THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:32 a.m. [ET] for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Senator Sharon Burey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Sharon Burey. I am a senator from Ontario and the deputy chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators.
We’re pleased to welcome officials once again from Employment and Social Development Canada, Health Canada and Indigenous Services Canada. Thank you for joining us again this morning, Mr. Vaillancourt, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Stefanis, Ms. Mattison and Ms. Novak. Officials are present in order to respond to any technical questions that may arise as we continue today and may be called on, as needed.
Colleagues, during yesterday’s meeting, we adopted clauses 1 to 3 and began consideration of clause 4, where we adopted five amendments and postponed the consideration of one amendment.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Greenwood is going to speak.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for a fruitful and important discussion about my amendment with regard to creating culturally safe environments during the minister’s consultation with children. We had quite the discussion on that.
Given that discussion, I would like to withdraw the motion, the title of which is MG-S212-4-4-29. I would instead move MG-S212-4-4-29a, which I believe strikes a balance between the intent of the original amendment and the concerns raised by my colleagues during our discussion.
Senators, I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 4, by adding the following after line 29:
“(3.1) In conducting consultations under paragraph (3)(a), the Minister must make every reasonable effort to ensure that child and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe environment and in ways that respect their own respective cultures and that they are provided with the opportunity to participate in their own respective languages.”.
As previously discussed, senators, I’m introducing a new amendment, which I believe strikes an appropriate balance between the intent of the previous motion and the concerns raised by senators. As a result, this amendment would ask that the minister must make every reasonable effort to ensure that children and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe way and provided with the opportunity to participate in their own language.
As stated yesterday, this amendment is in response to the briefing note and witness testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, which had concerns that without certain safety nets, these consultations could cause further harm and trauma. This would ensure that when the minister consults with children and youth, as required under 4(3)(a) of the bill, that it is done in such a manner that ensures a culturally safe environment, that respects their culture and with the opportunity to participate in their own language. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Open for discussion and debate, senators.
Senator Senior: I’d like to say that I really appreciate the efforts made. I think the intention was there, and it captures it by having really listened to the responses. Thank you for doing that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Senior. Is there any more discussion?
Senator Moodie: I would support this change.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Okay, colleagues. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 5,
(a) by replacing line 5 with the following:
“(c) the Inuit Child First Initiative;”;
(b) by replacing line 9 with the following:
“Girls; and
(e) any commitments made by the Government of Canada in relation to early learning and child care, including commitments specific to Indigenous early learning and child care.”.
This amendment is in response to the Assembly of First Nations and the briefing note they shared with our committee. Any national strategy for children and youth needs to consider Canada’s early learning and child care program and the fundamental role it plays in enhancing the education and well-being of children in Canada.
This amendment is consistent with the bill’s objectives to include any relevant recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; namely, Call to Action 12, which calls upon the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Aboriginal families.
Furthermore, this amendment is also consistent with my previous amendment to include the Minister responsible for Employment and Social Development Canada, as Early Learning and Child Care, or ELCC, is housed under that particular department.
In their note, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, wrote that:
First Nations Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) is an integral support for First Nations children to ensure they understand who they are, have opportunity to learn their language, and participate in community.
And that:
The Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework is a guide for communities, program administrators, service providers, policy makers and governments to work towards achieving a shared vision that all Indigenous children have the opportunity to experience high-quality, culturally-strong ELCC.
This is why the AFN called for this element to be an additional consideration for the minister when developing the national strategy.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Is there any discussion or debate? Seeing none, colleagues, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 6, on page 5, by replacing line 18 with the following:
“6 (1) Within 36 months after the day on which this Act”.
So we’re replacing that.
This amendment is in response to the briefing note and witness testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission. It addresses their concern regarding the timelines for consultation with representatives of Indigenous governing bodies and organizations that serve and represent First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth, as outlined in 4(3)(d) of the bill.
Quoting from their briefing note:
We believe that the proposed 24-month timeline for developing the strategy is insufficient to ensure proper consultation and cooperation with all relevant Indigenous organizations and governing bodies across the country.
While the national strategy is important, it is equally important to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are properly consulted. I believe that, by adding an extra year to this timetable, we can strike this balance.
Furthermore, the minister would still be required to table biannual progress reports during that time so Parliament would continue to see the development of the strategy during that additional year. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Open for discussion, colleagues.
Senator McPhedran: Apologies for being late — transportation hiccup.
I absolutely support the concern behind this, but I also want to just observe that, in my decades of doing this kind of stuff, I have seldom seen a government meet a deadline. They always end up asking for an extension.
On the other hand, when they have a shorter runway, it tends to really get them going. I have no crystal ball so maybe this will be the one time that they actually do the work within the time that’s set out, but typically, they come back and ask for an extension.
I’m feeling a little torn by this, just to say that 24 months is a reasonable time. It has got enough pressure built into it that maybe there will actually be some progress, but again, I don’t have a crystal ball. This is very speculative.
Senator Senior: Thank you. Perhaps you said this in what you read, but I’m trying to understand more concretely the reasoning behind 36 as opposed to 24. Is it because of the consultation that will be required? Could you speak to that a bit, please?
Senator Greenwood: It’s my understanding from the briefing note — because this is coming from the nations, not from me personally — that this was their request. It does take time to consult with all of the communities and all of the stakeholders. When we’re looking at Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care, we’re talking about First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples as well. It takes time for people to undertake those consultations. I think that these two particular witness groups that came before us asked for that. In their briefing note, they asked for more time. I am thinking that, in their opinions, 24 months won’t be enough time for them to undertake the work.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Greenwood, for bringing this amendment forward.
Madam Chair, I’m wondering if we might be able to hear from any of the officials from any of the relevant departments with any past experience in developing national strategies, and if they could offer their thoughts on shorter timelines versus longer timelines.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Osler. If the officials could please come to the table.
Jennifer Novak, Director General, Mental Wellness and Health Promotion, Health and Social Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Good morning, everyone. Jennifer Novak, Director General for Mental Wellness and Health Promotion. I’m the lead DG for the Indigenous early learning program.
When this was advanced in 2018-ish, we were looking at historical programs. We had the Aboriginal Head Start. We have that on-reserve and in urban settings. It is a system where you’re looking to integrate many programs that have been built over decades, but then taking a new lens on truth and reconciliation, the learnings that we have even from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. When you’re looking at all of these programs, you’re wanting to move forward from a distinctions-based approach.
To the point that the AFN had made, going to hundreds of nations, we have modern treaty and self-governing that also need to be consulted in a meaningful way. Métis partners right now, there isn’t one large national body representing all Métis partners from province to province. So the consultations end up being a little bit lengthier.
It’s also challenging sometimes for our national Indigenous organizations. There has been turnover. I’ll be honest. I can say that, even in the last year, there has been quite a bit of turnover in some of our organizations. Sometimes you make progress and then lose a bit of momentum. That’s a bit of context. I won’t comment on duration, but that is just my experience.
Just adding that modern treaty and self-governing nations would need to be added to the consultation process in addition to First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Novak. Are there more comments from the officials? Thank you.
Kirsten Mattison, Director General, Children, Families and Learning, Indigenous Services Canada: My name is Kirsten Mattison. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m here today representing Children, Families and Learning at Indigenous Services Canada. But from 2020 to 2024, I was the DG responsible for the Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada. I would put forward for consideration that the strategy was developed based on some pre-existing material.
There had been a rural secretariat. It had not functioned, and then it was brought back up. The strategy was developed in 12 months, but on that timeline, the strategy team was only able to draw information from federal government sources. The information on a 12-month strategy was secondary information. If the bill envisages primary development going to the source — I know you’ve been speaking a lot about direct consultation — that will be very challenging. I know you’re talking about 24 to 36 months, so I’m not exactly answering the question, but when we delivered a 12-month strategy, we were able to pull together the secondary information from other federal departments. We did not have time to do primary consultation, if that helps.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that context, Ms. Mattison.
Senator Moodie: Just a comment about the timeline, as it was decided and put forward at 24 months. The concern for us is holding the government accountable for action and making sure that a focus on how we want to build the future for children in Canada will be defined and set in place. We are not expecting, nor should anybody expect, that in a strategy that emerges, that every program that exists will be affected and that every area of development that exists will be touched by the strategy. There will be areas of focus, and some areas will be touched.
What we know about many of those areas is there is a significant amount of research and consultation already in place. We have some lived examples, like the early child program for Indigenous children that already exists and that stands as a guideline and a template for us.
We wouldn’t be going back to scratch would be my expectation. We would be building on what’s already there and realigning, in some cases, what’s already there with some new consultation. I think it is fair to say that nobody wants to define the appropriate time for the best-possible consultation, but it is how the consultation is designed and how it manages to serve the individuals that are affected. By that, I mean that it’s more about the design and the quality of the work that’s done and, to a lesser extent, the cut-off point. As Senator McPhedran has said, we can expect that there will be extensions. That has been the nature of the work. What we should be focusing on is putting a little bit of fire in this exercise.
Senator Petitclerc: I also want to add my voice in support of the element Senator McPhedran put on the floor. I think experience says a little bit of pressure helps, and extensions are possible, so I would favour keeping the 24 months.
Senator Senior: I don’t know if this is even appropriate language for consideration, but what about 24 to 36 months? We can’t do that? That doesn’t make sense? I will declare my inexperience. I just wanted to put that on the floor as a bit of a range, let’s say.
Senator Hay: I do agree that extending it out 36 months could be a hurry-up-and-wait scenario until month 30, potentially.
What about a bit of a compromise here, looking for a solution. What about a 24-month detailed interim report, with 36 months being the deadline? That way, there’s not silence during that period of time.
Senator Moodie: I would just comment that already built into the strategy are detailed reporting requirements. We already have that component.
Senator Hay: I hear that. I do think 24 months, sadly, should be the time frame. Otherwise, it will be —
Senator Greenwood: There is never a guarantee that there will be extensions granted. We can assume or think that there will be extensions, but there’s never, that I know of — and maybe the folks here in the room from government can tell us. It is really, then, up to the government whether they want to grant an extension or not.
I guess I also want to say that the context has changed since the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework, or IELCC, was developed. Geopolitically in this country, it’s a lot different, I think. There’s much more drive to self-determination, so then you’re looking at nations and modern treaties, all of those things. It’s extraordinarily complex, is what I’m trying to say. I just wonder if you can speak to the notion of extensions.
Ms. Novak: I actually don’t know the answer to that. Sorry.
Ms. Mattison: A legislated deadline would be taken extremely seriously, and missing that would not be Plan A or B. It would be a big problem to miss the deadline.
Senator Greenwood: A big ask.
Ms. Mattison: Yes. I think a lot of other options would be put forward before missing a legislated deadline would be on the table.
Senator Muggli: I worry about the number of groups and rights holders that need to be consulted. It’s massive.
What I also worry about in a 36-month period is that you do part of that work in year one and continue it on to year three, so now you have a two-year gap from what you heard from the first group of people you consulted with, to the group you consulted with last. Who knows what’s changed in the terrain in that period of time.
As much as I think a 36-month time frame helps to capture everybody, I think it creates a different problem of relevancy of what has been gathered in the first year, and now you’re in the third year. I would support 24 months, even though I know it will put a lot of pressure on the people doing the work.
Senator McPhedran: I wanted to pick up on the discussion about the missing of a legislated deadline. What are the consequences if a legislated deadline is missed?
Ms. Mattison: I guess my best answer, if it’s not specified in the legislation — which some pieces of legislation would specify an outcome — would be that we are here to uphold and support the rule of law and the legislated principles. It would just be contrary to our function as the public service.
Senator McPhedran: Who would deliver those consequences? In effect, the extension is being granted by the government to the government, so if there is a finding that an extension is needed, it is a request, essentially, of self. Do I, the government, need an extension? Yes, I do. Will I give myself an extension? Yes, I will. What kind of countermeasure is there, in actual fact, within the system?
The Deputy Chair: It’s all right if you don’t have a response.
Senator Moodie: I do have a response. We asked this question of our lawyer, and he said, “There are no consequences unless it’s specified in law” if a legislated timeline is missed, which is probably why we see what we see.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, I think it’s time for us to ask the question. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed “no” or do we need to go to a vote?
Senator Greenwood: I can withdraw it, right?
The Deputy Chair: Yes. Do you want to withdraw it, or should we have a vote to carry or defeat it?
Senator Greenwood: I think I can simply withdraw it at this time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Accordingly, senators, the amendment has been withdrawn.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 7, on page 5, by adding the following after line 33:
“(1.1) In carrying out the duty referred to in subsection (1), the Minister shall consult with the persons identified in subsection 4(3) of this Act.”.
This amendment is based on the testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission.
This amendment would ensure that First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are fully and meaningfully involved in the five‑year assessment of the strategy, given that 4(3)(d) of the bill includes representatives of Indigenous governing bodies and organizations that serve and represent First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth. It would also ensure that all other groups and ministers listed in 4(3) are included in this five-year review.
Furthermore, this would also ensure that the five-year review is not conducted in a silo within a minister’s office or department but is consistent with what is being felt and heard across the country.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Colleagues, is there any discussion?
Senator Petitclerc: I just have a question for Senator Greenwood. This is very thorough. If I understand correctly, during the development of the strategy, we have in 4(3) everybody that needs to be consulted. Then when we do the report, we need to rotate back to consult them again.
My simple question is this: Is that standard in this type of legislation? Not that it has to be, but I’m just curious.
Senator Greenwood: The representatives, as I understand it, from all of the Indigenous governing bodies need to be part of the five-year assessment, so we circle back and bring them in, yes.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, seeing no more discussion, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Shall clause 7, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in the preamble, on page 1,
(a) by adding the following after line 21:
“Whereas First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youths have the right to grow up in a culturally safe environment and in their own respective cultures and languages;”;
(b) by adding the following after line 28:
“Whereas First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by programs and services that are culturally appropriate and led by Indigenous peoples and Canada is therefore committed to upholding the right of Indigenous peoples to be consulted to obtain their free, prior and informed consent for the content of the national strategy as it pertains to Indigenous children;”.
The rationale for this is that these amendments to the preamble are in response to the testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec and Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission.
By adding to the preamble, First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and youth have the right to grow up in a culturally safe environment and in their own culture’s language. We are explicitly recognizing and affirming the rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis children. This language is also consistent with the language found in An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.
The second component of the amendment recognizes and affirms that First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by programs and services that are culturally appropriate and that are led by Indigenous Peoples, which is important with regard to the right of self-determination and the right of care of their own children. These rights are embedded in self-government, which Indigenous Peoples have fought so hard to assert.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Is there any discussion, colleagues? No discussion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I would also like to move an amendment in the preamble. I’ll read it first. I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by adding the following after line 34:
“Whereas Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which, in Article 7, sets out an obligation on States Parties to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children;”.
[English]
This amendment in the preamble is in response to what the witnesses said in committee and what we also received by organizations like Inclusion Canada, for example. I just wanted to take a bit of time to mention that Article 7 of the convention —
[Translation]
It states the following:
States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.
[English]
The rationale for this amendment, specifically to mention Article 7 of the convention, was to be specific to this article in response to Olivia Lecoufle, a board member of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, who appeared before us. I quote her:
At this stage of the study, the CCRC recommends an amendment to the bill in order to add a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, specifically Article 7, and to embed references to children with disabilities throughout the whole document.
That really will be the result of this amendment and the one we did from Senator Hay.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc. Colleagues, is there any discussion? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Senator Hay: I would like to move an amendment to the preamble of Bill S-212.
We heard repeatedly through witness testimony and submitted letters and briefs from many organizations coast to coast to coast that mental health has to have a specific place and mandate within this bill. I believe that the preamble amendment I suggest will ensure that has a specific place and sets up the bill for a holistic approach.
Furthermore, in discussion with Senator Osler, I support an addition of adding “physical health” to my preamble amendment so that it does not assume that physical health goes alongside mental health or vice versa. Let me read the amendment to the preamble. I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in the preamble,
(a) on page 1, by adding the following after line 34:
“Whereas the well-being of Canada’s children and youth cannot be achieved without a sustained focus on mental health, particularly in light of the urgency of the current mental health crisis across Canada;”;
(b) on page 2, by replacing line 4 with the following:
“And whereas investing in the well-being, physical and mental health, and growth”.
The first part addresses the specificity of mental health in this bill. The second part would ensure that physical health has a place in this bill as well.
This amendment to the preamble recognizes that the well-being of children and youth depends on both physical and mental health, and that addresses that one without the other is incomplete. There is no question that mental health challenges are still rising among young people at crisis levels, affecting their learning relationships and overall development. By naming mental health explicitly alongside physical health in the preamble, it signals that both are essential priorities for this national strategy.
Including this language ensures the bill begins with a holistic, compassionate understanding of children and youth, reflecting the evidence and perspective shared during our study period.
I welcome your thoughts, comments and support.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Hay. Because there was a very slight change, we will get the translation done on that. It will be very quick.
Senator Hay: Thank you. I apologize. I should have done that yesterday.
The Deputy Chair: For clarity, I will now read the new motion. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Hay:
That Bill S-212 be amended in the preamble,
(a) on page 1, by adding the following after line 34:
“Whereas the well-being of Canada’s children and youth cannot be achieved without a sustained focus on mental health, particularly in light of the urgency of the current mental health crisis across Canada;”;
(b) on page 2, by replacing line 4 with the following:
“And whereas investing in the well-being, physical and mental health, and growth”.
Colleagues, is there any further discussion?
Senator Osler: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Senator Hay for her thoughtfulness in considering this. We had a conversation, and historically health has been looked at with an emphasis on physical health and not mental health. I had approached her to ask for the inclusion of physical health in the preamble, keeping the emphasis on the current mental health crisis. I think this captures it quite nicely. I support the amended amendment as written. Again, I want to thank Senator Hay for her thoughtfulness.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Osler.
Okay. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues. At this time, I am going to ask Senator Moodie to say a few words.
Senator Moodie: It’s a few words, folks. I just wanted to express my thanks to all the senators. We are the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, or SOCI, and this is how we work. We do real work and we collaborate. I want to especially thank Senator Hay, Senator Petitclerc, and I would be remiss if I did not thank Senator Greenwood for the extraordinary contribution that you have made to improving this bill, to bringing the voices of leaders and stakeholders to the table for our consideration and during our deliberations. Thank you very much to everyone.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Moodie, thank you.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical, or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Colleagues, as you know, the Rules allow us to go in camera to discuss a draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss the observations in public or in camera?
Some Hon. Senators: In public.
The Deputy Chair: In public. Thank you, senators. We will start the discussion with the observations proposed by Senator Senior.
Senator Senior: Thank you, Madam Chair. As we were reviewing this bill, I had a concern about whether or not there would be a Gender-based Analysis Plus that would go along with it. And considering that we know that children who are most at risk and most vulnerable in Canada and are living in circumstances of poverty and other social determinants of health, that most of those children are living in single-parent households and therefore at greater risk because of the socio-economic circumstances they are in. Most of those single-parent households are led by women. That is the reasoning behind this observation. Should I read the observation?
An Hon. Senator: Please.
Senator Senior: Your committee notes that children are not inherently poor, rather they experience poverty through their living conditions, often single-parent households headed primarily by mothers. It is poverty within those situations we need to address. Your committee also recommends that a Gender-based Analysis Plus of this bill be conducted to provide a fulsome understanding of who would be impacted by this national strategy and to ensure it is inclusive and responsive.
An Hon. Senator: Great.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Is there further discussion, colleagues?
Senator McPhedran: Very strong.
The Deputy Chair: Are members in agreement with the observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations to the Senate, in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed. Thank you, honourable senators.
This brings us to the end of this meeting. There being no further business, this meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)