Senator Cotter: Internationally, Canada has been a vocal advocate for the rights of marginalized communities, and we’ve engaged constructively at both bilateral and multilateral levels, worked closely with civil society organizations and supported international assistance programs that advance the human rights of queer and transgender people.

Yet, as we reflect on these statistics and our efforts, are we doing enough? It seems to me that the answer, unequivocally, is no. We must do more.

This is why I want to, once again, highlight the importance of consultation with the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities in the development of the national anti-hate action plan announced in the budget. Through this work, and the work of so many Canadians, we will create a Canada where every individual is free to be themselves, particularly for young people to grow up to lead fulfilling lives without fear or prejudice.

Thank you.

Senator Cotter: I wasn’t intending to enter the debate, but particularly Senator Jaffer and Senator Ataullahjan’s observations about the risks of stereotyping and particularly vulnerable, marginalized or racialized communities invite me to pose this question of you. This is the only part of the bill that has given me concern.

You have spoken to the three words that we have been debating and that have been amended out of the bill. The word I’m most interested in your viewpoints on is the word “general.” I accept your observations about “reasonable” requiring an objective articulation, but the fact of the matter is that people who do get stopped at the border are stopped as individuals. For the life of me, I don’t understand why the choice of a word like “general” as opposed to “specific,” even with the word “concern” was adopted. It seems to me the word “general” invites a border guard to use criteria that are not specific to the individual. As a result, it invites the very kind of concerns that our last two questioners posed. Could you speak to that?