Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for this work. I think we’ve all had a good review of the bill, and I think it has also forced us to go back and look at the language and the use of language in the application process. While we’re at this, while we’re doing this important work right now, how does Canada want to see itself? How does Canada want to be?

As you’re going through this and reviewing the information as you have at this intense level, are there other pieces that jumped off the page for you that this is what we need to do here — without significantly changing other acts — that we also need to think about A, B or C? Did you have any reflection on that as you were doing your work and preparation? Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that question, Senator Deacon. I thank honourable senators for the indications of support I’ve heard today. I’m awed at the prospect, with your support, of changing the Constitution Act. This is quite a humbling opportunity for any Canadian legislator.

The short answer to your question is that tackling this obviously arcane and inequitable provision in the Constitution Act relating to the qualifications of a senator, which senators in this chamber are very well familiar with, is a major step. We were all subject to the due diligence on meeting these criteria. I feel that changing this provision is a major step. So the short answer to your question, Senator Deacon, is, no, I have not looked at other flaws or ancient, inappropriate words in the Constitution Act. I’ve been focusing on this one. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson, pursuant to notice of November 25, 2021, moved:

Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;

Whereas a person’s personal circumstances or the availability of real property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the required property;

Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who own real property of a minimum net worth;

Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;

Whereas, in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral Division;

Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respecting the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the Schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise again today, but this time to speak to Motion No. 19, which seeks to remove the real property requirements for senators hailing from La Belle Province.

As you know from my speech earlier today, this motion is connected with the intent of my Bill S-228, to remove net worth and property requirements from senators’ qualifications as listed in the Constitution Act, 1867. I would like to stress again that it does not remove the requirement that is in the Constitution Act which requires senators to be resident in the province or territory they represent.

Again, I draw your attention to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of April 25, 2014, which concluded:

. . . a full repeal of the real property requirement (s. 23(3)) requires the consent of Quebec’s legislative assembly, under the special arrangements procedure. Indeed, a full repeal of that provision would also constitute an amendment in relation to s. 23(6), which contains a special arrangement applicable only to the province of Quebec.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision elaborates on the arguments that led them to such a decision, saying:

The Attorney General of Quebec contends that the repeal of the real property qualification in s. 23(3) would affect the operation of s. 23(6), which allows Quebec Senators to either reside in the electoral division for which they are appointed or to fulfill their real property qualification in that division. It follows, in his view, that Quebec’s consent is required to repeal the provision.

Colleagues in this chamber are already familiar with the special arrangement referred to in the decision: The Constitution can be amended in matters specific to a province or territory by having a motion adopted in the Senate, in the other place and in the provincial or territorial assembly. This is very similar to the Saskatchewan Act amendment currently being actively considered by this chamber.

For colleagues who may not know about the additional qualification requirement faced by our colleagues from Quebec, section 23(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that:

In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

As Quebec senators well know, there are 24 electoral divisions in Quebec. Historically, these divisions were created on linguistic and religious lines, separating anglophones from francophones and Catholics from Protestants. These divisions, as I feel most would agree, are no longer relevant today.

Further, it requires Quebec senators to own property in a region that they may well not live in, meaning that several senators face the additional burden of owning another property on top of their primary residence if they are not already resident in the electoral district they were appointed to represent.

I would also point out to senators that these 24 districts are anachronistic. They are focused on the southern part of the province and do not account for Nunavik and the territory of the James Bay Cree.

Our former colleague, senator Charlie Watt, in fact, owned property in southern Quebec that he had never laid eyes on.

Given the irrelevance of these divisions in this modern age and given the many arguments I made earlier today against the elitism and exclusion and barriers perpetuated by property requirements in general, I am asking senators for their support in moving this motion forward, alongside my Senate public Bill S-228.

Thank you, honourable senators. Taima.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

He said: Honourable senators, from Treaty 4 territory and homeland of the Métis Nation, I’m humbled to speak to you as sponsor of the “Jane Goodall Act.” I have taken on this responsibility with the blessing of Dr. Jane Goodall and the Honourable Murray Sinclair. Together they launched an earlier version of the animal protection legislation in late 2020. As you know, the bill protects wild animals in captivity and addresses the unsustainable global wildlife trade.

I am grateful for Dr. Goodall and Senator Sinclair’s guidance and support in preparing this new edition of the bill over the last year. We are very thankful for the valued contributions of a strong and newly announced coalition behind the bill. Supporters include Canada’s leading zoos: the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Granby Zoo, the Assiniboine Park and Zoo in Winnipeg and the Montréal Biodôme.

Supporters also include Canada’s leading animal advocacy organizations: the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Humane Canada, Animal Justice, World Animal Protection Canada, Humane Society International Canada and Zoocheck Canada. Perhaps this coalition’s most exciting contributions are new legal protections for captive big cats, bears, wolves, hyenas, seals, sea lions, walruses, certain primates, and dangerous reptiles, such as crocodiles, alligators, giant pythons and venomous snakes. All told, this bill bans over 800 captive, non-domesticated species at roadside zoos.

For context, there are up to 4,000 privately owned big cats in Canada, with reports of poor conditions, safety concerns and lack of oversight. For a sense of the scale of wildlife captivity, there are 100 to 150 wildlife attractions in Canada where animals may receive protection under the act, and an estimated 1.5 million privately owned exotic animals nationwide.

Like the original bill, Bill S-241 would phase out elephant captivity in Canada. The Granby Zoo has announced a transition out of keeping elephants, and I commend Paul Gosselin, CEO of the Granby Zoo, for his leadership in that regard. There are currently over 20 elephants at four locations in Canada.

The Jane Goodall act supports the continuation of Canada’s great ape conservation and science programs at the Toronto, Calgary and Granby Zoos, subject to potential conditions.

As with the original bill, under the “Noah Clause,” the federal cabinet can extend legal protections to additional wild animals, considering factors relating to wild animals’ welfare in captivity. The legislation also establishes limited legal standing for affected species, allowing orders for animals’ best interests, including relocation and costs in sentencing for illegal breeding, performance or conveyance covering elephant rides.

I am grateful that this coalition of superlative voices for animals supports Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. In a few minutes, I will share their messages with you. I hope other Canadian organizations will take a close look at this positive and evidence-based legislation and add their support.

We are building a big tent that puts animals first. Teamwork combined with conviction can tip the scales in favour of passing the Jane Goodall act in this Parliament. As you will hear, animals cannot afford to wait. If we work together and move quickly, the Senate — and, moreover, Canada — can lead the way at this pivotal time for animal welfare and wildlife conservation. Dr. Goodall and many others are counting on us.

As former Senator Sinclair noted, the Jane Goodall act builds on the Senate’s great work in recent years to protect animals. Achievements include former senator Willie Moore’s whale and dolphin laws; Senator MacDonald’s shark fin ban; Senator Harder’s extraordinary efforts to enact both those policies; former senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen’s bill to ban cosmetic testing on animals, now the subject of government and opposition election commitments; Senator Boyer’s sponsorship of Bill C-84 to address animal abuse; and Senator Bovey and Senator Christmas’ sponsorship of government bills to protect aquatic habitat.

I also know Senator Dalphond is looking to strengthen Bill S-5 to end chemical testing on animals by 2035, another government election commitment. Pierre, I am with you.

After refreshing the chamber on the bill’s legislative framework, I will explain this new version’s three major changes. My sincere thanks to counsel and the Senate Law Clerk’s office for their incredible work to realize the policy goals of the Jane Goodall act.

The three major changes in this bill are: a legislative framework for animal care organizations that meet five transparent and accessible criteria; new protections for the hundreds of species mentioned earlier, as well as updates on elephant and great ape policies; and increased focus on addressing the unsustainable global wildlife trade.

Before explaining the details, a few words about values. This legislation expresses the harmony of Western science and Indigenous understandings of nature. This knowledge tells us that action is urgent for wild animals, with many species facing cruelty and extinction right now. It is my hope that many senators will recognize this urgency, with an air of gravity, and be a part of this initiative.

Rooted in scientific evidence, the Jane Goodall act would establish the strongest legal protections in the world for wild animals in captivity, building on Canada’s 2019 whale and dolphin laws as well as enhancing conservation measures.

Society’s eyes are increasingly open to animals’ true natures, through scientific research like Dr. Goodall’s work with chimpanzees, as well as stunning documentaries from Sir David Attenborough and others. It is crystal clear that science, empathy and justice require legal changes for many additional wild species. With this bill, Canada’s laws can respect the biological and ecological characteristics and needs of such animals and their place on our planet.

Senators, I am honoured to share a message from the bill’s namesake, Dr. Jane Goodall, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, world-renowned conservationist, founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and UN Messenger of Peace.

Today is an important day for animals. So many of them are in desperate need of our help and the Jane Goodall Act establishes protection and support for animals under human care. It is a monumental step forward for animals, people, and the environment. I am honoured to lend my name to this world-leading legislation that is supported by a wonderful coalition of government, conservationists, animal welfare groups and accredited zoos. Together we can and will provide a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves and put an end to the misery that is wildlife trafficking.

Together with science, the Jane Goodall act is based in Indigenous values. The bill’s preamble includes the phrase “All My Relations,” an Indigenous understanding that all life forms of Creation are interconnected and interdependent. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on Canadians to reconcile with the earth, through a restoration of reciprocity and mutual respect. That report stated, “Mi’kmaq and other Indigenous laws stress that humans must journey through life in conversation and negotiation with all creation.”

In recent years in this chamber, Indigenous leadership has strengthened animal and environmental protection laws. We have heard powerful speeches from Indigenous senators, guiding the Senate to respect nature and to act as Canada’s Council of Elders; the Jane Goodall act aims for further progress.

The original bill’s author, our former colleague and the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Honourable Murray Sinclair, would like to share his vision for the Jane Goodall act.

This legislation will further reconciliation with the natural world. When we treat animals well, we affirm our relationship with all of Creation and act with both self-respect and mutual respect. It is an honour that Senator Klyne has sponsored this bill, an inspiring continuation of Dr. Goodall’s legendary work for animals.

Senators, as our former colleague noted, the bill’s measures fully respect traditional and sustainable Indigenous harvesting practices and trades. Indigenous peoples have maintained relationships of gratitude and stewardship with animals since time immemorial. To emphasize and communicate our respect for Indigenous inherent rights, the bill contains a section 35 constitutional non-derogation clause.

Before exploring the bill’s three major changes, how does the Jane Goodall act work? Like the whale and dolphin laws, Bill S-241 exercises federal jurisdiction over animal cruelty and international and interprovincial trade. The bill prohibits the acquisition and breeding of affected species, requiring permits from Environment and Climate Change Canada for those activities, as well as permits for transport across national and provincial borders.

The bill grandfathers in current populations, with all animals remaining in place. The federal or relevant provincial government may license new captivity, including for breeding, for animals’ best interests regarding individual welfare and conservation or for non-harmful scientific research.

The reason for dual licensing authorities, in some contexts, is to acknowledge that the subject of captive non-domesticated animals has shared federal and provincial jurisdiction, with respect to animal cruelty and property and civil rights. The bill’s preamble notes this constitutional duality. Canada has had this framework at least since 1892, when Parliament enacted animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code. Today, Bill S-241 takes the same jurisdictional approach to licensing as the whale and dolphin laws.

In addition, the Jane Goodall act bans the use of affected species in performances for entertainment as well as elephant rides unless licensed by a provincial government. This is relevant to sea lions and walruses at Marineland in Niagara Falls and to elephants at African Lion Safari near Hamilton. The federal government would not be able to grant such licences, to discourage allowing these activities.

Senators, before exploring the changes and updates, I am thrilled to share words from the strong coalition of supporters of the Jane Goodall act, including Canada’s leading zoos and animal advocacy organizations.

The Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Granby Zoo, Assiniboine Park Zoo and the Montréal Biodôme have announced their support for the Jane Goodall act. They have also contributed expert advice on the new protections for big cats and other species, and other elements of the bill.

These five leading Canadian zoos are members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or the AZA, the accrediting body with the highest standards in their field in the Americas. These large zoos represent a very high count of Canada’s annual zoo attendance. For example, before the pandemic and with numbers rebounding, the Calgary Zoo had over 100,000 members and close to 1.5 million annual visitors. The Granby Zoo had 42,000 members and 830,000 annual visitors. Pre‑pandemic, the Toronto Zoo welcomed 1.3 million guests annually. Moving out of the pandemic, the Toronto Zoo has a record number of over 37,000 memberships, representing more than 100,000 individuals.

Senators, Dolf DeJong, CEO of the Toronto Zoo, said:

Our zoos have a long history of supporting wildlife conservation in Canada and around the globe. Our commitment to animal welfare, conservation, science and education programs is vital to the survival of many species. . . . The Toronto Zoo is proud to support the Jane Goodall Act as it represents a critical step forward in protecting wild animals.

Dr. Clément Lanthier, President and CEO of the Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo and President of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or WAZA, said:

Every day at Canada’s leading zoos, our amazing teams of dedicated specialists work to ensure that the animals we love receive exceptional care. The Jane Goodall Act will ensure the welfare of countless captive animals across Canada.

Within our coalition, I am pleased to report that six leading Canadian animal advocacy organizations also support the bill. These organizations have also contributed their expertise to the bill, such as protections for new species, the relocation of animals from unsuitable conditions to sanctuaries, and the global wildlife trade.

The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada is Dr. Goodall’s team in Canada. They use community-centred conservation to mobilize action on biodiversity, climate change and environmental inequality in Canada, as well as chimpanzee habitat in Africa. A huge thank you to the Jane Goodall Institute team, who have guided the realization of Dr. Goodall’s vision for this bill.

Barbara Cartwright is the CEO of Humane Canada, the national federation of SPCAs and humane societies. She has played a key role in bringing forward the Jane Goodall act. Ms. Cartwright said:

The Jane Goodall Act is a significant evolution in animal welfare in Canada. . . . Protecting animals in captivity and in the wild signals an unprecedented shift in Parliament toward integrated thinking about animals, people and the environment.

Camille Labchuk is a lawyer and the Executive Director of Animal Justice, Canada’s only national animal law advocacy organization. She said:

This Jane Goodall Act is a welcome step toward improving Canada’s outdated animal protection laws. . . . Animal Justice is especially pleased that the bill would offer animals limited legal standing in court—a groundbreaking move toward making sure our legal system prioritizes their well‑being.

Along with the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, World Animal Protection Canada is a leader on issues relating to the global wildlife trade and will be a key partner in developing regulatory recommendations and amendments on this subject. In the words of Melissa Matlow, their Campaign Director:

This is a historic bill that would make Canada a global leader in protecting wildlife and animal welfare. The unsustainable trade in wild animals requires urgent action, to prevent cruelty, extinction and future pandemics.

The Humane Society International/Canada, or HSI/Canada, also has expertise on the global wildlife trade, including elephant ivory and relocating animals to sanctuaries. Rebecca Aldworth, the Executive Director, said:

HSI/Canada has witnessed the suffering and deplorable conditions in roadside zoos, having intervened to rescue hundreds of animals from such facilities. We fully support this landmark Act, to help prevent cruelty and neglect, reflecting Canadians’ desire to protect captive wild animals.

Zoocheck is another voice. They monitor the situations and numbers of wild animals in captivity in Canada and advocate for their protection. Since 1988, this has been Zoocheck’s tireless cause. Rob Laidlaw, a biologist and founder of Zoocheck, provided our coalition with data informing this legislation’s new protections. Mr. Laidlaw is responsible for the inclusion of dozens of species. He said:

Zoocheck is extremely pleased to support the Jane Goodall Act. This thoughtful, proactive and long overdue legislation will make Canada more humane for animals, as well as safer for Canadians, by reducing the number of dangerous animals held by unqualified people.

Colleagues, for all these superlative Canadian voices for animals, this bill is a recognition and continuation of their excellent work. I am very grateful for their contributions and support. If the Senate adopts Bill S-241, I am optimistic that the Jane Goodall act can receive strong support in the House of Commons.

Addressing wildlife trafficking was a 2021 election commitment of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, setting the table for considerable consensus in the other place.

Furthermore, the mandate letter of the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, reflects the government’s election commitments to introduce a bill to protect animals in captivity, and to end the elephant ivory and rhino horn trades in Canada. I appreciate the minister’s kind words following Tuesday’s introduction, and I look forward to any opportunities to collaborate with the government, the Senate government representative team and, indeed, all parliamentarians.

The House of Commons sponsor for the Jane Goodall act, Member of Parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, agrees:

The Jane Goodall Act strengthens Canada’s animal protection laws and fulfills the Government’s mandate to protect animals in captivity. Canadians across the political spectrum care about animal welfare, and I hope to see this bill supported by MP’s from every party.

Senators, I now turn to the details of the three major changes in Bill S-241. The first is a new legislative framework for Jane Goodall act’s animal care organizations, including zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries, to be administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The act’s animal care organizations must continue to meet transparent and accessible criteria, with the first four based on the standards of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or the AZA. Consultants with animal welfare groups have confirmed that the AZA has the highest standards of accreditation for zoos and aquariums in the Americas, with only seven accreditations in Canada.

The act has five criteria for animal welfare organizations. The first is to administer the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care. The bill leaves this determination of fact to the minister, who may consider North American, European and other standards.

The second is to provide employees and others with whistle-blower protection in order to be able to report animal welfare issues to the minister without fear of reprisal after taking any appropriate steps internal to the organization.

The third is to refrain from activities that misrepresent or degrade captive wild animals, including use in performance for entertainment such as displays of circus-style tricks or use in TV and film productions. An animal care organization may engage in educational demonstrations with animals, including supervised public observations and interactions involving natural behaviour or practices required for animal care.

The fourth criterion is to acquire wild animals in a manner that does not negatively impact species populations in their habitat or that contributes to a species’ survival or recovery. For example, it would be permissible to take animals into captivity to save the species, as with California condors.

The fifth criterion is to maintain any other standards and best practices established by the minister, on the basis of the best available scientific, veterinary, animal care or animal welfare information, following consultations with experts. This fifth point is important, establishing an evidence-based and consultative process for any improvements needed in the future, to serve and protect animals’ individual and collective interests.

Animal welfare scientist Dr. Jake Veasey has provided helpful advice on the new bill. Dr. Veasey has developed and published peer-reviewed research on an Animal Welfare Priority Identification System, known as AWPIS. The system aims to establish data-driven habitats and management programs for captive species that effectively prioritize their psychological needs and deliver peak animal welfare. This process establishes data on the evolutionary heritage and motivational characteristics of each species, using input from experts, including in and outside the captive management sector.

An insight of Dr. Veasey’s system is that captive habitats for wide-ranging carnivores, such as tigers and polar bears, are not necessarily problematic because they limit the distances these animals walk, with many animals walking as much in zoos as in the wild, but because they remove the purpose from such movement. Dr. Veasey suggests that best practices should help rebuild the connection between movement and meaningful outcomes, where captive animals are empowered to choose how and when they act to secure rewarding opportunities.

Dr. Veasey hopes to apply this methodology in establishing a polar bear refuge in Canada, to care for polar bears who have come into conflict with humans, and to study how we can help them adapt to a warming Arctic.

Once designated, Jane Goodall act “animal care organizations” may continue their animal care, conservation, science and public education programs for most species protected under the act, subject to potential conditions. Canada’s seven AZA zoos and aquariums will be the first to obtain this status through designations in the bill. In addition to the five zoos I have mentioned, these organizations include the Vancouver Aquarium and Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada in Toronto. These designations give weight to AZA accreditation, consultations with animal welfare groups on different accreditations, and Dr. Goodall’s regard for this credential.

The bill’s framework presents the possibility of gaining this status for some members of Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, as well as any other organizations, including sanctuaries. This would very likely require some zoos or sanctuaries to improve or evolve, and Parliament can consider any developments prior to passage.

Many wildlife attractions in Canada may not receive the act’s status, at least in the near term, as this bill’s priority is animal protection at the highest standards. Such organizations or individuals would still be able to apply for licences for new captivity of individual species and can continue to acquire species not named in the initial designations.

Our goal, senators, is a race to the top in a positive and forward-looking spirit. Jane Goodall act “animal care organization” status can become the ultimate standard in Canada, established in law for the benefit of wild animals. Other countries will take note and may follow Canada’s lead.

One of Dr. Goodall’s priorities is that excellent zoos, aquariums and sanctuaries will be able to flourish under the legislation, a goal that this bill achieves. The world is not getting any better for animals, and these organizations play critically important roles in saving animals from unsuitable conditions and extinction.

In 2019, the Toronto Zoo assisted in relocating animals seized from a roadside zoo in Quebec. This past summer, the Toronto Zoo was prepared to provide a temporary home for some lions and tigers in private ownership in Maynooth, Ontario, following provincial animal welfare charges against the owners. Many staff volunteered to move to the area for an extended period to care for the animals. Unfortunately, the current law allowed for the private relocation of these animals without oversight.

An exciting development at the Toronto Zoo is their master plan to create a dedicated “saving species sanctuary” over the next several years, a sanctuary that could accept animals in need from all over Canada.

Canada’s leading zoos also play vital roles in wildlife conservation and research. Worldwide, captive breeding has played a role in over half of the cases where extinction has been prevented for birds and mammals.

The Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo is the Global Secretariat for the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission Translocation Specialist Group, within this global authority on the status of the natural world with over 1,400 member organizations, as well as experts in over 40 countries. This body guides the re-introduction and movement of animals to re-establish wild populations.

The Calgary Zoo also leads or contributes to conservation and research programs relating to endangered Canadian species like black-footed ferrets, whooping cranes, burrowing owls, greater sage-grouse, the half-moon hairstreak butterfly, northern leopard frogs and Vancouver Island marmots.

The Toronto Zoo is studying and helping to restore Canadian populations of wood bison, eastern loggerhead shrikes, Blanding’s turtles, and rattlesnakes. The Toronto Zoo also maintains one of the few reproductive physiology labs in North America, biobanks that preserve wildlife by freezing reproductive materials.

Of note, the five Canadian zoos I have highlighted are all participants in AZA Species Survival Plans, designed to protect genetically healthy captive populations of endangered species as safeguards from extinction.

By establishing a legal status for credible “animal care organizations,” this bill can be good for animals and for attracting visitors, instilling confidence in quality animal care, safety, conservation, science and education. The “animal care organization” framework in the Jane Goodall act will be a win‑win for wild animals and animal care professionals.

The coalition behind this bill has led efforts to establish new legal protections for over 800 species of what the act calls “designated animals.” The species of “designated animals” can be added to or removed from the act’s application by orders of the federal cabinet, through the “Noah Clause.” In determining these priority species, based on welfare and safety concerns, zoo and NGO input has been valuable, along with the advice of Dr. Lori Marino. She is the animal neuroscientist who proved that dolphins are self-aware and who leads the whale sanctuary planned in Nova Scotia.

Initial Jane Goodall act designations focus on large, far‑ranging predators, certain primates and dangerous reptiles. Notably, some designations have a delayed coming into force of up to six months to allow owners to navigate social dynamics and reproductive issues among the animals. The following bans are all subject to licensing.

First — this being the Year of the Tiger — are the big cats. Close to 40 zoos keep big cats in Canada, and estimates for private ownership range between 3,600 and over 7,000 animals. Of course, reliable data is a problem.

In 2009, B.C. banned private ownership after a fatal attack. Ontario’s laws are notoriously lax, with no licensing requirement for ownership, breeding or trade in big cats. Last year, an Ontario couple was able to relocate big cats without government oversight after their lions dug a hole under their enclosure and ate a tiger. The bill bans all seven big cat species, including lions and tigers, as well as multiple species of medium-sized cats, such as lynx and bobcats.

Next are bears. Over 25 zoos keep bears in captivity in Canada, and this bill bans all species kept in Canada, including grizzlies and polar bears.

This bill also bans wolves and other large, wild canines, including wolf-dog hybrids, coyotes, jackals and raccoon dogs, which pose an invasive species risk. Over 30 Canadian zoos keep wolves, a highly intelligent, social and extremely wide-ranging species. In addition, the bill bans hyenas, another top predator that we believe is kept at only three locations in Canada.

The Jane Goodall act prohibits captivity of all seals, sea lions and walruses, subject to licensing. Nine locations in Canada keep these species. Of note, the 2021 CBC “The Nature of Things” episode The Last Walrus documents that some walrus captivity in Canada may have scientific merit for helping wild populations.

However, Marineland has been known to house seals indoors for extended periods and uses sea lions and walruses in performances for entertainment. The Jane Goodall act designates walruses in consideration of Marineland’s two walruses, Smooshi and her calf Koyuk, as profiled by director Nathalie Bibeau.

Of concern, a photo posted on social media in late 2021 shows Koyuk suffering from what appeared to be skin lesions. If passed, the bill will prohibit using Koyuk and his mother in circus-style tricks and impose government oversight on their potential relocation.

In designating walruses, I acknowledge years of determined advocacy from former Marineland head trainer Phil Demers. In a remarkable story, Mr. Demers previously imprinted on Smooshi, becoming her mother in Smooshi’s mind. Since becoming an animal welfare whistle-blower in 2012, Mr. Demers has advocated for Smooshi and Marineland’s other animals, dedicating much of his life to this cause. From Mr. Demers:

It’s my dream to reunite with Smooshi and for her and Koyuk to go to a better home. I will never give up.

Senators, I hope this dream will come true.

Bill S-241 protects over 100 species of primates, including gibbons, baboons, bush babies and certain monkeys. Like great apes, we are members of this order of mammals, characterized by intelligence and sociability. In selecting priority species, our coalition considered their occurrence in captivity and welfare concerns for tree-dwelling species. We have refrained from designating any species used in biomedical research in Canada, according to information from the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

Finally, with new designations, the Jane Goodall act prohibits many dangerous reptiles. This includes all members of the crocodile and alligator family; twelve species of anacondas, pythons and boa constrictors; and all venomous reptiles, including over 600 species of snakes and lizards. These designations are understandably prioritized on public safety grounds. Senators recall the tragic attack by a nearly four-metre python in New Brunswick in 2013, taking the lives of two young boys.

As I mentioned, the Jane Goodall act would phase-out elephant captivity in Canada, similar to our country’s whale and dolphin laws. The primary reason is that our climate is unsuitable, requiring these huge, far-ranging, intelligent and social creatures to spend winters indoors.

As well, African Lion Safari’s 16 elephants have been used for performance for entertainment purposes and for rides, resulting in an attack in 2019. CAZA banned elephant rides last year. Also last year, CBC reported that a Texas zoo cancelled a $2 million deal to buy two elephants from African Lion Safari, a deal that would have separated mother-daughter elephants who normally stay together for life.

I commend the Granby Zoo’s CEO, Paul Gosselin, for his leadership to transition from elephant captivity. For details on elephant policies, please see former Senator Sinclair’s speech of November 19, 2020.

As to great apes, the focus of much of Dr. Goodall’s life’s work, this bill supports the continuation of the Toronto, Calgary and Granby Zoos’ gorilla and orangutan conservation and science programs, subject to potential conditions. Interrelated AZA programs are keeping genetically healthy populations of these endangered species safe with viable captive breeding and supporting conservation in the field through funding and training.

Since 2011, the Toronto Zoo has participated in 60 gorilla and orangutan studies with universities, including York University, the University of Toronto and Laurentian University. Calgary Zoo veterinarians have presented their findings on gorilla medical conditions at veterinary conferences.

The continuation of captive ape conservation and science programs at high-welfare standards is important to Dr. Goodall as her team continues to work with local communities to save apes in the wild. I am inspired by the thought that the Toronto Zoo’s new orangutan habitat is anticipated to open this summer. I commend CEO Dolf DeJong for his leadership.

The third major change is Bill S-241’s increased focus on the unsustainable global trade in wildlife through a call for regulatory action in the preamble. This is a priority for Dr. Goodall. Subjects of concern include elephant ivory, rhinoceros horn, invasive species, the spread of a fungus wiping out frogs and poaching for bear gallbladders in Canada.

Recent scientific reports by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services recognizes wildlife trade as a top driver of pandemic risk and biodiversity loss.

This is a global problem, and Canada has an important role to play. Canadian demand for wild animals and related products fuels the unsustainable trade globally. Research conducted by World Animal Protection Canada found more than 1.8 million wild animals were imported into Canada between 2014 and 2019 for a variety of purposes, including for pets and luxury products. Most of these animals were not subject to any permits or pathogen screening. Improving data collection should be a priority.

There is good news. An accomplishment to celebrate was Canada’s leadership role in building global consensus to see this month’s first ever animal welfare resolution passed at the United Nations. Congratulations to Minister Guilbeault and his team on that milestone.

My office will work with the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, World Animal Protection Canada and other partners to develop regulatory recommendations and amendments relating to the global wildlife trade and illegal trafficking. Notably, the Toronto Zoo has done award-winning work with Crime Stoppers to raise awareness of the illegal wildlife trade in Canada, focusing on the harvest and trade of turtles and the poaching of black bears, particularly for their gallbladders. Like elephant ivory and rhino horns, black bears taken from the wild are part of a global illegal wildlife trade estimated to be worth as much as $23 billion annually.

I welcome any opportunities to collaborate with Environment and Climate Change Canada, and congratulate them on completing public consultations around elephant ivory last year, hopefully towards regulations.

Honourable senators, I would like to speak to you about another small but important change in the bill. The Jane Goodall act’s preamble now makes an observation relating to Canada’s last captive orca, Kiska, known as “the world’s loneliest orca.” I, too, want to support efforts to help Kiska live a better life, a shared goal of former Senators Moore and Sinclair.

Kiska was captured in Iceland in 1979 before being purchased by Marineland. Her five calves have died, and she has lived alone since 2011. This past year there have been reports of multiple whale deaths at Marineland, as well as a broken water system, subject to provincial animal welfare orders.

In her concrete tank, Kiska swims in repetitive, counter-clockwise circles and exhibits atypical behaviour like floating motionless or thrashing her head at the poolside. Senators, this is not right. Kiska should not have to die alone, and if she can safely be moved, options need to be considered.

For this reason, the Jane Goodall act’s preamble observes that the Ontario Government has jurisdiction to grant civil standing to Kiska. This would allow for a court order in her best interests by her own right, such as relocation to the whale sanctuary planned at Port Hilford, Nova Scotia.

Great apes in situations of concern have received similar rights in Argentina. I do hope the Ontario Government finds its way to help Kiska. I also hope Marineland will consider working with the whale sanctuary’s scientist-led team to evaluate Kiska’s options. Indigenous values recognize our connection to other beings, and we must not turn a blind eye or abandon Kiska to a sad life.

We must also remember the approximately 40 belugas and five bottlenose dolphins at Marineland who deserve our concern as well. In the great nation of Canada, we must speak and act for the voiceless. That is what the Jane Goodall act is all about.

To conclude, senators, I am grateful for your attention and I thank you. I invite you to join debate and to be a part of the Jane Goodall act hopefully becoming law this Parliament. With that, I close with a passage from the Honourable Murray Sinclair’s speech on the bill:

Senators, we live in a time of great challenge, with the natural world in peril. However, we also live in a time of great hope, with social values increasingly reflecting a moral and spiritual awakening. We can yet save this beautiful planet, along with Indigenous cultures and knowledge and the sacred and innocent animals who deserve our compassion.

In moving this bill forward, Jane Goodall and I believe that the most powerful advocates eventually will be youth, including her Roots and Shoots organization. Disrespect for animals is taught behaviour, and we may find that children have a lesson to teach us. My grandchildren, quite frankly, are excited about this bill, and I hope yours will be, too. For any parents and teachers listening across the country, we want to hear from your kids as we look to rediscover their forgotten wisdom about animals.

Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition), pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to:

(a)denounce the illegitimacy of the Cuban regime and recognize the Cuban opposition and civil society as valid interlocutors; and

(b)call on the Cuban regime to ensure the right of the Cuban people to protest peacefully without fear of reprisal and repudiation.

He said: Honourable senators, I move this motion as part of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Forum, a global initiative with legislators in Europe and the Americas in solidarity with the struggle of the people of Cuba for the right to live in a democracy.

Previous calls by freedom-loving Cuban Canadians to support those leading the peaceful struggle for human rights and democracy in Cuba have thus far been ignored by the Trudeau government whose policy toward Cuba has been based on silence and, even more worrisome, inaction.

I would like to highlight and recognize some Canadians of Cuban descent: Antonio Tang, Yanel Raul Nieves, Aime Calle Cabrera, Raimet Martinez Avila, Kirenia Carbonell Dieguez, Michael Lima, Manuel de Jesus Bujan, Ismary Bacallao and Andy Davila Miranda. All these are Canadians of Cuban descent who have come to this country and have built a great life for themselves and, of course, appreciate our freedom and democracy. But they have not forgotten to look back to their homeland, their friends and their families who don’t have the same privilege.

Given the new reality that the world is living with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is more important than ever that Canada supports unity among defenders of democracy at a global level in the face of accelerated expansion of authoritarian regimes around the world. Both the violence of the war against Ukraine and the repression unleashed by the Cuban regime against those who think differently show the lack of moral and rational arguments and dictatorial impotence of those who resort to force in order to win a war or to gain or hold on to power.

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world is entering a new era that requires new strategic thinking to redefine international relations between democracies and autocracies. Canada should take a significant step in that direction by denouncing the illegitimacy of the Cuban regime whose system and representatives have never been freely elected by the people.

Instead of supporting and legitimizing the same Cuban regime that justifies the invasion of Ukraine with Kremlin propaganda, Canada should recognize the pro-democratic opposition in Cuba as a valid interlocutor in our relationship with the island.

Globally, Canada has lagged far behind in its condemnation of the Cuban dictatorship. Instead, our current government continues with its policy of silence and inaction toward the repressive spiral that Cubans have experienced with particular brutality after the massive pro-democratic protests of July 2021. The Trudeau government continues to bet on shaking hands with Cuba’s oppressors and engaging in behind-the-scenes diplomacy. It is time to raise our voices for all to hear.

The silence and inaction of the Trudeau government combined with the almost total lack of coverage by Canada’s mainstream media makes invisible the serious and systemic violations of human rights in Cuba and the repressive spiral that Cubans are experiencing, which, after the peaceful pro-democracy protests of July 11, has acquired an intensity and scale not seen in decades.

By remaining silent in the face of this repression in Cuba, we are complicit. As bishop and human rights activist Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

After 63 years without holding free, fair, democratic and multi‑party elections, Cuba stands as one of the world’s longest-lasting human rights predatory regimes. Since 1959, the current regime has persecuted, imprisoned and marginalized human rights defenders, journalists, dissident artists, intellectuals and critics.

It is estimated that at least half a million Cubans have been arbitrarily arrested or imprisoned for political reasons in the past six decades. Cuba’s one-party regime stifles freedom of expression and assembly by locking up people for their beliefs and opposition to the government, outlaws political pluralism, prohibits independent media, criminalizes dissent and prevents the exercising of basic human rights and freedoms.

Things have worsened in the past 14 months as Cuban authorities have been responsible for serious and systemic human rights violations as part of a repressive policy that criminalizes peaceful protests and imprisons and mistreats Cubans from all walks of life for simply expressing their views and exercising their freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Human rights organizations have reported at least 10,000 repressive actions in Cuba from January 2021 to March 2022, including arbitrary detentions, imprisonment, forced house arrests, fines, sham trials, acts of repudiation, character assassination campaigns, beatings, internet cuts, forced expatriations to harass and intimidate human rights defenders, critics, independent activists, artists and journalists.

Honourable senators, by the end of 2021, the Cuban regime had arbitrarily arrested 2,717 people, forced 3,743 into house arrest and carried out 60 acts of repudiation against pro‑democracy activists. These acts are fascist by nature and constitute the greatest expression of intolerance and extremism promoted by the Cuban regime against those who think differently.

On July 11, 2021, more than 187,000 Cubans took to the streets in 45 Cuban cities in historic demonstrations to protest long-standing restrictions on human rights, simply shouting, “freedom,” “down with dictatorship,” and demanding democratic change as a solution to the country’s deep economic and health crises. The Cuban regime responded to the peaceful protests with extreme brutality and violence. With the massive deployment of special brigades and police in cities across Cuba, levels of surveillance, arbitrary arrests, persecution and repression in Cuba has reached levels “unprecedented” in 20 years, according to Amnesty International.

Security forces responded to the pro-democratic protests with extreme violence and opened fire on protesters. They used tear gas and beat protesters with batons. Those who were arrested were subjected to torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment. Following these acts of brutality, Cuba surpassed Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia and even Iran in its number of political prisoners. As of March 2022, the political imprisonment in Cuba constitutes the greatest human drama experienced by Cuban families today.

Worse still, these victims of repression in Cuba — the political prisoners — report the use of torture, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in prisons, including solitary confinement, excessive use of shackles, beatings, verbal humiliation, acts of repudiation, the threat of rape and the denial of medical attention and family visits. Accounts of these methods of repression have been documented in letters and verbal reports sent by prisoners to their friends and families. Today, I raise my voice and encourage all of you to join me in denouncing the conditions of political prisoners in Cuba subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

I want to take a moment to highlight the cases of some of these people. For instance, the artist and activist Maykel Osorbo, winner of a Grammy award for the song “Patria y Vida,” has been incarcerated since May 2021 in the maximum security prison of Pinar del Río. He is currently suffering from lymph node issues and has not been offered an adequate diagnosis or medical treatment for his condition.

Then there is Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara, a leading figure in the San Isidro movement and one of Time’s “100 Most Influential People of 2021.” He was arrested on his way to a demonstration in Havana on July 11 and transferred without a court hearing to a maximum security prison. He has led numerous hunger strikes in protest of his unjust imprisonment that have left him in poor health.

Felix Navarro and his daughter Sayli Navarro, coordinators of the Pedro Luis Boitel movement for democracy, were recently sentenced to nine and eight years in prison respectively, not for demonstrating but for simply asking the police about the status of some of the members of their organization who had been detained on July 11.

I am concerned about the vulnerable groups that were victims of the repression stemming from the July protests. Minors at the time of detention, 33 children were criminally prosecuted with half of them facing charges of sedition. According to Article 100a) of the Cuban Penal Code, the charge of sedition carries penalties of 10 to 20 years in prison or the death penalty.

There are at least 130 women who are political prisoners in Cuba. Furthermore, all the mothers of the July 11 pro-democracy protesters are being regularly threatened by state security with imprisonment if they denounce the legitimacy of their children’s cases at the international level.

I also want to take this opportunity to condemn the hundreds of trials that have been conducted in Cuba against peaceful democratic protesters in violation of due process and Article 7(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Pro‑democracy protesters are also charged with articles of the Cuban criminal code, such as sedition, public disorder and insulting public officials, which violate international human rights standards as they are a legal disguise to muzzle free expression and freedom of association. Without any due process, most protesters, whose average age is 34 years old, are being sentenced to prison terms ranging from 5 to 10 to even 30 years in prison for simply recording a protest or peaceful demonstration.

What has Justin Trudeau’s government done in the face of these atrocious human rights violations in Cuba in the past year?

Honourable senators, the Trudeau government has only made a few vague comments on the July 11, 2021, protests, mainly in response to questions from the media. Unlike when they condemned other dictatorships around the world, such as Venezuela and Belarus, these comments were not even official government statements published on the Government of Canada website. As a matter of fact, our Prime Minister made these comments mainly in response to pressure from the Conservative Party in the House. While we were quick to express solidarity with the people following the July protests, the Trudeau government merely repeated that it was aware of the situation in Cuba, but their concerns were never coupled with any action.

The initiative of the Trudeau government published in the November 16, 2016, “Fact Sheet – Strengthening Canada-Cuba relations” to accompany the Cuban regime in a supposed modernization of its system and in collaborative projects with a view to fostering inclusive and accountable governance through the exchanges with Cuba has been a catastrophic failure.

The Cuban regime has not been accountable to its people since it came to power, because it was never elected in free elections, and Cuba lacks any form of the separation of powers that is customary to us. It responds to peaceful protests with brutal repression, as seen on July 11, 2021, when the unelected president Miguel Díaz-Canel appeared on television to give a “combat order” against peaceful protesters.

Cuba today has more repressive laws than ever before in its recent history. Some recent examples in the Cuban legal framework corroborate this statement. In August 2021, the Official Gazette published Decree Laws 35 and 42 that criminalize the independent press and critics of the regime to Regulation 102 that punishes the “dissemination of information considered false or detrimental to ‘public order.’”

More recently, the draft bill for the new penal code criminalizes all civil and political liberties protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights to free speech, free assembly and peaceful protest, among other articles that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I would be remiss in my remarks today if I didn’t also commit to raising awareness among my fellow Canadians about the moral and ethical implications of spending our money in Cuba, which is a beautiful island, one of the most beautiful in the world, but is governed by political regime that preys on the people’s rights.

Vacationing and investing in Cuba is tantamount to being active accomplices in financing the military conglomerate that operates hotels, financial institutions and the tourism industry. With that money we help, as Canadians, sustain in Cuba what GlobalFirepower considers the fourth-largest military force in the world.

In other words, Canadian money in Cuba does not contribute to improving the lives of citizens, but it is used by the regime to monitor, persecute and repress journalists, human rights activists and critics.

In the current global context, vacationing and investing in Cuba is tantamount to giving support to a regime that uses all its state-controlled media to reproduce the Kremlin’s disinformation machine on the invasion of Ukraine.

In doing so, we are helping the Cuban regime in its role as an active participant in a hybrid warfare that, through its disinformation, fabricates narratives that help justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and contribute to covering up the Russian regime’s responsibility for the perpetration of heinous war crimes against children and their civilian population.

Canada cannot forget that countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are involved in the axis of aggression against Ukraine. Canada’s leadership in supporting the cause of human rights and democracy in Cuba is, more than ever before, vital.

In a world where the global growth of authoritarian regimes is the greatest challenge of our time, colleagues, I urge all of you to stand on the right side of history and set a historic precedent in Canada by passing this motion in solidarity with the people of Cuba who aspire to live in a free, democratic and inclusive nation, things that we take for granted that they haven’t tasted in six decades.

Canada cannot continue to launder the image of the Cuban dictatorship. It is morally questionable that we continue to vacation and invest in Cuba while ignoring the fact that the regime on that island is the largest jailer in the Americas with over 1,000 political prisoners dying in those prisons.

Cuba today is experiencing a unique historic moment because, for the first time in more than six decades, a new generation of young people has started to demand their rights in a public, peaceful and steadfast way.

This nascent culture of democratic rebellion requires international support and solidarity to be successful. The people of Cuba, the mothers of the hundreds of political prisoners, the defenceless population is crying out for international help and solidarity. Canada must listen to the spontaneous and legitimate voices of these Cuban people expressed in towns and cities all over that beautiful country on July 11, 2021.

Their peaceful demonstrations sent a loud and clear message to the illegitimate regime that is imposing itself in power that their time is over. Canada, as it has done against 21 other authoritarian regimes around the world, should impose sanctions on all the individuals within the Cuban regime responsible for the persecution, beatings and torture of the July 11 demonstrators and all those who on that and other dates have peacefully raised their voices for democracy in Cuba.

That is why I call on all of you to stand on the side of the Cuban people, not the Cuban regime, and to stand on the side of freedom, to stand on the side of democracy, to stand on the side of human rights. This is what this institution, I think, holds dear, and what Canadians hold dear. I think it’s important that we stand and make sure that they know that we are listening. We are watching. We are hearing. We’re going to be by them.

I thank you, colleagues.

Long live a free Cuba. Patria y Vida.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than October 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the motion to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee. The motion also states that the final report must be submitted no later than October 31, 2023.

I made the decision to proceed through a motion based on a suggestion made in this chamber by Senator Seidman, who was the critic for Bill S-202 in the last Parliament. I would like to thank her for offering to support me if I proposed a study in committee so that the Senate could examine all aspects related to assisted human reproduction in Canada. I will quote what Senator Seidman said on June 8, 2021:

[English]

Honourable senators, a national conversation about Canada’s assisted human reproduction laws is long overdue. We must draw on the expertise of nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, India and others, who have studied assisted human reproduction and best practices for years. We are not short of sound evidence. Like Senator Moncion, I, too, agree that this is an opportune time to carefully study and review this subject matter, so that we can modernize our policies to reflect the current day.

[Translation]

In that vein, honourable colleagues, the purpose of my speech is to convince you of the merits of a motion to conduct a comprehensive Senate study on assisted human reproduction as soon as possible. This study is needed in order to identify solutions for bringing the objective of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act more into line with its actual effects.

In conjunction with this full and comprehensive study, I will also soon be introducing a bill to decriminalize payment for gamete donation. I see that I will have to narrowly define the objective of my bill in order to be able to raise awareness and to educate even more senators and Canadians about these issues. Moving forward with a bill that is strictly related to the legislative framework for gamete donation seems appropriate in the circumstances.

In previous Parliaments, I gave speeches about a bill seeking to allow the provinces and territories to regulate those aspects of assisted reproduction that are still criminal offences today, with a view to decriminalizing payment for gamete donation and surrogacy under certain circumstances. At the time, beyond my proposed bill, I attempted to demonstrate that, by criminalizing payment, the current legislation provides no way to ensure the health and safety of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies, surrogates and gamete donors. Criminalization encourages a culture of silence, thus increasing the risk of all manner of abuse and exploitation.

In this speech, I will first of all describe Canada’s existing assisted human reproduction legislation. I will then highlight certain problems that could be studied in committee. For example, the current legislative framework does not provide adequate protections for children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies, surrogates and gamete donors.

Second, Canada’s legislative framework is fundamentally contradictory because it fosters and facilitates reproductive tourism for commercial purposes in other parts of the world. The best example we have at present is the situation in Ukraine.

Third, I will set out the evidence that shows why the issue needs to be studied again using up-to-date information and setting aside the beliefs and theories that shaped the legislative framework that has been in place for almost 20 years.

[English]

Let me briefly present the state of the law in Canada.

First and foremost, it is illegal to pay for ova or sperm donations. It is also illegal to pay a surrogate, but it is legal to reimburse her for certain pregnancy-related expenses, such as additional food, clothing, vitamins and transportation costs incurred in travelling to medical appointments.

To give a mundane example, it is criminal to buy flowers for a surrogate while she is pregnant. It is also against the law to pay a donor. If found guilty of violating the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, an intended parent can face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Intended parents are afraid of the legal consequences of reimbursing ineligible expenses under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and are forced to deal with agencies not currently regulated.

Whether we are for or against surrogacy or gamete donation, the altruistic system currently in force in Canada is flawed and must be improved. Many experts say we are behind and should learn from experiences abroad.

My concerns regarding the health and well-being of women and children born through the application of human reproductive technologies in Canada, but also around the world, are the primary reasons why I firmly believe these issues must be further studied.

The current criminal legal framework is inadequate and at the root of various health and safety issues we have witnessed in the world of assisted procreation. These women may experience very serious complications and face psychological risks.

Donors can develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and long-term risks such as infertility, chronic disease or cancers. Surrogates can experience gestational diabetes, hypertension or potential damage to reproductive organs and any other health risk associated with being pregnant. These can be experienced by donors and surrogates in an altruistic system and a commercial system. The health risks do not discriminate based on whether someone is being compensated or not.

The current legal framework can, in theory, expose someone to serious penalties for simply making an unintentional mistake. The criminal framework encourages a culture of silence — the perfect fuel for abuse or negligence of all kinds. The lack of regulations and the culture of secrecy fostered by the criminalization of certain aspects of assisted reproductions are to blame. In this unregulated practice, agencies operate with very little guidance. The question that begs to be asked is: Why are we so focused on regulating the money while turning a blind eye to a health crisis?

[Translation]

The major principles set out in section 2 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act are as follows:

As I explained in my introduction, the purpose of this motion is to formulate recommendations that will bring the intention of the bill back into line with its real-life effects. The idea is to propose a legislative framework that will implement guidelines to protect the health and safety of women and children and prevent abuse.

[English]

I will now talk about surrogacy and agencies. With respect to surrogacy, when it comes to the health and safety of women, but also to the ability of intended parents to be vocal when there is abuse, it is important that the agency be regulated. Agencies are currently completely unregulated, and likely to remain unregulated, as long as section 6(2) and 6(3) of the act still exist.

The criminal nature of the prohibition prevents the provinces and federal government from fully regulating the practice and pushes it behind closed doors for fear of legal repercussions.

In Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, the Supreme Court of Canada found that licensing and regulation requirements were ultra vires the federal government’s powers, and they are correctly within the provincial government’s powers.

The committee should study these issues of jurisdiction and make a proposal that would respect the provinces and territories while better understanding the limits in which the federal government can legislate. How do we ensure that the potential decriminalization can be done in a way that is safe for everyone and without unintended consequences?

With respect to gamete donations, it is against the law to pay a donor under section 7(1) of the act. Ironically, Canada allows gametes to be imported from other countries, even if the donors there are paid. That explains why about 90% of sperm donations in Canada are from the United States, and only 5% to 10% are from Canadian donors. By supporting imports, the government is relinquishing oversight of the legal framework governing the collection of most gametes found in Canada’s sperm and ova banks.

Legal uncertainty does no one any favours. It increases the risk that vulnerable people will be exploited and make uninformed decisions owing to the unequal power relations involved in using alternative means of procreation. In addition, improving access to alternative methods of reproduction supports equality between couples who have no difficulty conceiving and all other people, such as infertile couples, same-sex couples and single people.

[Translation]

We recently invited senators to watch the documentary The Secret Society and organized a question-and-answer session with the filmmakers and some of the subjects of the documentary. This documentary shines light on certain aspects of egg extraction from women who, for altruistic reasons, choose to undergo invasive hormone therapy to donate eggs. I encourage you to watch this documentary, which gives a lot of information on the current system and on the medical procedures women have to go through to donate eggs for altruistic reasons.

The film shares the story of couples with fertility problems and describes the processes they go through and the costs involved in becoming parents. It also shows that the current legislative framework for altruistic egg donations does not prioritize the health and well-being of donors. This highly invasive procedure, which is both physically and mentally taxing, must be better regulated, and these women must be better protected. The criminalization of payment makes it hard to regulate the practice properly. I urge you to watch this documentary to better understand what goes on behind the scenes in Canada’s gamete donation system and to understand the very serious and dangerous consequences of a culture of silence.

It’s important to look at the impact that Canada’s legislative framework is having on the behaviour of Canadians abroad and the scope of its consequences. Our legal system creates collateral damage beyond our borders by heightening the inequalities among people around the world and increasing the exploitation of women elsewhere in the world.

[English]

The difficulty in accessing gametes and surrogacy services in Canada, attributed to our criminal legal framework, cultivates the exploitation of poor and racialized women abroad who face an increased and pervasive risk of exploitation. Many Canadians travel to other countries because they lack access to surrogates or gametes domestically. For example, Canadians who wish to use alternative methods of assisted reproduction are often unsure and afraid that an ineligible expense may be seen as an illegal payment. This encourages people to travel to other countries with more relaxed rules to use the services of a surrogate mother and to obtain gametes.

[Translation]

The actual impact of the implementation of the legislation does not line up with its objective. Paragraph 2(f) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act states:

trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition;

However, the act allows and facilitates elsewhere in the world what it prohibits in Canada. The consequences are even more serious abroad, in countries with more precarious legal protections and health care systems.

The pandemic and now the war in Ukraine have highlighted the collateral damage of the globalization of assisted human reproduction and reproductive tourism. In my last speech, I mentioned that around 100 babies born to surrogate mothers were stranded in Ukraine because their adoptive parents could not pick them up when the borders closed. The adoptive parents, surrogate mothers and children were all harmed by this situation at the beginning of the pandemic.

Now a similar problem has arisen in the context of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine allows paid surrogacy and regulates the practice. Its permissive legal framework is attracting intended parents from Canada. Anyone who watched the news last night may have seen reports of babies who are stuck in Ukraine.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Yes.

Thank you for raising these two points, Senator Patterson. With respect to Motion No. 19, in recent years, months and weeks, the federal government’s position, which it outlined to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs yesterday, has been that it would rather wait until a province takes the initiative and presents a constitutional resolution to study a bilateral federal-provincial amendment to the Constitution, which would be the case with your motion.

I don’t know what your thoughts are on this position. I’m not saying that I’m against the motion, but if the Senate were to adopt the motion you are presenting, how would we move forward, given the federal government’s position?

[English]

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that intriguing question, Senator Dupuis. Maybe the best way we could proceed with this would be to give weight to the rightness of remedying this antiquated and elitist provision by endorsing it in the Senate. Then I could go to the Province of Quebec hopefully with support and advice from my esteemed colleagues from the Province of Quebec and see if, with the imprimatur of the Senate, the Government of Quebec would consider supporting such a change. Maybe that would be the logical way of dealing with the problem that you have described, which would give Quebec the opportunity to then signal its support.

I would still like to see the motion and the bill examined thoughtfully here, and hopefully approved, and then I could take that step with the support of senators from Quebec to then encourage the Province of Quebec to support such modernization and overdue reform. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)