Senator McPhedran: Senator Dalphond, many of the communities that you referenced are considered to be quite geographically remote. Do you see this as being a challenge in receiving the kind of judicial review in the timely manner that would be needed?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you once again for another interesting question. There are two parts to the answer. Most northern communities, when they are small, receive mail service only. No private companies deliver parcels there. The way to get to these remote areas is through the Canada Post system. It is important to say that the sole supplier of services is not subject to the control that would otherwise be available if it were not the sole supplier in these areas.

The second part of the question was about whether it will be easy to get judicial authorization or a warrant. As you may remember, we recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Code that go further than those which had previously been adopted under Bill C-75 that authorized warrants to be issued by email. Police officers can apply for a warrant by email, and would get the authorization back by email. We no longer have to send the police officer waiting in the corridor of a courthouse to get a signature. To answer your question, I think that it will be easy to get.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That, in light of the reports of the Senate Ethics Officer dated March 9, 2017, and June 28, 2019, concerning the breaches by former Senator Don Meredith of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators as well as the statement made in the Senate on June 25, 2020, by the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration expressing regrets to the victims of Mr. Meredith’s misconduct, the Senate call upon the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific style and title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Dalphond, would you take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Yes, please.

Senator McPhedran: I wonder if you could address in more detail what you would anticipate to be concerns around civil liberties and privacy protections with the proposal for opening mail at a certain measurement.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much, Senator McPhedran, for such an important question. As you know, I proposed that it only be done with judicial authorization: A search warrant must be issued. This is the safeguard that is available now for a search of any other distributor of items or parcels in Canada.

If you send a letter or an envelope through FedEx or another company, that could be intercepted with judicial authorization. The same would be applicable to Canada Post.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Galvez, thank you for this initiative.

I want to frame my question as a result of a recent report from the Sierra Club and six other non-governmental organizations that reported fossil fuel financing from the world’s 60 largest banks reached US$4.6 trillion in the six years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. As you noted, the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released just three days ago, warns us that the time is now — that we just don’t have any more time.

I note that in the Sierra Club report, three Canadian big banks are specifically named among the “dirty dozen” of the top international fossil fuel financiers from 2016 to 2021. Number 5 on that list is RBC, number 9 is Scotiabank and number 11 is TD.

Senator Galvez, could you please inform us as to your intention with this bill in responding to that kind of factual demonstration of how banks are not acting now or rapidly in the way the experts say must happen?

Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for the question, Senator McPhedran.

I can tell you that this is a concept of double materiality. That means that, on one hand, the financial sector acknowledges and says that the climate risk is systemic and, whether it is through the transition or the physical risk with all these extreme weather events that have been very destructive, they turn assets into stranded assets. On the other hand, they are financing the fossil fuel industry. They call this double materiality.

Now, the standards on sustainability — and this is on a global scale — they are saying this concept needs to be studied and the disclosure cannot only be voluntary. It has to be more complete in order to assess the risk more precisely and to apply the remedy because the risk, as you were saying, is there, and it’s growing; it’s alarming. It can bring us to a very difficult point of a different nature than other financial crises. People tend to think this could be very similar to the 2008 financial crisis, but it’s not. This is an external crisis coming from several factors that are cumulative and convergent.

I hope I answered your question.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Housakos, may I commend you on both your determination and your dedication to addressing what is happening to the Uighurs in China.

My question relates to technical human rights terms — “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” When I discussed your bill with other parliamentarians, this question has arisen. I have a second question if time allows.

About a month after you tabled this bill, in this place, President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, as you mentioned. There is no specific reference in that act to genocide per se. We know your position on naming what is happening to Uighurs in China. Could I ask you, please, to help us understand better the terminology that you’ve chosen to use in this particular bill?

Senator Housakos: Regarding the terminology of recognizing that what’s going on in Xinjiang right now is a genocide, I literally just stole that from experts, like Amnesty International and from Irwin Cotler of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre. When they have done their evaluation of all the evidence that’s before us, they will tell you that every single criterion recognizing this as genocide has been met in this particular instance.

My bill, of course, is not so much preoccupied by that reality as by the reality of forced labour camps that are used in the area right now. I think, at the end of the day, if we want to send a message that Canada will not tolerate this kind of egregious behaviour and using forced labour of men, women and children, for whatever the reasons may be, this is the best way to do it. I think there’s no ambiguity. It’s not flexible. It sends a clear message to the regime that, in their industrial capacity in Xinjiang, in their agriculture centres and everything they’re doing and producing and exporting, that we will not be complicit and a partner in encouraging the abuse of these people.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Pate, to your point about the overall impact of expanding guaranteed livable income, could you comment, please, on populism and the fact that the research available to us now is that populism, including what we have seen in Canada in the last two weeks, has roots in economic disparity and opportunity disparity?

Senator McPhedran: Thank you.

Senator McPhedran: In the act that President Biden signed into law in December, it specifically mentions coordination with Mexico and Canada to effectively implement Article 23.6 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to prohibit the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labour.

I wonder if you might comment on the nature of your bill in relation to the American bill in this regard.

Senator Housakos: This bill is very similar. Obviously, the bill we have on the books right now, which we passed only a couple of years ago, was in response to, of course, the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement. It was done as a reflex, trying to be compliant with the agreement. But, again, was this done — implicitly, explicitly, I really don’t know — by our government, but that bill certainly doesn’t meet the objective of combating forced labour. The American bill is far more rigid, the one that was just passed, than what we currently have in the bill.

You will forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what the Mexican position is in regard to this. It just became, to me, common sense: Why is the onus on CBSA agents to try to implement what currently is on the books, when it cannot be implemented? They, themselves, in all good faith, have expressed that view. I’ve had discussions with people from CBSA who tell me that they consider this bill really window dressing because the government knows that they can’t actually execute this in an effective fashion. The proof is in the pudding because, over the last year and a half while the law has been on the books, they have confiscated and stopped one container of what I suspect is a significant amount of imports that come in from that region.

[Translation]

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I was struck by your language when you talked about equal treatment, and I wonder — as someone who is inhabiting a new identity here in the Senate as an unaffiliated independent senator — if you could provide any assurance about the impact of this bill on unaffiliated independent senators.

Senator Harder: The Parliament of Canada Act provides no framework for the treatment of unaffiliated senators or, frankly, independent members of Parliament. That is done in the normal practices of each chamber as it deals with, for example, membership on committees. What the bill is intended to deal with is the framework of parties, groups, caucuses and organizational responsibilities that each chamber faces, and this is an opportunity for the Senate to be modernized with the experience of the last now almost six years.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would Senator Harder take another question?

Senator Harder: Yes.

Senator McPhedran: Can you assure me that this bill will not in any way dilute the equal treatment of unaffiliated senators?

Senator Harder: Senator, I see no way in which this bill does that. Yes, I can give that assurance. This bill does not address that issue, and therefore the framework for dealing with unaffiliated senators remains what it is.