Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your question.

I note that this is the third time your group has asked the chair of the Senate Social Affairs Committee your question. I have to conclude you like my answers very much. In that spirit, let me try and answer your question.

Yes, we started our study on February 1. Today is February 15. We have already had three meetings on the bill. We have heard from the sponsor, who explained the principles of the bill and his concern that if the bill were amended, it could potentially delay or kill it. We have heard from immigration law experts and, very importantly, from the insurance industry, including representatives from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and Manulife. Questions have been raised about consumer protection and the issue of lapsed insurance, so we decided to go back to officials to try and gain further clarity. We’re still in the process, Senator Tannas, of gaining that clarity.

Given that government bills are coming to us now, we must give them priority, but it is still my hope that we will be able to report back to the Senate on the bill. I am not able to give you any assurances of dates.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Black, for that question. It’s a timely one, as we are almost ready to complete our deliberations. Sadly, as you know, suicide does not recognize boundaries of a city or a town. It lives within the boundaries of the mind. But unfortunately, it is part of our national narrative regardless of size and region.

We have heard from a number of witnesses, Senator Black, on the issues that you have raised. On the one hand is the imbalance, I would say, between the need for services and the access to resources. We heard, in particular, from remote northern communities and we heard about the Inuit and Indigenous realities. We also heard from a medical professional with an interesting framework addressing the questions that you have put on the table in terms of rural responders and access.

We have also had some discussions on the higher incidence of firearm ownership in rural communities and the link to suicide, as suicide by firearm is far more lethal than other means. However, our study is not a study about suicide. It is a study that evaluates the national suicide prevention framework. It’s therefore a big-picture look at the troubling rate of suicide and what the framework needs to do to address its priorities, actions, outcomes and reporting going forward.

I hope the chamber will welcome the report that we will table not too far off in the future and look at its proposals that we are making to the Government of Canada. I hope that answers your question, Senator Black.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the chair of the Internal Economy Committee, Senator Moncion, regarding interpreters and headsets.

We all know there was a really unfortunate incident two weeks ago. The members of the steering committee at the Social Affairs Committee had a discussion about it. What strategies is the Internal Economy Committee taking to ensure the proper quality of headsets and interpretation?

My understanding of your procedure is that witnesses are given a choice: Either they purchase their own headset and request reimbursement for it, or the Senate can ship them a headset. My understanding is that the latter is not used very often. In comparison, in the House of Commons, every witness who is called to testify at committee is automatically shipped a set of headphones.

Do you think that the Senate Finance and Procurement Directorate and not the clerks should adopt this practice of sending witnesses the proper headsets to ensure proper quality of translation and the health of our interpreters?

Also, what else are you planning to do to keep the witnesses and interpreters safe?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Wallin, for that question. It is indeed a novelty for me to answer a question. I can see Senator Gold looking very pleased as I do so.

I want to tell you, I really appreciate the thrust of your question because I believe the matter you have raised is one of great urgency. I have raised it in this chamber with Senator Gold. I have followed up with a letter to Minister Lametti that was co-signed by my colleagues Senator Ataullahjan, Senator Marty Deacon and Senator Jaffer.

But you’re asking me a question as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. While I agree that a spot study could really provide some context and solutions to the government — although the solutions are apparent and clear because the U.K. and the U.S.A. have provided exemptions — I’m not sure that the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee is the right place. It is a matter of the anti‑terrorism code, so it could be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It is a matter of the human rights of the Afghan people, so it could be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and it is a matter of international development as well, so it could be referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I really appreciate the question, and I hope my colleagues who are the chairs of these other committees will take up your idea. Thank you.