Hon. Rebecca L. Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

I’d like to begin by thanking members of the other place Frank Caputo and Mel Arnold, the author and sponsor of the bill respectively. I also want to thank our colleague Senator Batters for sponsoring the bill here in the Senate. I think you’ll hear this is an important one.

The topic of child sexual abuse and exploitation can be personally traumatic, as we’ve seen today, because peoples lived experiences vary. Therefore, if any senators, Senate staff and even anyone else listening feels overwhelmed, I urge you to go and take a break or seek support.

Bill C-291 is a relatively simple bill and one which I can support. It seeks to update the term “child pornography” in the Criminal Code with the more accurate “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.”

Why is this important? After all, we are not debating about making the punishment of the actual crime more severe. Equally, it cannot be guaranteed that changing the terminology will have a deterrent effect on those who commit this crime. But, senators, words matter, both structurally and culturally. With this bill, we are being asked to structurally update language which has become a cultural norm.

I will not revisit the various statistics and stories presented by others during debate on this bill, nor will I focus my attention on law enforcement or investigations, both of which were ably covered by my honourable colleagues. Instead, I draw your attention to the importance of language.

As Senator Batters pointed out in her sponsor speech, “pornography,” as a term, can imply a consensual element. And as Senator Miville-Dechêne explained, it may also imply artistic merit. But let’s be clear that sexually explicit material involving children is never consensual, and there is nothing artistic about it.

Originally enacted in 1892, the Criminal Code of Canada has evolved over the decades since, notably in 1993, when child pornography was made a criminal offence. But even then, the term “child pornography” was already somewhat inadequate because in 1991 the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, declared in Article 34 that “States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. . . .”

Even before that, in 1987, the United States Department of Justice created the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to investigate and prosecute the exploitation of and obscenity involving children.

As colleagues will appreciate, this is and has always been all about exploitation and victimization.

A child cannot consent to being exploited. There is always a power imbalance, even among young people, but especially between a child and an adult. The act of creating child-centric pornography is both exploitative and abusive to the victim, and they are forever harmed.

Colleagues will understand that there is no globally accepted term to describe the criminal act we are now debating. However, the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, also known as the Luxembourg Guidelines, refers to “child sexual exploitation material.”

And as I pointed out, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to both sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Further, the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, to which Canada is a participant, calls on member states to make “sexual exploitation” a criminal offence.

I would note, as did Senator Batters in her speech, that as originally drafted, Bill C-291 could have replaced “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material.” At the Justice and Human Rights Committee in the other place, the bill was amended to include “exploitation” in addition to “abuse.”

Testifying before the committee in the other place, officials from the Department of Justice emphasized that by adding the term “exploitation” to the bill, Parliament would capture more elements, particularly fictional works, and that the amended bill would more accurately reflect the nature of the criminal act.

And I add that this is about victims, because it signals to victims that Parliament and parliamentarians better understand the reality that they are, in fact, being abused and exploited.

While the Rules of the Senate prohibit me from quoting from a speech given by a member in the other place, I would like to share an insight that the Member of Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot pointed out in debate there. It was as recent as 2019 that a trial judge said that a minor should have felt flattered about attracting the attention of an older man. This reflects an antiquated view, demonstrates the power imbalance that exists between children and adults and is exactly the type of cultural misunderstanding that I believe Bill C-291 addresses.

Again, I remind colleagues that this bill does not affect anything structural — that is to say, the actual criminal act or punishment thereof. Rather, it focuses on the cultural aspects of such crimes by seeking to update terminology that better describes the criminal act and reflects the enduring, lifelong impact on the victim.

Colleagues, Parliament has a duty to provide clarity and remove any ambiguity around legal terminology, and as parliamentarians, we need to call out child abuse and exploitation for what it is. If legislators don’t, how will Canadians?

Speaking of clarity, I would be remiss if I didn’t address the point raised by Senator Miville-Dechêne regarding the use of “pédosexuels” in the French translation. I agree with her intervention that there are perhaps broader, more commonly used terms, and I encourage the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to examine that issue.

At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned that I didn’t want to revisit statistics or share stories from victims or investigators, but I have to conclude with some.

COVID-19 changed the world. The pandemic may have kept us physically distant, but technology brought many people together, and not always in good ways. Sadly, that same technology makes it easier to share child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reports that the possession and/or accessing of child pornography is on the rise, up 21%, to be exact, between 2020 and 2021 and 74% compared to the previous five-year average. That is disgraceful.

This bill may be small in scope but it has the potential to have a big impact, because we all know that language matters.

A case in point: Other parliamentarians and I had the privilege to meet with members of the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre this past Tuesday. We learned about the work the force undertakes globally to catch those who abuse and exploit children.

The RCMP are leaders in technology and methods to investigate such crimes and are sought after globally to help enhance other nations’ efforts in this area of criminal investigations. However, somewhat embarrassingly, it was pointed out to us and to our RCMP colleagues by their international colleagues that Canadian criminal law still refers to the crime as a form of pornography rather than the broader and more accurate terminology of “sexual abuse and exploitation.” It was a bit embarrassing.

Therefore, I urge all senators to support this bill at second reading. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Patterson, will you take a question?

Senator R. Patterson: Yes.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Patterson, for that important speech, and especially for indicating all of these international contexts and to indicate that Canada is kind of behind on this particular wording change. Many other international partners in this important work have changed these terms long ago or perhaps never even used the term “child pornography,” which is so outdated and incorrect.

I just want to make it very clear that how this bill is going to be handled is that in every single place that the words “child pornography” are used in the Criminal Code and these associated acts, the intent and purpose of this bill is to change all of those occurrences.

I can certainly see from esteemed colleagues in law enforcement that we want to make sure this has only good intentions. I also want to make it clear to the Canadian public that in every single place this is listed as “child pornography” it will then be listed as “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” to actually confirm that’s what this is.

Senator R. Patterson: Thank you, Senator Batters. Of course, I fully support the direction that you are taking with this.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

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

Hon. René Cormier Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, which was tabled in this chamber on March 30.

As honourable senators know, the Canadian francophonie is currently facing many challenges because of the decline in its demographic weight, as confirmed by the most recent census data from Statistics Canada.

The ubiquity of the English language, the aging population and the declining birth rate are having a disproportionate impact on the survival and promotion of the French fact in Canada.

[English]

It is clear that the future of the Canadian francophonie and the French language depends on our ability to welcome, retain and integrate francophone immigrants into all regions of our vast country. Francophone immigration is a key element in ensuring the development and vitality of francophone minority communities.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments, including municipalities and their community partners, have roles to play in addressing the current demographic deficit that threatens the continuation of a balanced and thriving linguistic duality in Canada.

[Translation]

Recognizing these challenges, and at the request of the Senate, from March 2022 to February 2023, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages conducted a major study on the issue.

Our committee held 11 meetings, heard from more than 56 witnesses and received five briefs for its examination of the issues affecting francophone immigration to official language minority communities.

I would like to sincerely thank every member of the committee for their hard work throughout this study, and I want to thank the organizations and individuals who appeared before the committee or submitted briefs.

[English]

This report lists 12 specific and concrete recommendations to the federal government, specifically to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

The committee hopes that these recommendations will serve to inspire the future francophone immigration policy, which is explicitly included in the long-awaited Bill C-13, which aims to modernize the Official Languages Act and to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act.

[Translation]

I won’t go into the details of all the recommendations, but some of them are noteworthy because they aim to maintain a strong, diverse and vibrant francophonie, thereby reinforcing the linguistic duality of our country.

These recommendations include adopting a comprehensive, coordinated and ambitious francophone immigration policy adapted to the needs of the communities, a policy that will address all partners and cover the entire francophone integration pathway.

They also include setting a new target for francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec, a growing target that is adapted to regional realities and based on reliable data, a target that will focus on the remedial character of language rights and on restoring the demographic weight of francophone minority communities.

[English]

These recommendations also call for the development of a francophone diplomatic strategy and that IRCC — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — review its recruitment and promotion activities for francophone immigration, whether by increasing the capacity of visa offices in sub-Saharan Africa or by facilitating the reception and resettlement of francophone refugees from member countries of the Francophonie.

They also call for greater awareness of equity, diversity, inclusion and gender equality issues among IRCC and Global Affairs Canada employees.

[Translation]

With respect to governance, these recommendations also call for the creation of an assistant deputy minister position responsible for the francophone immigration file.

Esteemed colleagues, these are a few of the recommendations in this important report, which I invite you to read.

In conclusion, there is one thing that is clear about immigration: All the links in the chain leading to Canadian citizenship are interconnected, and working in silos is detrimental. At every step in the process, from promotion and recruitment to reception, retention and integration, all the way to permanent residency and Canadian citizenship, all partners must work together to ensure the objectives are reached.

That is why the next francophone immigration policy must impose a bold, strong and coordinated approach.

Colleagues, as chair of this committee, I move that:

That the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Official Languages.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much, senator, for your speech. I think you hit the nail on the head, and I congratulate you. I had the same question. That was my concern.

Just as an add-on, I am just asking if you would agree. I know, Senator Patterson, we need to hear from the police investigators that this doesn’t affect how they see investigations going forward. The last thing we want to do is create some notion of two pieces when we have been working under one.

I come from an organization, as you know, that has been deeply involved in this for a long time in terms of investigations, so that was my concern about unintended consequences. I can only assume you have the same concern. Would I be correct in that?

Senator R. Patterson: You would be correct. This is why I think it is very important that this bill gets to committee for this look. I believe that we would like to have it on record that this must be reported back on as the committee goes through its work.

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

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Your Honour.

As my colleague Senator Cormier did, I wish to rise very briefly to speak on the report by the Social Affairs Committee, which I will put to you for consideration and approval.

It is a report on gender-based analysis plus. It is focused on the policy processes in the federal government. I want to very quickly provide you with an overview of the history of gender‑based analysis plus and the work that we did.

The approach in the federal government on gender-based analysis was first developed in 1995 when the government committed to implementing gender-based analysis throughout federal governments and agencies. In 2001, gender-based analysis underwent a rebranding in becoming gender-based analysis plus so as to include identity factors beyond gender in the analysis of programs and policies.

So gender-based analysis plus was officially expanded to include race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, gender, geography, culture, income, sexual orientation, education, sex and language.

In 2018, more changes came. The administration of gender‑based analysis plus went from being an agency to an official department of the Government of Canada.

However, notwithstanding the stated commitment to gender‑based analysis plus, barriers have persisted to a full implementation of intersectional policy analysis, which is the true aspiration of gender-based analysis plus.

The Auditor General of Canada has tabled three reports which identified such barriers beginning as early as 2009.

The most recent report by the Auditor General was released last May. It found that, despite some actions taken in and across government to identify and address barriers, gaps persist in departments and agencies in their capacity to perform gender‑based analysis plus. It is still not fully integrated into policy development and implementation.

In light of the Auditor General’s report, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology decided to undertake a study at the urging of my colleagues Senator Dasko and Senator Moodie. We heard from six experts and advocates before concluding by hearing from the Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and officials from Women and Gender Equality Canada.

We also heard some success stories. I am an optimist. I think the members of my committee are too. I am going to share a few of the success stories that we heard about policy analysis in gender-based analysis plus.

For instance, the application of gender-based analysis plus caused changes to be implemented to programs and policies. Examples include the Black Entrepreneurship Program, the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy, the 50 — 30 Challenge and the COVID-19 emergency response.

We also noted that Women and Gender Equality Canada has experienced a year-to-year measured increase in certain indicators including the number of departments that have designated gender-based analysis plus champions and the number of departments in government that are actually formally using it.

I believe Canada should be proud to be a pacesetter in implementing the concept of gender-based analysis plus throughout the federal government. We found no other comparators. But, no doubt, more needs to be done.

Therefore, the committee is making 15 recommendations to fulfill our aspirations. Let me just give you a taste of them. I will not read them all out. I encourage you to read the report, but just a few to tickle your curiosity.

First, the name, gender-based analysis plus. We heard from many witnesses about the current name of the policy framework as it —

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I will try to pick up where I left off, talking about the Senate Social Affairs Committee’s report on gender-based analysis plus in the federal government. I was giving you just a taste of the recommendations. You will have to go and read the full report.

The first recommendation I want to share with you is about the branding of gender-based analysis plus. To me, it has always sounded like alphabet soup, and this was confirmed by many witnesses. In particular, they emphasized the implicit hierarchy in gender-based analysis plus, with the plus as a secondary thought and concern.

In addition, Sarah Kaplan, Director of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto, stated that: “The ’Plus’ focuses on adding race or income or disability or Indigeneity to gender rather than considering them simultaneously . . . .” This, I think, is what we would call intersectionality. For these reasons, the committee is recommending that the Government of Canada, led by Women and Gender Equality Canada, rebrand gender-based analysis plus as gender and diversity analysis.

Witnesses identified eight major barriers to the full implementation of gender-based analysis plus in the Government of Canada: training, timing, capacity, funding, data, measuring outcomes, accountability and leadership and perceptions and resistance.

There were a few recommendations that will capture this chamber’s attention because Parliament plays a role in using GBA Plus in our own work. We recommend that the Government of Canada table GBA Plus for all government bills when introduced in either chamber of Parliament and that Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, establish resources for parliamentary committees to support their use of GBA Plus when considering legislation.

We have other important recommendations on disaggregated data and impacts. We also heard about leadership because, in every construct, leadership matters. WAGE is clearly one champion, as is its minister, but GBA Plus is a feature of public service. We therefore need to consider a few public service levers.

A possible solution is that the Government of Canada factor the quality and implementation of GBA Plus into performance evaluations for senior management and, in addition, we recommend that the Clerk of the Privy Council be named as a champion for GBA Plus, leading the Privy Council Office and working across government to ensure its implementation throughout the federal government and its agencies.

So, colleagues, I move:

That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Motion as amended agreed to on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user‑generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Motion as amended agreed to on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight, or AOVS, is focused on ensuring that it is well positioned to provide independent and transparent oversight to support the Senate in its accountability. The committee unanimously agreed that establishing strong oversight processes is the next big step in fulfilling our mandate. In order to do so, the committee finds that it is essential to meet with its counterpart in the United Kingdom.

The U.K. House of Lords Audit and Risk Committee, the U.K. House of Commons audit committees and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, or IPSA, have a similar mandate and structures as AOVS and have been in operation for over a decade now.

AOVS is at an important and high-profile stage in its work as a new committee: hiring a chief audit executive, establishing a new internal audit function, providing direction on improving and approving a risk-based internal audit plan, approving internal audit resource needs and setting other new practices, for example, an internal audit charter establishing how to liaise with Internal Economy on internal audit matters and so on. The committee is looking to the practices in some comparable models that would help to inform this next phase.

The committee is particularly interested in the lessons learned and best practices from IPSA and the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, or SCIPSA; the House of Commons audit committees, which are the Administration Estimate Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Members Estimate Audit Committee; and the House of Lords Audit and Risk Committee — each of which have external members. The purpose of these meetings would be to have candid, in-person discussions on various audit and oversight matters, many of which would be sensitive or confidential in nature. The audit committees and IPSA do not hold public meetings.

All members of the committee would participate in a full week of meetings. From a business continuity perspective, the members feel it is important for the full committee — especially the external members and chief audit executive, who are not impacted by the election cycle — to participate in this important knowledge transfer from the committee’s counterparts in the U.K.

Colleagues, for this purpose and for these reasons, I hope you will consider this budget. The knowledge that would be gained on this trip is integral to the committee’s mandate, and it would help guide the committee’s future work and ensure it is well positioned to fulfill its essential and independent oversight responsibilities.

Thank you.

Hon. David Arnot moved the adoption of the report.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Hon. Frances Lankin: Will the honourable senator take a question please?

Senator Klyne: Absolutely.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boyer, calling the attention of the Senate to the positive contributions and impacts that Métis, Inuit, and First Nations have made to Canada, and the world.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 concerning the historical treatment of our Chinese brothers and sisters. It is critical that we, as senators and citizens of Canada, understand how immigration policies have continued to shape racism within our country.

I want to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this inquiry, and for highlighting the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination still faced by Canadians of Asian descent today.

Colleagues, in the 1983 book entitled Racial Minorities in Multicultural Canada by editors Peter S. Li and B. Singh Bolaria, author Gurcharn Basran from the University of Saskatchewan states:

Racism in Canada is not the product of the seventies and eighties. It has been practised systematically by the Canadian government and people in general from the very beginning of Canadian history. . . . It has been institutionalized throughout our history. It has been directed mainly against non-white populations in Canada. The chronology of the development of Canada immigration and ethnic policies is the chronology of the discriminatory policies followed by the Canadian government in relation to non-white populations.

The author continues:

Chinese were brought in to work on the construction of the Canadian Pacific line. It was difficult to secure white labour for this purpose. Woodsworth, in his book, Strangers Within Our Gates, points out:

“The Chinese, in any number, were first brought in when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built, in order to work on the construction on that line when it was next to impossible to secure white labour.”

While discussing the contributions of Chinese labour to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or CPR, John Porter emphasizes:

Without Chinese labour the construction and completion of the CPR would have been indefinitely postponed. Not until 1962 were coloured people from Commonwealth countries looked upon as possible immigrants, except for small numbers who were allowed in to work as domestic servants, an entrance status previously held by lower class British and eastern European females.

The author continues:

There are various examples of institutionalized racism in Canada. Students of Canadian history in general, and those responsible for Canadian immigration policy in particular, are well aware of various pieces of legislation, laws, and practices that discriminate against the non-white and immigrant population. As soon as CPR construction was completed in 1885, and Chinese labour started entering into other occupations, institutional racism began in various forms. . . . A head tax of $50.00 was imposed on Chinese in 1885. It was increased to $100.00 in 1900 and $500.00 in 1903. Other Orientals were also subjected to a head tax, while passage assistance was available to the British immigrants. Chinese and East Indians had to pay a head tax in Canada and their immigration was virtually stopped after 1907. Orientals had no voting rights until World War II and were not allowed to practise certain professions in British Columbia. According to the 1906 Immigration Act, important discretionary powers were given to immigration officers, who used them against non-white immigrants in a ruthless and discriminatory manner. . . . There were race riots in British Columbia in 1907, in which Orientals were attacked and their properties, businesses, and houses destroyed.

In 1907 immigrants from Asia were required to have a minimum of $200.00 in landing money. In 1919 this account was increased to $250.00. In 1930, section 38 of the Immigration Act prohibited the landing in Canada of immigrants of any Asiatic race.

Honourable senators, the following information that I’m going to share with you is based on research done by the Library of Parliament. The first major wave of Chinese immigration began with the Fraser River Gold Rush in 1858. From 1881 to 1885, more than 15,000 Chinese labourers came to work on the construction of the CPR. Over the course of construction and by the end of 1882, 6,500 of the 9,000 railway workers were Chinese Canadians. They were employed to build the B.C. segment of the railway through the most challenging and dangerous terrain.

Chinese workers were paid a dollar a day, and, from this dollar, they had to pay for their food and gear. White workers were paid $1.50 to $2.50 per day and did not have to pay for provisions. In addition to being paid less while also incurring higher expenses, Chinese workers were given the most dangerous tasks, such as handling the explosive nitroglycerine used to break up solid rock. Due to the harsh conditions they faced, hundreds of Chinese Canadians working on the railroad died from accidents, winter cold, illness and malnutrition. Between 600 and 4,000 Chinese men died working on the CPR.

Although Chinese-Canadian workers faced and overcame great obstacles to help build the CPR, they were left out of the national celebration surrounding its completion. In the iconic and historic photograph of CPR director Donald Alexander Smith driving the ceremonial Last Spike — when the western and eastern segments of the CPR finally met in Craigellachie, British Columbia — all of the Chinese-Canadian workers were cleared from view.

Many people have pointed out the lingering injustice captured in that image. There is not a single Chinese-Canadian worker in the photograph, even though Chinese-Canadian labourers suffered, toiled and died building the railway that has come to symbolize the unity of Canada from coast to coast.

Prime Minister John A. Macdonald acknowledged the necessity of Chinese labour. When the Government of British Columbia tried to ban Chinese immigration in 1882, Macdonald rose in the House of Commons.