Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Woo, your remarks about gratitude versus equity evoked a real response in me. When I became a Canadian citizen in 1985, I was told by many to be grateful. It is a poor replacement for equity.

I connect my remarks to your comments on the report by the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee, but the study that you spoke about took place before I became a member.

In this chamber and in other committees — Legal, Social, Internal Economy — all committees do important work. In my experience in the Senate, committees vote when a decision has to be made. So I am to understand from your speech that while the majority of the members of the Rules Committee agreed with the motion, because it was not unanimous, the majority was disregarded.

How does the Rules Committee understand consensus? Is it simply that everybody has to agree and therefore it is the lowest common denominator?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to speak to Motion No. 107, which was brought forward by our colleague, Senator Deacon. Even though my level of interest and expertise in all things digital are far from rivalling his own, I support his efforts to make the delivery of public services more efficient and accessible.

[English]

I must begin by confessing that when I first saw Senator Deacon’s motion, my immediate reaction was to think, “Finally, a chance to rant against government websites.” But then I thought that would not be very constructive in light of what the motion seeks to do.

Still, I would say that we are presented with a kind of paradox. By voting in favour of this motion — and I will — we are asking the government to do more of something it has been pretty bad at. It would be tempting to spend 10 minutes railing against the dysfunction of some of our online services, but I will resist.

Consider only two anecdotes. The first comes from a family of Canadian permanent residents in Montreal. They are immigrants from Eastern Europe. Both are telecommunications engineers. They have two children. They have lived in Canada for a few years, and recently had to renew their permanent resident cards as they prepare to apply for Canadian citizenship. This was a formality. So they went onto the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, website and they started to fill out the online forms for their family of four. These are fairly complex applications, even for people who are already permanent residents.

The father started working on the process one evening, and after encountering some difficulties, he decided to take a day off only to fill out the applications online, but it did not work. For some reason, the government site made it impossible to submit the application. So this man, a telecommunications engineer, started looking for advice, and he discovered entire blogs dedicated to dealing with the IRCC system. He was told the name of his street might be too long. He was told to try to add spaces in his postal code. He was told not to use capital letters. He was told other things, but in the end, nothing worked.

After wasting more than one day on his family’s online application, this very smart and technologically capable man printed the application documents and sent them in paper form.

[Translation]

Here’s the second anecdote. Everyone knows there’s a dire shortage of doctors in the regions, including in Quebec’s Laurentians region. Five years ago, two doctors from France came to lend a hand, and they now have 2,700 patients between the two of them.

Unfortunately, we recently found out that Isabelle Branco and Jean-Louis Ménard had to put their appointments on hold and were in danger of losing their work permits. That means they’re no longer treating their patients, ostensibly because a code was missing from their file even though it had been sent several days earlier.

Fortunately, the whole thing was cleared up yesterday, but apparently it took the media getting involved to sort things out.

It’s something of a paradox. Government websites have been making lots of people, including me, want to tear their hair out for years, yet we still want more. We need more.

Why? Simple: We now live much of our lives online. We pay our bills online. We communicate online. We bank online. We research online. We shop online.

Steve’s Music Store, a Montreal institution, had this motto: “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.” These days, if something isn’t on the internet, it doesn’t exist.

That’s why we need the federal government to increase the quantity and improve the quality of its online services.

I will not repeat the statistics given by Senator Deacon regarding Canada’s low digital government ranking, nor will I dwell on the cost savings, because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent reports show, those are difficult to quantify. In any case, the digital transformation is not just about cutting costs. It’s about making life easier and making sure that our public services remain accessible as technology evolves.

In order for that to happen, I would suggest that our federal government focus on two issues in particular.

The first is simplicity. The primary objective of this motion is to increase the quantity of services available online. However, I think that will be impossible if we don’t also improve the quality of those services.

Government websites must be simple to use and written in plain language, not Klingon. The sites must contain simple instructions with an easy log-in and authentication process. They also need to be reliable and flexible. They should not be designed to accept only specific file types, requests, software applications, certificates, characters, browsers or formats. They must be designed so that a 10-year-old child or a 64-year-old adult, like me, can use them without screaming or bursting into tears.

[English]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report contains an encouraging paragraph on this point:

As part of this goal, the federal government created a link between [an individual’s Canada Revenue Agency and his or her Service Canada Account]. This allows for a single sign‑in and is based on a “tell us once” principle. . . . In addition to being able to connect between [different agencies’ accounts], the federal government also partnered with certain financial institutions . . . and some provinces to access Government of Canada services. The purpose of offering different choices of login credentials . . . is to make its online services “more convenient for clients to access” and having “one less username and password for clients to remember”.

I would like to take a minute to make sure that the eternal archives of the Senate record this critically important prescription for the future of humanity: Please give us fewer usernames and passwords to remember.

The second issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of privacy and information security. I have zero technical knowledge about these issues. To be perfectly frank, these are not problems that wake me up at night — perhaps because I am naive, or because my personal information is fairly boring. But I know that a lot of people are very concerned about privacy and information security — I have one friend in particular — and I know these things matter. As the federal government moves forward with the transition to digital services and digital identification, it must make sure to adopt best practices and be completely transparent about what it does.

This is not just a matter of information security. It’s also a matter of public trust in our institutions, which is something that has implications beyond the delivery of government services. At a time when, sadly, public trust in our institutions seems to be at an all-time low, our government needs to be exemplary in its approach to digital interactions and information processing.

I conclude by reiterating my support for Motion No. 107. The federal government must continue to transition to digital service delivery, and it must do it faster and better. I do not expect this major transformation to be completed in the short term. However, and for this reason, I am grateful to have my husband, children and younger staff to help me navigate these evil web portals. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the negative impact of health disinformation and misinformation on Canadian society and what effective measures can be implemented to counter this impact; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than May 31, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Woo, your time has expired. Do you wish to finish your answer?

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Bellemare, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11, which calls our attention to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act. I would like to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this timely inquiry. I believe that one of Canada’s great strengths is our capacity to self-reflect on the mistakes that we have made in the past. Senator Woo’s inquiry gives us an opportunity to ensure, upon reflection, that we never go down this path again.

Many of my colleagues have weighed in and continue to weigh in, but I’d like to focus my comments on the gendered impact of discriminatory immigration policies on the Chinese community.

During the 24 years that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in place, Canada admitted fewer than 50 Chinese people. This was indeed a very cruel way to repay the contributions of the 17,000 Chinese labourers who played an essential role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was the first great infrastructure nation-building project of Canada.

When the railway was completed in 1885, instead of rewarding the Chinese labourers, Parliament enacted the Chinese Immigration Act, which placed a head tax of $50 on Chinese people coming to Canada. In 1903, $50 was increased to $500, equal to about two years’ salary of an ordinary person. This exorbitant amount meant many Chinese labourers could not afford to bring their wives. In 1921, it is no surprise that the ratio of Chinese men to women in Canada was 15 to 1.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923 ensured that this ratio remained disparate. Over 90% of the wives of Chinese men were left behind in China. During their husbands’ prolonged absences, wives had the responsibility of raising children and looking after parents. Visits by husbands were short and infrequent because their right to return to Canada would be revoked if they were away for more than two years. Remember, colleagues, there were no airplanes, there were no jets; there was only the long way with the ship. Many children grew up barely knowing their fathers.

Canada did not repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act until 1947. When it did, it was replaced by a restrictive race-based immigration policy under which only those Chinese who already had a Canadian citizenship were allowed to sponsor their families. In other words, it was a restrictive measure of a different kind. The same rules, of course, did not apply to European immigrants. Twenty years later, after the points system was adopted, Chinese people finally began to be admitted under the same criteria as other ethnic groups.

Wives who succeeded in entering Canada in the 1950s and 1960s found their lives fundamentally transformed. Having lived without a spouse for years, they had to deal with readjusting to husbands they barely knew. Many put in long working hours labouring in their husband’s small businesses or took on multiple manual jobs.

In the early years of their arrival in Canada, Chinese women found themselves socially isolated and excluded. But it was their daughters and their granddaughters who took up their cause for justice. Chinese Canadian women like Avvy Go, Chow Quen Lee and Susan Eng were instrumental in campaigning for an apology and a redress.

As the President of the Toronto Chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council, Avvy Go became involved in the campaign in 1989. She was co-counsel in the class-action lawsuit seeking redress for the head taxpayers and their families. One of the three litigants who led the lawsuit was Chow Quen Lee. Separated from her husband for 14 years because of the act, she was an outspoken activist. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it set into motion talks with the government that ended with an official parliamentary apology in 2006.

As co-chair of the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families, Susan Eng convinced VIA Rail to sponsor the Redress Express, during which about 100 people boarded a train from Vancouver to travel to Ottawa to hear the apology.

I want to also note the contributions of Dora Nipp, Chief Executive Officer of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. She comes from a family who helped build the railway and paid the head tax. As a historian, Dora Nipp has conducted extensive oral history interviews documenting the experiences of immigrants to Canada. She has also produced various works, including directing Under the Willow Tree, a documentary on pioneer Chinese women in Canada.

These women fought for justice and they were ultimately successful, with the government handing out symbolic payments to roughly 400 survivors and widows in 2006.

The Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory measures had profound and lasting impacts on Chinese women and families. It took until 1981 for the sex ratio in the Chinese Canadian community to equalize. On the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, it’s important to recognize not just the prejudice that the community faced but also the tremendous perseverance it took to have these injustices reversed. Canadian Chinese women played a significant role in seeking and achieving this redress. In their honour, I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Woo’s inquiry, the goal of which is to call 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.

As Senator Woo pointed out on February 14, 2023:

 . . . 100 years ago, in this chamber, senators voted to adopt the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923. This piece of legislation is better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act . . . .

Senator Kutcher, Senator Simons, Senator McCallum, Senator Jaffer and Senator Oh also spoke to this inquiry.

They all provided numerous examples to illustrate the systemic discrimination suffered by Chinese Canadians. They also highlighted the important contributions made to our country by the Chinese and Asian communities, in spite of everything.

As I listened to my colleagues’ speeches, I too felt compelled to speak out. The last thing I want to do is conflate the issues, but Black communities have also been targeted by similar legislative measures in Canada.

The Canadian Encyclopedia states, and I quote:

Order-in-Council P.C. 1324 was approved on 12 August 1911 by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The purpose of the order was to ban Black persons from entering Canada for a period of one year because, it read, “the Negro race...is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada.”

The time periods might be different, as the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed 12 years later, but there are many similarities between the discrimination faced by the Chinese and Black communities in Canada, which proves, unfortunately, that history repeats itself.

It is therefore essential to fight contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination that many Canadians still face to this day.

I thank Senator Woo for his dedication to bringing awareness to the systemic discrimination that Chinese Canadians experience. The exhibit he put together in the Senate foyer shines a light on a very dark chapter of Canada’s history that gets left out of the school books. As Senator Woo mentioned, the exhibit acts as a tangible link to the past and as a call for vigilance against all modern forms of exclusion.

This call resonated with Prime Minister Trudeau. Let me read out a passage from the statement he issued on May 14, 2023:

[The Chinese Exclusion Act] was a dark time in Canada’s history that has lasting impacts today. Along with the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885, which imposed a head tax on Chinese newcomers to Canada, the racist 1923 legislation almost completely prevented people from China from entering Canada for 24 years. It remained in place until its eventual repeal on this day in 1947. This systemic discrimination and racist policy separated loved ones, impoverished families, and reinforced prejudice against people of Chinese origin in Canada – scars that would endure for generations.

My dear colleagues, we absolutely have to take the opportunity presented by this inquiry to improve our knowledge of Canadian History with a capital “H.”

As historians have told us over and over, if we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it.

As you can see from reviewing the sequence of events, that happened in 1911 and in 1923. Never again must we pass such discriminatory laws.

Our role is to transmit our values of inclusion and equality to future generations so they can live in a more just country.

To eliminate all forms of racism, whether implicit or explicit, we here in this chamber must remain vigilant.

Thank you.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the inquiry initiated by Senator Woo. The purpose is twofold: to celebrate the invaluable contributions that Chinese Canadians have made but also to reflect on the prejudice, exclusion and discrimination that Canadians of Chinese descent have faced and continue to face.

I would like to thank Senators Jaffer, McCallum, Simons, Oh and Kutcher for speaking to this important matter — and, of course, to our speakers today as well.

The contributions of the Chinese community in Newfoundland and Labrador are a significant but often overlooked aspect of our province’s history. The Chinese community has played — and continues to play — a vital role in shaping our cultural, economic and social fabric.

The first Chinese immigrants arrived in Newfoundland in the 1890s, and word spread throughout St. John’s that two Chinese immigrants would be opening a laundry business. Over the next few decades, the city and the province would continue to attract Chinese immigrants.

Colleagues, this was at a time when Newfoundland’s population was almost entirely White, Christian and English-speaking. In 1906, the province had legislation — the Act Respecting the Immigration of Chinese Persons — that imposed a $300 head tax on each Chinese immigrant entering the colony. This equalled between one and three years’ earnings and was a significant barrier to entry for Chinese immigrants. Despite the challenges and prejudice faced by Chinese Newfoundlanders, their perseverance and strength as a community remained remarkable, and their contributions to our society and growth continued to be exceptional.

In the 1920s, the Chinese community turned towards opening restaurants and is now credited with helping build the dining-out culture in our province. Early Chinese restaurants served foods Newfoundlanders knew about and loved, like fish and chips and roast chicken. Despite this, Chinese immigrants maintained their traditional cuisine at home and faced the challenges of sourcing traditional ingredients. In downtown St. John’s in 1968, Mary Jane’s was the first health food store to carry some Chinese groceries. Today, there are multiple grocery stores in St. John’s as the community continues to grow and thrive.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, the Chinese head tax came to an end. With changes to immigration policy in 1967, Chinese immigrants to Newfoundland and Labrador became more diversified in their professions, backgrounds and practices, including health, science, engineering, mining and the fishing industry.

In 1976, The Chinese Association of Newfoundland & Labrador was established to promote Chinese culture and tradition throughout our province and nurture communities in preserving and celebrating Chinese heritage. The association is operated by volunteers who organize and promote events, including Chinese New Year celebrations, performances and memorial services. In 1981, the association, along with their community partners, erected a memorial in Mount Pleasant Cemetery in St. John’s to honour the Chinese immigrant community in Newfoundland from the time of their first arrival in the 1890s.

Elsewhere in St. John’s, a different memorial stands to honour the 300 Chinese men that had to pay the head tax in Newfoundland. This monument was created in 2010 by the Newfoundland and Labrador Head Tax Redress Organization, a group working to educate on and preserve the awareness of this dark chapter in our history. The monument is placed on the site of Saint John’s’ first Chinese hand laundry, which was opened in 1895.

In 2006, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made a formal apology for the Chinese head tax, delivered by then‑premier Danny Williams.

Today, our Chinese community is the largest visible minority, representing 1.3% of St. John’s’ population, or approximately 1,500 people. In broader Newfoundland, there are approximately 2,300 people of Chinese ethnicity, making up 0.5% of the population of our province. Despite these seemingly small numbers, the Chinese community in Newfoundland is strong, active and heavily influential.

I’m also proud to say that the growth of Memorial University has been a source for an increase in Chinese immigration to Newfoundland, with students and academics being drawn to the province for their education and for educating us.

Members of the community have continuously brought their traditions to Newfoundland and Labrador and generously shared their culture with the non-Chinese community. Recently, members of the community have brought traditional music to St. John’s audiences with performances featuring the traditional instrument, the guzheng. The YY Guzheng Ensemble has been performing for the St. John’s community and spreading the love for Chinese music throughout the community. The group has 15 members with ages ranging from their early teens to their 70s with a common love for music and tradition.

Honourable senators, despite a dark chapter and the incredible difficulties that the community faced, today they are an integral part of our province’s history. Chinese immigrants and their descendants continue to play a crucial role in our economic, cultural and social development. Their legacy of resilience and determination serves as a testament to the importance of recognizing and addressing historical injustices, like the head tax, while celebrating the rich diversity that makes my beloved province a unique and inclusive place to call home. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.