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: Senator Gold, the November 15 edition of The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian government had intercepted a shipment of clothing from China for the first time since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, was signed 15 months ago. There were suspicions that the shipment contained goods produced using forced labour. Canadian authorities did not disclose the date of the seizure or the company that was importing the goods. Meanwhile, U.S. authorities have made several seizures and published the dates and names of the companies involved. Why the difference between the two countries? One factor is that in order to stop a shipment, the U.S. requires information that reasonably, but not conclusively, indicates the presence of forced labour, while Canada requires legally sufficient and defensible evidence. This high standard of proof makes intervention very difficult. We even run the risk of becoming a top destination for these suspicious shipments.

Why does Canada have a standard of proof that makes it almost impossible to seize goods produced by forced labour?