Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting. I hope we can move this bill through committee and the Senate with your full support.

Before I get to my remarks, I invite each senator and your staff to watch the recently released Canadian documentary BURNED: Protecting the Protectors. This film tells the story much better than I can. It provides a hard-hitting and emotional examination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAs for short, used in firefighters’ protective gear.

When you take into account the other chemicals they breathe in and are covered in whenever they run into a burning building, there is no surprise that their risk for cancer is so high. That said, our fire departments and firefighters conjure different images for each one us: small volunteer teams, large urban units, some with frequent and simultaneous runs, some in rural regions with tremendous access challenges, and some even from our families. We all know the tremendous importance they play in our communities. We need them.

As the first senator from Waterloo region in 71 years, spending time with our firefighters and first responders has been a priority for me in ensuring that I understand the needs of this community, which includes seven diverse townships. At the height of the pandemic, I visited the fire halls when able and had Zoom calls with the platoons to listen to their ongoing issues.

A few weeks ago, thanks to the last-minute efforts of our Black Rod and his officer Chasse Helbin, we were able to give a group of eight Waterloo firefighters a once-in-a-lifetime tour of the Senate Chamber. They were here for the International Association of Fire Fighters Legislative Conference. These firefighters returned to Waterloo with a very informed understanding of the Senate and were deeply moved by the work we do. I left understanding just how important this legislation before us today is to them.

The bill focuses on occupational cancer, of which our firefighters are at a severely heightened risk. I would like to get some of what I have learned from them since their visit on the record today.

First, from one of the firefighters on his return to Waterloo:

While lobbying for cancer coverage in Ottawa, I returned home, and one of our members died from occupational cancer within the week.

From another:

A common occurrence in our departments is that if members with occupational cancer do make it to retirement without having their careers cut short, or passing away on active duty, then they are dying very soon into retirement.

Firefighters are dying, and dying young, from occupational cancer. These cancers can come from years of exposure to toxic chemicals and gases that are products of combustion. In some cases, this cancer can be directly linked to one incident, such as the Horticultural Technologies fire in Kitchener. This was a large-structure chemical fire in 1987.

Colleagues, for a moment, let’s focus on the impact of this one fire I just referenced, on the lives of those who confronted it. I quote the following personal experiences from Ed Brouwer, an instructor who has diligently researched the devastating effect this one fire had on the lives of those firefighters on duty, years after the flames had been quelled. As he writes, Dave Ferrede:

. . . was a fitness and health nut. He was often teased for eating nuts and berries. He was an avid cyclist, driving his bike through the winter using studded tires. Ferrede . . . played hockey in the Southern Ontario Firefighters Hockey League. . . . In April 1989, in a divisional title game near the end of the third period, Dave scored the winning goal, locking up the division title. Two weeks later, Dave, 32, went on sick leave and was subsequently diagnosed with primary liver cancer. He died within six weeks.

Dave’s death was followed by that of Capt. John Edward Stahley, who:

. . . after being diagnosed with primary liver cancer died in July 1990 at age 57.

During the summer of 1989 —

— all within a few years —

— Sgt. Lloyd MacKillop of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, who had been the supervising police officer at the fire, developed cancer. He died in May 1990 at age 48.

Firefighter John Divo, who was the local union president, was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his lungs and spine. He died in April 1990 at age 46.

Firefighter Henry Lecreux was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He died in February 1993 at age 52.

The following spring, William Misselbrook, who was the day-shift platoon chief at the fire, died of liver cancer. He was 64.

Several other firefighters who attended the blaze have skin cancers, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease and many other health problems.

Information gained from the website for firefighters with Parkinson’s disease showed that 23 of the 69 firefighters called to the blaze have either cancer or Parkinson’s disease. The site also reports that the two Kitchener firefighters, a Waterloo Regional Police constable, and a female paramedic all fathered or gave birth to children with birth defects after their attendance at the fire.

Colleagues, on a global note, last summer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, declared firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning it found sufficient evidence to link the job to the risk of certain cancers. It is one of only five occupations to receive this designation. While firefighters were validated by this announcement, it has taken decades to lobby to get presumptive workers’ compensation coverage. It still does not go far enough.

In Canada last year, 95% of on-duty deaths of Canadian firefighters were linked to cancer. In 2018, a study found cancer killed Canadian firefighters about three times more often than the general population.

What is the greatest exposure that is causing the greatest risks? There are several sources of carcinogens that firefighters regularly encounter. They are chemicals released during fires, smoke and soot, asbestos, exhaust and firefighting gear. Yes, the gear they wear is carcinogenic. You can see the subtle changes if you know where to look. Remember when you or your children posed with firefighters in their gear? This is no longer done, as firefighters keep their protective gear on for as little time as possible.

The bill before us today is the request for the minister to develop a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting, with the goal of improving access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment. The framework should be the result of robust and inclusive consultation. Finally, through this bill, the month of January will be known as firefighter cancer awareness month.

As I close today, I am reminded of my own experiences and curiosity as a young person. At the age of nine, in the wee hours of a snowy December morning, I awoke to the smell of smoke and the sense of heat. I ran from my second-floor bedroom and tried to wake up my brothers and get them out of the house. As we watched our rented farmhouse rage in flames, we waited for the local rural firefighters to arrive. Following the fire, as we tried to salvage some items, even after industrial cleaning, the smell of smoke continued to be so strong — so much that we had to throw away most of what we salvaged. From those days forward, as a curious young person, I always wondered what it was like to fight fires and what the impact of smoke and toxins was. Today, I have a much better idea.

Honourable senators, I ask for your support in getting this bill to committee as soon as possible so we can get the support where it is needed most. Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Yussuff, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for your cogent and penetrating speech. I support the change in terminology. I want to ask you, though, about whether there may be an unintended consequence of changing the term away from “child pornography” to suggest that there may be forms of child pornography that are acceptable. This, in effect, creates a category that we all agree is, in fact, exploitation, but by saying that the old term was inadequate, are we saying it is acceptable?

Senator R. Patterson: Thank you for the question. I think you have a very good point.

In Canada, pornography is not illegal. If you keep that term in there, you focus on that and not necessarily the child.

That is why I think it is very important that this bill goes to committee in order to carefully explore terminology that is being used and to look at what I would say in my old life as second- and third-order consequences of changing this language. I think your point is very good. Thank you.

Hon. Rebecca L. Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

I’d like to begin by thanking members of the other place Frank Caputo and Mel Arnold, the author and sponsor of the bill respectively. I also want to thank our colleague Senator Batters for sponsoring the bill here in the Senate. I think you’ll hear this is an important one.

The topic of child sexual abuse and exploitation can be personally traumatic, as we’ve seen today, because peoples lived experiences vary. Therefore, if any senators, Senate staff and even anyone else listening feels overwhelmed, I urge you to go and take a break or seek support.

Bill C-291 is a relatively simple bill and one which I can support. It seeks to update the term “child pornography” in the Criminal Code with the more accurate “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.”

Why is this important? After all, we are not debating about making the punishment of the actual crime more severe. Equally, it cannot be guaranteed that changing the terminology will have a deterrent effect on those who commit this crime. But, senators, words matter, both structurally and culturally. With this bill, we are being asked to structurally update language which has become a cultural norm.

I will not revisit the various statistics and stories presented by others during debate on this bill, nor will I focus my attention on law enforcement or investigations, both of which were ably covered by my honourable colleagues. Instead, I draw your attention to the importance of language.

As Senator Batters pointed out in her sponsor speech, “pornography,” as a term, can imply a consensual element. And as Senator Miville-Dechêne explained, it may also imply artistic merit. But let’s be clear that sexually explicit material involving children is never consensual, and there is nothing artistic about it.

Originally enacted in 1892, the Criminal Code of Canada has evolved over the decades since, notably in 1993, when child pornography was made a criminal offence. But even then, the term “child pornography” was already somewhat inadequate because in 1991 the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, declared in Article 34 that “States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. . . .”

Even before that, in 1987, the United States Department of Justice created the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to investigate and prosecute the exploitation of and obscenity involving children.

As colleagues will appreciate, this is and has always been all about exploitation and victimization.

A child cannot consent to being exploited. There is always a power imbalance, even among young people, but especially between a child and an adult. The act of creating child-centric pornography is both exploitative and abusive to the victim, and they are forever harmed.

Colleagues will understand that there is no globally accepted term to describe the criminal act we are now debating. However, the Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, also known as the Luxembourg Guidelines, refers to “child sexual exploitation material.”

And as I pointed out, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to both sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Further, the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, to which Canada is a participant, calls on member states to make “sexual exploitation” a criminal offence.

I would note, as did Senator Batters in her speech, that as originally drafted, Bill C-291 could have replaced “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material.” At the Justice and Human Rights Committee in the other place, the bill was amended to include “exploitation” in addition to “abuse.”

Testifying before the committee in the other place, officials from the Department of Justice emphasized that by adding the term “exploitation” to the bill, Parliament would capture more elements, particularly fictional works, and that the amended bill would more accurately reflect the nature of the criminal act.

And I add that this is about victims, because it signals to victims that Parliament and parliamentarians better understand the reality that they are, in fact, being abused and exploited.

While the Rules of the Senate prohibit me from quoting from a speech given by a member in the other place, I would like to share an insight that the Member of Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot pointed out in debate there. It was as recent as 2019 that a trial judge said that a minor should have felt flattered about attracting the attention of an older man. This reflects an antiquated view, demonstrates the power imbalance that exists between children and adults and is exactly the type of cultural misunderstanding that I believe Bill C-291 addresses.

Again, I remind colleagues that this bill does not affect anything structural — that is to say, the actual criminal act or punishment thereof. Rather, it focuses on the cultural aspects of such crimes by seeking to update terminology that better describes the criminal act and reflects the enduring, lifelong impact on the victim.

Colleagues, Parliament has a duty to provide clarity and remove any ambiguity around legal terminology, and as parliamentarians, we need to call out child abuse and exploitation for what it is. If legislators don’t, how will Canadians?

Speaking of clarity, I would be remiss if I didn’t address the point raised by Senator Miville-Dechêne regarding the use of “pédosexuels” in the French translation. I agree with her intervention that there are perhaps broader, more commonly used terms, and I encourage the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to examine that issue.

At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned that I didn’t want to revisit statistics or share stories from victims or investigators, but I have to conclude with some.

COVID-19 changed the world. The pandemic may have kept us physically distant, but technology brought many people together, and not always in good ways. Sadly, that same technology makes it easier to share child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reports that the possession and/or accessing of child pornography is on the rise, up 21%, to be exact, between 2020 and 2021 and 74% compared to the previous five-year average. That is disgraceful.

This bill may be small in scope but it has the potential to have a big impact, because we all know that language matters.

A case in point: Other parliamentarians and I had the privilege to meet with members of the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre this past Tuesday. We learned about the work the force undertakes globally to catch those who abuse and exploit children.

The RCMP are leaders in technology and methods to investigate such crimes and are sought after globally to help enhance other nations’ efforts in this area of criminal investigations. However, somewhat embarrassingly, it was pointed out to us and to our RCMP colleagues by their international colleagues that Canadian criminal law still refers to the crime as a form of pornography rather than the broader and more accurate terminology of “sexual abuse and exploitation.” It was a bit embarrassing.

Therefore, I urge all senators to support this bill at second reading. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Patterson, will you take a question?

Senator R. Patterson: Yes.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Patterson, for that important speech, and especially for indicating all of these international contexts and to indicate that Canada is kind of behind on this particular wording change. Many other international partners in this important work have changed these terms long ago or perhaps never even used the term “child pornography,” which is so outdated and incorrect.

I just want to make it very clear that how this bill is going to be handled is that in every single place that the words “child pornography” are used in the Criminal Code and these associated acts, the intent and purpose of this bill is to change all of those occurrences.

I can certainly see from esteemed colleagues in law enforcement that we want to make sure this has only good intentions. I also want to make it clear to the Canadian public that in every single place this is listed as “child pornography” it will then be listed as “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” to actually confirm that’s what this is.

Senator R. Patterson: Thank you, Senator Batters. Of course, I fully support the direction that you are taking with this.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. René Cormier Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, which was tabled in this chamber on March 30.

As honourable senators know, the Canadian francophonie is currently facing many challenges because of the decline in its demographic weight, as confirmed by the most recent census data from Statistics Canada.

The ubiquity of the English language, the aging population and the declining birth rate are having a disproportionate impact on the survival and promotion of the French fact in Canada.

[English]

It is clear that the future of the Canadian francophonie and the French language depends on our ability to welcome, retain and integrate francophone immigrants into all regions of our vast country. Francophone immigration is a key element in ensuring the development and vitality of francophone minority communities.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments, including municipalities and their community partners, have roles to play in addressing the current demographic deficit that threatens the continuation of a balanced and thriving linguistic duality in Canada.

[Translation]

Recognizing these challenges, and at the request of the Senate, from March 2022 to February 2023, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages conducted a major study on the issue.

Our committee held 11 meetings, heard from more than 56 witnesses and received five briefs for its examination of the issues affecting francophone immigration to official language minority communities.

I would like to sincerely thank every member of the committee for their hard work throughout this study, and I want to thank the organizations and individuals who appeared before the committee or submitted briefs.

[English]

This report lists 12 specific and concrete recommendations to the federal government, specifically to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

The committee hopes that these recommendations will serve to inspire the future francophone immigration policy, which is explicitly included in the long-awaited Bill C-13, which aims to modernize the Official Languages Act and to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act.

[Translation]

I won’t go into the details of all the recommendations, but some of them are noteworthy because they aim to maintain a strong, diverse and vibrant francophonie, thereby reinforcing the linguistic duality of our country.

These recommendations include adopting a comprehensive, coordinated and ambitious francophone immigration policy adapted to the needs of the communities, a policy that will address all partners and cover the entire francophone integration pathway.

They also include setting a new target for francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec, a growing target that is adapted to regional realities and based on reliable data, a target that will focus on the remedial character of language rights and on restoring the demographic weight of francophone minority communities.

[English]

These recommendations also call for the development of a francophone diplomatic strategy and that IRCC — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — review its recruitment and promotion activities for francophone immigration, whether by increasing the capacity of visa offices in sub-Saharan Africa or by facilitating the reception and resettlement of francophone refugees from member countries of the Francophonie.

They also call for greater awareness of equity, diversity, inclusion and gender equality issues among IRCC and Global Affairs Canada employees.

[Translation]

With respect to governance, these recommendations also call for the creation of an assistant deputy minister position responsible for the francophone immigration file.

Esteemed colleagues, these are a few of the recommendations in this important report, which I invite you to read.

In conclusion, there is one thing that is clear about immigration: All the links in the chain leading to Canadian citizenship are interconnected, and working in silos is detrimental. At every step in the process, from promotion and recruitment to reception, retention and integration, all the way to permanent residency and Canadian citizenship, all partners must work together to ensure the objectives are reached.

That is why the next francophone immigration policy must impose a bold, strong and coordinated approach.

Colleagues, as chair of this committee, I move that:

That the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Official Languages.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: My apologies, Senator Omidvar, I must interrupt proceedings.

Honourable senators, it is 5:15 p.m., therefore I must interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to rule 9-6, the bells will ring to call in the senators for taking of the deferred vote at 5:30 p.m. in response to the message on Bill C-11.

Call in the senators.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Your Honour.

As my colleague Senator Cormier did, I wish to rise very briefly to speak on the report by the Social Affairs Committee, which I will put to you for consideration and approval.

It is a report on gender-based analysis plus. It is focused on the policy processes in the federal government. I want to very quickly provide you with an overview of the history of gender‑based analysis plus and the work that we did.

The approach in the federal government on gender-based analysis was first developed in 1995 when the government committed to implementing gender-based analysis throughout federal governments and agencies. In 2001, gender-based analysis underwent a rebranding in becoming gender-based analysis plus so as to include identity factors beyond gender in the analysis of programs and policies.

So gender-based analysis plus was officially expanded to include race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, gender, geography, culture, income, sexual orientation, education, sex and language.

In 2018, more changes came. The administration of gender‑based analysis plus went from being an agency to an official department of the Government of Canada.

However, notwithstanding the stated commitment to gender‑based analysis plus, barriers have persisted to a full implementation of intersectional policy analysis, which is the true aspiration of gender-based analysis plus.

The Auditor General of Canada has tabled three reports which identified such barriers beginning as early as 2009.

The most recent report by the Auditor General was released last May. It found that, despite some actions taken in and across government to identify and address barriers, gaps persist in departments and agencies in their capacity to perform gender‑based analysis plus. It is still not fully integrated into policy development and implementation.

In light of the Auditor General’s report, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology decided to undertake a study at the urging of my colleagues Senator Dasko and Senator Moodie. We heard from six experts and advocates before concluding by hearing from the Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and officials from Women and Gender Equality Canada.

We also heard some success stories. I am an optimist. I think the members of my committee are too. I am going to share a few of the success stories that we heard about policy analysis in gender-based analysis plus.

For instance, the application of gender-based analysis plus caused changes to be implemented to programs and policies. Examples include the Black Entrepreneurship Program, the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy, the 50 — 30 Challenge and the COVID-19 emergency response.

We also noted that Women and Gender Equality Canada has experienced a year-to-year measured increase in certain indicators including the number of departments that have designated gender-based analysis plus champions and the number of departments in government that are actually formally using it.

I believe Canada should be proud to be a pacesetter in implementing the concept of gender-based analysis plus throughout the federal government. We found no other comparators. But, no doubt, more needs to be done.

Therefore, the committee is making 15 recommendations to fulfill our aspirations. Let me just give you a taste of them. I will not read them all out. I encourage you to read the report, but just a few to tickle your curiosity.

First, the name, gender-based analysis plus. We heard from many witnesses about the current name of the policy framework as it —

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I will try to pick up where I left off, talking about the Senate Social Affairs Committee’s report on gender-based analysis plus in the federal government. I was giving you just a taste of the recommendations. You will have to go and read the full report.

The first recommendation I want to share with you is about the branding of gender-based analysis plus. To me, it has always sounded like alphabet soup, and this was confirmed by many witnesses. In particular, they emphasized the implicit hierarchy in gender-based analysis plus, with the plus as a secondary thought and concern.

In addition, Sarah Kaplan, Director of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto, stated that: “The ’Plus’ focuses on adding race or income or disability or Indigeneity to gender rather than considering them simultaneously . . . .” This, I think, is what we would call intersectionality. For these reasons, the committee is recommending that the Government of Canada, led by Women and Gender Equality Canada, rebrand gender-based analysis plus as gender and diversity analysis.

Witnesses identified eight major barriers to the full implementation of gender-based analysis plus in the Government of Canada: training, timing, capacity, funding, data, measuring outcomes, accountability and leadership and perceptions and resistance.

There were a few recommendations that will capture this chamber’s attention because Parliament plays a role in using GBA Plus in our own work. We recommend that the Government of Canada table GBA Plus for all government bills when introduced in either chamber of Parliament and that Women and Gender Equality Canada, or WAGE, establish resources for parliamentary committees to support their use of GBA Plus when considering legislation.

We have other important recommendations on disaggregated data and impacts. We also heard about leadership because, in every construct, leadership matters. WAGE is clearly one champion, as is its minister, but GBA Plus is a feature of public service. We therefore need to consider a few public service levers.

A possible solution is that the Government of Canada factor the quality and implementation of GBA Plus into performance evaluations for senior management and, in addition, we recommend that the Clerk of the Privy Council be named as a champion for GBA Plus, leading the Privy Council Office and working across government to ensure its implementation throughout the federal government and its agencies.

So, colleagues, I move:

That the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Motion as amended agreed to on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user‑generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Motion as amended agreed to on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis, tabled in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight, or AOVS, is focused on ensuring that it is well positioned to provide independent and transparent oversight to support the Senate in its accountability. The committee unanimously agreed that establishing strong oversight processes is the next big step in fulfilling our mandate. In order to do so, the committee finds that it is essential to meet with its counterpart in the United Kingdom.

The U.K. House of Lords Audit and Risk Committee, the U.K. House of Commons audit committees and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, or IPSA, have a similar mandate and structures as AOVS and have been in operation for over a decade now.

AOVS is at an important and high-profile stage in its work as a new committee: hiring a chief audit executive, establishing a new internal audit function, providing direction on improving and approving a risk-based internal audit plan, approving internal audit resource needs and setting other new practices, for example, an internal audit charter establishing how to liaise with Internal Economy on internal audit matters and so on. The committee is looking to the practices in some comparable models that would help to inform this next phase.

The committee is particularly interested in the lessons learned and best practices from IPSA and the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, or SCIPSA; the House of Commons audit committees, which are the Administration Estimate Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Members Estimate Audit Committee; and the House of Lords Audit and Risk Committee — each of which have external members. The purpose of these meetings would be to have candid, in-person discussions on various audit and oversight matters, many of which would be sensitive or confidential in nature. The audit committees and IPSA do not hold public meetings.

All members of the committee would participate in a full week of meetings. From a business continuity perspective, the members feel it is important for the full committee — especially the external members and chief audit executive, who are not impacted by the election cycle — to participate in this important knowledge transfer from the committee’s counterparts in the U.K.

Colleagues, for this purpose and for these reasons, I hope you will consider this budget. The knowledge that would be gained on this trip is integral to the committee’s mandate, and it would help guide the committee’s future work and ensure it is well positioned to fulfill its essential and independent oversight responsibilities.

Thank you.

Hon. David Arnot moved the adoption of the report.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Frances Lankin: Will the honourable senator take a question please?

Senator Klyne: Absolutely.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boyer, calling the attention of the Senate to the positive contributions and impacts that Métis, Inuit, and First Nations have made to Canada, and the world.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.