Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Colleagues, I will be as brief as I can.

I rise to support Bill C-226 at third reading. This bill, which seeks to assess and prevent environmental racism, was sponsored in this chamber by Senator McCallum.

This bill has the potential to change things, provided there is enough goodwill. It will all depend on the decision makers in charge, since Bill C-226 is not prescriptive.

Proposed subsection 3(2) states the following: “In developing the strategy, the Minister must consult or cooperate with any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities . . . .” This kind of wording gives the powers that be a great deal of freedom to decide what type of consultation they will carry out. This is what Madeleine Redfern, an inspiring Inuit jurist and technology expert, explained to us in committee. In her testimony, she said, and I quote:

For it to be meaningful, consultation must mean you are listening, learning and what you are proposing is being adopted as a result of that engagement. Too often, in my experience, a consultation is just an information session. “Thank you. We are here. We have listened to you but we are still going to do what we are going to do.” It is rote. It is a tick-box exercise.

For example, in proposed paragraph 3(3)(b) of the bill, the measures to be taken to assess and prevent environmental racism are suggestions, not obligations. Examples include compensation for individuals and communities and the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making.

So why is a bill designed to develop a strategy generating so much hope and virtually unanimous support among the Indigenous groups and experts we have heard from? It’s because, for the first time, the hitherto little-known concept of environmental racism is being identified by name in legislation. The term is not defined in the bill — presumably out of caution, since it may evolve — but we are finally putting a name to what many Indigenous people and other racialized minorities have instinctively known about for decades. Naming something is the first step in raising broader awareness.

I have always been aware of the presence of factories, polluting refineries and waste dumps in poorer neighbourhoods, far from the more opulent homes. Yes, I heard some talk in Quebec a long time ago about fish being contaminated with mercury, which was preventing Indigenous people from fishing and putting food on their tables, but truth be told, I was not very well informed of the scope of the problem. It was only recently that I realized that residents of Sarnia, Ontario were not the only victims of what is known as Canada’s “Chemical Valley.” The Aamjiwnaang First Nation, located in that same area, was literally sacrificed to the petrochemical sector starting as early as the 1940s. Twenty-five hundred human beings were affected, including 900 children. These families, which were already vulnerable and marginalized, were kept in the dark for decades about accidents, spills, leaks and fires happening around the plants. Indigenous people were getting sick, but the evidence was considered anecdotal until the community itself mobilized. Studies found that this toxic industrial pollution was affecting the rate of miscarriages, childhood asthma and cancer.

Chief Chris Plain explained in committee that his people could no longer hunt or fish because of the accumulation of chemicals in the animals and fish. He said that pollution was causing the air to smell like rotten eggs and inducing dizziness and nausea. Indigenous Chief Chris Plain defines environmental racism as follows, and I quote:

 . . . the deliberate or intentional siting of hazardous waste sites, landfills, incinerators and polluting industries in communities inhabited by minorities and/or the poor.

In Quebec, a much more recent case made headlines, and some people interpret it as a form of environmental racism because it is taking federal and provincial authorities so long to intervene. A recycling centre in Kanesatake Mohawk territory north of Montreal does not have a water recovery and treatment system that meets the applicable standards, despite multiple warnings. Thousands of litres of contaminated water have been flowing into Lake of Two Mountains illegally since 2016. The Mohawk community is also afraid of the illegal site’s owners, Robert and Gary Gabriel, who obtained a permit to operate a construction materials sorting facility despite their criminal past.

Those are just two examples.

At second reading, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard talked about the open-pit dump that deprived the Africville neighbourhood in Halifax, Nova Scotia, of clean drinking water.

As stated in the preamble, this bill will affect not only Indigenous communities, but also racialized and other marginalized and disadvantaged communities. The scope of this strategy may therefore be quite broad. For example, does the absence of vegetation and trees in densely populated underprivileged neighbourhoods constitute environmental racism?

André-Anne Parent, a professor at the Université de Montréal’s School of Social Work, has calculated that green space covers less than 4% of the Montréal-Nord neighbourhood, compared with more than 11% of the city as a whole. Almost half of Montréal-Nord’s residents belong to a visible minority, and one in five has a low income. Heat islands, a lack of trees and a shortage of gardens all affect physical and mental health, according to Professor Parent.

Inuit jurist Madeleine Redfern and others would have liked to see a few amendments to strengthen the bill. She said that the scope of Bill C-226 is limited, but that it’s a basis on which to begin documenting the extent of the problem, particularly by identifying all Canadian sites where environmental racism exists and the other laws that need to be amended to prevent it. At this point, however, the consensus we heard is to pass this legislation as is, in order to move forward.

Again, I quote Ms. Redfern:

Anyone who says that environmental racism doesn’t exist clearly lives in a bubble — one that is very privileged, very urban, probably very White, middle-class and upper-middle-class. I’m going to call it out. If you’re coming from there, you’re not talking to anyone who is either living in rural, remote, northern or Indigenous parts of Canada or from a minority group.

In closing, I hope that the criticism will be followed by collaboration to eliminate and prevent environmental racism.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Bellemare, would you agree to answer a question?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, a year ago, during the study of Bill C-11, you said this about my age verification amendment:

. . . The Government of Canada is looking to introduce legislation to address potential online harms with the goal of keeping all Canadians safe online, including being safe from the kind of harm that this amendment would propose. In the government’s view, this would be the most appropriate forum, in the context of that legislation, to discuss this important issue. . . .

In other words, the government said, “We’ll take care of the issue in our online safety bill.”

Today, the government finally introduced its long-awaited bill, and there’s no age verification to prevent children from accessing online porn. So my question is this: What happened to that clear commitment?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps I am rising on debate because I don’t think there is any more time for questions.

Listen, Senator Housakos. I heard you, and I couldn’t help but rise because I think you’re living on a planet that doesn’t exist. You have this idea that you’ve been completely muzzled and that you can’t speak. We worked on bills like Bill C-11, which took six months of study. Do you feel like we prevented you from bringing in all of the witnesses that you wanted, for weeks on end?

I am thinking of Bill C-18. I have been here for five years. The idea that the opposition is being prevented from doing its job is completely absurd to me. That is simply not the case. You referred to the House of Lords, to our British system. In England, there is a House of Lords with cross-benchers. They do exist. Such independence is not a joke.

Every day, you say that we are Liberal senators, that we don’t have any freedom and that we are kowtowing. That is absolutely shameful. I can’t take it any more. We are people with minds of our own. I certainly don’t consider myself to be under the heel of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Have you seen the number of amendments that we’re trying to get adopted? It’s nothing like it was in your day. You’re just making up a story. You’re making yourselves out to be victims. You’re saying that there is no more democracy.

Listen, we have debates here. That happens. I honestly don’t know where you got this idea about us. I can’t take it any more. It’s not true. We’re not puppets. That’s not true.

There. I think I’ve said enough.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: Absolutely.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, in 2022, the number of Canadians who were authorized to receive medical assistance in dying, or MAID, increased by 31%. In Quebec, there was a 46% increase. In a Globe and Mail editorial published last week, we learned that Quebec, sadly, is the MAID world champion. Unsurprisingly, the chair of Quebec’s commission on end-of-life care is worried about borderline or non-compliant cases.

In that context, expanding MAID to include mental illness raises many questions. In its editorial, The Globe and Mail wondered if, considering the statistics and justifications, some requests for MAID were granted only because the applicants were old.

Senator Gold, is the government aware of the problem? Will it tighten some of the criteria, which are much too vague?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Hello and thank you for being here with us, minister.

Government procurement has reached nearly $22 billion a year. That is a lot of money. Some companies that are making efforts to incorporate recycled items and, more generally, to accelerate the transition to a circular economy are complaining that your procurement process doesn’t include incentives for this.

I know that the government has a policy on green procurement, but I gather that these criteria are not always enforced. Is that right? Is it just one criterion among hundreds of others, or is it a priority?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, Quebec is currently experiencing an explosion in asylum applications. We welcomed 49,000 of the country’s 90,000 asylum seekers between November 2022 and June 2023, or 55% of the Canadian total.

I visited The Refugee Centre in Montreal last Wednesday. The organization offers various types of assistance and integration supports for people waiting for their status to be determined. The place was packed. Clients were sitting on the floor in the hallway. According to this centre, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is paying for thousands of hotel rooms to house asylum seekers when they arrive, but this non-profit organization, which helps them find a real home and deal with all kinds of formalities, is not eligible for federal funding.

Can you tell me whether the current legislation effectively prevents Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada from funding these services offered to asylum seekers by non-profit organizations?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: For all women in Canada and elsewhere who believe in gender equality, the selection on October 6 of Nargues Mohammadi, Iranian activist, as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize sends a wonderful message of hope.

From deep in the prison where she is being held in Tehran, despite heart problems and mistreatment, Nargues Mohammadi remains among the harshest critics of Iranian theocratic power.

Arrested 13 times and sentenced five times to a total of 31 years in prison and 154 lashes, this activist is fighting body and soul against mandatory veiling and violence against Iranian women.

[English]

Her voice is powerful. Here are her own words in an essay recently published in The New York Times:

What the government may not understand is that the more of us they lock up, the stronger we become.

The morale among the new prisoners is high. Some spoke with strange ease about writing their wills before heading onto the streets to call for change. All of them, no matter how they were arrested, had one demand: Overthrow the Islamic Republic regime.

What is less known is that Narges Mohammadi is also a mother who for eight years has not seen her twins, now 16 years old, who are exiled with their father. Her son speaks of her with pride. Her daughter only wants to be reunited with her mother. But Narges refused to leave Iran to continue her fight for freedom. This is a heavy sacrifice.

Could this highly publicized Nobel Prize breathe new life into the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran, which has moved underground since the regime’s violent repression? Is Narges Mohammadi the long-awaited leader who could unify the opposition? Who knows? But we can hope.

[Translation]

In the meantime, Canada should be using every tool at its disposal to put maximum pressure on the Iranian regime and its accomplices. Although a Senate motion urged the Government of Canada to do just that, it has yet to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, despite its close ties to Hamas, which is designated a terrorist entity.

We cannot remain indifferent to what has been described as an unprecedented feminist revolution. Narges Mohammadi is counting on us. With all eyes riveted on Gaza or Ukraine, let’s not turn our backs on Iranian women.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, today, October 5, is the International Day of No Prostitution, which is observed by people around the world who believe that, in most cases, sex workers are victims of sexual exploitation.

On September 18, the Ontario Superior Court tacitly supported this view by upholding the constitutionality of the federal law on prostitution, which criminalizes clients but not sex workers. In its ruling, the court stated that the federal law is, and I quote:

 . . . a carefully crafted legislative scheme that prohibits the most exploitive aspects of the sex trade while immunizing sex workers from prosecution.

The judge went on to say, and I quote:

Even where a sex worker has entered the sex trade by choice, there is a significant possibility that she has become subject to the control of an exploiter or a trafficker.

I know that this ruling won’t put an end to the debate between advocates of decriminalization, who believe that prostitution is a job like any other, and those who believe that, on the contrary, we can reduce demand and thus the exploitation of women by criminalizing clients.

Moving beyond this ideological dispute, the voices of survivors are those we hear the least. I want to pay tribute to one of them here, a woman named Tricia Murray, who shared her harrowing tale with MPs today at noon on the Hill at the invitation of the Coalition for Women’s Equality, which includes the Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle and the London Abused Women’s Centre. Ms. Murray describes the hell she endured as follows, and I quote:

I still remember, as if it were yesterday, that long night in February 2020 when I thought I was going to die at the hands of my abuser, after multiple assaults. At the time, dying would have been a relief. Still, the fear of dying alone in a condo leaves deep marks.

I averaged 10 clients a day for several months. That works out to hundreds of abusive customers who took advantage of a young woman’s vulnerability. Men with power, fathers, married men, some on vacation and some in town for work.

They were paying me, so these abusers did whatever they wanted with me. They felt they had the right.

My mind and my body remember them all. I’m scarred for life by all the violence I experienced during these long nights that went on for many long months.

I was exploited right here, not far away, in hotels and Airbnbs in Gatineau and Ottawa, just a few blocks away from this Parliament where I’m speaking today. We all have a role to play in ensuring that no one has to relive the atrocities I experienced.

Tricia Murray got out. Generous women supported her. She turned her life around. Her pimp was convicted. She even ran in an election. I truly admire you, Ms. Murray.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, the Iranian regime’s repression has forced many women to flee, including Nahid Modaressi, a member of Iran’s LGBTQ+ community who is particularly at risk.

In 2018, Ms. Modaressi fled Iran and obtained refugee status in Turkey. However, because of an agreement between Iran and Turkey, her status was not renewed and she is now facing deportation. A group of Canadians is prepared to welcome her here. She applied for a visa to enter Canada, but her application was denied. Urgent action is needed.

Senator Gold, can Canada do more to help Nahid Modaressi and other exiled women in the same situation?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to speak to Motion No. 107, which was brought forward by our colleague, Senator Deacon. Even though my level of interest and expertise in all things digital are far from rivalling his own, I support his efforts to make the delivery of public services more efficient and accessible.

[English]

I must begin by confessing that when I first saw Senator Deacon’s motion, my immediate reaction was to think, “Finally, a chance to rant against government websites.” But then I thought that would not be very constructive in light of what the motion seeks to do.

Still, I would say that we are presented with a kind of paradox. By voting in favour of this motion — and I will — we are asking the government to do more of something it has been pretty bad at. It would be tempting to spend 10 minutes railing against the dysfunction of some of our online services, but I will resist.

Consider only two anecdotes. The first comes from a family of Canadian permanent residents in Montreal. They are immigrants from Eastern Europe. Both are telecommunications engineers. They have two children. They have lived in Canada for a few years, and recently had to renew their permanent resident cards as they prepare to apply for Canadian citizenship. This was a formality. So they went onto the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, website and they started to fill out the online forms for their family of four. These are fairly complex applications, even for people who are already permanent residents.

The father started working on the process one evening, and after encountering some difficulties, he decided to take a day off only to fill out the applications online, but it did not work. For some reason, the government site made it impossible to submit the application. So this man, a telecommunications engineer, started looking for advice, and he discovered entire blogs dedicated to dealing with the IRCC system. He was told the name of his street might be too long. He was told to try to add spaces in his postal code. He was told not to use capital letters. He was told other things, but in the end, nothing worked.

After wasting more than one day on his family’s online application, this very smart and technologically capable man printed the application documents and sent them in paper form.

[Translation]

Here’s the second anecdote. Everyone knows there’s a dire shortage of doctors in the regions, including in Quebec’s Laurentians region. Five years ago, two doctors from France came to lend a hand, and they now have 2,700 patients between the two of them.

Unfortunately, we recently found out that Isabelle Branco and Jean-Louis Ménard had to put their appointments on hold and were in danger of losing their work permits. That means they’re no longer treating their patients, ostensibly because a code was missing from their file even though it had been sent several days earlier.

Fortunately, the whole thing was cleared up yesterday, but apparently it took the media getting involved to sort things out.

It’s something of a paradox. Government websites have been making lots of people, including me, want to tear their hair out for years, yet we still want more. We need more.

Why? Simple: We now live much of our lives online. We pay our bills online. We communicate online. We bank online. We research online. We shop online.

Steve’s Music Store, a Montreal institution, had this motto: “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.” These days, if something isn’t on the internet, it doesn’t exist.

That’s why we need the federal government to increase the quantity and improve the quality of its online services.

I will not repeat the statistics given by Senator Deacon regarding Canada’s low digital government ranking, nor will I dwell on the cost savings, because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent reports show, those are difficult to quantify. In any case, the digital transformation is not just about cutting costs. It’s about making life easier and making sure that our public services remain accessible as technology evolves.

In order for that to happen, I would suggest that our federal government focus on two issues in particular.

The first is simplicity. The primary objective of this motion is to increase the quantity of services available online. However, I think that will be impossible if we don’t also improve the quality of those services.

Government websites must be simple to use and written in plain language, not Klingon. The sites must contain simple instructions with an easy log-in and authentication process. They also need to be reliable and flexible. They should not be designed to accept only specific file types, requests, software applications, certificates, characters, browsers or formats. They must be designed so that a 10-year-old child or a 64-year-old adult, like me, can use them without screaming or bursting into tears.

[English]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report contains an encouraging paragraph on this point:

As part of this goal, the federal government created a link between [an individual’s Canada Revenue Agency and his or her Service Canada Account]. This allows for a single sign‑in and is based on a “tell us once” principle. . . . In addition to being able to connect between [different agencies’ accounts], the federal government also partnered with certain financial institutions . . . and some provinces to access Government of Canada services. The purpose of offering different choices of login credentials . . . is to make its online services “more convenient for clients to access” and having “one less username and password for clients to remember”.

I would like to take a minute to make sure that the eternal archives of the Senate record this critically important prescription for the future of humanity: Please give us fewer usernames and passwords to remember.

The second issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of privacy and information security. I have zero technical knowledge about these issues. To be perfectly frank, these are not problems that wake me up at night — perhaps because I am naive, or because my personal information is fairly boring. But I know that a lot of people are very concerned about privacy and information security — I have one friend in particular — and I know these things matter. As the federal government moves forward with the transition to digital services and digital identification, it must make sure to adopt best practices and be completely transparent about what it does.

This is not just a matter of information security. It’s also a matter of public trust in our institutions, which is something that has implications beyond the delivery of government services. At a time when, sadly, public trust in our institutions seems to be at an all-time low, our government needs to be exemplary in its approach to digital interactions and information processing.

I conclude by reiterating my support for Motion No. 107. The federal government must continue to transition to digital service delivery, and it must do it faster and better. I do not expect this major transformation to be completed in the short term. However, and for this reason, I am grateful to have my husband, children and younger staff to help me navigate these evil web portals. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the negative impact of health disinformation and misinformation on Canadian society and what effective measures can be implemented to counter this impact; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than May 31, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Deacon, would you mind answering a question?

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to support Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at second reading.

My colleague Rosemary Moodie provided a comprehensive overview of the history of child care in this country and the principles contained in Bill C-35, including provisions that enable Indigenous peoples to define and direct their own early childhood services.

I won’t repeat what Senator Moodie said so well. Instead, I want to address some of the challenges of implementing this program, in light of Quebec’s experience with $8.85-per-day child care spaces.

To begin, it is clear that this framework legislation essentially seeks to ensure that the ambitious federal child care funding initiative in the provinces and territories becomes a permanent fixture. Minister Karina Gould said so openly during the committee study in the House of Commons on March 10, and I quote:

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments . . . are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

That’s why this bill is short and simply sets out general principles, such as long-term funding. All the details are in the hundreds of pages of bilateral agreements between Ottawa and the provinces. Ontario’s agreement is 140 pages long; Quebec’s agreements are 47 pages long. The agreements include amounts, funding formulas, specific rules and accountability measures.

I would note that the agreement with Quebec is asymmetrical. It reaffirms Quebec’s exclusive jurisdiction over child care and says that Quebec will have total flexibility to spend the money it gets on improving its network and creating new spaces.

I found two segments of Bill C-35 particularly interesting. The first is in paragraph 7(1)(b), which states that federal investments should aim to “enable families of all income levels, including low incomes, to benefit . . . .”

Helping low-income families is no doubt the most difficult goal for a universal child care program to achieve. Quebec’s experience is proof of that. That was actually one of the two major goals set out in Quebec’s Educational Childcare Act, which was passed 25 years ago.

Unfortunately, the legislation has not had the desired result. The idea was to make the service free for the poorest families to encourage them to register their children in early childhood centres, which are known as CPEs in Quebec. These are high-quality, non-profit child care services. The goal was for children to benefit from early stimulation and more equal opportunities in their schooling.

The fact remains that these families still need to register and spots have to be available. We know that 36% of Quebec children under the age of four do not attend a recognized child care facility. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family, explained to the House of Commons committee that very little is known about the systemic, economic and cultural barriers that impede families’ access to child care.

The 2020-21 report of the Auditor General of Quebec gave some striking examples of such disparities. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, particularly the borough of Montreal North, there are a lot more spaces available in private daycares than in CPEs, whereas the opposite is true in the wealthy neighbourhood of Westmount. In simple terms, richer families have greater access to high-quality CPEs at $8.85 a day than low- and modest-income families, who have greater access to commercial daycares that offer lower-quality services. Children living in families with an income of $50,000 or less are less likely to get a space at a CPE. I find that deeply disturbing.

[English]

The known difference of quality between private daycares and non-profit CPEs should make the province think. The Quebec government did not have the means to meet the full demand, so it turned to the private sector to offer more spots, either by subsidizing them directly or by offering a tax credit. It is more than time to raise quality standards and to enforce them.

Quebec has gone through different stages to try to refine the data and make its waiting list system fairer. Today, there is a single, regularly updated waiting list for all CPEs across Quebec. Right now, for example, we know there are 37,260 children waiting for a spot, a figure that has jumped by 3,700 in one year despite the addition of more than 20,000 subsidized spaces over the past two years. However, even the accuracy of this list is disputed by some.

Despite significant investments, there is a lack of spots for mothers who want to return to work. The reality is that it is the less fortunate families who are worse off. The labour shortage in child care services aggravates the problem.

When I was President of the Quebec Council for the Status of Women, I spent much time thinking about this supposed universal child care model. There is no easy answer.

[Translation]

Let me share a personal anecdote. When the child care program first started 25 years ago, I secured $5-a-day child care spaces for my two children. I was very lucky. It was a daycare at my workplace at Radio-Canada, and there was always a child care educator available in the evening for employees with atypical work schedules. That applied to me because I was covering the news. I simply added my name to a waiting list at the right time. The system was purely first-come, first-served.

That child care centre gave me seven years of peace of mind. I could see that my children were learning and that their tastes were developing thanks to healthy lunches. However, even back then, there were long waiting lists, and some of my lower-income colleagues were not as lucky as I was. The Quebec model is not equitable. That is a lesson Canada should learn from.

The same problem will arise in other provinces. I believe that until there are enough spaces for all children from all walks of life and all neighbourhoods, the principle of universality is unfair if it doesn’t take income into account. I think it’s essential to give priority to less fortunate families. As it stands, the system will provide a daycare space at $8.85 a day to a doctor earning $300,000 if she registers before an orderly who earns six or seven times less than that.

In 2015, the Quebec government abolished the flat rate and charged higher rates to parents with higher incomes, but that reform was later abandoned because of an election campaign. In short, we went back to square one.

The Quebec example illustrates the challenges and the adjustments that were needed along the way, just as they will definitely be needed elsewhere in Canada. Fortunately, the Quebec government has recognized the inequity of access to reduced-contribution spaces and is working to address it. The legislation was amended two years ago to ensure that priority for subsidized child care services is given to children in precarious socio-economic circumstances.

Despite these challenges, I would remind the chamber that the Quebec model has contributed to significant advances in Quebec society, particularly for the middle class.

In 2022, 88% of Quebec women between 25 and 54 years of age were active in the workforce, compared to an average of 84% in the other provinces. Over the years, mothers of young children have been returning to the workforce faster, due in part to good‑quality, affordable daycare. In 25 years, the number of daycare spaces has climbed from 79,000 to 307,000, including 237,000 subsidized spaces. That is a huge increase.

The second thing in the bill that struck me is the annual report that the federal government will be required to prepare. The report has to contain a summary of the progress made in the provincial systems and information about the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of child care services.

The federal public servants who answered our questions at a recent briefing on Bill C-35 were unequivocal: They are depending on the provinces to provide the evidence needed to carry out a real assessment. This evidence must show not only how many spaces costing $10 or less per day were created in each province, but also how many families are still on waiting lists.

Obviously, each province already has its own waiting list system. Some don’t even have a waiting list. With this in mind, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments?

I am going to end by sharing some words from the November 2021 brief prepared by the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, which identifies the primary shortcomings that should be corrected in Quebec’s model. To meet the needs of all women, child care services must take into account mothers with variable work schedules, women with precarious immigration status, and poorer and more vulnerable women.

These are equity issues that have no doubt already been identified in other provinces and territories, but they are difficult to resolve. I hope that other provinces can benefit from Quebec’s experience and that Canadian families — especially the less fortunate ones — can fully benefit from the new program put in place by Bill C-35.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise briefly in support of the motion to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza.

This is, of course, a symbolic gesture. As a pragmatist and former journalist, I cannot help but question these types of initiatives, which often have no real effect. I therefore thought about what this motions means and what significance my support for it would have.

I see two answers.

The first is a desire to publicize Vladimir Kara-Murza’s cause, to make him more visible, to make his courage known, to denounce the injustice he is facing, to increase support for him and to make sure, as much as possible, that he is not forgotten and that his torturers are held to account. Vladimir Kara-Murza has dual Russian-British citizenship. Perhaps our voice will inspire other parliamentarians in London.

As the Washington Post's slogan says, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

Unfortunately, it is already very dark in Russia. This motion is a modest, but legitimate, attempt to bring some light to the darkness and highlight, if only in the history books, that the struggle of this political figure, who is first and foremost a journalist, is just.

The other value of this motion is less about Vladimir Kara-Murza and more about us. The story of his resistance to intimidation, his unfailing courage in the face of those who sought to silence him, his boundless determination to fight for the truth and the public interest, and his fierce independence in the face of power, economic interests and prevailing propaganda should inspire us all.

It goes without saying that our existence as comfortable legislators, living in a peaceful and safe society, is nothing like that of Vladimir Kara-Murza. Our trials and tribulations pale in comparison to his peril. Nevertheless, we can hope that Vladimir Kara-Murza’s heroism will inspire us. The virtues of courage and determination in any quest for truth should not be reserved for Russian dissidents alone. Here, too, the sirens of power and vested interests can compromise our independence and genuine commitment to the public interest.

The exemplary value of Vladimir Kara-Murza extends beyond Russia. Today’s motion should not only draw the attention of Canadians to his fate, but also serve to remind us that we should make his struggle our own. I would like to conclude by quoting the end of this Russian hero’s plea before a kangaroo court, which sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

[English]

This day will come as inevitably as spring follows even the coldest winter. And then our society will open its eyes and be horrified by what terrible crimes were committed on its behalf. From this realization, from this reflection, the long, difficult but vital path toward the recovery and restoration of Russia, its return to the community of civilized countries, will begin.

Even today, even in the darkness surrounding us, even sitting in this cage, I love my country and believe in our people. I believe that we can walk this path.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, according to a disturbing investigative report published in La Presse this weekend, 45% of the videos on Montreal-based Pornhub contain depictions of assault, choking or gagging, and 97% of the targets of these acts are women. The reporter interviewed a young man who became addicted to pornography at the age of eight and another whose sexual behaviour was impacted by his consumption of pornography in which girls were being beaten.

Senator Gold, why isn’t the government publicly supporting my Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material? This bill, now before the House of Commons, would require age verification.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to pay tribute to my guests, all of whom have helped fight sexual exploitation in Quebec. The All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, which I co-chair, organized a riveting panel on this issue today at noon in Parliament.

First of all, I want to pay tribute to Marie-Michelle Desmeules, a survivor who lived through this hell. For 10 years, she endured unspeakable violence at the hands of a pimp. She estimates that she was raped 25,000 times and she now suffers from post‑traumatic stress disorder. We thank you for testifying, Ms. Desmeules.

The Government of Quebec has amended its policy since 2016. Prostitution is now considered sexual exploitation in most cases.

Geneviève Albert, director of the award-winning film Noémie Says Yes, does a brilliant job of explaining that. Contrary to what some people might think, just saying yes is not giving consent. We cannot condone prostitution by hiding behind the misleading argument of consent. Only a very small minority of those who sell sexual services come out unscathed.

Unfortunately, there is no public information campaign to drive home the point that the purchase of sexual services is exploitation, and so the mentality around this issue is not really changing.

Former Quebec minister Christine St-Pierre sat on the Select Committee on the Sexual Exploitation of Minors. Yes, the exercise gave a bit more money to the police and support groups, but that is still not nearly enough to deal with the urgent needs and the normalization of this phenomenon, which has been exacerbated by social media.

Obviously there is consensus to denounce child pornography. However, what happens when these girls, who are entrapped, turn 18? This is when all the contradictions in how we view prostitution crystalize, because the exploitation continues, in many cases, in a context of manipulation and financial, psychological or physical coercion.

Victims such as Marie-Michelle Desmeules inspired criminologist and former federal independent MP Maria Mourani to legislate and to add human trafficking to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime applies. This was a very long battle, in which she was championed in the Senate by none other than Senator Boisvenu.

The new promising initiatives in Quebec include courts specializing in sexual violence to better support victims and a kind of school for the clients of prostitutes, or “John School.”

Officer Ghyslain Vallières, from the Longueuil police service, got involved in a pilot project designed to change the behaviour of men arrested for paying for sexual services. These clients pay a fine and avoid court on the condition that they agree to take part in a day of awareness raising and survivor testimonials.

In closing, I want to paraphrase our filmmaker: It does not have to be this way; prostitution has a solution and it is a political one. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, two years ago, the Senate adopted a motion calling on the government to grant Canadian citizenship to Saudi political prisoner Raif Badawi, but nothing has been done to follow up on that motion.

For the past five years, diplomatic relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia have been suspended because of something Minister Chrystia Freeland tweeted about Mr. Badawi. However, it has now been announced that normal diplomatic relations will resume.

Senator Gold, now that diplomatic relations have been restored with Saudi Arabia, does the Government of Canada intend to grant Raif Badawi Canadian citizenship or is the price of this return to normal our silence with regard to the Saudi regime’s human rights violations?

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

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to commend my guests from Quebec, Pierre Beauregard and Azfar Adib, for their dedication.

Mr. Adib is a PhD candidate in computer engineering at Concordia University. His research focuses on online age‑verification technology in order to ensure both the right to privacy and the safety of users, particularly children.

As for Pierre Beauregard, he’s the person who’s been the most involved in my efforts to advance Bill S-210, which seeks to protect children from exposure to pornography. The trials he has faced in his own life are what made him realize how great a risk these free, easily accessible platforms pose to children.

In 2017, well before I met him, Mr. Beauregard presented a petition to the Quebec National Assembly calling on the Government of Quebec to impose age verification. He has made more and more contacts around the world during the course of his research and activities.

For the past three years, he’s been writing me to keep me informed of all of the developments in the area. In my past career, we would have described Mr. Beauregard as a great source. Today, he’s a valuable ally. Thank you, Pierre. The support of citizens, parents and health professionals has been invaluable to me.

As Bill S-210 begins its journey through the House of Commons, there has been a lot of good news.

In Germany, the courts recently ruled in favour of the government and against MindGeek, the owner of Pornhub, to force it to comply with German law, which requires age verification for all users in that country. The fact that MindGeek houses its servers in Cyprus doesn’t mean it can sidestep German law, which aims to protect its children from serious danger.

In the United Kingdom, a sweeping online safety bill, which mandates age verification for access to pornography and other harmful content, will be passed by July.

In the United States, Louisiana recently became the first state to mandate age verification for online pornography. An additional 26 states, including California, New York and Massachusetts, have passed or are considering passing laws to control minors’ access to harmful online content.

The fight is not over, however. In our country and elsewhere, some people continue to resist and oppose common-sense rules whose drawbacks are minor compared to the importance of the objectives pursued.

Finding the right balance isn’t easy. We need to protect minors, but also protect people’s privacy. We need to protect the innocence of our children, but allow what is legal. We need to regulate pornographic content, but promote modern sex education.

In my view, these challenges are no reason to give up.

Thank you.