Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, since it’s National Blood Donor Week, I would like to remind this chamber of recent advances in blood donor screening. On April 28, 2022, Health Canada eliminated the three-month donor deferral period for men who have sex with men and replaced it with a less discriminatory screening approach.

Starting in the fall of 2022, all donors will be screened for high-risk sexual behaviour, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

[English]

That said, in The Hill Times article of May 13, 2022, Dane Griffiths, director of the Gay Men’s Sexual Health Alliance said:

. . . the new policy will still discriminate against the “vast majority of gay and bisexual men” who will still not be able to donate, as well as further increasing the stigma surrounding queer sex, specifically regarding HIV/AIDS.

This is particularly so given that Health Canada’s policy for assessing high-risk behaviour will not take into consideration advances like pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication that prevents HIV transmission, and the fact that potential donors who are HIV-positive can have an undetectable viral load.

[Translation]

April’s announcement is a first step, but it is not enough. Senator Gold, what steps does the Canadian government plan to take next to improve and adapt blood donation eligibility for the LGBTQ2+ community, and when will this happen?

Senator Cormier: Thank you for the answer, Senator Gold. Can I count on you to make sure Health Canada responds to the submissions that will be filed in this regard?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for this question.

The government remains committed to supporting blood and plasma donation policies in Canada that are safe, non-discriminatory and scientifically based.

As you mentioned, on April 28, Health Canada authorized a submission from Canadian Blood Services to eliminate the three-month blanket donor deferral period for all sexually active men who have sex with men. This deferral period will be replaced by an approach that screens all donors for high-risk sexual behaviour, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

The authorization is a significant milestone toward a more inclusive blood donation system nationwide and builds on progress in scientific evidence made in recent years thanks to government-funded research.

Under the Blood Regulations, Canada’s two blood operators, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec, are required to make submissions to Health Canada for any changes to their processes, such as changes to donor deferrals. Héma-Québec has indicated that more flexible donor screening criteria for plasma will be implemented in the fall of 2022.

In the months that follow, the organization plans to file a submission with Health Canada to extend these measures to other types of donations, such as whole blood and platelet donations.

Senator Gold: I will do my best.

[English]

Senator Gold: Honourable senator, I will certainly make inquiries and, concurrent with that, I would encourage interested senators to explore how we can use our good resources and perhaps the reputation of the Senate to bring this measure to light.

I do want to, if you will permit me, underline the importance of publicizing the Criminal Code provisions and the protection that it attempts to provide. In this regard, the federal government addresses the issue, which it deems a serious issue and an odious practice. It addresses this through a federal interdepartmental working group, which is co-chaired by Women and Gender Equality Canada and Global Affairs Canada. It brings together 13 federal departments to provide a forum for collaboration to address harmful practices, including female genital mutilation. The government also supports many initiatives and organizations that are working to end this unacceptable practice.

Senator Gold: Thank you for raising this. It is an important issue, but it is a complex one and it cuts across multiple government departments.

The Government of Canada is focused on finding a solution that will allow our important work in Afghanistan to continue. I am advised that the government is reviewing recommendations made to it in a special committee report that was recently released. It will respond as soon as possible.

The government has also received additional opinions from members of the legal community. These opinions add additional information for the government to consider as it looks for a medium- and longer-term solution to this problem.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, your government’s deputy leader, Chrystia Freeland, testified yesterday that your government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act during the “Freedom Convoy” was made because the convoy was a threat to our economic reputation. Not only does the act not list that as legal grounds for its invocation, but your government doesn’t seem to suffer any such concerns about the mess it has created at Canada’s largest airport, which has been dragging on for two weeks because of your pointless vaccine mandates.

Senator Gold, why is your government continuing to enforce these ridiculous mandates for incoming international travellers?

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, a couple of days ago, cabinet posted an order-in-council regarding Hans Island and an agreement between Canada and Denmark on the division of Hans Island.

Hans Island is 18 kilometres off the coast of Canada and, in the belief of many, it is a part of Canada. They made an agreement with a country thousands of kilometres away for less than half of the geographic area of the island. Immediately, of course, Canada put an embargo on the media reporting any details about it. Senator Gold, can you please give us some details about what side agreements were made with respect to the division of natural resources, be they petroleum or fisheries resources, on that Hans Island deal that was done behind closed doors?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

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

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to explain the purpose and effect of the amendment to Bill S-8 adopted by the committee.

Colleagues, Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, was introduced in the Senate on May 17, 2022, and was referred to the committee on May 19, 2022.

The committee began its study on June 3, 2022, with two panels of expert witnesses and government officials from the Canada Border Services Agency; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and Global Affairs Canada, and concluded on June 9, 2022, with clause-by-clause consideration.

During that meeting, the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold, joined us to move a coordinating amendment, which the committee ultimately adopted. The purpose of the amendment, which is technical rather than substantive, is to prevent a potential conflict with Bill C-21 on firearms, which was introduced in the House of Commons on May 30, 2022.

Bill S-8 proposes changes to three provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are also impacted by Bill C-21. In each of these provisions, Bill S-8 would add sanctions to the existing list of grounds for inadmissibility or detention. Bill C-21, in turn, would add transborder criminality to the existing list of grounds for inadmissibility or detention.

However, as the bills are currently written, neither piece of legislation takes the other into account, meaning that whichever bill receives Royal Assent second would unintentionally undo the changes to the provisions made by the bill that becomes law first.

I’m glad you’re all with me on this.

The amendment proposed by Senator Gold and adopted by the committee addresses this issue by stating that if the provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act amended by both Bill S-8 and Bill C-21 enter into force, then both sanctions and transborder criminality would be included as grounds for inadmissibility or detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

To put it simply, colleagues, this technical coordinating amendment is designed to preserve the changes made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by Bill S-8, but makes no substantive changes to the content of Bill S-8.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Dean, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

In the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we held five meetings. We heard from the following witnesses: the Minister of Justice, the Honourable David Lametti, and his officials from the Department of Justice; the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, representing the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19; Catherine Claveau, la batonnière du Barreau du Québec; Alain Bartleman from the Indigenous Bar Association; Emilie Coyle from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Mark Knox, from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers; Eva Tache-Green from Nunavut Legal Aid; Howard Chow from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Jason Hope from Correctional Service Canada; Professor Cheryl Webster from the Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa; Professor Nicole Marie Myers from the Department of Sociology of Queen’s University; David Parry, from the Canadian Bar Association; Michael Spratt from the Criminal Lawyers Association; and Shelley Tkatch from Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

We made two amendments to the bill. The first was on the independent review introduced by Senator Cotter. This amendment creates an obligation for the Minister of Justice to initiate one or more independent reviews of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters within the next three years of this bill receiving Royal Assent. A report will need to be laid before each house of Parliament within the five years following the review.

The second amendment, on parliamentary review, was introduced by Senator Dalphond. This amendment requires each house of Parliament, in the fifth year following the Royal Assent of this bill, to refer the provisions to a committee, whether designated or established.

Finally, the committee also made a number of observations. One, we noted that there should be a follow-up study on delays in criminal proceedings, which would complement the 2017 report entitled Delaying Justice is Denying Justice. Two, we observed that remote appearances might increase access to justice, but that these should only be used when appropriate and should not replace in-person proceedings when those would better ensure fair hearings and protect the legal rights of accused persons.

[Translation]

Three, we noted that the use of virtual appearances could expand the ability to access interpreters across Canada who are not locally available during judicial proceedings. This being said, virtual interpretation should not replace in-person interpretation when the latter is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Four, the committee observed that some witnesses underscored the importance of protecting the legal rights of accused persons in custody during virtual proceedings, particularly how these apply to privacy, security, confidentiality, and the ability of an accused to confer with defence counsel.

Five, the committee noted that investments in technology and appropriate facilities are needed to ensure appropriate access to proceedings, particularly for participants in remote locations, vulnerable populations, and those who are incarcerated.

[English]

Six, the committee observed that Bill S-4 seeks to perpetuate measures that were established during the COVID-19 pandemic, which have become part of the judicial system and will continue to be used in the administration of the judicial process.

We noted that several witnesses expressed concern about the use of these measures on the fundamental rights of individuals who had been charged or detained, as well as marginalized individuals, victims and witnesses, especially at the stage of presenting evidence. Therefore, the committee considers that the choice of the accused to consent to the use of these measures must be the only factor that triggers their use.

Honourable senators, that concludes our report on Bill S-4. Thank you.