Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Will Senator Moodie take a question?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, December 2 is the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. It occurs during the days of action on violence against women. On this occasion, I would like to point out that 70% of the 40 million victims of modern slavery are women. We should all be outraged that 12 million girls are sold and married off despite being too young to consent and may die in childbirth.

We have to act on that outrage and devote resources to implementing solutions. Education is key to making sure girls around the world are aware of their rights so they can resist, get help or flee.

We have to take action, but where do we start? The experts don’t even agree on what modern slavery actually is.

According to UN definitions, for forced labour to exist, there must be an element of constraint, such as debt bondage or threats. Others believe that the notion of modern slavery applies more broadly to exploitation, including in unsafe workplaces or captive labour scenarios. One thing we know for sure is that situations resembling modern slavery exist right here in Canada.

The number of temporary foreign workers in Quebec has exploded. According to a Radio-Canada investigation, the desire to start a new life all too often turns into a nightmare because of exorbitant fees exacted by multiple intermediaries or unscrupulous bosses.

Take Mamadou Hane’s story. This Senegalese man arrived in Quebec in 2019 with his wife and four children. He had a model employment contract from Quebec’s Ministry of Immigration where all the working conditions were set out by his new employer. However, when he got here, his boss demanded that Mamadou Hane sign a new contract that included a promise to pay back $5,000 on a pro-rated basis if he were to leave his job before three years were up. This constitutes a completely illegal practice that amounts to debt bondage. This mechanic was threatened with deportation if he did not comply. He was laid off a year later, and he still received a notice of default and a $3,300 bill from his former employer. Mamadou Hane said that he remained strong and resisted, but many people were heartbroken, and it was terrible.

How many others dare not complain, despite the horrible situations they are going through? Eva Lopez, who advocates for these temporary foreign workers, summarized the situation as follows, and I quote:

Many are silent because they want another life for their families. There is no question: There are unscrupulous individuals out there who are treating these people like livestock.

We must never forget that modern slavery is not just another trivial concern; it is a crime.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, I want to thank you for your speech. Thank you very much for your support and for this idea of consulting children. That’s a very interesting idea, but I want to ask you a question as a pediatrician.

All along, in my research, I have been told to be careful with the research. We don’t have correlation; we only have association between harms and exposure to porn. So it’s not what we call robust research, and on that basis, it’s very difficult to speak about harms scientifically.

I want to hear from you on that because I feel personally that a principle of precaution should be used because we are talking about children. Also, how can we have robust research if we do not put children in front of porn material? This would be obviously ethically unacceptable. So we are blocked in having very strong research on this particular harm. Thank you for trying to answer.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, I rise to speak today because I have come a long way on the issue of climate change.

This issue has not always been a priority for me. Not so long ago, I thought we should focus our efforts on the most vulnerable, feed the hungry and combat violence against women before worrying about the fate of whales or endangered ecosystems. Obviously, I was wrong. Everything is connected: our survival and the planet’s survival; social issues and environmental issues.

As we celebrate the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery today, let’s not forget that 40% of global deforestation is done by victims of forced labour. When I see the movement and migration of desperate human beings who want to save their family by fleeing drought and disaster, I feel distressed by their despair and the barriers we put up.

In the past, some people became interested in the issue of climate change through science. Others took interest because of its economic impact. Personally, it is my social commitment that led me make the climate and ecology more of a priority.

For many years, the issue of climate change was mostly a matter of science. Variations in the climate needed to be tracked by analyzing the causes and trying to predict future changes. It was something for climatologists, oceanographers, biologists and statisticians to worry about.

However, now that the science is well established, the climate issue has become a political issue, not partisan, but political in the noble sense of the term. It is up to us, as legislators, to take over from the scientists and implement the changes that are needed. These changes are likely to affect many aspects of our lives, including our energy sources, our infrastructure, our consumption patterns, and the rules that govern our government and our economy.

The purpose of the motion before us is not to debate concrete action. Rather, I see Senator Galvez’s initiative as a preamble to action, a gesture to focus our attention on the work ahead. While today’s motion may be symbolic, whatever actions follow should not be.

In supporting the motion, I would like to express three wishes. The debates around the climate issue can be complex, filled with acronyms, calculation methods, international agreements, technical protocols, industry initiatives, regulatory strategies and technological solutions. It’s enough to make your head spin, and I don’t mind telling you that that is often the case for me.

In the debates and discussions to come, we will have to keep a clear head and resist the temptation to look for excuses, loopholes, bogus math, easy fixes, buzzwords, technicalities or rhetorical devices that would allow us to avoid making the required changes. No matter what, we must always seek the most comprehensive assessments, consider all of the consequences and choose real solutions. We have a duty to be realistic when it comes to the environment.

Unlike human beings, our planet does not recognize borders, jurisdictions, cosmetic changes or green marketing. This is why the climate emergency requires that we, as politicians and legislators, find a new way of thinking. We must also think long-term, setting partisan factors aside, and put the interests of the planet and future generations ahead of our immediate, regional or national interests. I encourage everyone, including myself, to face up to the environmental reality and act accordingly.

The way that some people talk about the climate issue, it sometimes seems as though the transition simply involves buying an electric vehicle, installing carbon capture machines or planting a tree. In reality, the transition we need to make will require courage.

Canada ranks second worst in the world when it comes to cumulative emissions per capita. According to 2018 figures from the World Bank, Canada ranked seventh in the world in terms of GHG emissions per capita, higher than Saudi Arabia and the United States, and that is without even counting Canada’s fossil fuel exports.

If we are serious about making a major transition, it can no longer be business as usual. We will have to rethink our system.

[English]

In an op-ed published in January 2020, the well-known Canadian investor Stephen Jarislowsky wrote:

. . . we must unfortunately be prepared to make sacrifices, as my generation did during the war. If we do not, billions of lives are at stake worldwide, and social structures may fall.

On an economic policy level, this means that we have no choice but to act decisively and urgently. It must become more expensive to buy products or services that contribute to climate change, and less expensive to buy those that are not detrimental.

Stephen Jarislowsky speaks of sacrifice. He is right, but to succeed in the difficult transition the effort will have to be shared and supported by all. Certain regions of our country that happen to be better positioned will have to support those for whom the transition will be more painful. If everyone thinks only of their short-term interests — the regions of Canada among themselves and Canada against other countries — we will have failed. We must not abandon the displaced workers and outdated industries. We cannot expect developing countries to do their part without massive aid, and we will likely have to do our part as a rich and vast country by welcoming climate refugees when they come knocking at our door.

The good news is that polls show Canadians are ready to make fundamental changes. In a 2019 Abacus poll, 62% of Canadians said they were ready to change how our economy worked a lot or fundamentally to combat climate change. The two age groups with the highest support for that proposition were youth aged 18 to 29 and adults aged 60 and over, like us. So the climate issue is not only a concern for young people. For those who are wondering, it is not just a concern for Quebec, either. The desire for change is often at its strongest in the Atlantic provinces and in British Columbia, at both ends of the country.

A poll taken in October, just six weeks ago, showed the same trend, with 66% of Canadians saying the government needs to do more to reduce our GHG emissions. A strong majority of 75% believes it is necessary to do so primarily through more direct and targeted regulation.

The public is asking us to act, and to have the courage to reconsider the status quo. We should be giving priority to these people — to younger Canadians in particular — and not to those who would like to preserve a system that is unsustainable but favours them.

In sum, I believe we should act as stewards of the public interest and of future generations. We should not seek to adapt or dilute emerging social and environmental standards to serve our short-term economic interests, but rather ensure that our economy is urgently made compatible with planetary limits and a sustainable society.

That is the meaning I find in the motion presented today, and that is why I fully support it.