Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Money laundering is a crime, and we have laws against those crimes. We have provincial police forces, the RCMP and the Attorneys General in all of the provinces to enforce those laws.

This is a serious issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in this chamber with regard to what specific steps might be taken outside of specific investigations of which, obviously, no comment can be, or should be, made. With regard to any further legislative measures, I will have to make inquiries.

This remains a serious problem in a number of different sectors, and this government, like all governments, is committed to addressing it.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

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. Marty Deacon: Senator Batters, thank you so much for your time and collaboration with the House, and for sharing it this afternoon. I know it’s late in the day, and people are tired, but it’s really important. I think it’s timely — I can’t even use the word “pornography” when I’m talking to the families of people I work with. I find it absolutely disturbing, uncomfortable and insulting in 2023.

With that being said, I’m really quite happy to see this at this time — the data is alarming, disturbing and gut-wrenching. I’m not a lawyer — by changing the term, I wonder what that does in the latitude, the possibility and the work that a lawyer can do. Does it also change the scope and the reality of that work, in addition to finding the importance of calling this what it is?

Senator Batters: It certainly does not impede the work of a lawyer. They took great care — I believe there’s even a particular section in the bill, and certainly in the work that was done in the House of Commons and at committee. Certainly, at the Senate Legal Committee, we will ensure that this is only a change in the term. It in no way impacts any of the definitions. Every single part of the bill simply intends to make that change from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” I’m a lawyer; Frank Caputo is a lawyer — we want to ensure that this helps the situation. None of us want to do anything to impede that, and we’re quite confident that is the case.

Senator M. Deacon: I was referring to the enhanced part, not the impeding part so much. There have been interesting cases, and I’m wondering if it also, perhaps, enhanced your work.

Senator Batters: Yes, as I indicated in my speech — and I’m sorry that it went on for a while, as it’s very dry in here, so I’m sorry about my voice on that. Certainly, this is something that’s being done internationally. There’s hope that it will be more understood by the general public that this is not something that should be even potentially considered as entertainment, art or anything like that. This is degrading, disgusting material. This is abuse of these children who are forced to be in this scenario. This is not for entertainment. Yes, I’m hopeful that it will help improve the situation, even in a small way. Thank you.

Senator Cotter: It’s a great initiative — and great research on your speech. Thanks from all of us for the work you did here. Your friend and colleague Frank Caputo is my former student; I feel bonded to this issue in a certain way. It reminds me of how old I am.

My question is as follows: I agree with you that words matter, but do you — or the sponsors of this bill in the House — have a view about their comfort level around the substance of the offence as well? You mentioned high levels of conviction in Saskatchewan in cases where charges are laid, but what’s your read on that, and whether that’s also a dimension of what might need to be considered here?

Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Cotter. I was going to mention that not only is Frank Caputo a proud product of the University of Saskatchewan law school, but so is the judge, Greg Koturbash, whom I quoted in that case. I don’t know if you taught him as well — anyway, thank you. Kudos for U of S Law.

That’s the thing about private members’ bills. The most successful ones try to take a particular thing and make that change.

So perhaps there is something more to be done about the definition or what have you, but this is the particular part that Mr. Caputo and Mr. Arnold decided to go with, and I think that’s smart. Sometimes a private member’s bill can get a bit too all‑encompassing.

Perhaps that’s something to look at in the future, but this is what we’ve chosen to do right now. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Ontario), debate adjourned.)

Senator Plett: Leader, isn’t it embarrassing that the Prime Minister used President Biden’s visit to hide the truth from Canadians?

Senator Anderson: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is it agreed?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Ask the question.

Senator Clement: Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Abram Benedict told my office that his community is concerned about the evolving situation, too. Akwesasne residents have to pass through the Cornwall port of entry, sometimes multiple times a day, in order to do business, go to work or school and seek health care. Long lines and appropriate staffing are already a challenge, he said. Now, wait times are expected to be even longer as more and more people come to the border seeking asylum.

How will the federal government work with communities like Akwesasne to ensure that residents can travel safely without impediment? How can we ensure the Canada Border Services Agency is properly staffed to minimize disruption to residents of Akwesasne and Cornwall?

Senator Gold: I know that work is being done to prepare all aspects of our institutions, law enforcement and others for the days and months ahead.

I don’t have a specific answer to your question, but I am advised that the government has reached out to the community in order to discuss those matters with them.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative, and it is regarding the budget tabled this week.

Observers are calling this a watershed budget, as it has provided significant support to green technology, taking the Canadian industry up to a new level, in part to keep up with the major incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and other similar measures in Europe and other countries. There’s a great deal that Canadians can do to advance this industry for domestic purposes and build our international competitiveness in green technology.

Can you outline, Senator Gold, what the government is doing to build this Canadian industry, create jobs and fight climate change?

Senator Anderson: When Ministers Bennett and Miller spoke and appointed the board, they were very clear that they were going to consult. Both were very clear that consultations would happen with the Indigenous groups and with provinces and territories.

In my opinion, this bill has no foundation. The foundation of a bill does not come after it passes. That time has passed.

I also want to point out that the preamble of the bill, which reasserts all the values of meaningful consultation — UNDRIP — are not in the bill; they are in the preamble. They are not legally binding. That should be concerning. A clear example of that is the importance and value of Indigenous languages. Yet, in the bill, the two languages are French and English.

Hon. Scott Tannas: We have run into this before. It seems incredibly ironic that we run into it on this particular bill.

I’m wondering, Senator Anderson, whether you think we should be voting to defeat this bill or whether we should pass it through to committee and have it consider what happened with Bill S-3, where we called government back in and told them to go do the consultation and then come back; that we would hold on to the bill until it is done properly.

Would that be a solution or would you prefer that we just defeat it right now and go back to the drawing board?

Senator Cotter: The metaphor begins in the back row of where the senators were seated in the other place. Seven of us were more or less at the back, and one of the senators — I can’t mention their name, but let me just say I was seated directly behind and near a distinguished psychiatrist from Nova Scotia. This senator, I think in an attempt to honour Senator Wells’ early work sponsoring a private member’s bill on single sport event betting, proposed that we conduct a round of betting on how long President Biden’s speech would be. I think we each contributed about a million dollars to the betting, and we asked the most trusted member of our little group of seven, Senator Clement, to hold the money. To give you an idea of how much trust we had, we insisted on not one but two timekeepers to keep the honesty more or less intact. It was a close call, but the winner was Senator Loffreda.

On reflection, I thought this was a metaphor for life, particularly for this topic. With apologies to Senator Loffreda, the metaphor is, “The bankers always win.”

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 30^th day of March 2023, at 10:03 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bills Assented to Thursday, March 30, 2023:

An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder (Bill S-203, Chapter 2, 2023)

An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023 (Bill C-43, Chapter 3, 2023)

An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024 (Bill C-44, Chapter 4, 2023)

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to honour the achievements of remarkable women, including two of our very own senators. On International Women’s Day, Women of Influence+ released their list of the Top 25 Women of Influence Awards recipients. These awards, “. . . acknowledge the unique achievements of diverse women representing various sectors, career stages, and contributions to the advancement of women.”

This year’s recipients include Senator Rosa Galvez, whose environmental work was particularly highlighted. Her career provides an excellent example to young women and girls who, like Senator Galvez herself, may have decided early in life what they wished to accomplish. Senator Galvez, that 10-year-old girl who dreamed of working toward contributing to a cleaner and healthier environment would certainly be proud of all you have done. I know I speak for all senators when I say that we know you are not finished yet. Congratulations.

The other recipients this year are Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Louise Aspin, Kirstin Beardsley, Linda Biggs, Elvalyn Brown, Dr. Vivien Brown, Margaret Coons, Jan De Silva, Lovepreet Deo, Natalie Evans Harris, Allison Forsyth, Haben Girma, the Honourable Karina Gould, Eva Havaris, Nicole Janssen, Janet Ko, Maya Kotecha and Carly Shuler, Dr. Rachel Ollivier, Bobbie Racette, Paulette Senior, Domee Shi, Christine Sinclair and Suzie Yorke. They represent a wide array of careers and achievements, and I offer my congratulations to them all.

In addition to those 25 outstanding women, they also named a Lifetime Achievement Award, and I am pleased to report that it is our very own Senator Dr. Wanda Thomas Bernard.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.