Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): You know, leader, every time we raise something, you question our integrity instead of questioning the integrity of the people who broke laws and who are lying.

Before the House committee on Friday, the former president of the Trudeau Foundation said its board members attacked her for her wanting to look into the truth behind Beijing’s $200,000 gift. You say Mr. Rosenberg is a respected person. He misled. He misled when he said something that was not true.

Government leader, it’s ridiculous for you to keep saying the Prime Minister has no links to the foundation.

On April 11, 2016, a meeting took place, leader, between deputy ministers from five departments and the Trudeau Foundation. This meeting was held, Mr. Leader, down the street, on the fourth floor of the Prime Minister’s Office building. It took place six months after Justin Trudeau became the Prime Minister and three years after he claimed he no longer was involved in the foundation.

There are dozens of boardrooms throughout Ottawa where that meeting could have taken place, but it wasn’t held in any of them. The reason why it was held at the Prime Minister’s Office, leader, is obvious to everybody, even to you, leader. How can you defend that? I have some very simple questions, leader, and please answer them. Don’t tell me how respectable everybody is.

Leader, it shouldn’t take you very long to find these answers. Was this the only meeting with the Trudeau Foundation and the Prime Minister’s Office, or have there been others? If not, how many were there? When? And why did they take place in the Prime Minister’s Office?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Downe after Question Period on March 30, as well as a subsequent point of order raised by Senator Housakos on April 25.

In terms of the point of order of March 30, the remarks made during Question Period, which gave rise to the concerns, alleged that a member of the other place, holding a key position in public office, had misled Canadians. Then a very strong term, best avoided in parliamentary business, was used. Following a request from a senator, several other senators offered input on this matter on April 19.

Rule 6-13(1) deals with the language used in debate. It states that “[a]ll personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.” As indicated at page 85 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

There is no definitive list of words or expressions that are deemed unparliamentary. Determination of what constitutes unparliamentary language is left primarily to the judgment of the Speaker and the sense of the Senate. The circumstances and tone of the debate in question play important roles in this determination.

This is, of course, not the first time such issues have been raised. I note, in particular, a similar point of order raised on December 3, 2020, concerning remarks made during debate on a motion to authorize a committee to study a government contract.

I once again urge honourable senators to be mindful of the need for caution when participating in proceedings. In particular, parliamentary practice holds that “[d]isrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House [of Commons] and the Senate individually are not permitted.” This is at page 620 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which then goes on to emphasize that “Members of the House and the Senate are also protected by this rule.” In speaking of our colleagues, whether in the Senate or the other place, we should therefore be guided by the need to show respect and to avoid intemperate personalized attacks, including impugning motives.

Senator Housakos’ related point of order of April 25, dealt with remarks and actions that took place between senators following an exchange in the Senate. He argued that a particular senator had been “maligned and injured” and made reference to rule 2-9(2), which states that “[s]enators who consider themselves to have been offended or injured in the Senate Chamber … may appeal to the Senate for redress.” On the other hand, some colleagues claimed that the language and actions at issue were not excessive and not without precedent in the Senate.

Honourable senators, with the privilege of sitting in this house comes responsibility. We all work together for the good of our country. We can certainly disagree, and can even disagree strongly. Indeed, the exchange of conflicting ideas is vital to the health of our parliamentary system. We should, however, always act with civility and respect towards our fellow parliamentarians, and all persons we deal with or mention. All of us are responsible for ensuring the proper functioning of this institution, and we must avoid undermining it or each other.

Language and actions are powerful. Parliament should provide an example of productive and respectful debate, of a type that we do not always see elsewhere in society. We have a role to be leaders and must choose our words wisely. More practically, I am concerned about how such issues could harm the culture of the Senate and risk having deleterious effects on our work.

In light of all this, I am sure that honourable senators will understand the concerns that have been raised. Senators could have shown their strong views in ways that were less inflammatory. I strongly urge moderation and restraint by senators so that we can best fulfil our work on behalf of all Canadians. Collaboration from all colleagues is essential; the Senate must remain a forum for respectful debate while also retaining its characteristic as a body where each of us assumes responsibility for maintaining order and decorum.

In these specific cases, I must find that the events of which Senators Downe and Housakos complained did go beyond the limits of proper parliamentary behaviour. I ask colleagues to be mindful of these factors in the future. Specific actions relating to these cases would, however, require a decision from the Senate, in keeping with our collective responsibility for how our Senate functions.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Morris Rosenberg was a distinguished public servant who served the country well and whose report and the conclusions of the report were accepted across all quarters.

I am not aware of what was known at the time and what was communicated to him or others at the time that the donation was made. We now understand and know much more than may have been known at the time. Just because someone uses the term “misled,” which I have heard in this chamber directed at me, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, it’s clear that the $200,000 gift the Trudeau Foundation received from the Communist regime in Beijing was part of their plan to influence Trudeau and to interfere with our democracy.

On Friday, Pascale Fournier, the former president of the Trudeau Foundation, told a House committee that her predecessor, Morris Rosenberg, misled Canadians when he said Beijing’s $200,000 gift to the foundation was Canadian money and not foreign money. Ms. Fournier says there are emails and receipts that reveal the truth: that an association tied to Beijing dictated the terms for transferring those funds.

Leader, in light of Ms. Fournier’s testimony last week, does your government still stand by its choice of Mr. Rosenberg to write the report on foreign interference in the 2021 election, when he, in fact, misled the people on where the money was coming from?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and, again, for underlining the fact that so many Canadians are still experiencing difficulty with the basic necessities of life.

Yes, it’s true that inflation is continuing to fall, but not at the grocery store to the same extent, and not in other areas. But the Government of Canada has been and continues to be there to provide assistance to Canadians in this regard. We are in second‑reading debate on Bill C-46, which will continue this week, which will provide 11 million Canadians with assistance with putting food on their table. The budget implementation act and previous economic statements have also provided a suite of measures to assist Canadians.

It’s also the case that the government continues to move forward, and does so unapologetically, with measures in place to put a price on pollution to make sure that we strike the right balance between providing assistance to those Canadians most in need now and making sure that we do the right thing for their children, their grandchildren and, indeed, for this planet.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to support Bill S-251, Senator Kutcher’s bill proposing to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. This provision authorizes schoolteachers and parents — and persons standing in the place of parents — to use reasonable force by way of correction.

The bill before us continues long and determined efforts to achieve this reform. Over the past 30 years, there have been 17 previous bills, in both houses, aimed at repealing or amending section 43, including one by our former colleague Senator Hervieux-Payette.

Why should this attempt succeed when so many have failed? I will suggest five reasons.

First, repealing section 43 is no longer just a question of children’s rights. As the bill before us recognizes, repealing section 43 is a necessary step in meeting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation, as recommended by Call to Action 6 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Second, in doing so, Canada will join an ever-increasing number of states. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision on section 43 in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Attorney General in Right of Canada. At the time, 15 states prohibited all forms of corporal punishment of children. Today, that number exceeds 65, and an additional 27 states have:

. . . publicly committed to enacting legislation to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children, however light, in all settings including the home, without delay.

Third, repealing section 43 is a necessary step to place Canada in compliance with its international obligations. It is true, as the Supreme Court majority observed in 2004 in Canadian Foundation, that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child does not “explicitly require state parties to ban all corporal punishment of children.”

However, it is also true that, two years later, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child clarified that the convention requires states to remove all provisions that allow some degree of violence against children, whether in their homes, their families or in any other setting.

Indeed, the committee specifically referred to the example of provisions for “reasonable correction” as a type of provision that should be removed — which is precisely what section 43 of our Criminal Code does. As the committee explained, the convention, “like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time.”

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence around the efficacy of corporal punishment — or, rather, inefficacy — is clear and compelling. The corporal punishment of children and youth “plays no useful role in their upbringing and poses only risks to their development,” as mentioned by previous speakers on this bill. Indeed, the wealth of research around the “adverse lifespan consequences for children and the societal harm associated with physical punishment” should give us pause.

This brings me to my fifth and final reason why this attempt to repeal section 43 must succeed. It is the fact that public acceptance of section 43 is heading in only one direction: downwards.

Since 2004, 673 organizations from coast to coast to coast have signed the Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. This statement, developed by “a national coalition of organizations facilitated by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario,” recommends various actions, including “provision of the same protection of children from physical assault as is given to Canadian adults . . . .”

This means repealing section 43, which denies children — and only children — equal protection vis-à-vis the assault provisions of the criminal law.

At this juncture, it is perhaps helpful to spend a moment reflecting on the history of section 43 to understand that its sources are no longer relevant and by far obsolete.

Section 43’s immediate antecedents lie in the Parliament of Canada’s original codification of the Criminal Code in 1892, slightly after Confederation. At the time, section 55 was the codification of the common law rule that recognized the concept of “reasonable correction” as being part of the English common law. However, “reasonable correction” is far from a Canadian invention. As I said, it was a common law principle.

This principle was established in a case rendered in 1860 called R. v. Hopley. That decision dealt with the manslaughter charge against a teacher who, in the course of administering corporal punishment, beat a teenage pupil to death.

Although the teacher was convicted, the Hopley case endorsed the permissibility of inflicting “. . . moderate and reasonable corporal punishment . . .” for the purposes of “. . . correcting what is evil in the child . . . .”

It is interesting to note that Hopley’s reasoning rests on Roman principles, including the principle of patria potestas, whereunder fathers held the power of life and death over their children.

William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England stated:

The ancient Roman laws gave the father a power of life and death over his children; upon this principle, that he who gave had also the power of taking away . . . .

The power of a parent by our English laws is much more moderate; but still sufficient to keep the child in order and obedience. He may lawfully correct his child being under age, in a reasonable manner; for this is for the benefit of his education . . . . He may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction . . . .

Of course, the range of conduct defensible under section 43 since the 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court is much more curtailed than what was once allowed in the name of “reasonable correction.” However, the source of that principle goes back to the Roman Empire and 2,000 years ago when we could say that a man was the owner of his house, of his wife, of his children and had ultimate power to correct because education was done through correction. Fortunately, school teachers are no longer of that class of people, as my fearless leader knows.

However, as we consider section 43’s future, it is important, I believe, not to lose sight of the past. The raison d’être of section 43 is, and has always been, about one thing and one thing only: allowing the corporal punishment of children to correct them.

I would like to conclude by addressing the apprehension around the consequences that might flow from section 43’s repeal — namely, as Justice Arbour framed it in 2004 — and she was dissenting — the concern that:

Striking down s. 43 will not expose parents and persons standing in the place of parents to the blunt instrument of the criminal law for every minor instance of technical assault. . . .

Of course, she was making fun of the threat.

To borrow one example from debate, I think we can all agree, colleagues, that no parent should face criminal sanctions for forcing a reluctant child into a car seat. However, I would also hope we can all agree that no parent should enjoy permission to give their child a whack after getting them into the car seat.

Likewise, I think we can all agree that no teacher should face criminal sanctions for intervening to stop a fight or requiring a disruptive student to leave the classroom.

That happened to me in the past. I was asked to go into the corridor a few times. I am much better now.

However, I would also hope we can all agree that no teacher should enjoy permission to whip out the ruler — or worse — as was commonplace not so long ago.

I do remember the nuns using the ruler in the classroom. They asked you to come forward, to put your hand out and then they slapped it.

Interacting with children, whether as parents or teachers, engages a range of physical contact that falls far short of the conduct that comes to mind when we think of corporal punishment. That is undeniable. The question then becomes whether the criminal law and criminal process, as currently structured, could be used to charge these people who are just preventing something from happening.

A precise answer to this question is perhaps best left to the committee in its study. However, I would like to point out that the words of the Supreme Court, as well as the experience of other countries that have done away with provisions similar to section 43, have not shown that kind of odd consequence.

In 2004, when the Supreme Court majority upheld section 43’s constitutionality, three of the nine justices disagreed. Justice Arbour, in particular, took great effort to address the question of how parents and teachers would be protected despite the removal of section 43 considering the state of the law in Canada.

She concluded that “The common law defences of necessity and de minimis adequately protect parents and teachers from excusable and/or trivial conduct. . . .”

We would also be remiss to ignore the important — and effective — role of prosecutorial discretion in weeding out trivial and insignificant cases.

Likewise, section 34 of the Criminal Code contemplates the defence of oneself or others: You intervene to protect yourself or to protect somebody. That is a defence. In the case of a teacher who intervenes between fighting students, for instance, it is difficult to imagine what protection, if any, section 43 adds to the protection already available under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

In the international context, a recent experience in New Zealand, where they got rid of a similar provision, has shown that teachers have not been sued by the Crown for having separated children that were fighting. In fact, in 2007, New Zealand went further. It amended the Crimes Act to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment of children, including in their home. That was targeted to parents.

Similarly, in 2000, the Supreme Court of Israel did away with the defence of reasonable correction, which, until then, found expression in the country’s common law source. They said that, as for “. . . insignificant cases that do not justify enforcement within the framework of the criminal law,” the court raised the mechanisms of prosecutorial discretion, and the principles of de minimis and necessity.

In conclusion, I think our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee could look carefully at the bill and dispel the concerns raised by some teachers’ associations, try to put everything in context and remind the public that section 43 can go away and a disaster will not occur afterwards.

Colleagues, I think it’s time to send Canadians the message that the power to impose physical correction is not the right way to educate children. That’s not the way we educate our children nowadays. Maybe the Romans thought that was the way to go, but I think we should depart from these old sources. Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, for the second reading of Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-224, the national framework on cancers linked to firefighting act. It is my honour to be the sponsor in the Senate, and I thank you for giving me the time and the opportunity to explain the importance of this bill, as well as why we need to refer it to committee for further study without delay.

Senators, workers don’t go to work expecting to die, but that’s exactly what is happening to our firefighters — at an alarming rate — in every community across this country because of the consistent exposure to high levels of carcinogens that may lead to cancers. Bill C-224 is a positive step to help address this issue, and it includes two key measures to support our firefighters in their fight against cancer.

First, it promotes education and awareness about cancers linked to firefighting by designating January as a national firefighter cancer awareness month.

The second and most crucial measure in the legislation is the establishment of a national framework to study these cancers. Without research, current data and information sharing between jurisdictions, firefighters will keep going in blind when it comes to protecting themselves on the job. Senators, I want to talk to you today about what this bill concerns, and how it can help the men and women of the fire service who risk their lives to save ours.

I would say that many of us in this chamber would not sign up for a job that requires running headfirst into danger. Our odds of signing up for that job would be even less upon learning that it would leave us with a four-times-higher risk of developing cancer. This is why we are senators and not firefighters.

What I just described is a job for the estimated 126,000 firefighters working in some 3,200 fire departments across this country. These brave men and women show up to work knowing that 85% of fatal workplace claims in their profession are attributed to occupational cancers.

For decades, we have used a patchwork approach to address the issue of cancers linked to firefighting. While some provinces and territories have recognized as many as 20 different types of cancers linked to firefighting, others have recognized only 9. This is unacceptable for firefighters and their families. The ability of workers to receive workers’ compensation because their job made them sick should not be dependent on the province or the territory they happen to live in — period.

Bill C-224 addresses this problem by providing for the development of a national framework that examines the link between firefighting and cancer, and by identifying gaps in training and education for firefighters and health care professionals around cancer prevention and treatment.

The framework will also provide for recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting. It will encourage knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting. This bill goes a long way toward helping Canadian firefighters focus on one thing: doing their job.

Senators, it is true that firefighters, like all first responders, sign up for a certain degree of risk. They sign up to show up for their neighbours on the worst days of their lives, to run into buildings when everyone is running out and, increasingly, to respond to medical calls. But they do not sign up to die — no worker in this country does.

Today, we are asking our firefighters to assume a level of risk above and beyond the call of duty, and a level of risk above what any reasonable person should expect of them. Families should not be forced to bear the burden of watching their loved ones get sick, and face losing them to occupational cancers.

I recently had the honour to speak with Craig and Alisen Bowman of Welland, Ontario. Craig is 47 years old, a proud husband to Alisen and a proud father to Lexi and Colin. He was a professional firefighter for over 20 years with the City of Welland. He was diagnosed with stage 4 esophageal cancer in May of last year.

Craig, as you can imagine, was fit and healthy prior to his diagnosis. He had no family history of cancer, and his doctors attribute his diagnosis to his work as a firefighter. To compound the stress that his family is going through, Craig is not eligible for workers’ compensation. He is two years short of the 25-year service requirement for esophageal cancer.

Colleagues, Craig’s fight was preventable; we know this now. We are now learning that in addition to the damage inflicted by the actual fires, the gear that they wear to protect themselves from those fires could be making them sick, too.

This is compounded by the fact that they often don’t have the proper decontamination facilities or protocols to mitigate the impact of carcinogens lingering on their gear. We need this national framework to better understand the short-term and long-term health impacts of these realities.

None of this is news to firefighters. For years, they have been sounding the alarm about high rates of cancer among their colleagues, and they were right. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, 95% of firefighters’ line-of-duty deaths are linked to occupational cancer.

The World Health Organization recently designated firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogenic profession — reinforcing its status among the most dangerous jobs in the world.

Senators, Bill C-224 is designed to provide real information, solutions and accountability to firefighters facing the ongoing threat of occupational cancer. The accountability piece of this bill is crucial.

Within a year of the bill becoming law, the minister responsible must table a report setting out the national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

Within five years of this report being tabled, the minister must report back to Parliament on the effectiveness of the national framework, as well as report back on the state of the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

Various provinces and territories have been involved with this issue for years. Bill C-224 will hopefully encourage their continued collaboration, and help municipal, provincial and federal governments make better decisions for our firefighters.

Before I conclude, I want to thank, of course, my colleague in the other place MP Sherry Romanado for her advocacy on behalf of firefighters. As you know, it takes skill to manœuvre a private member’s bill through the process in the other place, let alone to get it passed with unanimous support from all parties. Members of that chamber recognize that these are the people who protect our families and ensure the safety of our communities.

I also want to thank the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs for their efforts to fight for their members and workers. Many of the firefighters fighting for the changes inspired by Bill C-224 will not live to see the benefits, and yet they are relentless in their pursuit of a safer workplace for the next generation.

Colleagues, there is no downside to passing this bill. It passed unanimously in the other place because members recognized that time is of the essence, and firefighters need our protection and support. We need research and data to help protect our firefighters so they can better protect us.

Bill C-224 offers us a tremendous opportunity to do right by them. So let’s pass this bill now and refer it to committee for further study. Firefighters and their families can’t wait. I believe this bill will be a tremendous good for our country and for the men and women who do so much good on behalf of all of us. Thank you so much.

Hon. Pat Duncan: I would also like to thank the senator for the sponsorship of this bill and to indicate that I am also prepared to support it. I apologize for not giving you advance notice of this question. I would like to build upon Senator Cardozo’s question.

As you’re aware, I have been involved in adjudicating workers’ compensation as well as having served as a workers’ advocate. This is, as you noted, an issue that is a complete patchwork across the country, and it is in much need of reform.

I am wondering if, in addressing this bill in the House of Commons, you and others involved in this bill have contemplated any sort of an amendment or methodology by which we might persuade, amicably, the workers’ compensation boards across the country to adopt a standard or a regulation such as you’ve proposed.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-224. I want to thank Senator Yussuff for sponsoring the bill and for your helpful and fulsome remarks.

Across this country, 32,000 firefighters and 100,000 volunteer firefighters play a critical role in keeping us and our communities safe. Canadians respect firefighters. We appreciate the work they do, work that is both essential and dangerous.

When firefighters respond to a call, they know they can face immediate dangers. They know there can be physical hazards each and every time they enter a burning building. A roof can fall down, a floor might give away and so on.

There are also a number of other less immediate dangers that firefighters face when they respond to a fire. As Senator Yussuff told us, and as we know, some household products become very dangerous when they burn. That means that firefighters can be exposed to toxic substances, such as potentially harmful flame retardants in upholstered furniture, mattresses or electronic devices, whenever they respond to a fire.

We know that chemical flame retardants can save lives by slowing the ignition and the spread of fire, but they might and do also cause harmful health effects, such as cancer, when they are burned and inhaled.

While this exposure tends to be rare or limited for most citizens, they can become more prevalent among firefighters. The reality is that firefighters are more likely to develop cancer and, sadly, to die from cancer as a result of these exposures. This is true for almost all types of cancers, colleagues, but it is particularly so for digestive, oral, respiratory and urinary cancers.

There is also emerging research that shows that women and racialized firefighters suffer an even higher risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality.

Colleagues, cancer represents 86% of occupational fatality claims among firefighters in Canada. These unfortunate statistics do not only apply to firefighters in Canada. Allusion was made by Senator Yussuff to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Last July, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified the occupational exposure that firefighters experience as carcinogenic to humans. In recognition of these realities, the International Association of Fire Fighters has designated the month of January as Fire Fighter Cancer Awareness Month.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting firefighters and has put into place several measures to support our firefighters across this country. For firefighters and other first responders who have died because of their job-related duties, the Government of Canada supports their families through the Memorial Grant Program. Through this program, their families receive a federal tax-free payment of up to $300,000.

The government also developed a federal action plan to protect firefighters from harmful chemicals that are released during household fires. Announced in 2021, the action plan focuses on chemical flame retardants found, as I mentioned a moment ago, in many household items, including upholstered furniture and electronics, to name but two.

Significant progress is being made to address harmful chemical flame retardants and to support the development and the use of safer alternatives.

As well, the Government of Canada makes significant investments in cancer prevention and research, and this includes research on firefighting and its links to cancer. Between 2015 and 2020, the government invested approximately $927 million in cancer research through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The Government of Canada also supports the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and CARcinogen EXposure Canada, an institute that tracks occupational and environmental carcinogen exposure in the workplace.

Colleagues, Bill C-224 calls on the Minister of Health to develop a national framework that raises awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and supports improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment.

As Senator Yussuff outlines, the bill before us today essentially has three parts: First, supporting improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment; second, designating the month of January as Fire Fighter Cancer Awareness Month; and, finally, setting out new reporting requirements on the effectiveness of the framework, including a report to be tabled in Parliament.

This bill will set out a common framework to guide future government actions building on the work already under way. The framework will be based on engagement and it will serve as an opportunity to exchange information and best practices between stakeholders and the many jurisdictions implicated in this issue.

Through these actions, the Government of Canada aims to raise awareness and share best practices between stakeholders and jurisdictions to ensure that Canadian firefighters, regardless of where they live or their postal code, receive the very best prevention and treatment possible.

The Government of Canada fully supports Bill C-224 so that we can respect and continue to foster our relationships with the provinces and the territories while strengthening the work we do to protect our firefighters.

Through a national framework, the Government of Canada will continue to take action on firefighters and cancer, with the goal of improving access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment, as well as explaining and supporting research on the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer. That includes promoting data collection on the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting, promoting information and knowledge sharing, including training, education and guidance needs across Canada, making recommendations for regular cancer screening for firefighters in Canada and preparing a summary of standards that recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases.

The government will also designate and promote January as Fire Fighter Cancer Awareness Month. Colleagues, awareness is a key tool that we need to leverage to all stakeholders — from firefighters themselves to health care professionals in Canada — so that all are more aware of this important issue.

[Translation]

In closing, I’d like to once again thank Senator Yussuff, who sponsored this bill, and Senator Wells, the bill’s critic.

Through a national framework, the Government of Canada will improve our understanding of the link between firefighting and cancer and will adopt a more proactive approach to preventing cancer among firefighters.

This government will work closely with the provinces, territories, Indigenous groups, scientists, health care professionals and the firefighting community to shape this framework and develop an approach that meets the needs of firefighters across the country.

The government will continue its efforts with all of its partners to better protect firefighters against toxic chemicals and reduce the risk of cancer related to occupational exposure. Canadian firefighters deserve nothing less.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Budget—study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada), presented in the Senate on April 25, 2023.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Senator Boehm, I’d like to know if you think a study on international diplomacy and the effectiveness of our foreign service should include municipalities inside Canada?

Senator Boehm: Thank you for the question, senator. We plan to travel outside Canada only.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Boehm, will you take more questions?

Senator Boehm: Yes, of course.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: I have a question as well.

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

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for Senator Boehm.

I notice that this is a report related to a budget. I wanted to ask for the sake of others in the chamber — and similar to what Senator Lankin asked on a previous report — what the nature of the trip is. As well, what are some outcomes that you expect from the trip? Maybe you could elaborate on the budget. Thank you.

Senator Boehm: Well, thank you very much, Senator Martin. It is, in fact, for a trip, and it’s a trip that was planned to take place earlier and features a revised budget — a lower budget — that was sent to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, and then to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, for approval afterwards.

It’s in support of the long study that the committee has undertaken on the fit-for-purpose nature of Global Affairs Canada. It is supplementary to a trip that the committee took to Washington in December of last year. This one will take the committee — in a reduced number, I should add, because what was approved was the chair plus six members of the committee — to London, Oslo and Berlin.

In terms of why there, it’s because these particular countries have a similar system to ours in the way they conduct their foreign policy. They have recently integrated their aid and development function. In the case of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or FCO, it’s now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, or FCDO, and the Norwegians have done the same thing, as did the Germans, because they are like-minded.

We will be looking at conditions of foreign service — this is not a foreign policy review per se — how people are recruited and how they are supported. This trip is planned for a non-sitting week — the week before we return in September — and it is basically the last element of this study that we have been working on since last April.

I hope that helps a little.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

[English]

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Omidvar’s Motion No. 3, which asks us to adopt Recommendation 8 of the 2019 report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, chaired by former senator Terry Mercer, with Senator Ratna Omidvar as deputy chair.

Specifically, Recommendation 8 is simple and achievable, requiring the Canada Revenue Agency to include questions on tax forms for registered charities and federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations on diversity representation on boards of directors. I applaud Senator Omidvar for bringing this motion forward. Too often, excellent Senate reports with sensible, needed change strategies are not pursued in such a practical manner.

The non-profit sector is an economic driver and influencer in this country. Canada has over 170,000 charitable and non-profit organizations that are largely governed by boards of directors that often do not represent the diversity of the communities they serve and Canada as a whole. In supporting this motion, I do not wish to take away from the work these organizations are doing, but to highlight that a lack of diversity and representation saps legitimacy, limits voices and ideas and sows disconnect between groups and the communities that these boards serve.

Efficacy in the charitable sector is undermined where there are perceptions of bias, exclusion or mistrust. Further, when boards do not address diversity, a disconnect with the communities they serve will inevitably occur, resulting in limited networks, limited funding sources and difficulty in developing new ideas. The lack of diversity can create a conformity bias or groupthink mentality, which can lead to making the wrong decisions at a strategic level for effectiveness.

Senator Omidvar has detailed how Canada’s charitable sector lacks diversity, particularly in management positions, sometimes called “snow capping.” Snow capping occurs when racialized workers appear on the front lines while top positions are maintained by non-marginalized individuals. Another unintended consequence is the “cloning effect,” which refers to the bias, unconscious or otherwise, that sometimes occurs when, in recruiting new board members, trustees tend to seek out those from their immediate circles of influence, almost cloning themselves with look-alike and think-alike individuals who experience life much like they do, creating a homogeneous board that risks being disconnected from the communities in need.

Boards of directors who are not representative of their communities underserve their populations and create barriers for equity-deserving groups to advance to positions of authority. Conversely, a diverse board of directors can bring a realistic view of the community, strengthen the organization’s connections and credibility to its constituency, improve fundraising and assist with targeted, effective policy creation and implementation. In essence, it makes a board more effective at carrying out its mission.

Notably, Canada lacks comprehensive reporting mechanisms and statistics on diversity in its charitable sector. In 2021, Statistics Canada launched its first voluntary questionnaire to gather information on diversity among Canada’s charities and non-profit boards of directors. While the data was not collected using probability-based sampling, the results demonstrate the lack of equity in Canada’s charitable sector. Over 40% of respondents indicated that their organization does not even have a diversity policy. Conversely, organizations that did report a written diversity policy indicated they had higher proportions of diverse representation among their boards, including individuals living with a disability, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, visible minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Recent developments in Canada’s corporate sector indicate that increased diversity reporting requirements can result in concrete diversity advancement for boards of directors. Since amendments were made to the Canada Business Corporations Act in 2020, requiring publicly traded organizations to disclose information on the diversity of their boards of directors and information related to their written policies concerning diversity, there have been substantive, measurable and positive developments. The amendments likely assisted in spurring a normative change, wherein boards of directors saw increases in the representation of minorities, women and Indigenous peoples.

The starting point for good policy and reform begins with transparency and data and leads to accountability. Motion No. 3 would galvanize necessary reporting requirements on board diversity within Canada’s charitable sector and lay the foundation for more targeted reform based on information and data collected. It may also spur a normative change within the sector by requiring organizations to consider and reflect upon the composition of their boards of directors and their diversity policies or lack thereof.

I commend Senator Omidvar for her long and dedicated leadership in the non-profit sector. This motion builds on the crucial work of civil society by shining a spotlight on where further study, data collection and inquiry are essential to building paths for growth and change that are necessary for a more just and effective Canada with a more inclusive economy and, in turn, a stronger democracy.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That, given reports of human rights abuses, repression and executions of its citizens, particularly women, in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Senate call upon the government to immediately designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you. Senator Boehm, you alluded to budget in one of the answers you gave to Senator Downe. However, I didn’t hear you say what the actual budgeted amount is. Of course, we’re dealing here with a trip that is not within Canada, as perhaps that poverty trip was. We’re dealing with a trip to different European capitals, which can be quite costly. Can you please tell us what the amount is?

Thank you.

Senator Boehm: I believe it’s around $275,000, Senator Batters. We dropped it from the original cost, which was over $100,000 above that. I don’t have the exact figure in front of me.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to support Senator Ratna Omidvar’s motion calling on the government to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist entity. I want to begin by saying that, last week, Senator Omidvar gave a very intelligent and heartfelt speech about this regime and about Iran, where she used to live. I share her opinion.

Given the human and women’s rights violations and the crackdowns on protesters, the Canadian government should use this terrorist entity designation to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

The IRGC was established in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution. It is one of the most powerful paramilitary organizations in the Middle East. It exerts an influence over nearly 50% of the Iranian economy and is making headway into Europe and the United States.

In 2020, the Tony Blair Institute in Great Britain exposed the training manuals used by the IRGC to indoctrinate recruits. They promote a violent and extremist ideology and describe the regime’s political opponents as apostates.

To date, only the United States has designated the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but parliamentarians in Europe and Great Britain are also exerting political pressure in that regard.

For its part, Canada opted for a strategy of gradual sanctions, instead of putting the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the blacklist. Since October, the government has banned nearly 1,000 senior Iranian officials from entering the country. Other sanctions followed, but it stopped short of invoking section 83.05 of the Criminal Code, which allows a judge to order that the entity be listed as a terrorist group.

More than 70 organizations are currently designated as terrorist entities under this provision, which allows the courts to order the seizure or restraint of certain assets. One such designated entity is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, a clandestine unit that has been providing arms and funding to extremist groups for the past 10 years.

To justify Canada’s policy, Justice Minister David Lametti explained that the IRGC is part of the armed forces in a country where military service is mandatory. He expressed concern that section 83.05 of the Criminal Code could be used unfairly, since Canada could target opponents of the Iranian regime who have taken refuge in Canada and would have been ordinary conscripts.

In practice, however, the designation would primarily affect senior officers who have assets, who may interfere in Canada or try to cross our border.

The House of Commons passed a motion on this in 2018, but unfortunately no action has been taken.

It is time that the Senate voted on this as well, in the hope that Parliament will speak with one voice and call on the government to recognize the IRGC for what it is, namely a terrorist entity, and treat it as such. Thank you.