Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 7:19 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-16, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for your question. Distress centres are a vital part of our community, providing mental health support and resources for those in need. We know that across our country, these centres are seeing a real surge in demand for their services.

While none of the 57 organizations that received funding through last year’s announcement were located in Prince Edward Island, I’m advised that the Public Health Agency of Canada is currently working with an organization that services P.E.I.’s mental distress support needs regarding their funding request. The Public Health Agency of Canada is also providing over $14.8 million over 36 months to Kids Help Phone to provide crisis supports for children and youth across Canada during the pandemic, including for young people in your province.

All Canadians, including those who are at risk and those living in rural and remote areas, need access to critical health and mental health resources and services. The government is working with provinces and territories on expanding virtual services, and the government is making sure that Canadians can use emergency supports and have access to them when they need them.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Thank you. Honourable senators, I would like to thank my colleague for raising interesting issues for Quebec senators.

As you pointed out, and as the Supreme Court has indicated in the Reference re Senate Reform case, this will require the consent of the National Assembly of Quebec. Do you think that one of the first amendments to the Constitution of Canada, especially for Quebec senators, will have any likelihood of success in the National Assembly?

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question, Senator Dalphond. I would certainly not opine on political matters in Quebec. I would not dare to do that. My thinking about this is that I should first seek the support of the Senate for this modernizing amendment to the Constitution, and then let the Government of Quebec deal with that as they see fit.

I have, as you may know, met with I believe all Quebec senators, and I have also spoken to the Quebec government’s office here in Ottawa — they call it la maison du Québec — but that’s as far as I have gone. I would not venture to make an opinion on how that will be dealt with. One would hope that the Province of Quebec would be open to broadening the qualifications to include all of the regions of Quebec and to include every citizen of Quebec who is 30 years of age and otherwise qualified. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you. First, I’m impressed by the interest you have for that issue, which is an important issue, I must say. Today you have spoken to a bill that you have introduced, and that bill will amend the federal Constitution, in the sense of the Constitution of Canada limited to federal institutions. That can be done only by the federal Parliament amending its internal Constitution by an act of Parliament, which means three readings in the Senate and three readings in the House of Commons. It’s kind of a long process. What you are proposing, however, for Quebec is a motion that will require the consent of the Senate, a motion in the House of Commons, and a motion in the National Assembly, which is a slightly different process.

Would you agree that, in order to make sure that all senators are equal and remain equals in this chamber, that we should first move your motion to amend the Constitution, and if adopted by the other house and adopted by the National Assembly, then we should proceed to adopt your bill concerning the other senators of Canada?

Senator Patterson: That’s a very good question, Senator Dalphond, as ministers sometimes say when they are not sure how to answer a question. I agree with you that it would be desirable to have this provision applied to every province and territory in Canada. It would not be preferable to have Bill S-228 proceed in both chambers and have reform for every part of Canada but Quebec.

What you propose does appeal to me in that it’s logical. But what would like to suggest is that this chamber consider these two bills as companions and consider them together, which is why I am speaking to both the bill and the motion today. That’s my answer: Let’s proceed with the support of this chamber. Let’s proceed and treat them both together as interrelated and for the benefit of all of Canada. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

Again, I’ll make inquiries and will be happy to report back when I get the answer.

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

I don’t know the answer, but I will make inquiries with regard to whether the payment has been made and what the future intentions are of the Government of Canada.

Senator MacDonald: Senator Gold, yesterday we received a written response to a question that Senator Martin had asked about whether Canada would bring Iran to the International Court of Justice. However, the response really didn’t answer the question, so I’ll ask you again.

The government admits that further attempts to negotiate with Iran are futile. Will your government hold to account those responsible for this crime by bringing this case before the International Court of Justice?

The Hon. the Speaker: If you do not wish to grant leave, honourable senators, please say no.

Senator Moncion: Thankfully, we know that the Government of Canada is working very hard to help these Canadian families and these Ukrainian women. However, it is clear that Canada’s legislative framework heightens the inequality between women in different countries. The government is facilitating several aspects of assisted human reproduction elsewhere in the world, which benefits Canadians, but it has not considered the impact of its legislation on other parts of the world. The committee could also examine these important issues and propose solutions.

(1640)

When the current legislative framework was created and then implemented, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies told the government to proceed with care. In fact, Proceed with Care was the title of its final report, published in 1993. At the time, the government did not have the data to understand the actual impact of the policy it was proposing. We now know that the health, safety and well-being of surrogates, gamete donors, children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies, and future parents would be better protected by regulations than by criminal prohibitions.

[English]

No empirical evidence exists that would support a differential treatment in the western countries towards paid surrogates and women who become surrogates for altruistic reasons. Both are at risk of power imbalances and need to be better protected under an adequate regulatory framework.

Empirical evidence has significantly reduced concerns that arose in the early days of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. It was believed and some still believe now that, in wealthy countries, surrogates would be vulnerable women who would serve the needs of wealthy families. Evidence has proven that in countries that are comparable to Canada, there is no overrepresentation of poor, uneducated or racialized women among surrogates or donors.

For example, in 2015, Maneesha Deckha, professor and Lansdowne Chair at the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria, published an article in the McGill Law Journal. In it, she refers to U.S. research and the profile of surrogate mothers in Western countries by quoting Erin Nelson, professor of tort law. She says:

Contrary to feminist arguments made in the early days of ARTs, the women who act as surrogates are not poor, uneducated women of colour who comprise some sort of reproductive ‘underclass’ to serve the needs of wealthy white women.

While this dichotomy is one of the reasons why Canadian lawmakers justify the need to criminalize commercial surrogacy and gamete donations, it is not based on empirical evidence.

Paid or not, in the context of a wealthy country like Canada, what is needed is a legal framework that looks after everyone’s health and safety. Criminalization only fosters a climate of fear and silence, which stifles discussion and increases the risk that vulnerable people will be exploited, whether we are talking about surrogate mothers, intending parents, gamete donors, gamete recipients or children.

A Senate study would provide recommendations based on testimonies and up-to-date empirical evidence that were not, at the time, available to the sponsors of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and the Baird commission.

[Translation]

In conclusion, our world has changed considerably since the adoption of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and even more since the Baird Commission released its report in 1993. In light of the empirical evidence in recent academic publications and testimony from various stakeholders, the time has come for Parliament to review the extent of the empirical evidence on assisted human reproduction, to ensure that there is a legal framework that truly protects the health and safety of Canadians and that guarantees fairness and justice for the intended parents, surrogate mothers and children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies.

Whether or not you agree with decriminalizing payment for these practices, the time has come to review and study these issues through a 2022 lens.

Dear colleagues, I urge you to support this motion and authorize the Standing Committee on Social Affairs to study this important issue.

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moncion, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Moncion: May I have five more minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Richards, I understand you have a question, but there’s only 12 seconds left.

Hon. Rosa Galvez introduced Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Patterson, would you take a question?

Senator Patterson: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Gold, the families of flight PS752 continue to seek justice for their loved ones who were killed in January 2020 when Iran shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet with Russian-made missiles. Following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the families of flight PS752 issued a statement declaring their solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

In a decision released in January of this year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $107 million plus interest to the families of six victims aboard this flight, which they can now try to collect with the seizure of Iranian-owned assets abroad. Senator Gold, what is the Government of Canada doing to help these families collect on the court’s ruling?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dupuis, do you have a question?

Senator Francis: Thank you for your answer, Senator Gold. The Public Health Agency of Canada also opened up an application process for additional funds for crisis services that took place last year, and the application process closed in the fall. Senator Gold, could you advise us as to whether or not any applications from P.E.I. received funding?

Senator Gold: Senator, thank you for your question. I don’t know the answer to that. I will have to undertake to try to find the answer.