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. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Yussuff, thank you for your speech and for taking leadership on this, and also thank you to Sherry Romanado in the House.

It is, of course, unfathomable that firefighters have uniforms designed to keep them safe from fire in the workplace that are, in fact, dangerous because they carry carcinogens and put firefighters in fatal danger. Is this going to be a straightforward implementation of the standards, or will the federal government have to negotiate with provincial governments? Is this going to be a drawn-out process once we pass it?

I want to add that I certainly will be pleased to support the bill.

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. 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.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Motion No. 113 for a Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI, study on health misinformation, its impacts on Canadians and potential remedies.

In April of this year, the Food and Drug Administration’s Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Robert Califf, reported that the recent rapid drop in life expectancy in the United States of America was in great part due to increased health misinformation.

The Council of Canadian Academies’ January 2023 Fault Lines report determined that, between March and November of 2021 alone, at least 2,800 Canadian lives lost to COVID-19 could have been spared, over 10,000 hospitalizations could have been prevented and $300 million in hospital costs may have been saved if not for disinformation impacting health behaviours of Canadians. Vaccine disinformation alone is in large part responsible for these negative findings.

In a study published in the journal The Lancet on June 23, 2022, Dr. Oliver Watson and colleagues used excess death analysis to determine that vaccinations prevented 19.8 million deaths globally during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination.

In December of 2022, the C.D. Howe Institute report Damage Averted: Estimating the Effects of Covid-19 Vaccines on Hospitalizations, Mortality and Costs in Canada noted that between January 2021 and May 2022, vaccines were highly effective at reducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths: 21% fewer cases, 37% fewer hospitalizations and 34,900 fewer deaths. Its economic modelling reported an estimated net cost/benefit of between $0.4 billion and $2.1 billion in cost savings alone, and when the statistical value of life analysis was applied, these savings added an additional $27.6 billion.

Yet, this vaccine disinformation continues to expand, reaching countless Canadians through social media and “alternative news” channels that promote and distribute many different kinds of disinformation; belief in health disinformation is also linked to beliefs in various types of conspiracy theories. Put together, these forces contribute to what scholars such as Kathleen Higgins and Ralph Keyes have called a “post-truth era,” with its attendant social polarizations.

Recently, this chamber initiated legislation calling for improved national action on addressing the needs of people and families living with autism, a very important step forward, indeed. Autism has been a health disinformation battleground for some time now, ranging from the completely false and fully discredited assertions that routine vaccinations cause autism, to the endorsement and, I might add, highly profitable sales of so‑called alternative treatments that have no scientifically valid evidence of positive effect but that in some cases could cause great harm — so-called treatments such as craniosacral manipulation, iron chelation therapy, and daily use — by drinking, bathing or enemas — of chlorine dioxide, which is also known as Miracle Mineral Solution or Master Mineral Solution or, more commonly, bleach.

The widespread concern about health misinformation is summed up in the preamble to the Council of Canadian Academies report:

Misinformation can cause significant harm to individuals, communities, and societies. Because it’s designed to appeal to our emotions and exploit our cognitive shortcuts, everyone is susceptible to it. We are particularly vulnerable to misinformation in times of crisis when the consequences are most acute. Science and health misinformation damages our community well-being through otherwise preventable illnesses, deaths, and economic losses, and our social well-being through polarization and the erosion of public trust. These harms often fall most heavily on the most vulnerable.

A 2020 U.S. Surgeon General report titled Confronting Health Misinformation similarly noted this negative impact and called for immediate and effective action to deal with health misinformation:

Health misinformation is a serious threat to public health. It can cause confusion, sow mistrust, harm people’s health, and undermine public health efforts. Limiting the spread of health misinformation is a moral and civic imperative that will require a whole-of-society effort.

Sadly, there is little that we in Canada can point to in the way of federal-government-supported, coordinated and effective action to address health misinformation. There are some interventions under way, such as the ScienceUpFirst initiative, that — in the interest of full disclosure — I, along with Professor Timothy Caulfield, catalyzed during the first pandemic year. There are several other government-funded activities under way, through the federal Digital Citizen Initiative, the Encouraging vaccine confidence in Canada fund, the Vaccine Community Innovation Challenge and a few others.

There is a government website that provides information on disinformation and how to spot it. In an unscientific straw poll of senators and staff that I recently conducted, only 2 of 48 people even knew it existed, and only one had actually bothered to look — not very effective.

The Government of Canada also commissioned a number of reports on this topic, such as Misinformation in Canada: Research and Policy Options, from Evidence for Democracy; Science Disinformation in a Time of Pandemic, from the Public Policy Forum; and Vulnerable Connections and Fault Lines from the Council of Canadian Academies.

Yet, only the minority of Canadians are up to date in their vaccinations, and health disinformation continues to proliferate. Just two weeks ago, UNICEF Canada reported that the proportion of Canadians who believe childhood immunizations are important has decreased by 8% since the onset of the pandemic. Should this trend continue, we can expect the return of a myriad of deadly infectious diseases, including measles, polio and even smallpox. As well, health disinformation is increasingly being used to sell unregulated and possibly harmful so-called cures or treatments for COVID-19 or other diseases to people online.

The reports that I identified earlier included a number of recommendations for citizens, governments and social media platforms that they felt are necessary to effectively combat disinformation. These included dealing with social media companies in their role as enablers or purveyors of disinformation and the development and delivery of effective public education campaigns to counter the health and social harms of disinformation, all things that could be looked at further in committee study.

Colleagues, action is needed, and our work in the Senate through a SOCI study can be an important part of countering the negative impacts of the many-headed hydra of health disinformation.

As we are aware, health disinformation has always been with us, but, in recent years, it has become a substantial and growing concern with well-established negative impacts on the health of individuals and populations. It has also negatively impacted our trust in public health and in health providers, as well as our economic and civic well-being. It has integrated itself into a social framework that rejects expertise, confuses science with information and encourages verbal — and even physical — attacks on scientists and health providers alike.

Indeed, the World Health Organization, or WHO, has called this growing pernicious threat an “infodemic” that has spread deeply into every part of the globe, and for which our societies have yet to find a fulsome, effective and durable response.

The Senate of Canada is known for the solid studies that its committees conduct. I am hopeful that the Social Affairs Committee will be able to delve into the complex and challenging aspects of health disinformation as it affects Canadians, as well as identify some effective remedies that could be applied.

Today, I would like to suggest some directions that the committee could consider in its work. I will start by addressing what is meant by the terms “disinformation” and “misinformation.”

Generally, disinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that has been deliberately created to deceive. It is created by unique actors, both organizations and individuals, and spread for various purposes. These actors can be outside or inside of Canada; they can include foreign governments whose use of disinformation is designed to create internal division and civil strife in our country, as well as organizations or individuals whose purpose is mercenary or ideological, or both.

Some examples of this include the attempts of the Russian state to sow civil discord in Canada by spreading anti-vaccination messaging through various sources, as well as the self‑proclaimed health experts who spread anti-vaccination information as a vehicle for selling their so-called health products — Mercola Market is a good example of this.

Misinformation also refers to false information, but it is often applied to identify the process by which disinformation is spread — which is frequently by individuals or groups who do not take the time to critically evaluate what they are spreading, or who do so because of emotional investment in the message that they are spreading.

For the sake of brevity, I will use the word “disinformation” to include both the deliberate and inadvertent spread of false or inaccurate information intended to deceive. The outcome is similar.

Sadly, colleagues, health disinformation is also a yellow brick road into conspiracy theories and anti-civil society institutions. Robust research demonstrates that once an individual has gone down the rabbit hole of health disinformation, they are much more likely to become involved in one or more conspiracy theories. Once a person becomes involved in one conspiracy theory, they are more likely to embrace many.

Some classic health misinformation-driven health conspiracy theories pertaining to vaccines are the following: COVID-19 vaccines are a bioweapon for population elimination; COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips to be used by Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, or WEF, and the WHO for population control; the vaccine alters a person’s DNA; the vaccine is the cause of COVID-19 variants; and vaccines cause large numbers of sudden deaths.

All of those are conspiracy theories that grow out of, use and amplify health disinformation.

The concern is that these health disinformation conspiracy theories are becoming increasingly linked to other conspiracy theories, such as the Great Reset — and that the WEF and the WHO are taking over the governance of sovereign states.

Often, these conspiracy theories spread through algorithms within social media channels and through alternative news sources, such as BitChute, Rumble, Infowars, the Gateway Pundit, the Last Line of Defense, Natural News and The Unhived Mind newsletter, just to mention a few.

Once an individual — who is caught up in health disinformation — links to those sources, other types of conspiracy theories on numerous other topics can become part of their belief system.

In Canada, EKOS Politics has created a disinformation index made up, in large part, of belief in health disinformation.

Canadians who score high on the index, meaning that they believe health disinformation — which is about 15% of Canadians — are much more likely to distrust and not follow public health advice, much more likely to dismiss the importance of Indigenous concerns and much more likely to dismiss the importance of climate change.

Furthermore, data from EKOS polling shows that Canadians who score high on this disinformation index tend to support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

This fits with the alarms sounded by many, including Marcus Kolga, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who has clearly demonstrated the role of Russia in spreading health disinformation in Canada. Other scholars have noted that China has also been actively engaged in spreading health disinformation.

One other issue that has received scant media attention is the impact of belief in health disinformation and conspiracy theories on families. As some of us know from personal experience, adherence to health disinformation and conspiracy theories can pull otherwise cohesive families apart. If that can be the impact of health disinformation on families, just think of what it can do to communities or civil society.

Indeed, some scholars have already noted the relationship between health disinformation and social and civic polarization.

Colleagues, there are numerous remedies that have been proposed to help counter health disinformation, and a thorough Social Affairs Committee study should critically assess these remedies, as well as provide direction on how those that are effective can be best applied. Those remedies might require numerous concurrent interventions and will need to be well supported, established outside of government and sustainable — because we are in this for the long haul.

Colleagues, the Senate is known for its good committee work in helping Canadians journey through complex issues and difficult topics. Health disinformation and its negative impacts, as well as the potential effective remedies and how to apply them, are some of the wicked, complex issues facing Canadian society. Indeed, health disinformation might be one of the most important issues that not only Canadians, but also global citizens, have ever faced.

I look forward to further debate on this motion and to its rapid passage so that the Social Affairs Committee can get to work on this challenging opportunity.

Thank you. Wela’lioq.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I’m sorry, colleagues, but there is no more time for debate, unless Senator Kutcher wants to seek leave for five additional minutes.