Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of October 4, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, May 19, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in relation to its study on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework be extended from October 31, 2023, to June 30, 2025.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved:

That the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.

She said: Honourable senators, I know the hour is late, but this is a really important study that shines the light on a particularly dark place — suicide. Before I give you the substance of the findings of our report, please let me take a minute to thank all the witnesses who shared their lived and living experience on suicide with us.

Stigma around suicide and mental health persists, and without discussing these topics, there is little hope for improvement. I would like, in particular, to thank our colleagues Senator Stan Kutcher and Senator Patrick Brazeau for their insight and perspectives on our study.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began its study on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention in September 2022, holding five meetings of testimony and hearing from 23 witnesses. The Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention was published in 2016 after a period of consultation following the adoption, in 2012, of the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act.

While the framework establishes an idealistic vision of “a Canada where suicide is prevented and everyone lives with hope and resilience,” the committee heard that there has been little change to the overall Canadian suicide rate since its implementation. In fact, the overall annual rate has remained largely steady for the past two decades, fluctuating between 11 in 100,000 and 12 in 100,000.

The committee asked the question, “Where are we after seven years?” The title of our report is Doing What Works. It could easily have been called Doing What Doesn’t Work because the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is failing by the only metric that really counts — lives saved.

Since the framework was established, the suicide rate in Canada has not meaningfully changed. There was the slightest of decreases in 2020, which witnesses attributed to pandemic‑related supports. It has otherwise remained stubbornly steady, and we wanted to know why.

One cannot fault the framework for not having lofty ideals and aspirations, laudable language and praiseworthy goals. It aims to prevent suicide through partnership, collaboration and innovation. It aims to do so while respecting the diversity of cultures and communities that are touched by this issue. It speaks of building hope and resilience and of leveraging partnerships. All of this is, as we found, heartwarming and inspiring but ultimately ineffectual. The evidence we heard is that fine words have no effect on health outcomes for people in crisis.

The committee makes 10 recommendations, and I will not go through all 10 of them. I will simply highlight four in the hope that you will turn your attention to this report.

First, we need to go where the problem actually is. It is not in the general population but, rather, in specific sections of it, primarily men and boys who are First Nation, Métis and Inuit. Senator Brazeau was particularly compelling as a witness on this point.

Second, we need to invest in programming that works, backed by evidence that it works, not touchy-feely good ideas or best practices. Senator Kutcher has emphasized the need to review the efficacy and impact of revenue-generating programs for suicide prevention.

Third, we need to focus on means intervention, which, in simple words, means that we need to restrict easy access to those methods of suicide which may make it easier to succeed, such as installing barriers to bridges and preventing easy access to medication, et cetera.

Fourth, and significantly, we need to aggressively collect and disaggregate data to follow the evidence. In short, doing what works as opposed to spinning windmills in the air is what is important. This is about lives and saving them, and this report puts out significant recommendations which could do so, particularly in light of the fact that the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is due to be reviewed.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I feel that I’m stepping into sensitive territory here. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has put a request before the chamber that was approved by the steering committee of the Social Affairs Committee, by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and then by the Internal Economy Committee.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Let me add my voice of congratulations to you on your appointment, Your Honour. We look forward to your steady and calm leadership.

Here is a really important government bill, Bill C-22. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology studied Bill C-22 over the course of 10 meetings, with 7 meetings of testimony from 44 witnesses. In addition to witness testimony heard during the meetings, the committee also received 48 briefs, seven follow-ups and two letters.

The committee wishes to acknowledge and thank the many Canadians who took the time to communicate with us and educate us about their lived experiences with disabilities, as well as share their perspectives on Bill C-22. Their thoughts have greatly helped inform the committee’s work during this study.

At the outset of the study, the committee was informed by the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, of the amount of work and consultation that had gone into the bill that we were studying. The minister shared an enduring commitment to “Nothing Without Us” which has involved — and will continue to involve — the disability community in the development and implementation of the proposed Canada disability benefit.

The committee was also informed of the importance of carefully considering any and all amendments, as amending the bill would require it to go back, necessarily, to the House of Commons.

It was with this great consideration that the committee is reporting the bill with amendments.

The committee heard concerns from many witnesses about the possibility of the benefit being clawed back when interacting with other benefits and income supports, including private insurance providers.

Hart Schwartz, adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, stated:

It’s no benefit if private insurers throughout the country in different provinces can set-off the amount so that effectively you get no disability benefit at all.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment to clause 9 using wording similar to that suggested by several witnesses and endorsed by trial lawyers’ associations across Canada. The amendment specifies that the benefit cannot be recovered or retained in whole or in part under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument.

Throughout the study, the witnesses expressed the importance of an explicit appeals process contained within the statute. We heard from Adrian Merdzan of the Income Security Advocacy Centre that the risk of not providing an appeals process in the statute is that it could “permit the creation of an inaccessible appeal mechanism” in the future. The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment creating a new clause 10.1 which would allow a person, or someone applying on their behalf, to appeal the minister’s decisions regarding their eligibility or the amount of the benefit.

Bill C-22 was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to require the Governor-in-Council to take into consideration the official poverty line as defined by the Market Basket Measure.

The committee heard, however, that persons with disabilities often experience higher costs of living than the average. Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President of Inclusion Canada, stated, “We need to recognize that people with disabilities have additional costs that even go beyond.” Sometimes it’s up to 30% or 40% more.

The committee also heard that despite the “Nothing Without Us” approach and widespread consultations across Canada, there remain marginalized people with disabilities and organizations that face additional barriers to consultation and inclusion. Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair of the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability, shared that “intersecting identities really impact your experience with disability.”

For these reasons, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11, adding that the Governor-in-Council must consider the additional costs associated with living with a disability; the challenges faced by those living with a disability in earning an income from work; the intersectional needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups; and Canada’s international human rights obligations.

As a consequence of this amendment, the committee also adopted an amendment to the preamble, recognizing that persons with disabilities may face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or Indigenous status or other intersecting statuses.

All witnesses before the committee agreed that the Canada disability benefit should be paid out to eligible individuals as soon as possible. Glen Hoos, Director of Communications for the Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, put it this way when he said that “the money should start flowing as soon as possible — or sooner.”

For this reason, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11 requiring that, within 12 months of the coming into force of the bill, the Governor-in-Council must make the necessary regulations to begin paying the benefit.

The House committee had amended the coming-into-force date of this act as “no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.” However, it did not grant authority to anyone. An official from Employment and Social Development Canada informed us that the “no later than” doesn’t have any way to be implemented as no authority has been given to the Governor-in-Council to actually bring the law into force earlier than the first anniversary.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment enabling the Governor-in-Council to fix a date no later than one year after Royal Assent.

In addition to these amendments, the committee has also made seven observations, including recommending that in addition to the “Nothing Without Us” consultative process around designing and implementing the Canada disability benefit, the disability community should be represented in all its diversity, with space made for the most marginalized voices to be equally involved in all stages of the decision-making process.

We note the concern that the benefit is limited to working-age persons with disabilities, which may perpetuate poverty amongst persons with disabilities over the age of 65, particularly women, and that with Old Age Security becoming available at 65, seniors with disabilities may experience a reduction in income.

We are recommending that persons with mental illnesses be explicitly involved in the drafting of regulations to ensure that the spectrum of disability, including episodic disability due to mental illness, is considered.

We are stressing the importance of respecting the necessary autonomy of persons with disabilities to live their life with dignity, as well as acknowledging that financial security is one way to help prevent certain types of violence against a person with a disability, and we are recommending that the benefit’s eligibility be determined by an individual’s income rather than that of their family or household unit.

Colleagues, I wish to thank all members of the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee who gave their undivided attention to this important bill and also our excellent committee clerk, Emily Barrette, and the Library of Parliament analyst, Laura Blackmore, for supporting our work to this point. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of February 14, 2023, moved:

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.

She said: Honourable senators, the time is late and we are cold, but let me turn your hearts and minds to a place far away from us — a beautiful place with beautiful people but that has been governed with unparalleled brutality and oppression for the last 43 years: Iran.

It is also a place of courageous people, particularly the women of Iran, who have taken to the streets to fight for their freedom. They have discarded and burned their headscarves; they have cut their hair; and they have gathered in towns, villages and cities across Iran. But let there be no mistake: Their protests against the hijab are not simply about what they wear on their heads; it goes to the heart of their dissatisfaction, the despair and discrimination they face. Every time they raise their voices, they put themselves and their families at risk.

You all know that I fled from that country four decades ago, as much as I loved it, because I could not see myself or my daughter living under that regime. Making the decision to leave anywhere forever is fraught with peril and fear. But fear also releases courage.

This is the courage that is being released by Iranian women because they are leading the revolution. If I were to look for a literary proxy — an image for the fate of Iran — I would evoke the image of a modern-day The Handmaid’s Tale.

Recently at the Inter-Parliamentary Canadian Friendship Group for a Free Iran, famous actress and activist Nazanin Boniadi and human rights campaigner Masih Alinejad described Iran as a gendered apartheid state because women in Iran are not simply subject to discriminatory attitudes and behaviours; rather, their treatment is enshrined in the constitution and penal code of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They are not allowed to wear what they want. They are not allowed to sing solo. They are not allowed to enter a sports stadium. They are not allowed to practise certain occupations. They have limited property rights, and, worse, they are forced to give up the rights to their children on divorce and are unable to travel without the permission of a father, a husband, a brother or another man who has inordinate powers over them.

Human rights organizations have reported the murder of 500 civilians in the recent past. Security forces, and especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, have used shotguns, assault rifles and handguns against peaceful protesters. Roughly 20,000 people have participated in protests around the country, and hear this: 74 children have been murdered.

For women, however, the IRGC prefers a special weapon: Sexual assault is a weapon of choice with debilitating effects on their victims and their families. As just one example, IranWire has reported on the assault of a young woman, Afsaneh, who was arrested for the mere crime of participating in a protest. She was imprisoned, repeatedly raped during her interrogation by the IRGC and subsequently took her life.

I have another story that I find hard to even read out. It is not in my nature to give words to the narrative of explicit violence against women, but let me say there is truth in these stories. I am not going to read out that story, because I don’t think I would be able to, and the story that I had in mind about violent sexual assault is just one of many. It is the tip of an iceberg.

Recently Iran said that it would issue pardons for prisoners, but like everything, it comes with a catch: To be pardoned, prisoners must pledge that they regret their participation in protests, or they will not be freed.

The crimes of the Islamic regime and the IRGC go beyond the borders of Iran. It is contributing to the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Iran has supplied kamikaze drones. They have been deployed more than 90 times against a civilian population. Iran and the IRGC fund and support Hamas and Hezbollah, creating significant regional instability. Iran is not a bystander in the world but has — again, I am sorry, colleagues — the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a bystander in the world. It has committed terrorist activities around it.

As pointed out by Marcus Kolga, the IRGC:

. . . has been implicated in embassy bombings, attacks on Jewish people, atrocities against Syrians, and the mass murder of Iranian protesters. It is also responsible for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752, killing all 176 crew and passengers, including 55 Canadian citizens . . . .

I should also note that Canadian lives are at risk. The CBC has reported that at least three Canadians have had their lives threatened. For Iranian-Canadians, it is hard to see that members of the IRGC and their families are enjoying the safety of our democracy in Canada, even as the IRGC continues to threaten the lives of their compatriots in Iran.

Just for clarification, before I ask you to support my motion, let me state what the IRGC is and what it is not. It is not the professional military whose mandate is to protect the people of Iran. The IRGC is a paramilitary force whose mandate is spelled out in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it is to protect the Islamic regime and its interests, not only within the confines of Iran, but also beyond its border, as with its support of Hezbollah. This point was forcibly made to the European Parliament by Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. By tolerating the IRGC, the world empowers the Islamic regime, not only within the confines of Iran, but across the world.

The IRGC is pervasive. It is widespread. It reaches into every corner of Iranian life. No one is safe. There are eyes and ears everywhere. It is made up of self-styled officers, and it is fuelled by a steady stream of conscripts. Military conscription for young males is mandatory in Iran. No young man can get a job or travel without having completed this conscription.

But unlike when my husband was conscripted, there are now two paths: You can be conscripted into the professional military, or you can be routed to the IRGC. You have no say in this. This, of course, provides the IRGC with a constant replenishment of young minds and bodies. It leads to significant stigmatization of youth with unintended consequences for their families.

Does the IRGC fit the criteria for listing as a terrorist entity? According to the Criminal Code, the government may prescribe any entity if, at the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the government is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, one, the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity or, two, the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with such an entity.

Honourable senators, I have outlined to you who the IRGC is and what it does on behalf of the Islamic regime. I believe that they fit the definition of a terrorist entity on these conditions. Further, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling concluded that the IRGC is a terrorist entity.

According to Irwin Cotler and Brandon Silver from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, there are no legal barriers to prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The Government of Canada has already prescribed the Quds Force, which is one arm of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization, and I’m suggesting that the government list the entirety of the IRGC as a terrorist organization as opposed to just one arm of it.

Other countries are doing the following: On January 18, the European Parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution that called on the European Union to add the IRGC and its subsidiary forces to the EU terrorist list and to ban any economic and financial activity involving businesses and commercial activities related to the IRGC or its affiliates. In early January, members in the U.K. House of Commons unanimously voted for a motion that urges the U.K. government to prescribe Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist organization. We need to add our voice in this chamber.

Colleagues, Ottawa has imposed travel bans on thousands of Iranians and has imposed sanctions on 127 individuals and 189 entities, but we need to do more. Those who are sanctioned are subject to a ban on transactions and there is a ban on their travel, but we need to also move forward and seize their assets and repurpose them to their victims. There are reports that there is lots of Iranian money in Canada and that Canada may well be awash with IRGC-tainted money.

I know that designating the IRGC comes with some issues, and I will speak just briefly to the government’s hesitation in doing so. The Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice David Lametti has said that since the IRGC is part of Iran’s military, and military service — as I described — is mandatory, it casts a very broad net. There are concerns that by casting this net, we would catch not just the shark but the little fish as well.

That should not be our intention. I agree. I have received lots of emails from former conscripts in Canada who are not able to travel to the United States or take up positions in the United States because the U.S. has decreed that the IRGC is a terrorist entity.

However, as Danny Eisen and Sheryl Saperia of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror have pointed out, Canada can list the IRGC as a terrorist entity and then deal with the issues. We can do so in a way that lets the little fish go but catches the sharks. They say:

Notably, section 42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a mechanism for overriding a finding of inadmissibility to Canada. It allows the minister to permit admission despite membership in a terrorist organization, if justified on national security and public safety grounds. Forced conscription and the absence of involvement in IRGC violence, supported by evidence, should fit these parameters. If additional carve-outs in the law are necessary, we are confident they can be quickly developed.

Honourable senators, the Islamic Republic of Iran has shown us who they are. They are a regime that represses its own people, takes away basic human rights and supports terror around the world. It is beyond time that the Government of Canada designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. By doing so, Canada will take a firm, unequivocal and principled stand that the brutality of the Islamic regime will not be tolerated.

By doing so, we will stand with women, life and freedom.

Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of February 14, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than March 31, 2023, an interim report on issues relating to social affairs, science and technology generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of November 30, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, April 28, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in relation to its study on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention be extended from December 16, 2022, to June 30, 2023.

She said: Thank you, Your Honour. I will be brief. The Senate Social Affairs Committee is conducting an important study on the evaluation of the Suicide Prevention Framework. We have heard from 23 witnesses, including our very own Senator Brazeau. We have heard from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. We have had many briefs and correspondence. Steering is unanimous in its conclusion that we need to do a good job, as opposed to simply doing a quick job.

With that in mind, I request your approval to extend the study to June 2023 so that we can present a report to you of which you can be appropriately proud. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, Bill S-208 was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for second reading on April 7, 2022. It proposes a declaration on the essential role of artists and creative expression in Canada, which would be implemented through an action plan under the direction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Over the course of two meetings, the committee heard from the sponsor of Bill S-208, our colleague the Honourable Senator Bovey, in addition to stakeholders from Canada’s arts and cultural communities.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank those witnesses for sharing their time and stories with us.

The committee is recommending four changes through two amendments to Bill S-208 that reflect the testimony and discussions that we heard. Three changes were made to reflect the role of Canada’s two official languages in arts and culture. A new paragraph was inserted into the preamble to acknowledge that English-speaking and French-speaking artists are integral parts of the two official-language communities of Canada and should therefore have equal opportunities to pursue their artistic endeavours in order to enhance the vitality and development of English and French linguistic minority communities.

In proposed subclause 4(2)(d.1), the Minister of Official Languages was added as a mandatory party to consultations that will be undertaken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to implement the declaration. Subclause 4(3) defined certain measures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage must consider while developing the action plan. In particular, paragraph 4(3)(g) mandates that the Minister of Canadian Heritage must “encourage greater investment in all areas related to artists, the arts and creative expression in Canada.”

In keeping with the previous amendments, an additional proposed subparagraph 4(3)(g.1) specifies that French-speaking artists, and organizations representing those artists, also be given specific consideration.

Finally, the committee is recommending an additional subparagraph, 4(3)(g.2), which specifies that artists who represent the ethnic and racial diversity, and all other diversities of Canada, and organizations that work on their behalf, also receive specific consideration for greater investments.

In addition, the committee appended three observations to the report. The first observation is that some committee members had questions that they hoped to have been answered by the Department of Canadian Heritage itself. Although invited, the committee did not hear from the department on Bill S-208, and it therefore did not have the opportunity to understand the potential impact of this legislation on department policies and programs. They were given every opportunity to appear.

Second, witnesses discussed the lack of a national cultural policy framework in Canada, despite historical attempts to develop such a policy. The committee recognized this gap and therefore included an observation stating the need for the Government of Canada to develop a national cultural policy framework in consideration with the provinces and territories, and with all art groups.

Finally, the committee heard from various witnesses that the current arts and culture funding regime is not always equitable. In particular, concerns were raised about Indigenous, racialized, disabled, senior and LGBTQ2+ artists and organizations representing them, as well as new and emerging artists. The committee acknowledges those challenges and urges the Government of Canada to ensure equitable funding for emerging artists and organizations, and established artists and organizations.

Finally, colleagues, I wish to thank Senator Bovey for her incredible leadership in bringing us to where we are now. Congratulations, Senator Bovey. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, provides the legislative foundation for the development of a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

This bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for second reading on December 8, 2021. Over the course of two meetings, the committee heard from the sponsor of Bill S-203, the Honourable Senator Leo Housakos; and our former colleague the Honourable Jim Munson; as well as 12 individuals and five organizations. On behalf of the committee, I would like to take a moment to thank all those witnesses who shared their knowledge and their lived experience with us, acknowledging in particular the voices and perspectives of autistic self-advocates.

The committee is recommending several amendments to Bill S-203 that reflect the testimony and discussions we heard.

Witnesses all agreed on the important role of autistic self-advocates, their families and caregivers, both in the consideration of Bill S-203 and the proposed federal framework to follow.

Two amendments emphasizing the central role are therefore suggested by the committee. In the preamble, an additional paragraph is recommended stating that “. . . the development of that federal framework would benefit from the involvement of autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers . . . .”

The second proposed amendment makes changes to the list of relevant stakeholders with which the Minister of Health must consult in advance of developing the framework. Clause 2(3)(c) now specifies the consultation of self-advocates, caregivers and support persons, in addition to adding service providers and representatives from Indigenous communities.

At committee, autistic self-advocates discussed the importance of the choice of language and vocabulary, and also emphasized the diversity of their lived experiences. The committee is therefore recommending an amendment to the second clause identifying the measures to be included in the framework. The proposed amendment strengthens clause 2(2)(d), emphasizing acceptance of autism spectrum disorder as well as intersectionality and inclusivity.

Once again, the committee would like to thank Senator Housakos for his long-time advocacy and work on supporting the community of autistic people in Canada. In his testimony, he stressed the important work to come in the consultation phase and eventual drafting of the framework, and thus stated that the bill is only a starting point and he had intentionally made it open-ended. Witnesses shared that they appreciated that Bill S-203 was not overly prescriptive or limiting in their future work.

However, the committee is recommending two amendments that ensure that the Minister of Health will have all available opportunities for a fulsome consultation and implementation of measures in the framework, adding language that the minister may also include anyone and anything else that he or she considers appropriate at those stages.

Finally, based on testimony we heard about current challenges in research, diagnosis, information and treatment of autism, two amendments were recommended for the proposed measures to be included in the federal framework. An additional measure has been added to address the current challenges in timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis, and the existing measure (e) is further refined to specify providing sustained, accessible and culturally relevant resources, both online and offline, that focus on evidence-based information.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, would designate March 11 of every year as an annual pandemic observance day. Bill S-209 was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on December 9, 2021. Over the course of two meetings, the committee heard from the sponsor of Bill S-209, our colleague the Honourable Senator Mégie, in addition to eight witnesses representing six different organizations. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank the sponsor and all witnesses who assisted the committee in our study of the bill.

Based on the testimony received, the committee is recommending one amendment to strengthen the preamble of the bill, explicitly acknowledging the disproportionate effect of the pandemic on certain populations, and adding language around the intent of pandemic observance day. Many witnesses discussed the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable populations, including Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, elderly people and members of the LGBTQ2+ communities. The committee also heard the importance of validating diverse lived experiences by including more specific language in the bill.

As amended, the preamble now acknowledges the multi‑dimensional effects of the pandemic on every person in Canada in addition to stating that this pandemic has worsened the various forms of inequality in Canada and has had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable people within society and members of historically disadvantaged groups.

The committee heard from the bill’s sponsor, the Honourable Senator Mégie, that pandemic observance day would have three purposes: recovery, remembrance and preparation for the future. The committee heard from witnesses that they appreciated this intent and found that it could be stated more explicitly in the bill.

The preamble, as amended, emphasizes that the pandemic observance day would give the Canadian public an opportunity to commemorate the efforts to get through the pandemic, to remember its effect and to reflect on ways to prepare for any future pandemics.

Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in accordance with rule 12-7(9), be authorized to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to social affairs, science and technology generally; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than June 12, 2025.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to implement the eighth recommendation of the first report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector, adopted by the Senate on November 3, 2020, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament, which proposed that the Canada Revenue Agency include questions on both the T3010 (for registered charities) and the T1044 (for federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations) on diversity representation on boards of directors based on existing employment equity guidelines.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on this motion, which calls upon the Government of Canada to implement the eighth recommendation of the first report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector.

This is a rather straightforward, practical and eminently doable proposal in the context of our discussions of anti-racism and inclusion. It focuses on one sector, but an incredibly important sector, that helps Canadians get through ordinary and extraordinary times. I am talking of the charitable and not-for-profit sector. It provides services in every corner of our country. It covers all aspects of life in Canada, from religion, to health, to culture, to poverty and to the environment, to name just a few. It employs close to 2.5 million people and contributes 8.2% to our GDP, but it also suffers from a lack of consistent data collection.

This is a significant problem, because evidence is essential to making policy and other decisions. This motion is one small step to addressing this evidence gap.

Its focus is on the leadership in the sector. Every not-for-profit and charity in Canada is governed by appointed or elected directors. They set the mission, they determine priorities, they approve hiring and procurement policies, and they decide who gets services and how. If one estimates that every one of these charities and not-for-profits — together about 170,000 organizations — each has an average of 12 directors, we are talking about a governance population of roughly 2 million people who make life-changing decisions that affect Canadians.

Who are these people? I know many of them; you likely know many of them, too. In fact, many of you are likely on these boards yourself. The board members and directors are smart, well-meaning volunteers who give hours of their time on not-for-profit and charitable boards.

But who are they really? The answer is that we don’t know.

In June 2019, the Senate Charitable Sector Committee tabled its final report. Buried in the 42 recommendations is one that deserves re-examination, given the context of the day. In the report, we took note of the size, scope and influence of the sector. As I mentioned earlier, it touches all aspects of our lives, and it wields significant heft in our economy and in our employment figures.

I think we also know how much we have relied upon this sector during the pandemic.

But since charities and not-for-profits do not collect data on governance — at least not on a systemic, sector-wide basis, and since the government does not do that either — we don’t quite know whether the governance of these essential organizations is inclusive of the many diversities in this country.

You will all perhaps remember that we had this conversation before when we discussed Bill C-25, which amended the Canada Business Corporations Act. As a result, all federally incorporated distributing corporations are now required to provide shareholders, at annual general meetings, information about diversity among directors and senior management. The changes to the law have been in force now for two years.

In my view, this bill was an imperfect bill, and some of us tabled an amendment but did not have enough support in the chamber. However, at least the corporate sector now has a reporting provision that mandates it to report annually on the demographic diversity of their boards’ plans. As a result, we will get, year after year, a spotlight on whether diversity is increasing or decreasing in corporate boardrooms. At least we will have a baseline of evidence.

I believe — and I hope I am right — that most of us here believe in the role, the function and the centrality of charities and not-for-profit organizations to the ongoing health and vibrancy of our country. But what little data we have on the sector leads me to a conclusion: It may talk the walk of diversity, but it does not quite walk it yet. Its aspirations are admirable on this front, and its spirit is willing, but its flesh appears to be weak. As The Philanthropist Journal has noted:

In June 2020, I issued an open letter asking the charitable sector to collect data on diversity on their boards. Luckily, through the power of social media, Statistics Canada became involved and agreed to conduct a crowdsourced voluntary survey of the sector.

This survey was designed by Statistics Canada with significant input from the sector. It was launched in December 2020 and available until January 2021. A total of 8,835 individuals completed the survey, of which 6,170 were board members. It was Statistics Canada’s first targeted attempt to measure diversity on governing boards in the charitable and non-for-profit sector.

The survey asked board members about socio-demographic information, including their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, immigration status and disability. The survey found that whilst women were equitably represented on these boards, racialized people, immigrants and people with disabilities were not.

Among those who responded to the survey, 14% identified as being immigrants, 11% identified as belonging to a visible minority group and only 3% identified as First Nations, Métis or Inuit.

The survey also asked them to describe the communities they serve and whether their organization had a written policy on the diversity of its board of directors, and 47% of participants said their organization did not have such a policy.

I really appreciate that Statistics Canada stepped up to do this survey and provide a snapshot into the sector, but this is only the first step in a one-time process. It is also not statistically significant because the data was crowdsourced. We need a way of gathering annual data on diversity in the sector. The Senate’s report Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector, recommended that the government’s role be to ensure that this data is collected and tabulated on an ongoing basis.

What needs to be done is actually quite simple. The minister responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency needs to add a question on this matter on both the T1044 and the T3010 forms, the forms that charities and not-for-profit organizations have to file annually if they want to retain their status. Every charity and every federally regulated not-for-profit organization must fill this form out every year. Therefore, with the inclusion of a new question, data would be gathered annually and would be aggregated and possibly disaggregated to present a clear picture of diversity. Based on clear evidence, the country and the sector could see if progress is being made, how and where.

If we truly want this next decade to be a decade of reconciliation and about inclusion, hope and respect for the diversity of Canada, then we must hear the voices of Indigenous peoples, racialized communities and other marginalized groups not just in universities, courtrooms and in the Senate but also in the boardrooms of our many well-meaning charities and not-for-profit organizations.

This motion provides a simple but systemic way of tackling the governance deficit in the sector. Whilst it does not require changes to legislation, it does require political will.

I hope I can count on you for your support for this simple change that will be the beginning of much-needed renewal of a very important sector in Canada.

Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Dasko, debate adjourned.)