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. 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.