 people get relief from cannabis possession records. More than two years later, only 484 people have actually obtained those pardons. At the same time, the system has turned away approximately 300 people because they did not meet the rules and requirements of the application process.

In the first three years of Bill C-66 being in force, only nine out of an estimated 9,000 people with records relating to 2SLGBTQ+ discrimination — that’s a mere tenth of 1% — have obtained record relief. This is simply unacceptable.

We do not know if or when the government will bring Bill C-31 back with the necessary changes to ensure that record relief is meaningfully accessible. If they do, I will be the first to support an effective government bill. In the meantime, however, I humbly urge us to act.

The systemic injustices in the criminal record system are marginalizing people, families and communities and they require our attention now.

Let me conclude by quoting the government’s 2019 Final report on the review of Canada’s criminal legal system. One of the report’s recommendations is to:

. . . adopt a whole-of-government approach to make pardons more accessible, to ensure that certain offenders have the opportunity to move on without a criminal record impeding their attempts to focus on the future.

The current system is not accessible. It is also unnecessarily expensive and bureaucratic. It does not improve safety for Canadians. In fact, it undermines public safety. It creates barriers to reintegration and to the ability of people to contribute to their communities. It pushes people to the margins, away from opportunities for work, education and volunteering and away from necessities like safe shelter and health care.

[Translation]

Because of the pervasive racism in criminal justice and corrections, the current system perpetuates and amplifies the systemic discrimination and inequalities faced by Indigenous and African-Canadian communities.

[English]

The government has acknowledged that the record system is unfair and untenable. Yet well-intended relief measures like Bill C-66 and Bill C-93 have not reached most of the people they were ostensibly designed to assist.

Bill C-31 likewise fell short. These approaches have barely budged the status quo and have therefore, however inadvertently, replicated its injustices. They continue to put the onus on individuals to navigate and fund onerous application processes. Bill S-212 would instead require the government to ensure that the punishment associated with a criminal conviction is not unjustly extended far beyond the sentence served.

When someone serves their sentence, they have paid their debt to society. As the Federal Court has said, “Our society has no place for double punishment or discrimination on the basis of criminal record . . . .”

When it comes to life after completing a sentence, according to the Supreme Court of Canada:

Individuals who have paid their debt to society are entitled to resume their place in society and to live in it without running the risk of being devalued and unfairly stigmatized.

This bill recognizes the positions of Canadian courts. It implements the intentions of the government with respect to Bill C-31. Most importantly, it reflects Canadians’ understanding of justice and fairness, from the thousands represented by the Fresh Start Coalition as well as those in the general public. Consultations have revealed a broad public consensus that current record suspension costs and procedures are unjust and punitive.

Honourable senators, let us work together to bring about long-overdue, evidence-based changes to the criminal records system in Canada. I look forward to your much appreciated contributions to this bill.

Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: The auditor continues:

However, the government did not make it mandatory for federal departments and agencies to conduct gender-based analysis and did not give authority to Status of Women Canada to enforce its application.

In the recommendation 1.61 the auditor states:

The Privy Council Office, Status of Women Canada, and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, to the extent of their respective mandates and working with all federal departments and agencies, should take concrete actions to identify and address barriers that prevent the systematic conduct of rigorous gender-based analysis. Such actions should address barriers that prevent departments and agencies from taking gender-based analysis into consideration during the development, renewal, and assessment of policy, legislative, and program initiatives, so that they can inform decision makers about existing or potential gender considerations in their initiatives.

All three agreed.

In the recommendation 1.63 the auditor recommends that:

Status of Women Canada should assess the resources it needs to deliver its gender-based analysis mandate and assign sufficient resources to its periodic assessments of and reporting on gender-based analysis.

Status of Women Canada was in agreement.

In 2019, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, in consultation with Women and Gender Equality Canada, developed Integrating Gender-Based Analysis Plus into Evaluation: A Primer (2019). The purpose of the document was to provide advice for evaluators, particularly those at the junior and intermediate levels, on how to integrate GBA+ into every stage of Government of Canada evaluations in order to support commitments and directions. The document is a general discussion of each key stage of an evaluation: planning, conducting and reporting.

Honourable senators, currently speaking, the memorandum to cabinet indicates that proposals for new bills must include a gender-based analysis. Although this is a positive step forward, it is insufficient for several reasons. The first is that this analysis in not a statutory requirement, so this or any future government can stop the practice at any time. Moreover, the results of this internal GBA are not public and there is nothing stopping the cabinet from proceeding with a proposal for which the GBA is not positive or the analysis is not done at all, ill practices that may be happening now. Finally, this internal analysis, if done, is only being undertaken for government legislation and not private members’ bills at the present time.

Through the requirements of this bill, the undertaking of a gender-lensed analysis would be enshrined into law and not determined by the whim of the government; it would require that the analysis be made public; and it would ensure an analysis was done for all legislation, government and private members’ bills alike.

Colleagues, as our world views come from different contexts, I feel it is important to understand the real-world application of this bill. Equality and equity for Indigenous and other women means equality and equity in real conditions — including material outcomes — and therein lies the need for a consistently applied gender-lensed analysis.

It is my hope and belief that other women, and men for that matter, within this chamber will add their voices to mine over the course of debate on this bill and share their own stories and perspectives of why this bill is so crucial.

The perspective that I bring, colleagues, is that of a First Nations woman who grew up on the reserve system and whose life was controlled by the Indian Act. I didn’t see the inequality and marginalization as something wrong. We were treated differently in residential school and on the reserve from the others who lived among us — teachers, nurses, nuns and priests — and I came to accept that inequality was the norm for us Indians and I didn’t challenge that.

The need for gender-lensed analysis as an additional protection and oversight for all women in Canada is important. Within that context, First Nations, Metis, Inuit and non-status historical and current oppression is unique in Canada, hence the need to highlight, particularly for Indigenous women.

As our colleague Senator Boyer has stated at page 4 of her 2007 document entitled, Culturally Relevant Gender Based Analysis and Assessment Tool:

Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that notwithstanding any other provision, the Aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. This is a fundamental constitutional recognition of the equality of Aboriginal women, and we find a similar fundamental acknowledgement of that equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 of the Charter prevents the guarantees of the Charter from detracting from Aboriginal treaty and other rights and freedoms; section 25 is subject to section 28 of the Charter, which provides that all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to women and men. Thus, the Aboriginal rights protected by section 25, like those protected by section 35(1), must be made available on an equal basis to women. Not only do sections 35(4) and 28 protect the position of Aboriginal women within Aboriginal polities, but section 15 of the Charter guarantees that Aboriginal women cannot be discriminated against vis-à-vis non-Aboriginals. For Aboriginal women, the development of a culturally relevant gender-based analysis is therefore a constitutional obligation.

Honourable senators, as parliamentarians, we need to re-examine and challenge the ideal of equality and claims to fairness, and that this ideal applies to all Canadians. It doesn’t.

We need to disrupt the ideas of a monoculture, including assimilation, as well as universality or pan-Canadian approaches as solutions. These approaches have never worked due to the lack of equity for those groups who require resources to overcome the barriers and challenges that have been placed in their way.

When all women are treated as a homogeneous group having a homogeneous interest, it contributes to the invisibility of Indigenous women and the marginalization of their concerns and voices.

The right to vote and status were closely tied to gender as well. “Indigenous women were excluded from the Canadian suffragette movement, which was dominated by middle and upper-class White women.”

For all of their important work, leaders in the Canadian suffragette movement, specifically Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy, worked to keep female Indigenous voices out of the arena.

It should be noted that, historically, Indigenous women had a very different traditional role than their European counterparts. This is described, in part, by author Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux within the book, Restoring the Balance, which states, on page 16:

Native women were removed from their traditional roles and responsibilities and pushed to the margins of their own societies. The missionaries brought into the New World an old-European social hierarchy where ”a woman’s proper place was under the authority of her husband and that a man’s proper place was under the authority of the priests.”

In a policy paper entitled Indigenous Gender-based Analysis for Informing the Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan, Adam Bond and Leah Quinlan of the Native Women’s Association of Canada state on page 4:

Indigenous women have unique and more proximate social and cultural relationships with nature than non-Indigenous groups. The intersectionality of their gender and indigeneity equip Indigenous women and girls with special roles, knowledge and responsibilities, but also expose them to greater risks. The socio-cultural relationships of Indigenous women with nature and their physiology result in pronounced negative effects of local mining-related environmental impacts. . . .

The purposeful exclusion of Indigenous women from community decision making, consultations, and negotiations with the private sector perpetuate the continued disproportionate negative environmental and social-economic effects of industrial activities on Indigenous women and girls. Consultation processes require good faith on the part of both the Crown and community. The marginalization of the voices and concerns of Indigenous women from these processes undermine the legitimacy of the ultimate decisions and agreements.

Sexual violence, harassment and discrimination are prevalent realities for Indigenous women that are often exacerbated by the presence of industrial projects . . . The persistence of “rigger culture” in . . . work camps perpetuates a form of racism and misogyny [that] undermines the human worth of Indigenous women —

— and girls —

— and exposes them to heinous and entirely intolerable acts of sexual violence and discrimination. Whatever the positive economic effects of mining activities are or may be, the continued prevalence of these offences slides the scale firmly against a net socio-economic benefit for Indigenous women.

The failure of mining companies to exterminate rigger culture and the failure of governments to impose adequate administrative conditions and legislative and regulatory requirements to protect Indigenous women is not only a mammoth burden for Indigenous women to shoulder, it is a major obstacle for the industry to access a much-needed workforce and stands firmly in the way of developing trust-based relationships with local communities. Ultimately, so long as the presence of mining activities constitutes a threat of sexual violence, there cannot be a reasonable conclusion that the industry is a positive force for Indigenous women and girls. No community can ever be reasonably expected to support a project that puts their women and children at risk of rape.

Honourable senators, this bill is about minimizing the deleterious effects while maximizing the benefits in the environmental, social and cultural realms of exploration and resource activities.

This shows that when capitalism is a major component in bills, those bills will require gender considerations to be applied in future federal policies and laws. While I use the example here of the impacts of the resource industry on Indigenous women, it is important to stress that there are other areas such as health, law, geography and so on that impact different groups of women in unique and complex ways. In some circumstances, the intersectionality of capitalism, health, geography and law with identity, gender and indigeneity affects people as is shown in the above. In the CRI-VIFF No. 6, January 2011, it states:

This means that girls and young women often find themselves at the crossroads (intersecting sites) of various systems of oppression such as patriarchy, capitalism and colonialism as they encounter different forms of violence related to these systems simultaneously.

Colleagues, when it comes to resource-rich areas, First Nations remain in an apparently unbreakable deadlock. Breaking out of this deadlock would allow the forces of modernization to flow through First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities. Yet, being intentionally placed in a powerless position allowed industry to overwhelm First Nations communities when these communities were in the way. Research has found mostly negative outcomes regarding social, economic, cultural and health impacts for Indigenous and non-Indigenous women when a resource development project is situated near their community. These include child care challenges; temporary low-skilled and low-paying jobs; increases in violence and harassment; increases in sex work, homelessness; affordability of housing; decreasing health resources due to the influx of workers; and so on. Again, this is but one facet of life where discriminatory policies result in excessive hardships for women to deal with.

There is a term used by Steve Lerner to describe places as “sacrifice zones.” These are low-income and racialized communities shouldering more than their fair share of environmental harms related to pollution, contamination, toxic waste and heavy industry.

In the Senate, do we create our own type of sacrifice zones, or support the existing ones, by not taking into consideration how legislation we consider and pass affects the marginalized and oppressed? How do we use the power and privilege we have been bestowed to address the disparities in environmental burdens? We need to take resistance by First Nations, Metis and Inuit seriously rather than treating the concerns and protests as merely obstructionist.

Honourable senators, recognizing the extent of the problem and calling attention to it is the most basic step toward actually addressing it. To stop there is an overt abuse of the privilege that creates and reinforces a flawed system. It is on us to go beyond this at every opportunity.

With that, I see the impacts of Bill S-218 as twofold. The first is creating equity amongst all Canadian women. How has privilege afforded equality to one group of women and why are certain other groups left behind? The underlying issues and individual needs of underserved and vulnerable populations must be effectively addressed by ensuring policies do not discriminate against marginalized groups. This includes the unique needs of all women and girls; First Nations, Metis and Inuit people; LGBTQ2 and gender-nonconforming people; those living in northern, rural and remote communities; people with disabilities; newcomers; children and youth and seniors.

Alongside equity amongst all Canadian women, the second step this bill will take is to ensure equity of women to men. These two steps will naturally occur at the same time as every instance during which a gender lens is thoroughly applied to legislation. It ensures women from all walks of life will be further protected from any negative consequences, intended or not. Once these steps are taken and equity is achieved, that is when we can begin to operate on a sustained level of equality amongst all Canadians. Equality is the foundation from which everyone can lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Honourable senators, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is time to act to prevent further avoidable, discriminatory policy-based and legislation-driven issues at the outset to avoid the need for future generations to correct our wrongs.

As First Nations, Metis, Inuit and non-status peoples — the most vulnerable — we want substantive equality and equity on par with other Canadians. There should be no place for inequity in this land of opportunity with a history of treaty relations. Unfortunately, the sidelining of First Nations, Metis, Inuit and non-status peoples — and especially the women — from economic activity, employment and culturally appropriate education is a reality that needs to be addressed. Remedying this, in part, will be one of the many accomplishments of this bill.

I urge you to join me in supporting Bill S-218 and the consistent application of a gender-lens analysis to all future legislation.

I just wanted to mention that I’m meeting with a group of women on Thursday, and they have developed their own Indigenous GBA. The women are doing this to protect themselves because nobody else is protecting them. Isn’t it egregious that they have to do that? We are trying to do our part in the Indigenous community to move forward. We are not just sitting there. I urge you to join me and support this bill. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-219, which would establish January 4 of each and every year as “National Ribbon Skirt Day.” Through this bill, Canada would have the opportunity to further their understanding and education of Indigenous culture and heritage — specifically the ribbon skirt, which is a symbolic piece of clothing used in Indigenous tradition and ceremony.

I want to thank Chief George Cote of the Cote First Nation in Saskatchewan, as well as Isabella Kulak and her family, for their strength and determination in being who they are and their ways of being and knowing.

Colleagues, this bill represents an initiative that is very meaningful to many Indigenous people and communities across the country. Chief Cote of Cote First Nation, the home of Isabella Kulak, shared this statement with my office:

On behalf of Cote First Nation, we are honored to have January 4^th as National Ribbon Skirt Day across our great Nation. Bella Kulak has demonstrated the importance of sharing our culture to other nations. Our First Nations, Metis, Inuit women are a symbol of life givers and their resilience in looking after the home fires is our strength to move forward. We thank Senator McCallum for bringing forward such a recognition and encourage all Parliamentarians to offer their support for this bill in the year of Truth and Reconciliation. Meegwetch from the Saulteaux First Nations of Treaty 4 Territory.

Honourable senators, I would now like to read a statement that was sent to my office by Isabella Kulak herself, the 10-year-old girl whose bravery and resolve turned an unfortunate incident into a platform for change through understanding and education. Ms. Kulak said:

Dear Senator McCallum

My name is Isabella Susanne Kulak and I would like to start off by telling you what the ribbon skirt means to me. The ribbon skirt represents strength, resiliency, cultural identity and womanhood. When I wear my ribbon skirt I feel confident and proud to be a young indigenous girl.

When I was 8 years old I was gifted my very own ribbon skirt from my auntie Farrah Sanderson. I wore it with pride and honor to my traditional ceremonies and pow wow’s. On December 18^th 2020 it was formal day at Kamsack Comprehensive Institute where I attend school, so I chose to wear my ribbon skirt just like my older sister Gerri. When I got to school a teacher assistant commented on it and said it didn’t even match my shirt and maybe next formal day I should wear something else like another girl was wearing and pointed at her. Those words made me feel pressured to be someone I am not. I eventually took off my skirt as I felt shamed.

Today I no longer feel shamed and I feel proud and powerful enough to move mountains because I know that people from around the world are standing with me. I am very grateful to be Canadian, to be Indian and to represent my people by wearing my ribbon skirt proudly! Thank you to Senator McCallum and to all the people who supported me from around the world, from Canada and from all the First Nations across the nations of the earth.

Sincerely Isabella

I want to thank Isabella for taking the time to provide such a profound statement so that her voice can be incorporated as part of the public record. Isabella, I want to tell you that there are senators wearing their ribbon skirts, both on the floor and those attending virtually, and that we stand behind you.

I would also like to thank Chief John Dorion from Kaministikominahiko-skak Cree Nation, or KCN, who wrote to our office to support the request to establish Ribbon Skirt Day on January 4.

Colleagues, Bill S-219, while another step down the path to reconciliation, comes in response to an incident that occurred last December. As Chief Dorion stated:

Just before Christmas in 2020, a school in Kamsack, Saskatchewan was protested because a 10-year old student [Isabella Kulak] was shamed because she wore her ribbon skirt to school. After the shaming and due to hurt feelings, she went home, she took off her skirt and acted withdrawn. As a result of breaking news on the issue, the 10-year old has received support far and wide receiving skirts arriving from around the world. The young girl went back to school with members of her family wearing ribbon skirts and was drummed into the school. The division’s education director admitted that the incident was a major error and accepted full responsibility for what happened. Since then, the Good Spirit School Division has apologized for what was believed to be racially motivated.

Chief Dorion goes on to say:

Research shows that the ribbon skirt is a symbol of womanhood and its’ reflective of our identity and other Turtle Island Nations. The skirt is also sacred, spiritual and political. It gives strength to our young people and it reminds us that we are not alone and we are connected to our communities and generations of ancestors who are with us at all times.

Colleagues, in the article “The Ribbon Skirt: Symbol of surviving cultural genocide” by Kelly Anne Smith, she interviews Tala Tootoosis, a Nakota Sioux, Plains Cree and Mohawk woman, about her healing journey. Miss Tootoosis is a social worker, addictions counsellor, motivational speaker, partner, daughter and mother. She states:

We are not submissive. We are not quiet. We are not waiting for our Indian Warrior to come and save us. Or our prince to come and save us. We are waking up. We’re getting up. We are taking care of our kids. We are getting degrees. We’re getting sober. We’re learning to sew, bead, quilt, paint, sing, dance, everything again.

We’re learning to heal. We’re lawyers. We’re doctors. We’re judges. And at the same time, we are women. We are capable of carrying life, creating life, with or without a man. But at the same time remembering the balance. The man has a purpose and we create a balance together.

She continues, stating that ribbon skirt teachings are not about a woman learning not to get raped:

It’s teaching them to be empowered and that they already are resilient. Women already have power. A woman is protection because she is a woman. And when you have that understanding you learn boundaries.

Tootoosis states the ribbon skirt is almost a declaration of being a survivor of attempted genocide.

They tried to murder my grandmother. They cut her hair. They tried to beat and rape the language out of her. But she still taught me that it’s okay to wear a skirt. She told me she was so proud of me. She was able to say that from her own lips. That’s resilience. That’s power.

She continues by saying that the power is in the ribbon skirt:

You could be on your first day sober and put on the ribbon skirt and remember you are not what happened to you.

Honourable senators, this bill aims to provide social justice for Bella and other young Indigenous youth who must struggle against racism, colonialism and gender violence in their day-to-day lives. By keeping this request for a national day of recognition situated within a framework generated from and led by the Cote reserve, it ensures that the families’ and communities’ tradition and intergenerational knowledge is secure while they’re navigating modern Indigenous struggles. This also helps to resist the colonial images of Indigenous women, girls and transgender peoples.

The acts of resistance by women — including mothers, aunts, grandmothers, sisters and friends — against ongoing violence and colonialism is very important, as their resistive acts are models for young Indigenous girls. They are acts against cultural genocide. Both mother and daughter are no longer willing to leave their spirits at the door and are ready to take that challenge to a different level that is bringing ceremony to everyday living, not only in their home but taking it to the outside world.

In her paper Red Intersectionality and Violence-Informed Witnessing Praxis with Indigenous Girls, Natalie Clark quotes Madeline Dion Stout in her powerful memoir of residential schools. Within this, she describes how Dr. Stout’s parents’ resilience is working through her now and how even her triggers give her life. She said:

Their resilience became mine. It had come from their mothers and fathers and now must spill over to my grandchildren and their grandchildren.

This knowledge transfer of resistance and activism to youth is vital and it’s ongoing. According to Natalie Clark’s paper, she states:

Zitkala-Sa and other Indigenous feminists remind us again and again in their writing that violence has always been gendered, aged, and linked to access to land.

Honourable senators, acts of resistance inform the Indigenous struggle for self-determination. Although Bella might have been unaware of her activism, she has already committed to actions that were anticolonial and focused on the goals of transformation and liberation — free to express her cultural heritage and make people worldwide aware that she’s helping to transform the colonial picture of Indigenous youth.

In the words of Indigenous scholar Linda Tuhwai Smith:

Storytelling, oral histories, the perspectives of Elders and of women have become an integral part of all indigenous research. Each individual story is powerful. But the point about the stories is not that they simply tell a story, or tell a story simply. These new stories contribute to a collective story in which every indigenous person has a place.

By doing what she did, Bella’s story is providing space in which girls can be seen in the circle and allows the world to better understand her experience of violence. Her act of resistance and education is medicine for her and other youth, and allows them to practise from a safe space.

Natalie Clark goes on to say she and her mother-in-law:

. . . were discussing Indigenous girls who are strong, resilient young women in spite of the violence, abuse, and ongoing colonial legacy that surrounds them. Together we questioned what made the difference in the girls who managed to navigate the “colonialscape” (Hunt 2014:1) of adolescence and those who struggled. We both identified that in the health of the girls we knew the key role was played by their connection to culture and language and identity, as well as by their strong female role models, including Elders.

Honourable senators, Bella is to be commended for fostering a healthy resistance strategy and activism through wearing her ribbon skirt. I would also like to commend her parents, Chris and Lana Kulak, who have fostered these admirable values in not only Bella but in all of their daughters. Chris and Lana Kulak also provided a statement to my office regarding the ordeal that their daughter Bella endured.

Dear Senator McCallum,

It is with great humility and honor that my family makes comment on the events regarding the shaming of my daughter Isabella Susanne Kulak of Cote First Nations Saskatchewan.

It has been a long road for the First Nations people of Canada since the landing of European peoples on our great shores. Much has happened since that has been of great insult and injury to many people in this country of Indigenous descent, and much of it to do with race and interpretation of what it means to be Canadian AND Indigenous.

Through the events that led to my daughter receiving National and International attention in regards to her wearing of her sacred traditional attire (her Ribbon Skirt) to school and her subsequent shaming by her teacher’s aide, we have come to a great crossroads that all of us as Canadians must recognize and come to terms with together as the great nation we are. We must face down and defeat the mighty enemy we call Racism and Intolerance. There is no time like the present to evoke change that will ultimately change the course of the history of Canada’s relationship with the people who are the original Landlords, the First Nations People across this country.

Our hope in all of this is that all Canadians see the relevance of what has occurred, and that this forever define what is truly unacceptable in our public institutions and our society as a whole. We as a family feel a great sense of responsibility to all Canadians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to create a safe space and a dialogue that will continue on in a mutual respect between nations that lasts for generations. The creation and discussion around Bill S-219 has brought hope that these discussions lead to a greater sense of pride for all our country’s Indigenous peoples, and foremost a greater sense of urgency as it pertains to the reconciliation process and the decolonization of Canada.

In the words of the great artist Alex Janvier of my home province of Alberta, a true beacon of hope and perseverance and testament to the resiliency of Indigenous peoples of Canada, ‘The Original Landlords have returned to take back control of these lands. The Earth is us and we are the Earth.’ As a residential school survivor and a true warrior in the battle for equality Alex has shown us through his art what is possible when you never give up even when told that certain things are not possible. He and Bella have shown that anything is in fact possible.

For all the people in this country who have lived through racial intolerance and fought to preserve the inherent rights of Indigenous people, we thank you as a family and as a First Nation. I am proud that my Bella is so supported by so many in this country and around the world, and it is our hope that all of this will evoke the change that is necessary to achieve true respect between nations and between peoples that reside here as Canadians.

‘Bella The Brave’ is how I refer to my daughter and this has instilled a fiery resolve in all my daughters and my beautiful wife Lana who I love and respect very much. My family has taught me so much about what it means to be a daddy and a husband, and the Ribbon Skirt with it’s sacred cultural teachings and spirituality has galvanized us to be true change makers in our community and our country. I thank all of the Native and Metis people as well as our Inuit family who fought so hard for so long to preserve and maintain our cultural traditions and identity. Without the sacrifice of our ancestors the Ribbon Skirt may have been lost long ago, and this National Ribbon Skirt Day is not only a testament to “Bella The Brave” but to all the brave warriors who came before her that never cease to amaze us when we read about them and the many obstacles that they faced every day of their lives because they were Indian. Let us always remember this National Ribbon Skirt Day as a true showing of the cultural and spiritual identity that is intertwined in the seams of the garment and the sacred hands that make them!

Kici Miigwetch — A great big thank you,

Christopher & Lana Kulak

Cote First Nations — Kamsack Saskatchewan Canada.

Honourable senators, sacred stories move us deeply. They change us and bring us closer together. There are two essential elements of sacred stories. These powerful vehicles tell us about ourselves and in that way transform us while simultaneously connecting us to our fellow human beings. We are aware that some profound lesson has been imparted. As we continue to search for ways to heal ourselves, each other and Mother Earth, stories and storytelling will continue to flourish.

Colleagues, as listeners and receivers of the sacred story of Isabella Kulak, we in Canada become essential partners in her resistance against the colonial presentation of Indigenous girls. This bill, colleagues, is very short and very straightforward. Although being recognized federally, national ribbon skirt day would not be a legal holiday or a non-juridical holiday. To me, this bill is not only a helpful and important initiative of reconciliation; it is also nonconfrontational in its nature, scope and goal. It is my hope that debate on this can be swift and that ideally when the time comes we can reach agreement to have second and third reading votes occur back to back without jeopardizing this bill by sending it to committee, where it may face a prohibitive wait time.

Honourable senators, I urge all parliamentarians to join me in supporting this bill and this young girl who feels proud and powerful enough to move mountains because people from around the world are standing with her. Let’s also stand with her. It shows that we collectively support youth through the healthy transitions into adulthood. We need to offer them support to resist stereotypes and to replace this with strong and affirming messages and images of themselves. This includes naming and challenging negative cultural messages and abuse of power in society. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Diane F. Griffin moved second reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). Some of my colleagues will already be familiar with this bill. I have introduced it before and I’ve also sponsored a version introduced in the other place by my friend Richard Cannings, an MP from British Columbia.

For the benefit of my colleagues who have recently joined our chamber, I will offer an overview of the bill and an argument as to its importance.

Engineered wood beams can be used in place of concrete and steel in the construction of tall buildings. These are large beams, so they are not a fire hazard. It’s like holding a match to the trunk of a 100-year-old maple. It just won’t light. These beams can be used to build huge structures.

For example, in 2018 the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry travelled to British Columbia on a study tour and went to see Brock Commons, which is a 17-storey student residence on the UBC campus. You were there, Senator Black; Senator Gagné was too. It was really impressive. My lasting impression, in fact, of that building is that it just didn’t feel like a university building. You know what I mean. Those big old buildings that are all steel, glass and concrete. Brock Commons had a warmth to it. Not only were the wood beams used in its construction an excellent carbon sink, but they made a much more pleasant environment for those who live and work in them.

This weekend I was talking to my dear friend Dr. Ann Howatt about this bill. Ann spent her career in artifact conservation and worked for years at the Canadian Conservation Institute in the Glenbow Museum in Calgary which, by the way, is currently undergoing a renovation. A core project goal of the renovation is sustainability. The term is “utilizing the existing ’bones’ of the building and repurposing the assets that [they] already have, while improving the mechanical systems to ensure [their] future building will be efficient and environmentally responsible.”

Ann also pointed out to me that mass-timber buildings are built in accordance with green architecture. In a 2016 paper entitled Green Architecture: A Concept of Sustainability, Amany Ragheb and others described green architecture as architecture that:

... produces environmental, social and economic benefits. Environmentally, green architecture helps reduce pollution, conserve natural resources and prevent environmental degradation. Economically, it reduces the amount of money that the building’s operators have to spend on water and energy and improves the productivity of those using the facility. And, socially, green buildings are meant to be beautiful and cause only minimal strain on the local infrastructure.

This is certainly what I observed when we visited Brock Commons.

Last week Senator Omidvar and I discussed this bill, and she mentioned the agreement that Prime Minister Trudeau signed at the recent COP26 climate summit agreeing to end and reverse deforestation by 2030. This is a pledge I wholeheartedly support. Our forests are an excellent renewable resource but one that must be nurtured. Our forestry industry is doing a good job. According to Natural Resources Canada:

Since 1990, Canada’s low annual deforestation rate has declined even further, dropping from 64,000 hectares per year to about 34,300 hectares per year in 2018,

and “Canada’s overall deforestation rate is expected to decline even further over time.”

Natural Resources Canada is already monitoring this indicator to ensure our compliance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

If we continue to manage our forests properly, engineered wood has huge potential to reduce the carbon intensity of our buildings. In 2018, Mr. Gérard Beaulieu of the Quebec Forest Industry Council told the natural resources committee in the house that:

One cubic metre of wood emits 60 kilograms of carbon, compared to 345 kilograms for the same volume of concrete and 252 kilograms for steel.

We have a fantastic opportunity here for a made-in-Canada solution to one of our more carbon-intensive industries.

So where does Bill S-222 come in? The bill would require Public Services and Procurement Canada to consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental benefits of materials, products or sustainable resources used in the construction, maintenance and repair of public works. This doesn’t tie the department’s hands but would instead remind it that engineered wood is an available option that may be desirable for use in its projects. This, in turn, could lead to the construction of more buildings like UBC’s Brock Commons, which could start to change the industry norm of using only concrete and steel.

Colleagues, changing this norm would lead to a meaningful reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions, to more jobs in our forestry sector and to the increased use of materials whose environmental impact we can meaningfully measure because they are grown, harvested and processed here in Canada. It would give our forestry industry a win in the face of repeated trade disputes with the United States. Changing this norm would start the process of changing the norms in the building industries as a whole so that other innovations like green architecture and passive environmental controls would change from the exception to the default.

In fact, just this morning I was speaking with maritime representatives from the Canadian Construction Association, and Vivek Tomar from Nova Scotia mentioned that the new academic tower at the University of Toronto will be constructed using engineered wood. I’m thrilled to see this leadership.

Honourable senators, I hope you will join with me in supporting this bill and getting it to committee so that we can hear from expert witnesses in the new year. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Yes, I do.

On First Nations’ lands — and not even First Nations’ lands — harvesting has been done with no replanting of trees. When I’m back in Manitoba, I can see large areas that are hidden, so when you drive on the highway, you can’t see what’s happening.

Would there be protection of old growth in preventing the lumber industry from harvesting old growth like they were trying to do with Avatar Grove and Fairy Creek in B.C.?

Senator Griffin: Thank you for the question. This bill would not do that, but other things have to do that. A lot of national resources, of course, fall under provincial jurisdiction, and most provinces have either a natural areas act, a wilderness areas act or an ecological reserves act. There’s the Nature Conservancy of Canada and various provincial nature trusts.

There’s a lot of work being done by a lot of people across the country on this, and all of this has to come together and hopefully be coordinated on a national basis. That’s why groups like the Nature Conservancy of Canada are important, because they’ve developed a plan where they’re trying to protect all the representative features of our natural resources across the country, whether they be wetlands or old-growth forests.

There are a lot of groups and people that have to play the role of protecting these areas. First Nations, of course, have to look after their lands in the same way.

One thing I’m really pleased about is the partnerships that are starting to evolve with Parks Canada, First Nations, and with First Nations and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. So there are a lot of people and groups that have to play a role in this.

But I’m not pretending that this bill is that kind of a comprehensive bill. It has more to do with sustainable use of the forests, which has to be backed up by policy to not only ensure sustainable use but to ensure that prime, protected areas like old-growth forests remain for the future. Thank you.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: I move the adjournment of the debate.

Senator McCallum: I will make a comment.

I went to Avatar Grove and Fairy Creek to look at the forest. When I went to Fairy Creek, the people were forced to put up a protest group. The RCMP was there, and we went there.

They have to act to protect the lands. The provinces don’t work with First Nations, so there are a lot of existing problems right now. I’m worried that the lumber companies would see this as “we can do this,” because right now, the province has jurisdiction over it and does not consider First Nations issues.

So I’m just concerned about that. Thank you.

Senator Griffin: We’re in agreement.

(On motion of Senator Mercer, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Donna Dasko: Would the senator take a question?

Senator, thank you for your presentation. One of the great Canadian foods is, of course, grapes. Grapes, of course, turn into wine. We in Ontario have the greatest wines in the entire country. I know British Columbians think they have the greatest, but we have the greatest wines here in Ontario. Others think they have a wine industry too, but we will put that aside for a moment.

Does the food day that you propose include a celebration of wine or is that a separate day that you might be contemplating to celebrate the great wines of Canada?

Senator Black: Thank you for your question. I celebrate wine every day, actually. This is local Canadian food, and grapes are part of the Canadian cuisine. It’s all inclusive.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: I won’t comment on sour grapes. I wonder if there is any way, with the tremendous enthusiasm — and I share it — for Canadian food, if on a Canada food day we could encourage people not to waste food. As we know, when food goes into a landfill it turns into methane, which is about 20 times greater than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. It’s a huge problem. Is there any way of celebrating Canada’s food day while making sure not to waste this wonderful food we have?

Senator Black: This is a tremendous opportunity. The folks promoting food in Canada will take that on, I’m sure. I support them in what they’re doing, and I will pass that on. I agree that food wastage in this country is tremendous. I am following the circular food economy that is taking place now. It’s exciting to see what is happening in that realm as well, so thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 10, which deals with the harmful impacts and the legacy left behind by the residential school system. The residential school legacy:

. . . is not an event that only occurred in the past; for some Indigenous peoples, this institution is a living history, and a lived experience that they are still processing.

This is a quote from Dr. Natahnee Nuay Winder in the book Residential Schools and Indigenous Peoples: From Genocide via Education for Processes of Truth, Restitution, Reconciliation, and Reclamation, on page 143.

Natahnee Nuay Winder, a citizen of the Duckwater Shoshone Nation, is Paiute, Ute, Navajo and African American. In her research article involving intergenerational university students entitled “Colliding Heartwork,” she states:

When former members have the courage to share their [residential] school experiences, it can become emotional and distressing for both the person sharing and those listening to their truth in telling of an event. . . . It is human nature to provide comfort and support and alleviate the pain. This action is where our hearts reach out to support, which creates space for where our hearts collide.

Honourable senators, this debate about residential schools will reflect how the tradition of debate in this chamber allows us to share our perspectives on the various aspects of the residential school legacy through a process we will call “Colliding Heartwork at Senate.” We’ve been given permission by Dr. Winder to use this term. The sacred space where our hearts will collide will include our allies — you, the senators.

In her 2015 book Strong Helpers’ Teachings: The Value of Indigenous Knowledges in the Helping Professions, Cyndy Baskin, a Mi’kmaq and Celtic author, quotes Patton and Bondi on page 490, saying:

Allies for social justice recognize the interconnectedness of oppressive structures and work in partnership with marginalized persons toward building social justice coalitions. They aspire to move beyond individual acts and direct attention to oppressive processes and systems. Their pursuit is not merely to help oppressed persons but to create a socially just world which benefits all people.

The end aim of Colliding Heartwork at Senate would be to help find a form of closure for these centuries of unresolved grief, including the recent and ongoing discovery of bodies of children who did not return home.

How will our future, as senators and as Canadians, look when our hearts collide? This work will encourage us to reflect and to come to an understanding of how diverse Indigenous and non-Indigenous histories and Indigenous lived experiences intersect with the work that we do in the Senate. It’s a chance for us to reflect on how former students, their families and communities have been impacted by the legacy of the agenda of colonized “education.”

How does one foster understanding, harmony and community from one race to another? One way is to share, hear and listen to each other’s stories in a safe way. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP, provided space where former students could finally put down the burden of pretense and share the dark nights of our souls publicly, something we had never had an opportunity to do. This safety allowed these extraordinary First Nations people to decide it was time to step courageously into the fullness of their lives. However, when stories are told but publicly challenged, ridiculed and ignored — as has occurred on the Senate floor beginning in 2017 — the wounds remain gaping.

In her research work with intergenerational university students, Dr. Winder informs us that each individual engaged with historical unresolved grief has had that shape their lives differently.

Authors Brave Heart, M.Y.H. and DeBruyn state:

Historical unresolved grief originates from the loss of lives and land, forced abandonment of culture, and prohibited practices of ceremonies and traditional languages, as well as other vital aspects of Indigenous culture destroyed by the settler conquest of North America.

Indigenous students in the research exhibited resilience in the wake of [residential] school history through paying tribute to their ancestors, relearning their language, making cultural items, exerting their Indigenous identity, holding tight to their history, and wielding various aspects of their culture … including the importance and continuation of prayer.

Honourable senators, telling our stories is related to our soul and our spirit’s intention to increase not only our consciousness but yours as well. Our experiences that had earlier been kept in the dark become illuminated to us and to you. Bringing our stories into the light is the first step toward ending this dark relationship.

As a Cree First Nations iskwêw, or woman, I knew I would not remain in victimhood. I was meant to be more than what other humans envisioned for me. This was why I want to revisit the attacks on former students of residential schools that were launched — and protected — under the guise of parliamentary privilege. What function did this targeted racism and racial profiling against First Nations by a former senator serve?

Colleagues, in the training provided to the former senator and in her assessment criteria done by the University of Manitoba after completion of the training, it was noted that time was spent

. . . exploring the concept [of racism] in depth and how it is systemically embedded and entrenched within social, political and legal institutions. . . .

Reflecting on her past conduct, the former senator affirmed that it did not align with her obligations as a senator in relation to racism. It was said:

She noted how it has caused hurt and harm for Indigenous peoples and communities. She expressed sorrow as she sees how this is wrong.

It was also indicated that she took full responsibility for her past actions and accepted that she had breached 7.1 and 7.2 of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators.

Dr. Jonathan Black-Branch stated:

She leaves the program with further knowledge, ideas and understandings, equipped with new tools for approaching her professional work and her personal beliefs.

However, the belief of former students, including myself, was that she left the program much as she had entered it. This was confirmed in her exit interview.

In the session regarding the historical context of Crown-Indigenous Relations in Canada, Dr. Miller, a Sixties Scoop survivor, provided her feedback, stating:

In particular, she probed why it was a problem to post letters from people who had not had abusive experiences in the residential schools on her website. I discussed Residential School denialism and how some people could interpret presenting only those letters as contributing to the denialism narrative as well as the reality that given how recently the residential schools ended, we still have many colleagues and co-workers let alone elders whose lives were profoundly changed in negative ways by the experience and whose trauma is still deeply felt. Her response to this was “Oh — so it’s just too soon.”

Dr. Miller continues:

. . . I very much had the impression that she has been of the opinion that the success stories of a few served as justification for the pain of the experience with regard to Residential School and 60’s scoop in particular. I hope that it is widely recognized that just because one has survived a painful ordeal and had a successful life afterward, does not justify the pain one endured or demonstrate that the pain was necessary for the success to be achieved.

Indeed, Historical Trauma scholarship suggests that refusal to recognize and or validate the trauma is a trigger likely to deepen the trauma, which I think is directly related to the issues with her website.

On the former senator’s training which focused on privilege, fragility, microaggressions, triggers and anti-racism practice, Dr. Miller states:

We also discussed privilege and how it blinds you to the oppressions experienced by those who do not have access to the same privileges . . . .

She continues:

We also explored in great detail the ways in which colonialism as an ideology always relies on systemic racism to justify displacement, extraction, theft, and psychic or physical violence. Racism can exist without colonialism but colonialism is always accompanied with a prejudicial narrative, often encoded in law, to justify colonial acquisition.

As James Minton, editor of the book discussed earlier, states:

I do not believe that it is anyway justifiable to leave the addressing of the endemic problems and manifestations of individual and society disempowerment, and differential privilege, to the disempowered and non-privileged.

He goes on to say:

We must be acutely aware that the crimes of residential school systems cannot be reduced to the injuries experiences by surviving individuals — for residential schools systems were not aimed at individuals but peoples.

In the concluding chapter, “Reflections,” the authors ask the reader to find their own truths within those stories and move to a place that allows for restitution, reconciliation and reclamation. While the stories are tragic, our story will not remain tragic. For to do so disrespects and displaces the thousands of years of knowing, being, and doing that our ancestors passed down through the ages to ensure a healthy future for our peoples.

Acknowledgement would also mean some form of closure for the Senate as we resolve not to inflict more harm on First Nations people. This means that we, as senators, would leave more informed, more compassionate and therefore stronger. As we support the former students and their families, they would also get stronger. This would be an example of conciliation.

As Senators, what are our own truths? We will not frame our apology as an ongoing story of colonization, nor as a gesture attempting to exonerate blame for egregious injustices and colonial violence, of which residential schools are an integral part.

We will be issuing our apology from the perspective of “colliding heartwork.”

Honourable senators, I encourage you to join me in the debates towards unbraiding the racism, systemic and institutional discrimination and abuse that occurred in residential schools and its resulting adverse impacts — the effects of which are still seen and felt by countless Indigenous Peoples and communities today. This is an opportunity to acknowledge the harm that these schools have done as well as engage in change. This change will come by senators acknowledging the ongoing costs of the oppression of Indigenous Peoples and the need for broader social and political change.

I hope you will join me in speaking to and supporting this motion as well as its apology, which will redress some of the damage that has been sown from the Senate on this matter, both historically and of late. Thank you. Kinanâskomitin.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, for Senator Boyer, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.