Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question for the government leader today is related to the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which will be observed tomorrow. There have been other questions related to supporting that important community.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government attempted to phase out funding for the Centre for Equitable Library Access and the National Network for Equitable Library Service, which both work to provide accessible reading materials for people with print disabilities. Thankfully, this decision was reversed in March, and the two groups had their funding restored for one year. This was described at the time as an interim solution.

Leader, the year-long reprieve that your government granted will soon come to an end. Has your government found a long-term resolution to help these two organizations continue their important work?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I must begin by telling you how impressed I was by the letter the Minister of Finance, Ms. Freeland, sent to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau, to denounce his attitude toward bilingualism and his affront to all francophones in the country, which your Prime Minister described as a gaffe. I hope that Ms. Freeland will undertake a rigorous follow-up of the commitments she received from the Air Canada board of directors. In fact, I wonder why it was not the Prime Minister himself who signed that letter on behalf of Canadians and francophones, a group to which I belong. I could also ask you whether the Prime Minister was uncomfortable with requiring the CEO of a private company to be bilingual when he himself did not observe that rule in appointing the Governor General of Canada.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, in my question last week regarding the murder of Marylène Levesque, I mentioned a report by coroner Stéphanie Gamache, who recommended that dangerous criminals released by the Parole Board of Canada be made to wear an electronic bracelet.

Yesterday, Deputy Premier Guilbault, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, announced that the government would start requiring violent men to wear an electronic bracelet starting in the spring of 2022. The electronic bracelet has become an increasingly popular tool to protect women who are the victims of domestic violence and to save lives.

During this week of action on violence against women, I want to remind you that, over the past six years, your government has done nothing to protect women who are victims of domestic violence, and when it did act, it was only to hide them at home. I introduced Bill S-205 last week, which would require the use of these electronic bracelets. Senator Gold, since Bill S-205 would take the measure Quebec is considering to protect Quebec women and apply it to the rest of Canada, would you agree to prioritize this bill, so that it can be sent quickly to the Legal Affairs Committee, to ensure better protection for Canadian women?

Senator Gold: Thank you for raising the question. Yes, indeed, I’ll have to inquire and report back. Thank you for that.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): With respect to the issue involving the CEO of Air Canada, the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland work as a team.

As for the Governor General’s bilingualism, first, I hope that Canadians agree with me to say that the effort the Governor General made in delivering the Speech from the Throne was impressive. She clearly made a great effort, and that was a sign of respect for our official languages. We should also note the historic significance of this event, because this is the first time a female Innu member of our Indigenous peoples has become Governor General. It is a credit to the government that it made that choice, but it is also an honour for Canadians.

Senator Moodie: You have given me a challenge because there is, as you say, no clear research approaches that would lead to a definitive cause and effect.

I would say this: We do have surrogate models that do show us how children’s brains develop in response to various negative triggers. We know a lot about toxic environments and toxic recurrent exposure that children gain early in life and the long-term effects.

There are other surrogates that my colleague Senator Kutcher might be able to share as well, around the development of the brain and behaviour patterns of children who are exposed repeatedly to negative stimuli.

With that in mind, I would extrapolate it to say that although we cannot in any purposeful way expose children to noxious stimuli, such as recurrent exposure to pornography and to sexually explicit materials, in fact, we do have surrogates that suggest that they would behave in the same way and in a very similar way to the outcomes. That’s the best we can do. I know that we do have limitations in this area, but we also know that there are lots of examples where if we modify the exposure that we give children, we can change the outcomes that we see.

(On motion of Senator McCallum, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I commend you for your dedication to such an important cause and for your work on this bill. Since it is a Senate public bill, I am on the same footing as all other senators and can’t do anything to prioritize it. I urge the parliamentary groups to ensure that they make decisions on your bill and all of the others on the Order Paper.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, a recent CTV News report revealed that a large number of Afghan refugees are living in Canadian “ghost hotels” for months on end. Those hotels lack basic amenities, such as a kitchen and laundry facility. To make matters worse, children are not allowed to go to school. These families often arrive wearing sneakers and sandals that are not appropriate for our harsh winter. They rely on the kindness of neighbours to get their basic needs.

Senator Gold, the government committed to welcoming 40,000 Afghan refugees but is already struggling to provide for fewer than 4,000 Afghans here today. Why has there been no follow-up with those families? What is the government planning to do to help them?

Senator Gold: Again, I confess that I don’t know the details of all the different measures that are being taken by all the many groups, whether faith-based, community-based or government-supported. I know that Canadians in all parts of the country and organizations are doing their very best to assist.

As I said, again, I will try to get a fuller picture, and I would be happy to share it when I can.

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities, which is tomorrow. I wish to highlight the intersection of disability and poverty with information released by Campaign 2000 in their 2021 report card on child and family poverty in Canada, No One Left Behind: Strategies for an Inclusive Recovery. Thank you to Senator Moodie, who shared information from this report on Tuesday during her statement on National Child Day.

Almost one in three working-aged people with disabilities live in poverty. Before the pandemic even started, 26% of people with disabilities reported their needs were unmet due to financial barriers when it comes to the cost of required aids, assistive devices or prescription medications. Campaign 2000 is urging the inclusion of children with disabilities in any legislation involving disability income benefit reform. They are recommending that the federal government develop a “comprehensive, broad, and adequate benefit program for children with disabilities.”

I often say that there is no such thing as child poverty, since children do not live in isolation from their families. We should be talking about family poverty. Families caring for a child with a disability are often burdened with extra costs that other families are not, leaving them with a significant need for more support and, at times, unmet needs.

Honourable senators, when we talk about the need to build back better after the pandemic, we know there are some groups at risk of being left behind, such as children with disabilities. Colleagues, I urge you to help ensure that the government’s attempts to build back better leave no one behind, especially not children with disabilities. Asante. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you. Senator Kutcher, a year before I was named to the Senate, I actually testified at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health in favour of Bill C-300, the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act. Given the tragic life experience of the suicide death of my husband, former MP Dave Batters, the Health Committee called me to testify about that bill.

As the Conservative government was then in power, I was named to the Senate a year later. I had the opportunity to have frequent interactions with the health minister of the Conservative government at the time and with my MP colleagues, of course, in the Conservative caucus. Then the Trudeau government has now been in power for six years.

During the time of the Conservative government, I know that substantial progress was made to set up the framework and to do consultations across the country. But since the Trudeau government has been in power for six years, I really haven’t seen much if any progress on that. Could you please tell us what the Trudeau government has done to implement the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act in those six years?

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Batters. You and I both share the tragedy of having to deal with family suicide, yours much closer than mine but a tragedy nonetheless.

The importance of us both having that understanding and having lived through that difficult time — and it never leaves you; I’m sure you would agree with me, it never leaves you — is that we’re committed, and we should be committed, to ensuring that whatever government is in place, whatever its political stripe, is using the best evidence to ensure that the guidance from any framework it creates is the way we need to go.

I applaud the previous government for bringing in Bill C-300, which actually laid the groundwork for the framework. It has been there for a decade. We have an opportunity to answer the question you’ve just posed to me. It’s exactly the same question I posed to this chamber: What has been the impact of the framework? Has it actually made a difference, a substantive and real difference, in decreasing rates of suicide, not just in all of Canada in general but in those specific populations where the need is greater?

If it hasn’t done that, should it be improved? Are there things that can be done to make it better? I think you and I both share a wish that that will happen. I hope that every member in this chamber also shares the wish that you and I share. Thank you.

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.

Senator Batters: Just to follow up on that, Senator Kutcher, certainly, yes, I want to make sure that the most effective measures are put into place to improve suicide prevention in Canada, but my question remains. You brought this motion, so I’m assuming that you’re aware of what the Trudeau government has done in the last six years, because I don’t know.

So I’m asking you: What has the Trudeau government done to implement and use this particular framework to improve suicide prevention in Canada?

Senator Kutcher: I don’t think I’m the person who can speak on behalf of the current government and all the actions they have done. There are a number that I am aware of. As you probably know, reports are posted on the website in a regular manner about what activities have occurred.

Activities are important. There are many activities that may have happened, and some that I know did happen. However, the big issue remains: Does the framework provide the kind of groundwork that we need in this country to ensure that our activities are actually preventing suicide? To my knowledge, there has not been such an evaluation of the framework. This is why I thought it was appropriate and prescient for the Senate to do that kind of critical evaluation of the framework.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Paula Simons rose pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

She said: Honourable senators, I hope this inquiry will provoke senators to give a long, hard thought to the role of municipalities in Confederation and to the urgent necessity to ensure that municipalities have the fiscal and political resources they need to lead Canada to a more just, prosperous and creative future.

In spite of the sprawl of our vast country, almost 82% of Canadians live in urban areas, making us one of the top three most urbanized countries in the world. That’s a tremendous shift from the way Canada looked in 1867, when about 84% of Canadians lived in rural areas. Back then, at the beginning of Confederation, our Constitution set up cities as “creatures” of the province.

Some municipalities contain multitudes. Cities such as Toronto or Calgary have populations and economies that are far larger than those of many Canadian provinces.

Some municipalities are small towns or villages or rural counties. But they are municipalities nonetheless and face challenges that parallel those of their larger, more urbane sisters.

Municipal governments are on the front lines of so many of the major issues, problems and crises facing our country. They are, for example, the ones most directly affected by natural disasters, including those spurred by climate change. Whether we’re talking about flash floods, wildfires or violent storms, it is municipalities that have to pick up the pieces and rebuild their communities.

Hence, it is also cities and towns which are the first responders when it comes to rebuilding and retrofitting infrastructure to withstand the impacts of climate change — from retooling storm sewers, to protecting water reservoirs, to depopulating flood plains.

In our global world and in our multicultural nation, municipalities are also the ones that do the nitty-gritty practical work of helping new immigrants adapt and adjust to life in Canada.

And in our country, still wrestling with the realities of reconciliation, cities and towns, particularly in the Prairie West, have been the ones working directly with urban Indigenous populations, and the ones in the vanguard, forging new relationships with nearby First Nations. Cities such as Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Edmonton have all taken leadership roles in establishing those new relations of trust.

Municipalities, large and small, are dealing first-hand with the twin dilemmas of homelessness and drug addiction as Canadian cities and towns wrestle with the scourge of the opioid crisis.

And in parts of the country, including Alberta, it was municipalities that responded most urgently and nimbly to the COVID-19 crisis, bringing in public health measures such as masking and occupancy rules when provinces declined to act.

But cities aren’t just tasked with problem solving. They are also the economic and creative engines of our Confederation. They are where our entrepreneurs, inventors, artists and authors gather; where our research universities are centred; and where our theatres, orchestras and ballet companies thrive. Cities are where you go to find our banks, venture capital and so much of our industry.

The digital revolution? It’s taking place in our cities. We need to acknowledge our municipalities not just as places to solve social problems, but as the drivers, the incubators of our economic prosperity. Yet these poor “creatures” are the constitutional Cinderellas of Canada, the Rodney Dangerfields of Confederation. For decades, they have been fighting for the respect and resources they need — and, yes, their voices have sometimes intermittently been heard. But they still find themselves in a dance that feels all too often like two steps forward, one step back.

Cities, which provide so many of our most essential public services and which are responsible for so much of our economic future, are the most poorly resourced order of government, collecting far less in tax revenues than provinces or the federal government. For every household tax dollar paid in Ontario, for example, municipalities collect just nine cents.

Canadian cities on average derive about 45% of their revenue from property taxes. This creates a variety of problems. In cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, where home prices have soared to stratospheric levels, homeowners may often be real estate rich but cash poor, unable to pay the taxes on previously modest homes that have somehow escalated sharply in value.

Then there is the separate challenge of business property taxes — one that may become far more acute as we absorb all the social changes wrought by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

Even before the coronavirus, we were transitioning from an industrial economy to a digital one. Even before this health crisis, retail stores, large and small, were feeling the pressure of internet competition. The pandemic has led to a rapid acceleration in online shopping. With meal delivery apps all the rage, how many restaurants are feeling pandemic pressure to change their business model, to reduce or even eliminate in-person dining space?

As for office towers, after the business world has spent some 20 months with staff working from home, how many office towers are going to be sitting empty for years to come? The current Canadian office vacancy rate is 15.7%. It’s 15.5% in Halifax, 16.1% in London and 24.4% in Edmonton. In Calgary, the current downtown office vacancy rate is a concerning 31%.

How many plans for new office spaces and cities across Canada have been mothballed indefinitely?

City business taxes are based on the square footage of an operation. If malls and power centres close down, if independent stores and restaurants shut their doors, if office towers never rise, where will cities get their property tax revenues?

As we undergo tectonic shifts in our industrial resource economy, there are regional repercussions for small municipalities too. Towns and counties all across my home province of Alberta are seeing huge stresses on their finances because of the loss of revenues from oil and gas producers.

In 2019, the Rural Municipalities of Alberta found that an unprecedented $81 million in property taxes from oil and gas companies had gone unpaid to small towns and counties across the province. By January 2020, the same body reported that Alberta’s rural municipalities were facing a shortfall of $173 million in unpaid property taxes from the oil and gas industry. For 2021, Rural Municipalities of Alberta reported its members were owed $245 million in unpaid property taxes from oil and gas operations.

Municipalities have few other options to raise money. User fees and permit fees simply can’t make up the shortfall when traditional property taxes aren’t enough — or even available — to keep cities and towns in proper operation. In the meantime, many provincial governments have downloaded more and more responsibilities to municipalities to deal with, which used to be in the provincial ambit, without necessarily giving them the additional resources to take on those tasks.

Various federal governments over the years have tried to step in to address the short gap. The Canada Community-Building Fund, formerly known as the Gas Tax Fund, now provides more than $2 billion to Canadian municipalities — not directly, but as flowed through from their provincial governments.

There are a variety of other project funds too — ranging from the Universal Broadband Fund, to the Zero Emission Transit Fund, to the Investing in Canada Plan — which support municipalities and their needs. Those are welcome dollars, to be sure, but they don’t quite get to the heart of the constitutional inequity in this country, which leaves cities, even cities with millions and millions of residents, dependent clients of other orders of government.

In a paper written this year for the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, the author, Dalhousie political science professor Kristin R. Good, notes the 1997 decision by the Ontario Court of Justice against a challenge to the provincial City of Toronto Act, 1997, the one that dissolved six discrete municipalities to create one big “megacity” via a controversial unilateral process. Five of the six municipalities went to court to challenge the province’s legislation. In its ruling in the case, known as East York v. Ontario, the Ontario court stated that, one, “ . . . municipal institutions lack constitutional status;” two, “ . . . are creatures of the legislature and exist only if provincial legislation so provides;” three, “ . . . have no independent autonomy and their powers are subject to abolition or repeal by provincial legislation;” and, four, “ . . . may exercise only those powers which are conferred upon them by statute.”

The decision cited expert Andrew Sancton, who opined that Canadian municipalities “ . . . have no constitutional protection whatever against provincial laws that change their structures, functions and financial resources without their consent.”

We saw that illustrated again just this October when the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Ontario was within its constitutional rights to dramatically reduce the size of Toronto’s city council in the midst of a municipal election campaign.

Unless there is some kind of fundamental change, it would seem, Canada’s municipalities will forever be locked in a feudal relationship with their provincial overlords.

Wholesale constitutional reform is probably a political non-starter. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t embark on incremental changes to give Canadian towns and cities more economic self-determination and control over their future planning and growth.

I have no magic answers. Rather, I hope we in the Senate can start asking the necessary questions. I’m inviting you, my fellow senators, to join me in this undertaking. This inquiry needs your voices, your stories, your ideas, your experiences and your insights. Several of you have been mayors yourselves. Others of you have spent years thinking over these very questions because of your work with provincial governments or with First Nations or with not-for-profit organizations or with the business community.

There is no Senate committee with the appropriate mandate to study this question. Still, I hope this essential inquiry can bring to bear the Senate’s best expertise and analysis. I look forward to hearing from you soon so we can compile a sort of collection of thoughtful speeches that interrogate different aspects of this dilemma from different political perspectives.

In his great comic novel Candide, the French philosopher Voltaire suggests that the secret of happiness in life is to cultivate one’s garden.

[Translation]

We must cultivate our garden.

[English]

One could take that advice literally or, as I do, as a metaphor. Canada’s municipalities are the gardens where our communities set down roots and grow. They are the hothouses where we can test our plans to fight climate change, to encourage diversity and to inspire reconciliation. If our cities do not flourish, our nation cannot prosper. We must tend our municipalities, because there we plant the seeds of our future.

[Translation]

Yes, dear friends and colleagues, we must cultivate our gardens and, in this chamber, we must cultivate our gardens together. Thank you, hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Forest, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Senator Harder, in your speech, you spoke about the future of the institution, and I agree with you that it is an important issue. I want to come back to those elements you spoke about, that is, a toxic climate, a toxic culture and sexual harassment in the institution. Saying that we want to look to the future often implies forgetting about the past. My question is the following: When considering the future of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, should we clearly state the need to remedy the effects of discrimination against women at this institution and take this into account?

[English]

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for her question. I totally share the implied position of the senator with respect to the issues raised by Justice Bastarache and others. My point is that we don’t need an inquiry that goes into those issues. We need an inquiry that talks about the future organization and mandate of the organization, and to ensure that its training and its management focus is designed to achieve the objectives of what a modern policing organization that serves the country and the federal policing mandate ought to be.

There will be problems in this because it will have to be a transition of provincial policing and municipal policing where it is in effect, and we’ll have to think through what it means for the Indigenous and Aboriginal policing in this country. But I do think we have the capacity in this chamber to address those issues and make recommendations.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you, Senator Omidvar, for your work on the charity committees report that Senator Mercer chaired. I think that it is some very important work and this recommendation is one piece of that. I am entirely supportive of what you’re trying to accomplish.

The question I wanted to ask you, because I believe it’s important to put it on the record — you spoke a number of times about resource accountability. I think you said that in the States they use different terminology, but the intent here is not at all to diminish the accountability that charities have for the proper stewardship of donor dollars. I am wondering if you would speak to the term “resource accountability” and what is envisioned in terms of how that would work. And with the CRA, how do you envision that we will be able to really ensure accountability to donors? Thank you very much.

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.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable colleagues, December 3 is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

I would first like to highlight the exceptional quality of the last games held in Tokyo. These games are historic, not only for being held during a pandemic and for the athletes’ performances, but also for the unprecedented campaign launched to draw attention to the challenges and injustices faced by persons with disabilities, who represent 15% of the world’s population.

[English]

This campaign, WeThe15, aims to become the biggest human rights movement to end discrimination. Its goal is to transform the lives of the world’s 1.2 billion people with disabilities who represent 15% of the global population.

[Translation]

WeThe15 unites the International Paralympic Committee with many organizations working in the areas of human rights, sports, the arts, communications and business. Its aim is to meet the 2030 UN goals for sustainable development.

[English]

At a time when we are having these global conversations on diversity and inclusion, we cannot leave the 15% who have a disability behind and out of that conversation. Like race, gender and sexual orientation, it’s time to have such a movement — a global movement that is raising awareness for disability, visibility, inclusion and accessibility.

[Translation]

The truth is that WeThe15 have unique realities, challenges and experiences. Canada’s fantastic paralympic team brought home a remarkable 21 medals. However, let’s not forget that the barriers for Canadians living with a disability are real. For example, less than 60% of Canadians living with a disability have a job. What Statistics Canada data tells us is that the more severe the disability, the greater the impact and the more likely it is that these people will live in poverty. Canada can and must do much better.

[English]

This movement, WeThe15, will shine a light on 15% of the world’s population. It’s all about knowledge of the barriers and discrimination that persons with disabilities face every day. How do we break down these barriers so that all persons with disabilities can fulfill their potential? Because really, where are the 15%? Where are they when we turn on the TV, in businesses and on boards, or even here in the Senate and our legislative assemblies?

[Translation]

Much more needs to be done and we, esteemed colleagues, also have a role to play.

Thank you, meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, in June of this year the remains of hundreds of people, including children, were discovered in unmarked graves on or near residential schools in Kamloops, British Columbia, and on the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan — 751 alone at Cowessess. For anyone who has a loved one, and most particularly a child, to imagine their departure from this earth in such a tragic, anonymous way is heart breaking.

Many of us attended ceremonial remembrance ceremonies to pay our respects, but that can’t make up for the pain and loss suffered by the families of those who were buried without acknowledgment. This discovery touched the hearts and minds of every Canadian, and I fervently hope that we do not forget, and that we commit to never let this be repeated. It’s a small commitment to the reconciliation we all need.

But I also want to talk about the grace, courage and leadership of the good people of Cowessess, led by their visionary chief, Cadmus Delorme. In the weeks that followed the discovery of unmarked graves, while First Nations people — and particularly those at Cowessess — were grieving, Chief Delorme proceeded with two marvellous, healthy self-determination initiatives overlooked by many. One was social and the other economic.

On July 6 of this year, on behalf of Cowessess First Nation, Chief Cadmus Delorme, Prime Minister Trudeau and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe signed an historic agreement to return jurisdiction of child welfare to Cowessess, which restores meaningful, on-the-ground self-determination on matters of critical importance to a First Nations community.

A week later on July 14, Cowessess First Nation unveiled a major solar energy project in partnership with Elemental Energy, an energy company founded by Joe Houssian, a native Saskatchewanian and entrepreneur who has turned his vision to green energy.

Cowessess leaders described this project as a step on the road to becoming the greenest First Nation in Canada, as well as an economic and employment opportunity for the good people of Cowessess. Chief Delorme also said that the project will help the community heal.

In the shadow of the discovery of the unmarked graves, a First Nation endures the darkness of tragedy but moves toward the light. It’s a story of heartbreak, but also a story of hope. Thank you.