Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Mégie take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ever since we began debating this bill, I’ve been wondering about that fact that there are still some doctors in Quebec, including at the Institut de cardiologie, who say that having two glasses of wine a day is excellent for the heart. As a doctor, what do you think of this debate that seems to pit some doctors against others?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: There are some very reputable doctors in Quebec who say that these studies were poorly done and that doctors can continue to advise their patients to drink two glasses of wine. The interesting thing is that between leading experts on these issues, there seems to be a great deal of opposition.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Batters, I want to start by commending you for sponsoring this bill. I have been concerned about this for a long time, and I think it is completely unacceptable for the term “child pornography” to be used in the Criminal Code. As you know, I work on these issues. Pornography is referred to as “adult entertainment,” and it is absolutely unacceptable for this term to be used to refer to sexual exploitation.

That being said, the term likely dates back to another time when no distinction was made and people were probably less bothered by its use. However, it is high time that term was changed, so I thank you for that.

I have a translation question for you that you may not be able to answer now. I have always used the French terms “exploitation sexuelle des enfants” and “matériel d’abus et d’exploitation des enfants,” but the French translation of the bill uses the term “pédosexuel” instead. It is not incorrect.

I just find it strange that the English version uses the term “child sexual abuse and exploitation material,” while the French uses a term that comes from the word “pedophile.” The term is not incorrect, but it is much less commonly used when talking about these issues. In general, we refer to child sexual exploitation, which is broader in scope.

You probably can’t answer my question right now, but perhaps the committee could check and see whether that is really the best term. If we really want to convey the gravity of this issue to ordinary Canadians, then shouldn’t the word “child” be used in the French version as well?

[English]

Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Miville-Dechêne, and thank you so much for all of the work that you’ve done on this very important topic. That’s an excellent question. I don’t have the French version of it with me, but that’s something that I’m sure we will study in great detail at committee — we want, of course, to have the best possible translation and words being used because, as I said, words matter, in French or in English.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading to speak in support of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages), which was introduced by Senator Patrick Brazeau and aims to add a cancer warning label to liquor bottles.

At times, our past calls out to us and guides our actions in this chamber. That is the case for me today.

My father was an alcoholic. He died, drunk and freezing, one bitterly cold January night in Quebec City, when I was eight years old. In my family, talking about my father and the ravages of alcohol has long been taboo.

That is why I have deep respect for Senator Brazeau’s initiative, knowing that he managed to overcome this affliction for his own good and that of the people around him, and that he was brave enough to speak about it publicly.

Senator Brazeau also decided to draw on his personal experience to contribute to the legislative process in the hope of making a difference. He conducted research, mainly with labelling experts, in order to propose legislation. I thank him for that.

I have to say that the stars seem to be aligned for my colleague.

One month after introducing his bill, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction recommended the introduction of mandatory labelling of all alcoholic beverages with the number of standard drinks in a container and health warnings.

This same research centre advises the federal government on these matters. In its recent report, it caused shock waves by making draconian changes to the guidance on safe alcohol consumption based on new studies. The risk of negative outcomes associated with alcohol use is low for those who consume only two drinks or less per week.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction reports that three to six drinks per week increases the risk of developing certain types of cancer, such as breast, colon and rectal cancer. The fact that alcohol is a carcinogen that can cause at least seven types of cancer is often unknown or overlooked by the general public. Alcohol consumption causes nearly 7,000 cancer deaths every year in Canada.

In many ways, I’m surprised that warning labels on alcoholic beverages do not already exist. Consumer products are covered in warnings, sometimes going so far as to remind us not to eat dish soap or put our children in the microwave. In this context, while we have long been aware of the link between consuming alcohol and cancer, liver problems and cardiac disease, it is hard to understand why alcohol is exempt.

What is the reason for this apparent complacency? Senator Brazeau gave us a good hint when he talked about a study that was being conducted in Yukon about putting health warnings on bottles but was stopped after just 29 days as a result of pressure from the alcohol lobby.

To date, the provincial governments have also refused to take action. That may be because they consider the sale of alcohol to be profitable to their finances. Is that really true? In Quebec, for example, the SAQ pays $1.2 billion in annual profits to the government. Conversely, however, the Institut national de santé publique estimates that the health, justice and loss of productivity costs associated with excessive alcohol consumption total $2.8 billion per year.

When preparing this speech, I took a quick look at the federal regulations on the labelling of alcoholic beverages. There are pages and pages of technical details about sulfites, the origin and percentage of alcohol, the font size and even the placement of words, but there is absolutely nothing about the health risks.

Under Quebec regulations, labels cannot contain any information that could lead consumers to believe that drinking alcoholic beverages may be good for their health. That is a good thing. The Quebec regulations also indicate that the American or European health risk warnings are acceptable as long as they are written in French. In this case, I think that the protection of our language should be accompanied by a better protection of our livers.

For example, a label on a bottle may indicate that, according to the U.S. Surgeon General, drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems. However, there is no similar warning from the Canada or Quebec public health authorities. Unfortunately, in that regard, we are in good company. Most countries exempt alcohol from the labelling standards for psychoactive substances.

I think it is time to review those unwarranted exemptions.

Will a warning on the health risks change Canadians’ drinking habits? That is the big question.

In reviewing the literature, I found that the studies were inconclusive. Still, the 2017 Yukon study showed that 20% of consumers felt better informed because of these warnings. Furthermore, participants in studies on improved labelling consistently and strongly support these measures.

Should we wait for unassailable scientific evidence of the effectiveness of these measures before changing the labels? I don’t think so. Increased cancer risks for people who drink alcohol are real, scientifically proven and mostly unknown to the general public. I myself knew nothing about it. As in other areas, I support the precautionary principle. In this case, it’s not about raising taxes or prohibiting alcohol. We’re simply proposing a way to better inform the public. I would find it difficult to oppose such a simple and justifiable transparency measure.

Honest labelling is essential. Consumers have a right to know the risks and must have the tools to make informed choices. The choice is theirs, of course.

The industry’s response so far has been predictable. The lobby claims that labels are ineffective and that it would be better to direct consumers to specialized resources, because cancer is a complex disease. However, it is well known that consumers rarely consult these external sources.

Alcohol is one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in Canada. The fact is that 81% of Canadians drink alcohol, and 31% drink too much.

It is time the public was properly informed about all the risks posed by what has become, in our society, the “social lubricant” of choice.

Labelling is one of the transparency tools available to public authorities. Let’s use it without moderation.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise at second reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying. Some 30 witnesses have already been heard.

In the time that I have been a senator, I have never seen a bill elicit such passionate reactions and divergent views.

On the one hand, many representatives of the cultural sector are urging us to pass the bill as written or to strengthen it. On the other, as my colleague Donna Dasko stated, our inboxes are full of form letters from citizens who fear for their freedom of expression and their freedom to listen to and watch whatever they want on the internet.

As for me, I do not believe that Canadians’ rights and freedoms are threatened by this bill. However, I do recognize that in a polarized social and political context, where some people do not hesitate to demonize their opponents and twist their words to whip up their supporters, some words have become radioactive. The word “algorithm” is one of them.

There are also concerns about some grey areas in the bill and the regulations that are to follow.

The more I hear the objections of stakeholders regarding Bill C-11, the more I realize that there are several interrelated debates. It is not just about being for or against the bill, as is the case with simpler legislation.

Bill C-11 is basically an adjustment exercise. It adjusts Canada’s broadcasting policy to bring it in line with the new technological environment.

In the past, music and audiovisual programs were broadcast via radio and traditional television networks that held licences and were subject to many rules, including the well-known quotas. The government was thus able to ensure that our country’s artists and cultural diversity were supported and showcased.

As we know, today, a significant portion of Canadians access music and programs via online platforms, often foreign platforms, that are not subject to any regulations. For the first time last year in Quebec, subscriptions to online platforms exceeded traditional cable subscriptions, with 71% of adult Quebecers having paid subscriptions to online streaming sites. That is a lot. We are seeing the same trend with music, where people are increasingly turning toward streaming platforms on which only 8% of the music listened to by Quebecers is French music.

The result is that our artists are losing visibility and the government no longer has the means of showcasing Canadian culture and content, including that of French and Indigenous people and other minority groups. In the wild west of digital platforms, the biggest players make the rules and, as we know, the biggest players are American companies.

There are two possible ways to deal with this new reality. The first is to do nothing and pretend that, in the internet era, the government has no role to play. The government could stop regulating altogether. The regulatory framework would have to be phased out gradually as the public moves to digital platforms. In the end, within a few years, all programs and music consumed by Canadians would be determined solely by market forces. The problem with this approach is that it means giving up on defending the values of Canada’s cultural identity, to the benefit of the web giants.

Officials from YouTube and TikTok appeared before the committee to reaffirm that the business model that has made them successful is working just fine. Their message was simple. What they call their secret recipe works, as evidenced by the success of Canadian YouTubers and singers.

Beyond these generalities, however, there is little information. What percentage of audiences do these Canadian artists get? How is this distributed between artists, content types and across the country? YouTube doesn’t have any precise statistics to share. In fact, YouTube officials don’t really care where the creators are from, because according to them, we live in a global world, so we should take their word for it and hope for the best.

However, the survival of our francophone culture cannot depend on only one or two successful artists like Charlotte Cardin and Coeur de pirate, whose names we hear over and over. People need to be able to discover and listen to others.

The second option proposed in Bill C-11 is a compromise. It involves bringing new platforms into the Canadian regulatory framework, but not in the same way as traditional broadcasters. The platforms will have to help fund production of Canadian content and will have to showcase Canadian content while continuing to offer a rich and diverse menu of program options. The CRTC will have the complex task of tailoring the rules to each foreign player. At least, that is the promise. I’ll be frank; it will be a mammoth undertaking, and I fear the CRTC will be overwhelmed.

I personally support the broad strokes of Bill C-11. Canadians will retain the best of digital platforms, that is, the freedom to listen to and watch what they want, based on their preferences, while giving our artists a chance to carve out a place for themselves and find their audience in this new broadcasting ecosystem.

However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Here are some of the main issues. The bill delegates a lot of power to the CRTC to make the rules for online platforms and implement Canada’s broadcasting and cultural policy. Many of us think it would have been better for the government to give the CRTC its instructions right now. This kind of feels like handing over a blank cheque.

One of the central issues the CRTC will have to consider is Canadian content. How should we define it now? Are some criteria more important than others? Should the focus be on subject matter, artists or intellectual property in productions? It will be up to the CRTC to review this crucial definition.

Much ink has been spilled about discoverability; it has taken up a lot of bandwidth. The term “discoverability” appears only twice in the legislation, which does not provide further details.

How will discoverability work for Canadian content on digital platforms? Is promoting that content without influencing algorithms and viewers’ or listeners’ choices enough? How will new content requirements differ from the old quota system? A lot of questions remain.

For example, at our brief hearings in June, I asked the chair of the CRTC how he would ensure the discoverability of Canadian content without involving the algorithms. He answered that the platforms themselves would have to change their algorithms to achieve the desired result of having Canadian users consume more Canadian music and shows.

As you can imagine, this answer shocked those who were closely following the hearings. For them, it was proof that algorithms must be changed even if the bill states that the CRTC does not have that authority. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC, and I quote, “shall not make an order . . . that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm.”

I believe that the debate on this specific point is so polarized that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. For example, YouTube and TikTok state that, without changing their algorithms, they go to great lengths to promote Canadian creators, whether through subsidies, programs or revenue sharing. They boast about their efforts and the success of certain Canadian artists.

Why are they worried about Bill C-11 when they will be able to choose how to get results in terms of the Canadian music that is listened to? Is it because only algorithms really have the power to influence the habits of the users of these platforms?

The logic of algorithms is simple. The only content suggested to the customer is similar to what they have watched before in order to keep them watching. How then can we hope for minority cultural content, whether it be French or Indigenous, to be automatically recommended to customers in a predominantly anglophone North America? How can we trust the mathematical algorithms to point to the exception rather than the rule?

Another distinction needs to be made. For artists from English Canada, the playing field is global, whereas for French-speaking Quebec artists, the main market is Quebec. These artists create in a beautiful language, but it is a minority language.

By making the algorithms off limits, as the platforms want, are we giving in on the main issue and allowing Canadian culture and artists to be steamrolled by American giants? However, if we tinker with the algorithms, we risk harming the lesser-known artists that we want to support, since they could be downgraded by the existing system if customers do not accept the recommendation in question. It is quite the dilemma.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the foreign players in our market should be responsible for finding innovative solutions so that we can see ourselves in this flood of global content. I understand that they feel rushed and that they do not want to lose users, but let’s remember that Canadian broadcasters are subject to much heavier and rigid regulations regarding Canadian content.

We also have to be mindful not to rely on what other countries are doing. This specific aspect of the bill, in other words the idea of requiring platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and others to showcase Canadian works, is a world first; it has never been done anywhere else. Many have thought about it, but Canada is the first to try. This is uncharted territory.

Another issue that raises debate has to do with social media, YouTube in particular, which offers both content for users to download and commercial content. I believe it is possible to further clarify in the text of this legislation what commercial content is in order to reassure content creators.

Obviously, although the purpose of Bill C-11 is to develop Canadian culture and artistic expression, it has several economic dimensions.

At the heart of these debates are Canadian organizations such as producers, broadcasters and unions. There is a mix of corporate, protectionist and other interests behind the requests to amend the bill.

For example, independent producers want to keep the advantage they’ve had for the past 30 years under the Broadcasting Act. They want to be given priority. On the other hand, broadcasters want their own production companies to be treated as independent businesses.

It’s not necessarily a matter of promoting more or less Canadian content; it’s a matter of promoting certain players and changing the power dynamic. This bickering among the players in Canada ultimately undermines efforts to come together.

Beyond these more specific issues, Bill C-11 also brings out different political, cultural and economic views and sometimes pits them against one another.

As I look at my colleague, Senator Housakos, I can see that division here.

In this new global cultural market in which Canadian creators have access to the entire world but are also competing with the entire world, should we be trying to protect our creators from this competition or finding ways to help them stand out? Is it possible to give our creators, artists and tradespeople a chance without needlessly restricting the Canadian public’s options and preferences?

Clearly, I don’t have all the answers. While I agree that Canada must protect its cultural sovereignty, including francophone culture, my duty is to assess whether this bill can be improved and, if so, how.

My personal belief is still that culture is not just another commodity. It deserves substantial support from governments, particularly in cases of a minority culture, such as French in North America.

I’m extremely concerned about the underlying trends in Quebec, particularly in terms of the music people listen to. We can’t surrender all of our cultural sovereignty and national identity to algorithms and market forces. It would be akin to cultural suicide in the medium term, the result of a voluntary blindness to the reality of the power imbalance that is at play. In that regard, I believe that Bill C-11 has a legitimate political objective.

That said, we need to find compromises and modern solutions that also respond to the desire of Canadians and Quebecers to participate in and consume cultural products from around the world, without unduly limiting their choices. Defending and promoting our distinct identity is more valid and timely than ever, but we can’t expect a return to the past, to a time when the availability of cultural content was strictly controlled.

Our challenge is to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, there is a two-tiered system because the only zoos listed in the bill are those with AZA certification. You name them in the bill. By doing that, you give them additional protection because, even if they lose their certification at some point, they will always be listed in the bill as designated, while the other hundred or so zoos will have to go through a certification program. I know you have adapted the standards, but you have also given the seven zoos listed in the bill a special privilege and a free pass. I see that as a problem, but I think we can continue to think about it.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall Act, which was introduced by my colleague, Senator Marty Klyne.

To start, I believe it is necessary to strengthen the protection of wild animals in captivity and to outright ban the purchase and breeding of elephants, great apes and cetaceans. In a world increasingly concerned with animal welfare, keeping wild animals in captivity for human enjoyment is less and less acceptable.

One shameful example of this situation occurred in the heart of Quebec and clearly demonstrated the importance of taking action. In May 2018, 200 neglected and abused animals were seized from the Zoo de Saint-Édouard in Mauricie. It was the largest seizure in Canada. These exotic animals, which included lions, tigers, bears and kangaroos, had been deprived of veterinary care and kept in inadequate and unsanitary facilities. The investigation was sparked by a tip about mistreatment from a woman who had visited the zoo.

This scandal raised many questions about good practices at zoos. The Zoo de Saint-Édouard had been flagged several times, but always managed to hang onto its permits.

How can we prevent such abuse from happening? Some would like to close all zoos and aquariums. However, that is not the intent of Senator Klyne’s bill.

Instead, the bill proposes a complex, comprehensive reform with regard to prohibited species and the necessary permits. The legislation would impose much stricter national regulations regarding the possession of certain species of cats, primates and canines.

The bill would enable zoos and aquariums to keep the wild animals they already have, but it would impose stricter conditions on their captivity for the future.

[English]

Bill S-241 would ban nearly all zoos from keeping more than 800 species of wild animals, including big cats, bears, wolves, seals, sea lions, certain reptiles, like crocodiles, and venomous snakes. These animals were selected because some are more dangerous, or they need more space or a different climate than ours.

If they want to override this ban, the 100 or so wildlife attractions in Canada will have to apply for licences from the federal or provincial government, with strict conditions related to scientific research and the interests of the animal.

Institutions will also be able to obtain a designation as an eligible animal care organization provided they meet a series of conditions, including animal care recognized at the highest standards, best practices and the establishment of a mechanism protecting whistle-blowers employed in zoos.

Some believe that obtaining permits will be complicated. The owner of Parc Safari in Hemmingford, Quebec, also believes that the Bill S-241 project is a first step towards the end of zoological institutions due to restrictions on the import and export of animals.

Personally, I have nothing against raising standards and implementing additional restrictions aimed at better protecting animals, but I’m concerned about the deferential treatment given in this bill to Canadian zoos and aquariums. On the one hand, almost all zoos and aquariums will have to try to obtain permission from the federal administration once the law is enforced. However, the law grants exemptions to seven zoos and aquariums in Canada because they are members of a private American organization: the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA. These seven organizations are the Zoo de Granby, the Calgary Zoo, the Montréal Biodôme, the Toronto Zoo, Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, the Assiniboine Park Zoo in Winnipeg and the Vancouver Aquarium. These are generally larger institutions with more resources. Obtaining an AZA accreditation costs around US$12,000, but above all, it takes dedicated staff and months, if not years, of preparation.

According to Senator Marty Klyne and the groups he consulted, the treatment given to the seven establishments is justified because AZA applies very high criteria before granting its stamp of approval. AZA is based in Maryland and accredits mainly American attractions but also those in a dozen other countries. Its standards are higher in some respects than those of its Canadian counterpart, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA.

I repeat that when it comes to animal welfare, it is very important to put forward the highest standards, as Bill S-241 does. This is not what is at issue, and that is why I support this bill. However, it seems to me to be unfair to favour certain establishments over others. In my opinion, all zoos and aquariums should face the same administrative procedures. Either they all have to go through the same process to obtain a permit or all those who meet the criteria should be exempted, regardless of their AZA accreditation.

The two-tiered system proposed by the bill gives these seven zoos and aquariums a significant advantage, because even if some of them do not respect their obligations in the future, it might be necessary to modify the law, which is not always a quick procedure.

[Translation]

Truth be told, that is the part of the bill that was deemed to be rather unfair by some zoos that have fewer resources but that are making an effort to improve their animals’ living conditions. The Zoo sauvage de Saint-Félicien is one of them. I thank Senator Klyne’s office for taking the time to meet with Lauraine Gagnon, the zoo’s chief executive, who is very concerned that this bill will jeopardize the future of her zoo. She started by contacting her MP, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, who also did not understand the differential treatment set out in Bill S-241, and that began a dialogue.

The Saint-Félicien zoo is a major tourist attraction in Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean. It drew over 200,000 visitors a year before the pandemic. It is a not-for-profit organization that treats its animals in an exemplary manner. All of the animals are native to the boreal forest, and they have a lot of space. In fact, at this zoo, the visitors are the ones in cages. They ride through the park in a train, while the animals roam relatively freely within a 324‑hectare park. The animals are kept in spacious enclosures that far exceed the requirements. The Saint-Félicien zoo participates in scientific research and is collaborating on a reputable foreign program for endangered species.

Bill S-241 would affect 10 of the 75 species at the Saint-Félicien zoo, which is why the zoo’s director is concerned. She pointed out that her zoo is a not-for-profit organization and that obtaining permits would take time and resources. She would like the zoo to be treated the same as the seven zoos and aquariums that are exempt from the administrative procedures. She doesn’t understand why organizations that meet the standards set out in Bill S-241 are at a disadvantage solely because they are not members of AZA.

The Saint-Félicien zoo is just one example, of course, and I am not claiming to know what kind of living conditions exist for animals in the hundred or so other zoos and aquariums across Canada. However, I think it is worth reviewing the process for issuing the permits to ensure that all of the organizations that meet the standards are treated fairly, without any undue administrative advantage.

Benoît Pelletier, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, says that this special treatment depending on whether an organization belongs to a foreign private association could be challenged on the basis of the principles of natural justice within our own administrative laws.

This legislation could also be complicated to implement. The federal government shares jurisdiction over wild animals in captivity with the provinces. How will the provinces react if the federal government refuses or is slow to grant a designation of animal care organization to an attraction that contributes to regional development? Will the Environment Minister have the means to inspect zoos regularly, or will he rely solely on whistle-blowers, visitors or animal rights organizations? The zoos that will be required to comply with the new rules will have some time to make the transition. They will be able to keep prohibited animals until the animals die. However, the movement towards enhanced standards is unstoppable. The public is increasingly interested in animal welfare, and Indigenous peoples have been for far longer.

Valéry Giroux, a University of Montreal professor who specializes in animal ethics, spoke to this issue on Radio-Canada. She said:

Parents who take their children to the zoo usually have excellent reasons for doing so. They want to foster their children’s interest in nature, their respect for animals. The problem is that the animals in zoos are psychologically disturbed, so they don’t accurately represent their cousins living in the natural environment. Visiting the zoo is not like going out into nature; it’s more like visiting a prison or a psychiatric hospital. By taking children to the zoo, we’re not teaching them to develop compassion for animals or to respect biodiversity. Instead, we’re teaching them that wild animals are meant to be kept in captivity to entertain us. We’re teaching them that it’s okay to capture animals, to deprive them of their freedom, to interfere in their social bonds, all for our own entertainment.

This new vision of animal welfare stands in stark contrast to the way that we saw it as children and that many of us have passed on to our children.

I thank Senator Klyne for this ambitious effort. Further study in committee will help us assess whether amendments are needed to make the bill fairer and to ensure that its implementation is as smooth and efficient as possible.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I am speaking today about Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff regarding goods from Xinjiang.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Housakos, and I am the critic. I volunteered because Senator Housakos and I both spoke in this chamber, at about the same time early in the session, about the issue of forced labour and the all-too-common human rights violations. A total of 25 million people are victims of forced labour around the world. We share this grave concern, but we have chosen different ways to respond.

Through Bill S-211, I have proposed a broad, step-by-step approach to combatting modern slavery by requiring companies doing business in Canada to report on the risks of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. Bill S-211 does not target any particular region of the world, although we know that forced labour and child labour is particularly prevalent in Africa and Asia. That said, no country on the continent is completely free of it, and we have had disturbing cases of forced labour in Canada, notably in agriculture and hospitality, and even among undocumented personal support workers working in Quebec during the pandemic.

Senator Housakos chose a much narrower and more draconian approach. His bill would prohibit the importation of goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region of China.

I agree with my colleague that the human rights violations against Uighurs are extremely serious. These violations have been labelled as “genocide” by the Canadian House of Commons and the British House of Commons, as well as by the European Parliament, the U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. President Joe Biden. I agree with that assessment.

[English]

In fact, the treatment of the Muslim Uighur minority by the authoritarian Chinese regime should worry every citizen in the world who believes in human rights. As Joanna Chiu writes in her excellent book China Unbound: A New World Disorder:

If its treatment of Uyghurs is any indication, China is willing to criminalize religious practices . . . torture and harass camp inmates, sexually abuse detainees, and illegally harass Uyghurs around the world. But the international community has been slow to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis, raising the troubling question of what the CCP might get away with in the future.

In addition to assimilation and detention camps, there is ample evidence that many Uighurs are forced into labour. The situation is difficult to quantify, as reporters and experts on these issues are prevented from entering facilities in Xinjiang. We must therefore rely on other sources to get a sense of scale.

According to a report by Australian Strategic Policy Institute, more than 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of the Xinjiang region between 2017 and 2019 to work in Chinese factories. Despite China’s claim that their work is voluntary, abundant evidence shows that their freedom of movement is very limited and that they are under constant extreme surveillance, with their families threatened and at risk of being detained.

[Translation]

Some major, well-known brands have been suspected of being connected to supply chains that use forced Uighur labour. The list of suspected products includes cotton, tomatoes, tomato products and polysilicon. These products have a high risk of being tainted by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. This region produces nearly half of all polysilicon, a material used to manufacture solar panels, and nearly 20% of the world’s cotton.

Unfortunately, as Canadian consumers, we all contribute to this exploitation. Cotton clothing labelled “made in China” is found in all of our stores, and this cotton is highly likely to have been harvested in Xinjiang, where more than a half a million Uighurs are reportedly being forced to work. Major brands like Uniqlo, Walmart, Zara and Sports Experts remain silent when asked to account for their actions.

CBC’s Marketplace uncovered some more alarming news about tomatoes and tomato products that are very likely to be found on our grocery store shelves. Consumers cannot make informed decisions about the tomato products they buy in grocery stores. Well-known brands like Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever are buying tomatoes from Xinjiang and processing them in a third country, like Pakistan, the Philippines or India, before reselling them.

Other situations around the world are just as appalling, such as children working in open-pit mines or on cocoa or sugar cane plantations, but the fact is that these forms of exploitation are not systematically organized by states. Governments may be often passive or complicit with regard to these situations, but the exploitation of the Uighurs was clearly orchestrated by Chinese authorities.

That is why Senator Housakos introduced his initiative in a very short bill that boils down to one sentence:

 . . . the importation of goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China is prohibited.

This bill was born of a frustration I share, because our own border officers are not enforcing the existing legislation, which already prohibits goods made by forced labour from entering Canada from any country in the world.

This amendment to our Customs Tariff Act arises from the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement, which has been in force for 22 months now. To date, Canada has seized one single, solitary, shipment of clothing from China suspected of being made by forced labour. By comparison, the United States has intercepted over 1,300 suspect shipments from China within that same time period.

According to the experts consulted by The Globe and Mail, Canada has not invested sufficient funding or made enough of an effort to enforce this law, nor has it put enough effort into gathering intelligence to make seizures.

Where Bill S-204 differs from the current law is that it does not propose seizing shipments that simply might contain goods produced using forced labour, but rather all shipments originating from one region, Xinjiang, assuming from the outset that these goods are likely to be the result of forced labour.

It is true that it is very difficult for border officers to distinguish between the two. There is no visible evidence that goods have been produced by forced labour. If the bill passes, it will also be important to ensure that companies, Chinese or otherwise, do not circumvent the law by routing their products through other intermediate countries.

What is interesting about Bill S-204 is that the importer has no way to prove that the seized shipment is not the product of forced labour.

However, on the face of it, such a ban seems contrary to World Trade Organisation rules, which prohibit discrimination and quantitative restrictions.

We could always justify the existence of Bill S-204 by invoking Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows for exceptions necessary to protect human life or health or public morals, for example, or relating to the products of prison labour.

Bill S-204 would completely ban all products from Xinjiang, so it could be difficult to invoke any exceptions. In this case, it would be up to Canada to prove to the WTO that the ban does not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.

Only one country so far has acted in a way that reflects what Bill S-204 is proposing. In the United States, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act passed unanimously in the Senate, and the law will be in force at the U.S. border starting in June. The U.S. law includes a presumption that all goods manufactured in whole or in part in the Xinjiang region are inadmissible. The law also states that businesses located elsewhere in China could be blacklisted if they profit from the forced labour of Uighurs. However, unlike Bill S-204, U.S. importers can rebut this presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that their factories and those of their suppliers do not use forced labour. If Bill S-204 included similar relief, it would no doubt be more likely to be deemed compliant with WTO rules.

The U.S. bill generated heated debate between multinationals that rely on China for their supplies, legislators who want the United States to take a firmer stance on defending human rights, and those who are primarily concerned about supply chain disruptions and inflation. Fortunately, defenders of justice and human dignity won the day, for once, against defenders of commercial competitiveness and low prices at all costs.

Human Rights Watch supports the U.S. legislation and considers it to be a powerful new tool for combatting forced labour. The NGO recommends that there be serious consequences for companies that cannot provide transparent information about their supply chains and forced labour in China.

Other countries are looking for measures they can implement at their borders to fight modern slavery.

In Australia, a Senate bill introduced in 2020 sought to prohibit the importation of all goods produced in Xinjiang, similar to Bill S-204. There was no consensus for this Australian bill because it targeted only one region in the world. A new version presently being studied would prohibit the entry into Australia of any goods produced with forced labour, no matter where they come from.

In late April, the British government adopted an amendment to eradicate forced labour from National Health Service supply chains.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Bill S-204 should be referred to a committee that can study and amend it, if required, to prevent it from clashing with our international trade commitments.

However, I would add that, at the same time, we should also reflect on the weight we want to give social and environmental considerations in our trade agreements. For decades — and even today — the economic imperatives of growth, competitiveness and low prices have often outweighed issues of human dignity and sustainable development. Ecological and ethical considerations, which of course include the revolting human rights violations in China, should never be partisan or ideological issues. We must therefore find effective ways to fight for progress. We must not remain passive. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Clearly, that is not really the goal of your bill, Senator Housakos, but, yes, I am one of those who believe that our foreign policy should respond to human rights violations, whether in China or elsewhere. I do not believe in targeting a country purely because of its regime, but I do believe in intervening when it comes to serious issues like human rights violations.

I am one of the Quebec women who supported the mission in Afghanistan. That debate sharply divided Quebec. Many pacifists said no, but I said yes. We had to intervene on behalf of Afghan women. In general, I am someone who advocates for intervention and, given all that we know about the abuses suffered by the Uighurs, we must speak out, especially now that our two hostages are no longer in China. Of course, there are also Canadian interests. I know this is a sensitive issue, but I am one of those citizens who wants Canada to speak out strongly against China.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-243, as introduced by my colleague Senator Rosa Galvez. The climate-aligned finance act is a courageous and coherent bill.

I spent most of my career working as a reporter. I was a Washington correspondent. One of the most famous mantras in journalism is “follow the money.” What this means, of course, is that by following financial transactions, one can get to the source of the problem.

The phrase was coined at the time of the Watergate scandal. Of course, the bill before us seeks to address very different problems. In some ways, they are less spectacular. They get less media attention, but the problem of climate change is much more serious, and it threatens the entire planet.

Bill S-243 aims to connect our financial system and our climate commitments to get to the source of the problem and start fixing it. It will not be easy. Nobody said it would be. We should not expect to change the rules of our financial systems, as we must, while preserving the status quo of business as usual. We have to choose.

[Translation]

I am not a scientist so I will not spend a lot of time presenting climate scenarios and energy trajectories. In any event, that is not our role as legislators. Our job is to consider the science and pass laws accordingly — in this case, for the good of the planet and future generations of Canadians.

What are the scientists saying?

The latest IPCC report, published just a few weeks ago, concluded that:

The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.

What are we to do? The IPCC report does not offer detailed solutions, but it clearly identifies “insufficient and misaligned finance” as a problem and highlights the need to adopt a model where “investment [is] aligned with climate resilient development.”

[English]

Others are also pointing the way. In February of last year, the U.K. government published a major study called The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, led by Professor Dasgupta, of Cambridge University, and it does not mince words:

Collectively, however, we have failed to manage our global portfolio of assets sustainably. Estimates show that between 1992 and 2014, produced capital per person doubled, and human capital per person increased by about 13% globally; but the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly 40%. . . . In other words, while humanity has prospered immensely in recent decades, the ways in which we have achieved such prosperity means that it has come at a devastating cost to Nature.

But this is not simply a market failure: it is a broader institutional failure too. . . . Governments almost everywhere exacerbate the problem by paying people more to exploit Nature than to protect it, and to prioritise unsustainable economic activities.

We need a financial system that channels financial investments – public and private – towards economic activities that enhance our stock of natural assets and encourage sustainable consumption and production activities. . . .

In May of last year, the International Energy Agency published a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050 — a goal that Canada has publicly committed to achieve. The report was very direct and precise in saying that no new oil and gas fields should be approved for development beyond those already approved in 2021, and that, going forward, the only focus of oil and gas producers should be to manage and reduce emissions from existing assets.

There are many more reports and studies, of course, but at this point the message is clear: If we are to reach net zero by 2050, we need transformational change at a systemic level, quickly. But that is not what we have done in Canada. So far, we have supported a few climate policies and initiatives, as long as they do not affect our economy in any meaningful way. We vow to protect the climate in the long term, but short-term considerations of competitiveness take precedence. We advocate for bold change, but the status quo prevails most of the time.

As we pledge to reduce our national emissions, we are planning to increase our oil and gas exports. We celebrate our carbon tax, but our biggest polluters only pay a fraction of it. And the most significant measure we are contemplating for the financial industry is a disclosure scheme.

I strongly believe in transparency, of course. It is often an essential first step. In fact, we just passed Bill S-211, which is a transparency bill focused on forced labour and child labour in supply chains. But there are situations where transparency alone is not sufficient, especially when economic incentives are not aligned. In the case of the financial sector, climate disclosure schemes have not had much impact.

A recent report by NGOs shows that in 2021, the world’s top banks provided $752 billion in financing to the fossil fuel industry. One quarter of that amount went to companies that are expanding production. In Canada, financing for oil sands operations increased by 51%. Of course, this is not because we didn’t know about climate change last year or because we had insufficient disclosures to know that increasing oil and gas production contradicts our climate commitments. It’s because disclosures are basically worthless if they are not associated with cost.

In fact, a 2020 survey by HSBC found that just 10% of investors viewed the climate disclosures as a relevant source of information. When discussing that survey, the Financial Times quoted a former Bank of England economist as saying that:

Just discussing risks, and assessing risks, does not mean we are actually transitioning to net zero. Many firms may discuss risks — and do exactly nothing to advance the transition.

And why is that? Because climate disclosures provide information, but they do not align financial incentives. And that’s what matters: alignment.

[Translation]

Today, we are studying Bill S-243.

For the first time, we have a bill that is proposing to do what the IPCC and others are calling for: align finance with our climate commitments. The act would require public and private financial institutions to explain how they align their loans and investments with our climate commitments. It would require Crown corporations to integrate climate expertise at the highest level. It would support financial transactions that accelerate the transition and discourage those that slow it down. The act also addresses the conflicts of interest that have held us back for so many years.

It is a bold and necessary bill that challenges the paradigm under which we have operated until now, which holds that the financial system is untouchable.

This initiative will no doubt spark opposition, but I believe that the criticism should be met with a simple question: If you do not agree with this bill, how do you propose that Canada align its financial system with our climate commitments? If the reply is merely that we need more disclosure and carbon capture, or that we must wait for other countries to act, or that the market itself will ensure that there is a transition, we will know that there is no real will to change anything.

[English]

As I mentioned at the outset, Bill S-243 proposes to follow the money. That is certainly the right approach. But there is another thing that Bill S-243 would allow us to do, and that is putting our money where our mouth is. Senator Galvez is giving us an opportunity not only to align our financial system with our climate commitments, but to align our deeds with our words. We want to be climate leaders, but we are the only G7 country where emissions increased between 2015 and 2019. We point to other countries with bigger carbon footprints, but Canada is the worst country in the world for cumulative emissions per population. We can and should be doing much better. As senators, we often say that one of our duties is to provide representation to under-represented groups. Today, I suggest to you that one such group is made up of future generations. This bill is for them.

As appointed legislators, we are protected from electoral pressures. In politics, this is a rare and invaluable privilege. It should give us the courage and the independence to make hard decisions that are in the public interest. Today I suggest that we should take the time to understand and reflect on this bill. To quote The Dasgupta Review one more time:

. . . the same ingenuity that has led us to make demands on Nature that are so large, so damaging and over such a short period, can be redeployed to bring about transformative change, perhaps even in just as short a time. We and our descendants deserve nothing less.

In 15 or 20 years, most of us won’t be here anymore. Today, I suggest that this bill gives us a chance to do something that will matter when we are gone. So I urge you, colleagues, to send this bill to committee for an in-depth study without delay. We owe this to our children and grandchildren. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: As a former ombudsman of Radio-Canada, I’ve thought a lot about conflicts of interest. There are very specific codes. We could not be on a board of directors, and our activities outside of our work had to be very limited to avoid any apparent or actual conflict of interest, since that would destroy all of our credibility. A journalist colleague of mine who was assigned to cover police operations was secretly being paid to provide information to police officers. We obviously need to prevent such obvious conflicts of interest.

I am less familiar with the banking and financial sector, but certainly, if directors of banks or financial institutions hold shares in fossil fuel companies or are otherwise involved in an economy that does not respect our financial commitments, that is a problem since we don’t actually know what happens on these boards. We don’t know whether that will influence the individual’s vote.

There needs to be a lot more transparency and information on board activities if we want to change things. Your bill is rather innovative in that sense. It prohibits directors from being shareholders or having ties to companies that do not comply with our climate commitments, and it states that lobbyists who have worked for companies that do not comply with our climate commitments cannot serve as directors for a period of five years. It is a rather unique way of looking at things, but it is essential.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling 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.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading in support of Bill S-224, which is sponsored by my colleague, Senator Salma Ataullahjan. The senator asked me to be the critic of this bill to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons, and I accepted without hesitation.

Human trafficking is a very serious offence in Canada that involves a trafficker who recruits, transports, conceals and threatens violence against a victim, over whom he or she often exercises coercive control for the purpose of exploitation. In 2019, 95% of Canadian trafficking victims were women and girls. Some 71% of cases involved sexual exploitation, but the crime covers any form of forced labour that is similar to slavery.

Human trafficking is a more serious offence than procuring because of the trafficker’s behaviour of threatening, coercing or deceiving the victim and abusing his or her power over the victim. Unfortunately, this crime is on the rise, with over 500 cases in 2019, and it is difficult to prove.

Trafficking in persons was added to the Criminal Code as an offence in 2005. A 2018 report from Public Safety Canada summarizes the challenges associated with enforcement. Victims are often reluctant to report their situation, since they tend to believe that the success rate of prosecutions is very low. Prosecutors, for their part, find it difficult to reach the high threshold of evidence required for trafficking cases. The statistics are startling. In 2019, 89% of human trafficking charges resulted in a stay, withdrawal, dismissal or discharge. Less than one in ten charges resulted in a guilty verdict.

Given that this crime was identified only 15 or so years ago, the justice system is still finding it difficult to understand the scope of the trauma felt by the victims, including the fact that some victims develop an attachment to the trafficker. The traumas, the drug addiction and mental health problems affect their memory, which makes their testimony particularly difficult. To survive, the victims might also make up stories, which complicates the search for the truth.

For all these reasons, it is imperative that the trial not rely on the victim’s performance during her testimony or her state of mind at the time of the exploitative situations.

For many years, survivor advocacy groups have been criticizing the section of the Criminal Code that Bill S-224 is proposing to change. Why? Because under the current subsection 279.04(1), the Crown must demonstrate that the victim could reasonably expect — given all the circumstances — that her safety would be threatened if she refused to be exploited.

This wording places a heavy burden on survivors, who are not always aware of coercive control mechanisms. This type of control may be exercised without any perceived danger to the victim, who is rather targeted to be humiliated, isolated, exploited or dominated. Moreover, many women do not even realize that they are being trafficked, because in the vast majority of cases the exploiters are friends, acquaintances, or current or past lovers, in other words relationships where emotional blackmail is often present.

This is not just a matter of opinion. As Senator Ataullahjan already mentioned, the wording of the current section 279.04 of the Criminal Code does not meet the definition of trafficking in persons used in the Palermo Protocol, which constitutes the international reference on the issue. Unlike the current section 279.04, this protocol focuses on the behaviour of the exploiter, not on the victim’s perception of danger. The Canadian government ratified this protocol in 2002, and we therefore have an obligation to protect the victims of trafficking.

[English]

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the University of British Columbia School of Law, asking victims to prove reasonable fear may be a barrier to conviction for human trafficking. The requirements of the human trafficking offence are more onerous than those of other offences of a similar nature. For example, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in persons is also prohibited, but it does not require that an individual believe that their safety would be threatened. This is a more appropriate standard.

The new section proposed by Senator Ataullahjan has the great merit of sticking to the vocabulary of the Palermo Protocol and therefore to focus on the actions of the trafficker and not on the fears of his victim.

That change in language proposed in Bill S-224 is even more necessary because this crime has a disproportionate effect on Indigenous women and girls, who are 10 times more likely to be victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation than non-Indigenous women and girls.

Among the groups I have consulted, other suggestions for changes were proposed. For example, la Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes — a federation of women’s shelters in Quebec — suggests adding the idea that the trafficker is trying to take advantage of the victim’s state of vulnerability, which is at the heart of the definition of sexual exploitation in the United Nations. The federation would also like the notion of coercive control to appear in the proposed article.

For its part, the Canadian Council for Refugees suggests broadening the definition of what constitutes trafficking by adding the notion of threat in general, and not just the threat of violence, in order to better reflect the reality of the trafficking of migrants or refugees for whom threats of denunciation or deportation are often used the most.

The main priority, however, is for the Senate committee to study first and foremost the significant change to the Criminal Code suggested by Senator Ataullahjan. I strongly believe it is time that we adapt our Criminal Code to the reality of women and girls who are victims of human trafficking. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your question.

As I said in my speech, there are other criteria involved in the situation in Spain that we should probably take into account if we are to more closely examine the impact of a far broader use of these monitoring devices. That is one thing.

That being said, you are right that I have concerns. I am concerned because, as you know, the Government of Quebec has conducted a more thorough analysis of the situation and has also determined that electronic monitoring devices would be used after a verdict is rendered.

Obviously, I do not know all the reasons behind that, but I am fairly certain that the issue I raised is at the root of their concerns. For now, we need to know how electronic monitoring devices work.

If we give a whole lot of these out to the accused without assessing how dangerous those people really are, then the real danger is that the victims will take more risks because they believe they are protected by the device. That is where the danger lies, Senator Boisvenu. What it comes down to is that it is dangerous for the victims to put too much faith in a tool that does not fully protect them. Making this tool available could mean that judges let more of the accused go free when they are, in fact, dangerous.

With that in mind, I think that we must be prudent and implement this tool in stages.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced in this place by my colleague Senator Boisvenu. With this bill, he is starting another chapter in his mission to defend abused women. I salute his long‑standing commitment.

Like everyone else, I was horrified by the 18 alleged femicides committed by intimate partners in Quebec in 2021 alone. Domestic violence is a scourge that illustrates how little progress we have made towards achieving gender equality. It can even become a matter of life or death. According to Statistics Canada, 47% of female murder victims in Canada were killed by an intimate partner, compared to only 6% for men.

Eighteen femicides is eighteen too many, but that is just a drop in the ocean. Every year, a staggering 20,000 offences against the person are reported and committed in a domestic violence context in Quebec. That is extremely difficult for the police and the justice system to manage, given that they are constantly struggling with limited resources and somewhat subjective risk assessments.

For years, I have been trying to come up with possible solutions to this fear that too many women experience.

I am not a supporter of minimum sentences and harsher sentences. There is no evidence demonstrating that an even more punitive approach would have a deterrent effect and reduce the number of such crimes.

However, I have seen the pervasive fear in victims of domestic violence when their partner or former partner is released. I have met these women and listened to them. They constantly relive the trauma of being spied on, monitored and attacked by an abusive partner, and fearing for the safety of their children.

Until attitudes change and assault is no longer used a means of control by violent men, there absolutely needs to be better prevention and a system that supports and protects victims as much as possible.

It is for this reason that I am prejudiced in favour of using electronic monitoring devices, as Bill S-205 proposes. I see it as one more tool, though not a magic solution, so victims do not have to live in fear when their former partner is released. Many women’s groups have been calling for these monitoring devices for years.

However, it is important to note that Bill S-205 would allow a judge to require an accused to wear the electronic device at every stage of the legal process, including before the verdict. After some consultation, I think it would be more appropriate if the device were only required as part of the parole conditions for persons found guilty of domestic violence, at least initially. I will come back to that.

I also think that the addition of the electronic monitoring device could represent a wise use of our technological advances. For once, technology would be used for the public interest, to protect vulnerable individuals, rather than for inappropriate surveillance, whether it be for commercial or security reasons.

Some people are concerned that these monitoring devices may be too intrusive and may negatively affect the offenders’ rehabilitation. Based on a study conducted by Spanish criminologist Lorea Arenas, it seems those concerns are unfounded. The offenders who participated in the study found that wearing the monitoring device was not as bad as prison. They felt that there were more advantages to not being in prison, even if wearing the device 24-7 can be uncomfortable or disrupt their family life.

Electronic monitoring devices use geolocation technology. They are made up of two parts: a bracelet worn by the offender and a device provided to the victim. The device establishes two zones: a pre-alert zone and an alert zone. As soon as the offender enters the pre-alert zone, he receives a call telling him to turn back. If he does not comply and enters the alert zone, the police will intervene.

What is most reassuring about the way the electronic monitoring device would be used is that it puts the women at the centre of decision making. Subclause 2(3.1) of Bill S-205 states that victims must be consulted about their safety and security needs before the justice makes a decision.

As I was saying earlier, electronic monitoring devices cannot be seen as a magic solution. Yes, there were some very positive results in Spain, where only 2 of the 800 women equipped with the monitoring device were killed. However, there may have been other factors involved, such as the existence of specialized courts, training for judges, support for victims, and police resources.

I want to point out that the bill introduced by Senator Boisvenu goes further than Bill 24, which is currently being studied in the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec wants offenders to be required to wear one of these electronic monitoring devices once they are convicted of domestic violence, serve their sentence in a provincial jail and become eligible for parole.

Bill S-205 would expand that requirement to the accused in cases of domestic violence.

According to the experts I spoke to, the use of an electronic monitoring device before a verdict is much more controversial. I want to share a quote from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale au Québec. I quote:

 . . . in many cases, these former partners will do whatever it takes to try to maintain their hold over their former partners. It is actually at the time of separation, when the abuser feels like their partner is slipping away from them, that the woman and her children face the greatest risk of lethal violence.

Abusive spouses are more dangerous, more likely to act out, when there is a change in their situation. This may be when the separation occurs or the abuser is reported to the police, when they lose control over their partner, when their life falls apart and financial and housing problems start to pile up.

All this usually happens before the trial, that is, before the verdict is pronounced. According to the people I consulted, this is when releasing the accused with an electronic monitoring device would be too risky, because it could give the victim a false sense of security in the face of a former partner who is still far too dangerous.

An alarm going off at the police station does not guarantee a response in time to prevent tragedy every time. For this reason, again according to the people I consulted, it is better to keep the accused in prison than to release them with an ankle bracelet.

I would again like to quote the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale on the use of ankle bracelets prior to the trial:

 . . . there may be a temptation to use [the electronic monitoring device] when the abusive partner would otherwise have been kept in custody because of the danger he poses to his former partner or children.

In many cases, violent men become less dangerous over time, especially if they have served a sentence. At that point, the authorities are in a better position to assess the actual risk of release because these men are monitored for a longer time by various agencies. The electronic monitoring devices seem like a useful tool for correctional services.

There is another reason these devices might not be a cure-all, especially in the many parts of our vast country that have low population density.

In cities, where population density is high and everything is close, it seems likely the police could respond in time when alerted that the offender is in the prohibited zone. However, the devices may be much less effective in rural areas, where there are fewer police officers and greater distances to cover. It’s far less likely that an alert will enable officers to get to the victim in time. In addition, remote areas have very bad cell service.

That said, it’s clear that the only option available right now, a peace bond, also known as an 810, does a poor job of keeping women safe.

Every stakeholder told us that there is often no follow-up to the numerous complaints filed by victims and no proactive monitoring system because of staff shortages.

Abused women do not always want to resort to the courts to obtain justice. It is a lengthy and difficult process that, in many cases, prolongs the trauma. They want to move on. That is what makes the electronic monitoring device so attractive, but it would certainly be best to take it one step at a time.

First, we need to assess how this tool works for offenders released on parole after being convicted, before we start using it in cases where it is harder to do a risk assessment of the abuser.

I am aware that many femicides occur long before trial and that we are stuck using inadequate monitoring instruments in the short term.

Because of the presumption of innocence, the majority of accused are quickly released on bail. It is at this point that a serious evaluation of the danger they pose is essential. Bill S-205 provides that a judge can require an accused to attend domestic violence counselling or addiction treatment at the interim release stage.

I have not consulted experts on this aspect, so I will leave it to them to speak to the effectiveness and legality of requiring treatment before sentencing.

In closing, I believe that my colleague’s bill deserves serious review in committee. We need to ensure that the measures we use strike a pragmatic balance, and not let ourselves be enticed by a trendy new gadget that is also not without risk.

True protection for victims needs to be the priority, in a manner respecting our rights and freedoms.

Thank you.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly.