Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for you, senator. I am not an expert in monetary policy, but you made several references to the Australian example. These days, Australia is referred to for all sorts of examples. In this case, did having a mandate that you consider to be more balanced between prosperity and the fight against inflation have a measurable impact on monetary policy? For example, is Australia less likely than Canada to deal with inflation by raising interest rates? Is it possible to see whether this model has already had an impact?

Senator Bellemare: Thank you for that excellent question, senator. Unfortunately, I can’t say whether there’s been any impact in Australia.

What I can tell you, however, is that in the United States, there has obviously been an impact. The United States also has a dual mandate, specifically price stability and full employment. Pierre Fortin has been working on this issue, and I had the honour and opportunity to speak with Janet Yellen, who was chair of the Federal Reserve Board just before being appointed Treasury Secretary by President Biden. She told me this could explain why the unemployment rate was often much higher in Canada than in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s.

I examined this issue in a book I published, but it hasn’t been updated for the 1980s and 1990s. It’s clear that Canada didn’t increase its productivity as much as it could have, because of its strict monetary policy, but I didn’t do that kind of regression analysis. I compared the statistics for countries with dual mandates, and I studied the matter of Canada’s stringency. As for Australia, I can’t answer your question. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: First, very briefly, I want to congratulate you for the boldness, the determination and all the work behind your bill. I believe that we will indeed have a robust debate.

For the past few years we have been hearing about initiatives to make financial institutions and businesses more transparent. I understand that your bill goes much further, suggesting that these disclosures are inadequate.

Could you explain why these disclosures do not work and how your bill affects existing initiatives to enhance climate disclosures made by businesses?

Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for your question and for appreciating the work that has been done.

So far, the reporting of climate risks is just a recommendation and it is voluntary. Experts have said that just 9% of the entities monitored produced a report on their climate risks. Among that 9%, just 2% took action in response to the risks they identified.

There is another criticism that, because there are no strict requirements or guidelines to disclose these risks, this ultimately just serves as a sort of greenwashing. Some entities are taking advantage of this situation to overstate how much they are doing, but no one can validate the claims.

Our bill seeks to improve the disclosure of climate risks, but it goes much further than that, because the entities must prove that their efforts are in line with climate commitments. This means that they not only have to disclose the risks, but also have to offer solutions. Disclosure and solutions became mandatory with our bill.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for the answer, Senator Housakos.

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to start by thanking you for this initiative, Senator Housakos. Like you, I think Canada should do more to help the Uighurs. That said, I would like to ask you a more specific question about your bill and compare it to the bill the U.S. passed in December.

In the United States, as in your bill, the importation of all goods manufactured in whole or in part in the province of Xinjiang is prohibited. However, the U.S. bill includes one important exception. It lifts the prohibition if the importing company is able to prove to customs officers that the goods were not manufactured using forced labour. In the United States, this bill was viewed as very aggressive, and it was the subject of intense debate, which led to this compromise of giving the importer a chance to defend itself with good arguments. Why don’t you try putting a clause to that effect in your bill? I understand that the existing legislation is complex and hasn’t been brought into effect. However, this is about reversing the burden of proof.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for the question, senator. First, I don’t want to copy the American law. I wanted this bill to be very strict.

As I said in my speech, I’m very open to looking at other options or amendments that could add something to the objectives of this bill. I’m very open if you want to propose an amendment so the bill can be studied and referred to the committee for study. The only problem is that, in my experience with the Chinese, they always find ways to bend the rules and circumvent the law.

For instance, I think they realized a few months ago that Canadians, Americans, the British and Australians are taking tough action. According to many sources, the Chinese are moving Uighurs from Xinjiang to other locations in China to again use them for forced labour. At the same time, they are clever enough to say that conditions are being put in place that will reduce the importation of products from Xinjiang.

I’m not entirely against your proposal. However, it’s important to remember that the Chinese government is very innovative when it comes to circumventing the laws of various countries and at various times.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Carignan, first of all, I want to congratulate you for introducing this bill, and especially for having the idea when the appointment happened. Like you, I was disappointed and surprised by the new Governor General’s limited proficiency in French, although it in no way detracts from her other bilingualism or her culture. As Senator Lankin said, the symbolic significance of her appointment is, of course, extraordinary. I would say that, unfortunately, this is an extremely delicate debate for francophones who want to take a stand on this issue, because there seems to be a total lack of sympathy when we call for these kinds of official positions in Canada to be held by people who can speak our language. However, the reality shows that that is often not the case.

You talked about your efforts to learn English, but the reverse does not always happen. I know Senator Lankin talked about it too, but there are courses offered in the public service for anyone who wants to learn French. In the public service, we have all the tools at our disposal to learn French if we want to, so it’s a question of willingness.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if a person who spoke only French and an Indigenous language had been appointed to the position of Governor General, that would have caused quite an uproar in our primarily anglophone country. I would encourage my anglophone colleagues to ponder this: How would they have reacted if our new Governor General spoke only French and an Indigenous language? I think people would be a little upset about that.

Senator Carignan: Well, that is kind of the point of the bill. I would have felt just as uncomfortable, understandably, if it were the other way around, because the idea is to represent Canadian identity, which is bilingual. That is exactly the purpose of this bill. I’m sure you understand that, if the bill is adopted, it will prevent the future appointment of a Governor General who speaks only French and one other language, but not English. I understand your question, and I share your opinion.