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

The government values the work of the Auditor General, takes its recommendations seriously and is working to make its processes more effective and impactful.

The challenge with the ambitious agenda that the government has put in place — and it is an ambitious agenda — is not only to gather data on individual programs, but to aggregate it so that it can be analyzed. It is critical that we assess the impact that it’s actually having on the ground on the lives of women and children and, indeed, on all projects that we fund.

We have been funding significantly. Indeed, in 2021-22, 99% of Canada’s bilateral development assistance either targeted or integrated gender equality results, which exceeded the target of 95% by 2022 that the government gave itself.

The challenge is also one of timing, because the programs get up and running, money is transferred, and schools, clean water facilities and the like are built, but then the collection of the data and the analysis take more time.

The government is committed, and now believes it begins to have the data to then properly aggregate and analyze and make sure that our money is being well spent with the impact that it needs to have to make a difference.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I received a notice from the Government Representative in the Senate who requests, pursuant to rule 4-3(1), that the time provided for the consideration of Senators’ Statements be extended today for the purpose of paying tribute to the Honourable Landon Pearson whose death occurred on January 28, 2023.

Is it agreed to continue tributes in Senators’ Statements?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Since 2015, the government has committed over $120 billion and introduced over a hundred measures to support environmental action and climate mitigation such as banning single-use plastics, putting a price on pollution and making zero-emission vehicles more affordable. Under all of this, it’s just a scientific brute fact that climate action cannot be stalled.

Now, with regard to the report to which you referred, Minister Guilbeault responded quite clearly that he will be taking a hard, long look — I think were his words — as to whether we can hit our long-term greenhouse gas emissions targets 10 years earlier than planned. That’s under review by the minister, and he and his team will be studying the IPCC report very carefully.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-18, followed by consideration of Motion No. 91, followed by second reading of Bill C-43, followed by second reading of Bill C-44, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill C-18, legislation to enhance fairness in the news marketplace, which was sponsored by Senator Harder.

This bill is a necessary tool to level the playing field for Canadian publishers. For years, the publishing industry has been overrun without government intervention. Governments have stood by as an industry once comprised of local papers, owned by local proprietors and committed to local stories was overtaken by conglomerates and tech giants. These giant companies shuttered community newspapers, consolidated larger papers and established online platforms to become the dominant source of information.

Big tech companies like Google and Facebook have overtaken our Canadian publishing industry and fail to pay our publishers anything close to fair value for the right to share their work. Journalism is a pillar of our democracy, and we must correct this situation. Bill C-18 is a promising start.

The discussion on Bill C-18 has focused on Google, the world’s most popular search engine, and Meta, the company that owns Facebook. Both platforms are used by millions of Canadians, and both offer tools that allow Canadians to connect with friends and family and access information.

They have become conduits between people and news, especially local news. Unfortunately, neither company has lived up to the responsibility inherent in this new role, which includes protecting and promoting freedom of expression and dealing fairly with Canadian publishers in sharing their work.

These tech giants have monetized the work that publishers produce for their own gain, collected data on its readership and have taken steps to dominate the online advertising space.

In reviewing this bill, I draw upon my experience as the former publisher and CEO of two major daily newspapers in Saskatchewan. In this role, I saw first-hand what operating a newspaper looked like in the digital age. The business is simple: publishers — whether they operate online or in a newsprint format — depend on advertising and subscription revenues to fund their operations.

Advertising pays for the newsroom, the equipment and for all the people that get the daily miracle out every day and have done so for over a century.

This system worked well for years, even when the internet came along and turned the industry on its head. Today, however, circumstances have changed, and it has become impossible for publishers to receive fair compensation for their work.

Allow me to dispel some myths about this bill and the publishing industry. First, I’d like to address the fiction that publishers made little effort to adapt their products when the internet began to take over the medium. This is false. Publishers made great efforts to move their products onto multiple platforms. They tailored their news content and advertising, depending on whether a person was reading it on their desktop, their cell phone, their tablet or in newsprint. Unfortunately, these efforts were impeded by Google’s unfair advertising practices, and I’ll talk more about that in a moment.

Second, I’d like to address claims that this bill is being used to subsidize legacy media. Again, this is not true. Bill C-18 is not about trying to preserve old systems. It’s about ensuring that Canadian publishers are properly compensated for their work. Bill C-18 has nothing to do with propping up a legacy media.

Finally, I want to be clear that sharing someone else’s news content without providing proper compensation is not good business. It’s unfair and damaging to the free press. Depriving content creators of proper payment deters creation. That means less content for platforms and less credible news for Canadians.

Of course, using someone else’s work without reciprocity is not new in the publishing industry. Radio stations refined the practice of “rip ‘n’ read” decades ago. With platforms like Google and Facebook, however, that practice is elevated to a whole new level.

Google is not just the world’s leading search engine. It morphed into a dominant online advertising company. That’s not a hyperbolic statement. Google effectively owns the business of online advertising placement, and their anti-competitive practices have made it difficult for publishers to get their fair value for ad placements and hence difficult to thrive and pay for their publishing operations.

Colleagues, allow me to share a short history lesson of Google’s advertising business and, in doing so, help define the problem before us. In the early 2000s, Google began to increase its online advertising presence. Their goal, seemingly, was not just to compete in this space, but to dominate it. As an article in the National Post recently noted, “Google’s strategy wasn’t to remain a search engine, but to expand and control all online advertising.”

But it wasn’t going to be simple. To control online advertising, Google first had to take over its competitors. In the early 2000s they acquired DoubleClick, a company that held a 60% market share in the software that publishers used to sell ads on websites. While Google’s purchase of DoubleClick may have seemed like a simple corporate transaction, it forever altered the way digital ads would be bought and sold. Buying DoubleClick allowed Google to own the market. They now had a huge list of advertisers and owned much of the existing ad space online.

At the same time, they owned AdX, an ad exchange network that connected buyers and sellers. This gave the company a near‑monopolistic level of control over online advertising — maybe a quasi-monopoly. That remains true today, and Canadian publishers have tried in vain to compete in a digital world where buyers, sellers and brokers of ads are all working through a limited number of companies under one umbrella.

The numbers don’t lie. The United States Department of Justice suggests that Google has a 90% share of the sell-side inventory on the digital advertising market. In other words, Google controls nearly all the market space that publishers use to sell ads on their websites. By their own estimates, Google collects “. . . on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products . . . .” I don’t understand why the United States Federal Trade Commission did not block Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007, but this is the reality publishers must live with.

The situation has become so bad that the United States Attorney General recently launched an antitrust lawsuit against Google for monopolizing digital advertising technologies. The United Kingdom has launched a similar suit. The United States lawsuit argues that Google has engaged in “. . . a systematic campaign to seize control . . .” of the online advertising market, and they further argue:

. . . that Google itself believes “increased competition between (its ad exchange) AdX and publishers . . . would increase publisher revenues by 30 per cent to 40 per cent.”

These statistics underscore one simple fact: Canadian publishers are forced to do business with Google because Google is virtually the only game in town. This allows Google to set the terms, and they’ve been denying publishers their fair share for years.

Critics of Bill C-18 have argued that the bill is being used to prop up failed publishers who had their chance to adapt and didn’t. That doesn’t add up. I know because I was in the business during the years when Canadians were embracing the digital world. Traditional publishers made huge efforts to move online, and many new digital-first publishers were created. Both traditional outlets and the new companies did their best, but they simply could not and still cannot compete in a domain where their ability to receive fair compensation is blocked. Canadian publishers are not unable or unwilling to adapt, nor are they suggesting they have an inherent right to Google’s money. They are simply asking for fair value.

I also want to address Google’s public response to Bill C-18, and to share my concerns with their recent actions. In February, Google made the decision to restrict some Canadian users from accessing news content on their search engine, with the explanation that this was being done as part of test runs in response to the bill. As we learned from Google’s testimony at the Canadian Heritage Committee in the House of Commons on March 10, the tests were targeted at “. . . less than four per cent of Canadian users.” That may seem like a small figure, but when we consider that Google has over 30 million Canadian users, that works out to over 1 million Canadians being restricted from accessing news content.

Google has a right to make changes to its products, to run tests and to modify its services. None of that is up for debate. But when Google decides to block Canadians from seeing news stories from their local publishers, that amounts to intimidation in the public square. We have a responsibility to challenge this behaviour.

We’ve seen this type of aggression from both Google and Meta before. In December 2020, the Australian government introduced legislation that required Facebook and Google to pay local media outlets for the right to share their content. From the time when the legislation was introduced until it was passed, both companies mounted significant efforts in Australia to resist the law. Google threatened to pull its search function tools from the country, and Facebook temporarily restricted Australian news and publications from being shared on their platform. Leaked internal messages from the company show that, during this time, Facebook went so far as to block pages for local police services and government pages containing public health information.

Google’s recent actions seem to suggest that they are looking for a fight. And now, just like it did in Australia, Facebook is threatening to block news content in Canada should Bill C-18 pass. We already have an idea of how this will play out: Google ultimately backed down from their threat to pull their search engine from Australia, and Facebook restored the ability to share news articles in that country after a few days. I had hoped both companies might have learned from their past experiences and would emulate a more responsible approach here in Canada, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

By threatening to block Canadians from local news even before the legislation has been voted on in the Senate, Google and Facebook have underscored the need for this bill. These companies have a tremendous amount of power over what Canadians see online. By choosing to restrict Canadians’ access, they reminded those same Canadians of the value that local news provides to communities. They reminded them that access to local news and information that is enlightening, engaging and entertaining is vital to them, and that private corporations appear to be messing with that which provides not only information on current events, but in many ways, respite. I think these companies may come to find that declining audiences lead to declining ad revenues.

In an update to their 2017 report The Shattered Mirror, the Public Policy Forum notes that:

Every community in Canada remains keenly interested in its own local affairs. Google and Facebook did not do away with that interest. But between them, Google and Facebook drained advertising from the news publications for which that interest was both the point and the business model. . . .

When we look at advertising revenues for community newspapers, that rings true. News Media Canada estimates that advertising revenue for community newspapers shrunk 66% from $1.21 billion in 2011 to $411 million in 2020.

We know that this legislation can work; we’ve seen it in Australia. Since their legislation was passed, Google and Facebook have signed deals with publishers worth AU $200 million annually. Canada needs Bill C-18 so our publishers can continue to do what they do best: hold powerful voices to account, which, for all intents and purposes, serves as a pillar of democracy.

Colleagues, credible journalism is the cornerstone of our democracy. I support Bill C-18 because it supports investigative journalism’s role in our democratic society. Journalism plays an important role in holding those in power accountable. It helps to foster a well-informed citizenry that can make informed decisions about the policies that affect their lives. In a complex and increasingly globalized society, it is more important than ever to be able to sort through the noise and find reliable sources of information. This means requiring tech giants like Google and Facebook to deal fairly with Canadian publishers and, hence, relevant investigative journalism reports. Parliament can make this happen. As a senator, I am duty bound to support Bill C-18. I believe in fortifying this cornerstone of democracy, and that’s why I established a scholarship fund for journalism at the University of Regina. Colleagues from all groups, I ask you to please help move this bill to committee quickly.

Thank you, hiy kitatamihin.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-44, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak, if only briefly, to Bill C-44, appropriation bill No. 1, 2023-24. The funding in the 2023-24 Main Estimates is requested through this interim supply bill and the full supply bill, which will be voted on in June.

Bill C-44, on the interim supply, seeks to allocate funding to federal departments for the first three months of the fiscal year. It seeks to withdraw $89.7 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I want to once again thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for their hard and careful work on a relatively tight deadline. The committee heard from witnesses from more than eight departments, including officials from Infrastructure Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

I will provide more details on the bill at third reading.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Amendments to the Rules, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved third reading of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill S-210 on protecting young persons from exposure to pornography. I’ve been the sponsor of this initiative for the past two and a half years, and this is the second time that the Senate is debating the bill at third reading. The bill we’re studying was improved by this process.

I’d like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, especially the then chair, Senator Mobina Jaffer. I also wish to thank the critic of Bill S-210, Senator Yonah Martin, our law clerk, Marc-André Roy and, in my office, legal experts To-Yen Tran and Jérôme Lussier, for their invaluable work. They believed in the bill.

I supported this bill with conviction because it appealed to my many identities.

I am a mother and my two children are part of the generation that had access to the first free pornography sites. Previously, explicit sexual content was for adults only; suddenly, there was nothing to prevent children from accessing pornography on the internet. At that time, just like today, parents were powerless to address this boundless access and total lack of controls.

I am also a feminist, and I’m concerned that young people’s exposure to pornography undermines gender equality in their intimate relationships. Porn too often encourages and normalizes sexist practices of domination that directly contradict the values we wish to instill in young men and women. According to a report released last week by the U.K. Children’s Commissioner, 47% of young people in England believe that girls expect sex to involve physical aggression, and 42% stated that most girls enjoy acts of sexual aggression.

Finally, for me, who has always believed in the importance of equal and comprehensive sex education in schools, it is clear that the avalanche of porn available online is having harmful effects on young people. Among other problems, teenagers who consume pornography develop unrealistic expectations about their bodies, what is expected of them and what they are supposed to look for in love.

At its core, Bill S-210 is based on the simple idea of protecting children from pornography in the virtual world as we protect them from pornography in the real world.

Twenty years ago, pornography was still largely restricted to adults, even on the internet. The huge influx of free porn sites has been a total game-changer. These companies want to maximize their viewership and they make no attempt to control the age of their users. For example, it is estimated that 14% of the people using Pornhub, a Montreal-based company, are minors who have unlimited access to millions and millions of porn videos that are often violent and degrading.

This is a pressing public health issue because an entire generation is getting their sex education by watching these videos. Studies have demonstrated the risk of trauma, addiction, distorted views of consent and one’s own desires, young girls’ misconceptions and even erectile dysfunction. There is an urgent need to act.

The major innovation contained in Bill S-210 would be to require porn sites to verify a user’s age, failing which they will be subject to a criminal offence. Most importantly, delinquent porn sites, even if they are based outside Canada, would be subject to a blocking order in Canada.

Again, for adults, Bill S-210 doesn’t change anything. All content legally available today will continue to be, once an age verification has occurred, which takes only a few minutes. At the recommendation of a witness, I proposed an amendment during the study in committee that enhances privacy protection for users and their personal information in the age verification mechanisms that will be clarified in the regulations. That amendment was adopted.

[English]

Of the 30 witnesses and briefs received by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 25 supported the bill, including a majority of the legal experts who testified.

The bill has the support of pediatricians, psychiatrists and sexologists, but also of many parents who need help to protect their children. Research in the United Kingdom and Australia show about 80% of parents agree with age verification to stop children from watching porn.

The bill passed unopposed at the committee stage. However, we had interesting and, at times, difficult debates about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

It won’t be easy, of course. This is a new legislative field, technology changes regularly and some people seem to think that the internet should be exempt from any laws and regulations that apply in the real world.

But that’s no reason to give up. Other countries have acted or are in the process of doing so. Germany and France have already passed laws similar to Bill S-210. The British government is also considering legislation that would require age verification for porn sites. This is a global issue, and Canada must do its part. The more countries that hold porn sites accountable, the more effective the measures will be.

Here is how the Canadian Centre for Child Protection sums up its support for the bill:

The digital nature of online pornography does not and should not mean that society abrogates its responsibilities to children and youth. It makes no sense that a 14-year-old cannot watch an R-rated movie with simulated sex scenes in a movie theatre but can easily access pornography on her phone. We cannot let adult websites dictate the sexual education of Canada’s children.

Like the other members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I am aware that Bill S-210 is part of a larger and more complex puzzle. The same applies to alcohol, drugs, gambling and other harmful content or activities from which we want to protect children. There is a role for parents, for education and for legislation. Age verification is part of the solution; it is not the whole solution.

In 2020, the Australian Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs published a report entitled, Protecting the age of innocence, which focused on age verification for online porn. Here is one of its main conclusions:

The Committee acknowledges that age verification is not a silver bullet — some websites containing pornographic material may not be captured, and some determined young people may find ways to circumvent the system. However, when it comes to protecting children from the very real harms associated with exposure to online pornography, the Committee’s strong view is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You will not be surprised to know that I fully concur with our Australian colleagues.

And for this reason, I believe that Bill S-210 should be sent to the House of Commons where the debate can continue and be enriched. I urge you all to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: When I had the privilege of sitting in on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee during the evolution of this bill, I raised concerns about the use of facial recognition software as a method of age verification. Could you tell me what the bill lays out as possible ways to verify age that might be less intrusive?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your question, Senator Simons.

To be extremely clear, the bill does not include any solutions or age verification options. All of that will be in the regulations. Why did we decide to do it that way? The reason is that the technology is changing very quickly, and we could not include specific solutions, such as using a certain card or form of identification, in the bill because it would become outdated very quickly. Instead, what we did was to establish safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals and customers. Everything else will be set out in the regulations.

However, please know that the strictest regulations in this area require third-party companies to conduct that verification. We are talking about companies that will be approved by the government. We will have companies that will follow the privacy rules, companies that are not the pornography platforms themselves because there is no way that those platforms should be entrusted with the age verification. They already have so much information about what customers are doing, even more than banks have. We do not want to give them even more power.

The issue that you raise about the use of facial recognition is indeed very controversial. It would be quite possible to list in the regulations the approved methods and those methods that are not approved. That is already being done in Germany and will soon be implemented in France and Great Britain. Thank you.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I also rise today in support of Bill S-210.

First, allow me to warmly thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her perseverance, rigour and work on this important issue.

[English]

Colleagues, if I were to ask you the question: Between protecting young people from the harms of pornography exposure or increasing traffic to one’s online platform, which of these two goals might be a priority for the owner of a commercial pornographic website? That is, choosing between the health and safety of children or the profits from increased traffic? Yes, we can all easily guess the answer. And it is this obvious answer that, in my humble opinion, justifies the relevance of this bill and the urgency to send it to the other place as soon as possible to increase its chance of becoming law.

It is important to note that we have before us an issue on which there is near unanimity on the need to act. Whether in this chamber, in committee, among experts or in families, everyone is clear: Children should never have access to sexually explicit content.

This bill fills a void, and that is crucial given the increasing prominence of technology in our homes and schools. Screens are omnipresent in our living and working spaces. More than ever before, we have a life online, and it will only grow. We sell, we buy, we trade online. Children are learning, playing, interacting, communicating and gaming online. They increasingly have their own smartphones, tablets, laptops and a Wi-Fi or mobile internet connection, and this at a relatively young age. On the other hand, experts are developing advanced techniques to keep them engaged and connected as long as possible.

We hear this concern from parents everywhere, and it is growing from year to year in all socio-economic backgrounds. The management of screens, to which access has multiplied, is the parental challenge of the 21st century, especially after the pandemic of COVID-19.

[Translation]

In this world that is changing before our eyes at a speed unlike anything we’ve ever experienced, parents will have to be given additional tools, which they really need in order to properly fulfill their roles and experience greater peace of mind. Some might argue that it is the responsibility of parents, not the government. On the one hand, I think it’s a shared responsibility. On the other hand, it’s important to realize that when it comes to accessing illegal content, educating and supervising a child in 2023 is a much bigger challenge than it was in my day, with only one TV in the house and my Walkman as a source of entertainment when I went out.

Our children are bombarded from all sides, and they are curious. They are under pressure from others and they want to push the limits, which is quite normal. They are passionate about digital technology. Are we equipping them properly? We also need to help them protect themselves from online content that is harmful to their psychological and emotional well-being.

Once this bill passes, companies that distribute commercial pornography will be required to implement an age verification mechanism before providing access to their content.

That way, as is the case in the real world, only adults would be able to legally access this content, which must be kept away from our children for various reasons. I will come back to this later in my speech.

I’d like to highlight the amendment passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The amendment ensures greater respect for users’ privacy and protects their personal information. Senator Jaffer and Senator Miville-Dechêne described it in detail during their speeches at report stage.

[English]

Colleagues, restrictions on youth access to pornography already exist, and these restrictions are widely accepted in our society, such as access to adult magazines and films and to sex shops, which are restricted to those over 18, and proof of age is required. If something is forbidden in a physical context, don’t we all agree that obviously it should also be forbidden in the virtual world?

To quote Senator Martin:

The same rules should be in place online as well in the real world. For example, accessing explicit material from a store, for a minor, is illegal and heavily enforced by store owners, requiring proof of identification.

[Translation]

Adults are allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. At the Société des alcools du Québec, the same logic applies to online sales as applies to in-store sales. In store, the buyer’s age will be verified if necessary and, for online sales, mandatory proof of age is required upon delivery of a product purchased via their website. For the purpose of this speech, I verified and found that the Société québécoise du cannabis website applies the same principle to the delivery of its products. No delivery can be made to anyone under the age of 21, even if the products have already been paid for.

How do we deal with the online world now that it has merged with the real world, for which most of our laws were designed? Now, these two worlds coexist and our laws and regulations must take that into account. They must reflect this new reality and evolve.

Colleagues, by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has committed, as set out in Article 19, to:

 . . . take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse . . . .

The experts are clear on that and I agree. Giving children access to pornography is essentially child abuse. The negative psychological impacts have been documented for years and the findings are all the same. In this chamber and in committee, we have heard solid arguments on the negative short- and long-term effects of exposure to pornography, which we know often includes violent images.

Béatrice Copper-Royer, a psychologist who specializes in child and adolescent psychology, is very clear. She said, and I quote:

It is disastrous for a child to happen upon these images or videos by accident. It is a violation. It destabilizes them and they choose not to talk about it because they can sense it is terribly wrong.

She goes on to say the following, again about youth, and I quote:

The older ones choose to look at this content for a laugh or to try to get away with something in a world where there is not much you can’t get away with. It is also disastrous in that these images give them a violent and degrading view of sexuality and trivialize violent sexual behaviour.

During the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ study of a previous version of this bill, Laila Mickelwait, founder of the #Traffickinghub movement and the Justice Defense Fund, said the following:

 . . . we have over 40 years of peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the harm pornography does to children who are viewing this content. We talk about viewing and doing. A study was done which showed that over 88% of mainstream pornography films contain sexual violence. When children view this content, research has shown that it does something in their brain that creates permission-giving beliefs, which then enable them to more easily act out in sexually violent ways.

It is troubling, to say the least. More troubling still is the fact that every study says the same thing, in other words, that there are definitely serious risks for children.

[English]

Being exposed to this type of content at an early age is undoubtedly a form of violence, of abuse. It deeply distorts the representations of a child in his or her relationship with the other, in the creation of his or her sexual identity, in the nature of his or her relationships with others. And then, of course, it has contributed to a banalization of sexuality, violence and a hypersexualization of society.

Honourable senators, my speech is certainly not about taking a moral position on pornography. What an adult does legally in his or her spare time is clearly none of my business, but what is our business, our responsibility, is to ensure that our children are protected and that we maximize their chances of growing up in healthy environments. This is a responsibility that we all share — as parents, as a society, as a country and here in this room. We must act. We must legislate.

To conclude, I think that not acting on this is equal to saying that we’re fine with our youth having access to porn, even though we know it has serious consequences. So, I guess the question is this: If it makes so much sense, why hasn’t it been done yet? We can’t hide behind the argument that it’s too complicated. We are now able to make it happen. We are able to do it, so let’s do it.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, for the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

Hon. Diane Bellemare moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am not sure if you read the report. Some of you read it carefully, I’m sure. The fact remains that it is rather opaque, since it proposes changes. I will briefly go over what it contains.

[English]

Last April, the Rules Committee wrote to the Clerk of the Senate, inviting the Senate Administration to identify changes to the Rules of the Senate that the committee may wish to consider. Over the course of two meetings on June 14, 2022, and September 27, 2022, the Clerk, accompanied by other senior officials, outlined a number of potential issues. After further consideration by the committee, the report before you today reflects the changes that the committee agreed to.

Many of the changes reflect minor corrections, errors in translation or elements that are no longer required due to legislative changes. I will not go into detail on these items, but they include such things as the removal of the prohibition on smoking in Senate and committee proceedings. Since 1988, the Non-smokers’ Health Act has prohibited smoking in federal workplaces, making those provisions of the Rules obsolete.

However, there are some elements that require some explanation, and I will address each of these in turn.

[Translation]

Rule 10-10, as it now stands, deals with the preparation and printing of Senate bills. It hasn’t undergone a major review since the rule that existed prior to that, which was adopted in 1923. As a result, it hasn’t kept up with modern practices, particularly the new bill format implemented in 2016 by the three federal entities that draft legislation, the Senate, the House of Commons and the Department of Justice.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel recommended that the rule be repealed in its entirety because its component parts — form of amending bill, typographical indications of amendments, explanatory notes on amending bill and reprints of Senate bills — have not been strictly followed for many years and hearken back to a time when legislative information could be difficult to obtain.

In its place, the law clerk proposed a new rule 10-10, which would enable the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to make administrative and typographical corrections to bills. That would simplify that clause-by-clause consideration, reduce the risk of errors in legislative texts and minimize the risk of having to adopt additional amendments to correct errors introduced into bills throughout the legislative process before the two chambers of Parliament. The proposed wording is similar to that of House of Commons Standing Order 154.

[English]

Rule 12-23(6) currently requires a committee report recommending amendments to a bill to:

. . . have attached to it a printed copy of the bill on which the amendments are clearly written. The chair or deputy chair shall sign or initial this copy of the bill as well as all the amendments.

In practice, this has resulted in a time-consuming process where amendments were physically cut and pasted into a copy of the bill. The committee learned that in recent years this process was replaced by attaching a copy of the committee’s report to the bill. However, as this copy is not required at any subsequent stage of the legislative process, it serves no purpose, and its continuation is not necessary.

Rule 12-26 requires committees to table reports on financial expenditures in the previous session. Progressive changes to the Senate’s proactive disclosure requirements, in accordance with provisions contained in the Access to Information Act, have rendered these reporting requirements redundant, as this information is already required by legislation to be reported publicly on at least a quarterly basis.

As the reports under rule 12-26 cover the period of a session rather than a quarter or fiscal year, these reports can cause confusion, since the same information is reported in different ways. As such, the committee is recommending that rules 12-26(2) through 12-26(4) be deleted. As noted, this reporting practice has been overtaken by other reporting requirements, thus rendering this requirement redundant. It will in no way reduce the transparency surrounding committee spending.

[Translation]

Rule 14-1(6) provides that when a rule, statute or order requires a report or other document to be filed with the Senate, it may be deposited with the Clerk. As a result, officials from government departments and agencies must go to the Clerk’s office to hand in physical copies of the hundreds of annual reports and other documents that are required to be tabled in the Senate.

As part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Senate adopted sessional orders that allow for these documents to be deposited with the Clerk’s office electronically. While this was initially done as a result of COVID-19 — to limit the number of people needing to enter the Senate of Canada building — it was quickly found to have benefits outside the context of the pandemic. When these documents are deposited electronically, it is easier to compile them, disseminate them to senators and the public as needed, and archive them. It also helps reduce paper consumption, which is consistent with the Senate’s environmental goals.

There is currently a sessional order authorizing this practice to continue, but the committee recommends that it be written into the Rules through an amendment.

[English]

Finally, the committee is proposing a new rule 1-1(3), which would allow the Speaker of the Senate or the chair of a committee to authorize reasonable adjustments to the application of a rule or practice in order to allow a senator’s full and equal participation in the Senate. This rule entrenches a long-standing but informal practice where the Speaker and senators have exercised discretion, compassion and common sense to allow senators to continue to participate, even though they may not be able to strictly conform to certain provisions of the Rules.

It should be noted that this is intended to allow minor variances in order to allow senators to continue to participate in proceedings within the current context. Substantive changes to that context itself should only be addressed through a substantive motion adopted by the Senate.

Now, before I conclude, I would like to highlight one element of the clerk’s proposal that is not included in this report, and that has to do with consideration of reports from the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators.

The clerk had identified potential challenges with the timelines within which a report concerning a senator must be considered and the possibility that a vote on the report may need to be put forward before the senator in question has been given the opportunity to speak to it. Before addressing this point of timing, the committee wanted to consult with the Ethics Committee, which is why it was not included in this report. However, those consultations have taken place, and potential amendments to the Rules in that regard will be put to our committee for consideration. If adopted, a further report will follow.

On that, I thank you very much, and I hope you will adopt this report in due time.

Senator Downe: Thank you. I trust the intention, but I’m sure colleagues would agree that it should not be left to discretion whether senators can have full participation because they suffer a disability. In the past in this chamber we have had people with a vision problem and adjustments were made. It should be automatic that all senators have full participation. I agree with the intent, but I don’t think it is here.

My second question is on rule 2-8(a):

When the Senate is sitting, it is not permitted:

(a) for Senators to engage in private conversations inside the bar, and if they do, the Speaker shall order them to go outside the bar; . . .

There has been a long tradition that when there is a disruption, if somebody is too loud — and I have been guilty of that myself — people frown, and the Speaker will intervene if necessary. But according to this rule, if I’m speaking to my seatmate I’m in violation of the rule; is that correct?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: You are probably quite right and that is the current rule. Nothing has changed. As for rule 2-8(a), it was not changed, but the reference to smoking being prohibited was deleted. Rules 2-8(a) and 2-8(b) are part of the current rule. No changes have been proposed in this case. We cannot have a conversation in the Senate and disturb others, but no changes were made to this point, which remained the same.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Greene:

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.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Black:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.except as provided in this order, the question not be put on the motion for third reading of a government bill unless the orders for resuming debate at second and third reading have, together, been called at least three times, in addition to the sittings at which the motions for second and third readings were moved;

2.when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill; and

3.when a motion has been moved pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order, the following provisions apply:

(a)the debate shall only deal with whether the bill should be deemed an urgent matter or not;

(b)the debate shall not be adjourned;

(c)the debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes;

(d)no senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes;

(e)no senators shall speak more than once;

(f)the debate shall not be interrupted for any purpose, except for the reading of a message from the Crown or an event announced in such a message;

(g)the debate may continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, if necessary, until the conclusion of the debate and consequential business;

(h)the time taken in debate and for any vote shall not count as part of Routine Proceedings;

(i)no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain senator be now heard or do now speak;

(j)when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and

(k)any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and the bells shall ring for only 15 minutes.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Senator Bellemare, I’m concerned about proposed rule 1-1(3) and why the provision says “may” rather than “shall.” Colleagues, I will take a moment to read it out, as it is a short section. It reads:

If a provision of these Rules or a practice of the Senate constitutes a barrier to a senator’s full and equal participation in proceedings solely due to a disability, as defined in the Accessible Canada Act, the Speaker, or the chair of a committee, may authorize reasonable adjustments to the application of the rule or practice.

Why does that not read “shall” so that the senator can have full and equal participation?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Thank you for the question, Senator Downe.

The French version states, “le Président du Sénat ou le président d’un comité peut autoriser.” Regarding the proposal drafted by the clerks, it is my understanding that, as it stands, it is fully at the discretion of the Speaker that minor adjustments are made. The Speaker already does that, but it’s not written in the rules. Considering the debates we had on the accessibility bill, we thought it was appropriate to include in the rules that the Speaker has permission, or has the authority, to make provisions and adjustments to ensure participation. The word “peut” was used in French in the context that this is what the Speaker already does. We didn’t go any further than that. That’s the only answer I can give.

I can’t ask the clerk why they used “shall” in English, which means the same thing as “peut” in French. Isn’t it the same thing? It means “must.” That’s a good question, if it’s not the same as in English, of course. I have here the French version of the changes to the Rules. Someone will get back to you on that.

[English]

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, as we celebrate the early days of spring here in the traditional and unceded lands of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, a time of renewal and hope, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-232, sponsored by our colleague Senator Gwen Boniface.

Bill S-232 is, in fact, a bill about renewal and hope — renewal in terms of how our society approaches illegal substances, the people who use them and the systems that surround them, and hope that we can look with clear eyes and open minds at the abundance of evidence that exists to guide us through this important moment of necessary change.

Senator Boniface reminded us in her speech that this bill does two things. Firstly:

It mandates conversations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories and other stakeholders so that the federal government can report to Parliament with a national strategy as to how best tackle the epidemic of substance use. The second thing it does is remove the criminal sanctions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession, also known as decriminalization.

The bill’s short title, the “Health-Centred Approach to Substance Use Act,” signals the shift in approach. Our colleagues Senators Pate, Campbell, White, Busson, Dean and Ravalia have weighed in with important perspectives from their front-line experiences in support of this bill and Senator Boniface’s previous one, Bill S-229.

My intention today is to add to the debate by speaking first to the broader issues of substance use and substance use health, then touch on the limitations and adverse effects of criminalization — otherwise known as prohibition — highlighting recommendations from studies from over the past 50 years, bringing forward voices from last week’s United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs held in Vienna and end by encouraging us to get this important and long-overdue bill to committee for the in-depth study that it deserves.

Honourable colleagues, Dr. Marc-Antoine Crocq in his article “Historical and cultural aspects of man’s relationship with addictive drugs” indicates:

Our taste for addictive psychoactive substances is attested to in the earliest human records. Historically, psychoactive substances have been used by (i) priests in religious ceremonies . . . (ii) healers for medicinal purposes . . . or (iii) the general population in a socially approved way . . . . Pathological use was described as early as classical Antiquity.

He points out that in Shakespeare’s play Othello, we get two different takes on substance use with Cassio declaring:

Oh thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil.

And then Iago’s, “Come, come, good wine is a good familiar creature, if it be well used . . . .”

Colleagues, the Community Addictions Peer Support Association, or CAPSA, in its document called Understanding Substance Use Health: A Matter of Equity, points out that the term “substance use” is often incorrectly used as a synonym for addiction or substance use disorder. They indicate that similar to physical and mental health, substance use health occurs across a continuum.

CAPSA and Ottawa Public Health have a visual illustration of this, which includes five points along a spectrum. Picture the spectrum. At the one end, we have no use of substances, then beneficial use of substances with positive health or social effects. In the middle, lower risk with occasional use of substances that has negligible health or social effects. Towards the other end, we see problems occurring with substance use that has negative consequences for individuals, families or communities. Finally, we have substance use disorder, a diagnosable, chronic medical condition based on 11 criteria listed in the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition — the DSM-5.

In that same CAPSA document earlier, the association makes the point that all kinds of people in Canada use all kinds of substances. For instance, in 2017, 78% of us — I say “us” — 23.3 million people in Canada aged 15 and over reported alcohol use. In Canada, in 2020, 6,000 people died due to opioids, 14,800 people died from alcohol-related illnesses and 37,000 people died of smoking-related causes.

Colleagues, most of the substances Canadians use are legal and regulated, including alcohol, tobacco and now cannabis. CAPSA promotes a strength-based, health promotion approach to substance use with a spectrum of services along the spectrum of substance uses — legal and illegal — which includes everyone, not just those with disorders. This is absolutely critical to reducing stigma.

The bill we are currently debating at second reading, known as the health-centred approach to substance use act, is focused on illegal substances and, in particular, the opioid crisis my colleagues have so vividly described. Colleagues, criminalization — prohibition of substance use — is not achieving the objectives of improved health and safety in our communities.

According to Mark Thornton of Auburn University, alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was a failure. I will quote him:

National prohibition of alcohol (1920–33) — the “noble experiment” — was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene . . . .

At the beginning of Prohibition, the Reverend Billy Sunday stirred audiences with this optimistic prediction:

“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and . . . corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume . . .

— it was adulterated —

. . . crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point . . . . No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons . . . provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition — a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Colleagues, in 1973, the Le Dain Commission issued its final report on the Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in Canada, recommending, among others, that medical treatment for individuals addicted to opioids be offered instead of criminal punishment.

A recently retired colleague, the Honourable Larry Campbell, reminded us that his predecessor, B.C. Chief Coroner John Vincent Cain, recommended in a 1994 report on illicit narcotic overdose deaths that the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General:

Enter into discussions with the federal Ministers of Justice and Health on the propriety and feasibility of decriminalizing the possession and use of specified substances by people shown to be addicted to those . . . substances.

And today, almost 30 years later, we finally have a pilot exemption in B.C., and the City of Toronto just last week has renewed its request for the same exemption.

The 2011 report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy stated:

The global war on drugs has failed . . . .

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.

They recommended to:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Colleagues, the sixty-sixth session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs was held in Vienna earlier this month. In his introductory remarks, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, said:

Non medical use of drugs leads to at least 600,000 deaths worldwide each year largely due to viral hepatitis, HIV and overdose. People who use drugs often suffer criminalization, stigma, and discrimination and are denied access to health services further compounding the harms of drug use.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk added at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

The so-called war on drugs paradigm is detrimental to public health. Fear of arrest and widespread stigma around drug use prevents people who use drugs from accessing health care, harm reduction services and voluntary treatment services. Drug crime is one of the key reasons that well over 2 million people are in prison worldwide.

If drugs destroy life the same can also be true of drug policies.

Representing Canada at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Jennifer Saxe, Director General of Health Canada’s Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, spoke about Canada’s response to the drug toxicity overdose crisis, where she indicated, “Canada continues to advance drug policy that respects human rights . . . .” She stated that “more needs to be done” but she did not mention decriminalization.

Finally, and very importantly, in their brief to Canada’s Minister of Health leading up to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Canadian Civil Society Working Group on UN Drug Policy said — and I will quote at length from them:

The criminalization of drug possession has been ineffective in reducing drug use and has only perpetuated widespread human rights violations and discrimination towards marginalized groups such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, women, people of diverse gender identities and those with mental health conditions.

One of the main drivers behind stigma and discrimination, criminalization hinders people from seeking harm reduction and treatment services. Drug-related deaths continue to rise.

Criminalization of drug possession also means resources are directed towards the criminal justice system instead of toward health and social services.

In Canada, the push for decriminalization has been advocated for by civil society groups and professional organizations for many years. In 2021, the Federal Task Force on Substance Use recommended the same. That same year 112 human rights and public health organizations released a platform advocating for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, and the removal of sanctions for related activities such as sharing or selling drugs to support personal drug use costs or provide a safer supply. Provincial, municipal and law enforcement authorities have supported those calls.

For effective decriminalization, a range of policies and practices that are evidence-based and tailored to the situation are needed. It is critical that administrative penalties such as fines, mandatory treatment referrals, or drug confiscation are not substituted for criminal sanctions, otherwise, this will allow law enforcement to continue monitoring and policing people who use drugs, and will likely still disproportionately affect Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities.

Colleagues, as I move toward concluding my remarks, I want to emphasize three important points:

First, criminalization of people who use drugs does not work. I repeat what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said, “. . . if drugs destroy lives, the same can also be true of drug policies.” Colleagues, I know that we all want our policies to make life better, and certainly not cause more harm.

Second, health is the common bond that Canadians can get behind. Viewing substance use health as part of our overall physical and mental health, and ensuring that health — with both upstream and downstream considerations — is the focus will be the key to breaking free of this whole convoluted, stigmatizing, ineffective, expensive and dangerous paradigm that we are currently caught up in.

Third, in order to develop a successful national strategy — based on a new health-focused paradigm — it is essential to have people with living and lived experience with drug use at the centre of that process, including Indigenous people and Canadians of African descent.

Honourable colleagues, we are at an important societal crossroads — one where we have an opportunity to save lives while building a healthier and safer Canada for all.

Honourable senators, let’s demonstrate the leadership of this chamber, and move Bill S-232 — Senator Boniface’s important paradigm-shifting bill — to committee. Thank you. Wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Scott Tannas: Before I speak to Bill S-241, I’m sorry, colleagues, that I missed my call for Bill S-201. I was at a subcommittee meeting, and three senators who were supposed to speak today didn’t; I missed it. I have apologized to Senator McPhedran, who was expecting me to deliver that speech — and also to Senator McCallum, who was also ready to speak today on that subject. We will get to it.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. It certainly has some high expectations, I would suggest, with such an internationally eminent person agreeing to attach her name to it.

Speaking of eminent people, illuminous former Senator Sinclair was the former sponsor of this bill. I want to thank him for bringing it forward. I also want to thank Senator Klyne for taking the torch upon Senator Sinclair’s retirement.

At some point, there will be committee hearings on this. I know there are other speakers on Bill S-241 before we get to a second-reading vote. It’s my hope that the committee will look carefully at the bill and at the potential amendments, if they’re needed.

I have two concerns that I’m hopeful the committee will spend some time on — they’re around the unintended consequences of the bill.

The first one that I worry about is the transition of the current population of animals that are affected by this bill, particularly in the context of the restrictions on the activities that are immediate, but might also be part of the funding process for the care and feeding of those animals.

In any of the preliminary inquiries that I’ve made, I have not heard of any amount of time that’s been spent on a real, practical plan to deal with the thousands of animals whose lives we are going to change through the restrictions that come into effect right away — never mind that those animals are grandfathered in the possession of whom they are now. In some cases, I suspect that the restrictions that are there for the future activities of those grandfathered animals may prevent people from being able to afford feeding them and caring for them.

The committee needs to satisfy itself that there is a plan, as well as what the plan is, who is going to conduct it and how it will be paid for. I would like to ensure that there are a couple of ways that the committee is, in fact, doing its due diligence on this.

The best thing would be for the committee to report — when it reports back to us — on their estimates regarding the transition of animals to zoos and sanctuaries. How many animals will age in place because they are owned by people who have funding that isn’t reliant on exhibitions, and how many animals will be euthanized? If we’re going to pass this bill, we’d better ensure that we understand all of those things, in addition to the plan regarding how animals arrive at zoos; how animals arrive at sanctuaries; how we’re going to police the idea that people will treat these animals humanely, and have the capacity to feed them; and the result for those who can’t afford them, can’t sell them, can’t trade them and can’t do anything other than euthanize them. We owe it to ourselves to know all of that. I think it will also help us prevent what could be a horrifying tragedy during the transition period that would outrage lots of Canadians, including the Canadians that are probably the most keen to see this bill passed. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we have, in the cold light of day, examined that particular unintended consequence.

My second concern, which has been spoken to before, is around the animal advocate legal status that the bill confers in certain circumstances. There is a legitimate concern posed by certain groups and people that this somehow could be a first step toward influence or interference in animals for food. That is a legitimate concern and the committee should listen to those groups and try and find ways to mitigate that concern rather than simply dismiss it.

Both those items, the transition plan and the advocate role, are potential unintended consequences that we must spend the time working on here if we are going to propose this bill and send it over to the popular house that may or may not spend as much time on sober second thought as we would if the roles were reversed. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gignac, for the second reading of Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I am speaking today in support of Bill S-248, in which Senator Wallin proposes that it become possible to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying. Senators Seidman, Kutcher and Ravalia have already very well positioned the issues that deserve our attention in this debate, and I wish to add my voice.

[Translation]

Allow me to take a step back in time. When the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right of an individual to obtain medical assistance in dying at the time of their choosing, it did not just reverse its position on the criminal prohibition against medical assistance in dying. With Carter, the court also invited both federal and provincial legislative and regulatory bodies to assume responsibility for an important societal reform that it recognized would be difficult and complex.

[English]

Coincidentally, I joined the Senate when Bill C-14, the first legislation on medical assistance in dying, was being studied. The positions were divergent and the debates vigorous. Some Senate amendments were accepted, others rejected and several other issues were left unresolved or subject to review by a parliamentary committee to be established. We understood at the time that the chapter that had just been opened was the first of several chapters that were to follow. Legislation governing medical assistance in dying would evolve. The implementation of regulatory guidelines would be gradual.

[Translation]

In 2019, when it ruled that the criterion of reasonably foreseeable death contravened the Charter, the Quebec Superior Court reminded us of this responsibility and asked us to continue what we had started. That is what we did with Bill C-7 as we revised the eligibility criteria, created a new safeguard and expanded access to individuals suffering from mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition.

After Bill C-7 was passed, we also knew that by once again submitting the issues of access for mature minors, advance requests, the palliative care situation in Canada and the protection of Canadians with disabilities for parliamentary study, we were ensuring that this debate would come back before the committee.

This brings me to the bill before us.

[English]

During the study of Bill C-7, for which I was the sponsor, I felt it was more prudent to limit our response to the Truchon decision. The Legal Affairs Committee did not deal with advance requests, and rightly so, since they were not part of the bill. I felt at the time that it was premature to study this aspect of medical assistance in dying. Although I agreed with the principle, I abstained from voting for Senator Wallin’s amendment on advance requests.

[Translation]

With respect to the bill before us, I would like to acknowledge the work done by Senator Wallin, who kept us informed after taking the necessary time to consult experts, organizations, stakeholders and individuals with real-life experience. Her thorough work and the work that will be done in committee are reflected positively in the text she is proposing.

Under Bill S-248, advance requests would only be allowed for those who are already seriously ill. The parliamentary review by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which many saw as an important prerequisite to allowing advance requests, ended last month with a similar conclusion.

When I spoke to Senator Wallin’s amendment to Bill C-7 in 2021, I felt that more clarity was needed for situations when the individual no longer had the capacity to make health care decisions and it was up to others, such as a family member, to determine when and how the advance request would be invoked, and when the MAID provider would be contacted.

I am reassured by the wording in Bill S-248 stating that any written advance request must include a set of medical conditions defined by the applicant in close consultation with his or her physician. These conditions must be clearly identified and observable by a physician or nurse practitioner. Once the person has lost capacity, these criteria will be used as a guide to define when the person would like to go ahead with MAID.

[English]

This provision protects the individual, as Professor Downie noted during the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying:

There is no room for substitute decision-making in this context. It is the individual who was saying what is to be done to them at a point at which they have lost decision‑making capacity, and the clinician assesses the objectively assessable conditions because you’ve sorted that out by writing down your written request. You figured out what will work. It is something that clinicians can assess, and they determine whether those conditions have been met or not.

There is no substitute decision-making here at all.

[Translation]

Are the safeguards that are already in place, combined with those written into this bill, strong enough to protect a vulnerable person from making an advance request against their will? I believe that they are. As I mentioned, it is the individual, while fully lucid, who sets out in their initial application the criteria to be considered. Furthermore, several other people are involved in this process, including two independent witnesses whose role is to confirm that the person’s written request was made voluntarily and without external pressure. Let’s not forget, it is a crime to coerce or force a person to opt for medical assistance in dying.

Another safety net is that the written advance request must be updated every five years by the person concerned, as long as they have the capacity to do so.

Another issue that was unclear to us in 2021 was the potential complexity of harmonizing provincial and territorial legislation. Things have evolved and continue to evolve because, as we speak, the Quebec National Assembly is studying the terms of a provincial framework for making an advance request for MAID. However, this framework, once adopted, will not be applicable unless an amendment similar to the one currently proposed by Senator Wallin is made to the Criminal Code.

As you know, in the current state of criminal law, the waiver of final consent just before receiving medical assistance in dying is possible only in very limited cases. A patient whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable can make arrangements with their doctor to waive this consent because they may lose decision‑making capacity before the chosen date.

Another scenario involves any patient who allowed a doctor to proceed with the self-administering process, if that process should run into complications that cause the person to lose their decision-making capacity.

Bill S-248 provides that it would also be possible to administer medical assistance in dying without having obtained final consent from the individual, on the condition, as I have already indicated, that the problems causing their suffering are clearly indicated in their written request and that these problems can be easily observed by the doctor or the nurse practitioner. This proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would free individuals who received a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease from a quasi untenable situation, such as ending up being subject to, when suffering becomes untenable, making a decision when it is clear that the progression of the disease will irreversibly affect the capacity to choose and make a decision.

Honourable senators, we also need to listen to Canadians. Year after year, more and more of them are telling us that they strongly support advance requests. According to an Ipsos poll conducted in April 2022, 85% of Canadians support advance requests for those with a grievous and irremediable condition and 77% support advance requests even if no grievous or irremediable condition exists.

We do not always have to wait for the courts to ask Parliament to intervene before we take action. Those who have to appeal to the courts are already carrying the heavy burden of their illness. Are we respecting their dignity by leaving that up to them when the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that that is our responsibility?

I would like to end my speech by saying that many people who are at the centre of this debate on medical assistance in dying are taking a strong stand on autonomy and our individual right to choose. Already in 2019, the Truchon decision led us to reflect on this by stating from the outset that it is essential to properly understand a person’s condition based on their personal experience and not as a member of a vulnerable group.

The court ruling reads as follows, and I quote:

[English]

The vulnerability of a person requesting medical assistance in dying must be assessed exclusively on a case-by-case basis, according to the characteristics of the person and not based on a reference group of so-called “vulnerable persons.” Beyond the various factors of the vulnerability that physicians are able to objectify or identify, the patient’s ability to understand and to consent is ultimately the decisive factor, in addition to the other legal criteria.

This is something that strongly resonates with me. This reflection on autonomy has always been present when it comes to medical assistance in dying, and I suspect it will stay. Senator Woo, in his recent speech on Bill C-39, reflected on this also:

I am signalling to all of us here that there is a discernible shift in the reasoning behind arguments for MAID — from reasonably foreseeable death to grievous and irremediable condition to autonomy.

I don’t disagree with you, Senator Woo. I also appreciated the finesse of your reflection and the strength of your arguments to support this observation.

I too notice that shift toward autonomy as a key factor for policy-making. I see it in this conversation on MAID but also in other areas in our society. I personally find it reassuring. It’s when you suddenly wake up in a great loss of autonomy that you realize how crucial it is and how it’s worth fighting for self‑determination.

Persons in situations of vulnerability live in a world where so many decisions are made on their behalf, and when this happens, you realize even more how having the right to make your own choices is crucial.

[Translation]

To me, the right to choose is non-negotiable when we have the capacity, of course, and reasonable safeguards have been established.

The advanced requests that this bill calls on us to reflect on represent an extension of our capacity to make decisions while we are able to do so.

Paul Brunet, president of the Conseil pour la protection des malades, said, and I quote, “It is a matter of autonomy, of the person’s free will.” It is simple, but to me these words sum up the issue.

In the hope that we will soon have the privilege of studying this bill in committee, I want to conclude by acknowledging the serious, thorough and important work that this chamber does at every stage in our reflections and our decisions on medical assistance in dying.

[English]

Senator Wallin, your voice in this debate is essential. Your work and your consistency in making access to an advance request possible are remarkable. Dear senator, I thank you for it.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned, on division.)

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill S-249, the national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence act, sponsored by Senator Manning. This is an issue close to my heart, and I believe this bill should be expeditiously sent to committee.

This legislation would require the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth to develop a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

I will address three aspects of the bill, in Senator Cotter’s fashion: its origin, its purpose and its relevance today.

First, regarding its origin, Senator Manning essentially introduced the same bill in 2018. It even had the same number. Senators McPhedran, Hartling and Pate added their insights on debate, and senators unanimously referred that Bill S-249 to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Unfortunately, the bill died there due to the upcoming election.

However, between the bill’s first incarnation and now, it has developed and improved. At the second-reading debate in 2018, Senator Hartling said that the need for a bill like this was obvious, but it should be thoroughly studied at committee, with the involvement of the relevant minister and stakeholders. She suggested involving women’s groups across the country in the consultations the bill called for.

This past June, when Senator Manning reintroduced the bill, he acknowledged Senator Hartling’s concerns by updating subclause 3(2) of the 2022 version of the bill to include consultations with “. . . representatives of groups who provide services to or advocate on behalf of victims of intimate partner violence . . . .”

As for the purpose of the bill, the heartbreaking story of Ms. Georgina McGrath that Senator Manning presented during the bill’s second reading certainly made an impact on me. Having a former victim of intimate partner violence behind this bill reinforces its importance.

Senator McPhedran worried in 2018 about the proposed national strategy’s inclusion of a provision around requirements for health professionals to make a report to the police if they suspected that a patient was a victim of intimate partner violence. Senator McPhedran argued that this might not be in the best interests of all victims and could compromise their Charter right to security of the person. Offenders who received probation or short prison sentences could quickly be back on the streets and terrorizing their victims, and that’s if they were convicted at all. She quoted a Juristat statistic that just 40% of domestic violence cases result in a guilty verdict.

That is a valid concern. However, the bill itself does not demand mandatory reporting. Paragraph 3(2)(d) only asks for consultations around requirements for reporting suspected intimate partner violence. It is opening the debate on it and not providing for it. Those consultations should include victim advocacy groups and take into consideration the recommendations of a report that Senator McPhedran mentioned, A Report to Guide the Implementation of a National Action Plan on Violence Against Women and Gender-Based Violence, written by a pan-Canadian group of anti-violence experts including survivors, grassroots organizations, academics and lawyers.

As Senator Manning said in his speech in November last year:

. . . I have learned that patient privacy and a victim’s fear of what may happen if a police report is made are important factors that need to be thoroughly discussed as we proceed. . . . But in order to find possible solutions to this increasing problem of intimate partner violence in our country, we need to begin exploring avenues to find a way to assist those who so desperately need our help.

I agree with Senator Manning that:

The cloak of secrecy around intimate partner violence has created a travesty of justice that has prevailed because of fear, stigma and the absence of a law to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

As it stands now, the bill ensures that Senator McPhedran’s concerns around victim privacy and consultation would be well considered both in committee and during consultations once the bill comes into force.

I note two important elements of Bill S-249: The requirement for the minister to set out a national strategy in each house of Parliament within two years and the requirement for a progress review, including recommendations and conclusions, two years after the minister tables their initial report. Those ensure accountability. The strict time frame and review requirement mean the minister can adapt the national strategy more easily so we can learn from what works well and what can be improved moving forward. The bill’s purpose is to create a national strategy for preventing intimate partner violence, but we certainly want an effective one. Those measures will help achieve that goal.

As for my final point, which is the bill’s relevance today, it is sadly more relevant than ever. According to a 2018 report published on the Statistics Canada website, more than 12% of women had experienced intimate partner violence in the year preceding the survey. That number more than doubled to 29% for young women aged 15 to 24.

Moreover, in Canada, more than 127,000 acts of police-reported domestic violence took place in 2021, with women and girls representing 69% of all victims, according to Statistics Canada. And we know that those who go to the police are just a small portion of the victims.

[Translation]

Things are no better in my province. SOS violence conjugale, an organization that helps victims of domestic violence, reports that, since it was established in 1987, it has received no fewer than 800,000 requests for help. That represents an average of 23,000 calls a year, a number that is actually growing. Averages can be deceiving because even if the number is growing, it is not necessarily reflected in an average.

Moreover, this violence resulted in 17 femicides in 2021, a sad record for Quebec. In 2022, there were another 13 femicides as well as the murders of six children. What did the Government of Quebec do when faced with this totally unacceptable situation? It adopted the strategy entitled the Integrated Government Strategy to Counteract Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence and to Rebuild Trust 2022-2027.

The Government of Quebec’s document describing this strategy highlights that it is the result of the collaboration of several ministries and government organizations based on many consultations held with stakeholders. The main elements of this strategy are the following.

First, significant investments over five years to support organizations on the ground, including rape crisis centres and also centres providing support for violent partners.

Second, campaigns that raise awareness about domestic violence, sexual assault and sexual exploitation. For those who have seen the ads on Radio-Canada or on other French-language or even English-language stations, this advertising is quite shocking and captures the attention of viewers. For example, the ads show how one partner controls the other, with the dominant partner constantly calling the other and asking, “Where are you? What are you doing?” and constantly sending text messages. Then he is told, “Stop, you need help.” The awareness campaign is both dramatic enough and well targeted, and I hope it will be effective.

Third, the creation of a court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence located in centres where there are not only courtrooms, Crown prosecutors and police officers, but also support and assistance services provided by sexual assault and domestic violence specialists.

Fourth, compensation for victims of sexual and domestic violence.

Fifth, a legal aid clinic for victims that can be accessed by telephone and online.

Finally, the implementation of a system of electronic geolocation bracelets for defendants and offenders released into the community when ordered by the judge or parole board.

What we need now is an integrated government strategy at the federal level. I am pleased that Senator Manning’s bill proposes such an approach.

[English]

This bill also responds to Senator Audette’s work through the Calls for Justice of the final report of the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Call for Justice 5.3 reads:

We call upon the federal government to review and reform the law about sexualized violence and intimate partner violence, utilizing the perspectives of feminist and Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.

Bill S-249 will also honour the call of so many organizations, reports and stakeholders for consultation and reforms related to preventing intimate partner violence. It will bring together government ministers and representatives with victim advocacy groups. It will be the first step in creating solutions that will give so many of our fellow Canadians a choice where none exists today. What happened to Ms. McGrath and too many others shall never happen again.

Colleagues, I ask you to join me in supporting Bill S-249 at second reading in order to send it to committee for careful review and amendment, if necessary.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak on Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures). In my remarks, I will challenge the arguments raised by critics of this bill, and I will express the importance of the legislation brought forward.

Colleagues, as you may recall from Senator Boyer’s speech, this bill proposes to amend section 268 of the Criminal Code — which addresses aggravated assault offences — to add a new offence for forced or coerced sterilization. This would establish that anyone involved in coercive measures to cause, or attempt to cause, someone to be sterilized against their will, or without obtaining proper informed consent, is guilty of an indictable offence for a maximum of 14 years in prison.

As you are aware, this bill came out of the tireless work done by Senator Boyer throughout her career, and also at the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights which completed two studies, in 2019 and 2022, on forced sterilization in Canada. I sat on the Human Rights Committee for both studies where we heard from a number of witnesses comprised of medical and legal experts, survivors of forced or coerced sterilization and other experts, all of whom gave invaluable testimony on an extremely difficult, painful and, frankly, unbelievable subject.

At the beginning of the committee’s first study, I thought forced sterilization was something of the past — an issue of historical significance that the committee had an interest in looking at. When I learned that it still happens today, with reported cases as recent as 2019, I was shocked. How could a country like Canada — which prides itself on being a progressive and avid protector of human rights — allow this deplorable act to happen in the first place and to go on for so long, let alone until now?

The more I learned through separate discussions with Senator Boyer, listening to survivors bravely share their stories and looking at the extensive documentation on forced sterilization in our country, the more I wanted to help bring effective change.

Amongst the recommendations by witnesses for the deterrence and eradication of forced sterilization, several survivors told the committee that they wanted a new criminal offence created as a means of greater deterrence and accountability. Some detractors of the bill say that this legislation is not needed since there are existing legal provisions in the Criminal Code that could be used in court proceedings by a victim of forced sterilization. These include section 265 which relates to assault; section 267 which relates to assault causing bodily harm; and section 268 which relates to aggravated assault, all applicable to a medical setting where informed consent for a procedure was not present.

In addition, the federal government amended the Criminal Code in 1997 to include — under aggravated assault — the act of female genital mutilation, which forced sterilization could be closely interpreted as, given the procedures involved in the severing, tying or cauterizing of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus. Done forcibly, this procedure could constitute a form of genital mutilation.

And yet, despite all of these laws, over 12,000 women have been subjected to the procedure with not one person charged with assault in this circumstance to date, let alone convicted or otherwise held to account. If the law is not used for such a clear crime as forced sterilization, what is the use of the law existing in the first place? If there is no investigation and therefore no charge and no conviction, there is no consequence. Justice for survivors never comes. Protection of citizens is not upheld.

There is something wrong when the laws currently in place are not being utilized to combat forced sterilization. If the existing charges of assault were enough, there would be tens of thousands of charges at least or, perhaps, with the motivation of deterrence, there would be far fewer.

I would also like to highlight the fact that these are the recorded numbers, and there are likely thousands more cases that will never come to light.

I want to emphasize again the grave reality that there have been zero charges laid against this appalling act. It, therefore, does not make any sense under any circumstances to not criminalize forced sterilization.

Other critics have said that this will do little to solve the larger systemic problem — a view with which I adamantly disagree since this step is crucial for several reasons.

First, criminalizing the practice sends a clear message that the government acknowledges forced sterilization as a violation of an individual’s human rights and not to be tolerated in any way. The threat of criminal prosecution would also act as a deterrent to health care providers and institutions that might consider engaging in such practices as a form of control, knowing there are explicit and serious legal consequences. For those who do perform the procedure, criminalization will hold offenders accountable.

While this legislation will not address harms of the past, it will prevent future violations and may provide some comfort to survivors. The law is meant to protect society, deter unlawful actions and establish precedent. Forced or coerced sterilization is not only assault, in the common vernacular, on a citizen, but, for the most part, on the most vulnerable groups and individuals in Canada. The practice has disproportionately targeted Indigenous women, women of colour, those with disabilities and those in other marginalized groups.

In many instances, those forced into the sterilization procedure also had just given birth, suffered a miscarriage or had an abortion. These women are in their most vulnerable state, physically and mentally. One survivor, Sylvia Tuckanow, told the committee about how she was forcibly moved to an operating room immediately following the birth of her son, where she was administered an epidural and was sterilized despite protest. As she stated during her testimony:

. . . I was still disoriented from giving birth and the effects of pain medications. . . .

I felt terror and fear as I was taken into that room. . . . I already had an epidural sticking out of my back from giving birth, so I wondered why they needed to do another one. . . . During this I kept saying, “No, I don’t want to do this,” and crying uncontrollably, but nobody listened to me. . . .

. . . they tied me down to the bed.

Ms. Tuckanow says she still remembers to this day the smell of burning tissue.

Another survivor, who wished to remain anonymous, was waiting for a Caesarean delivery. She risked going into septic shock. She felt the life of her son was in her hands if she did not sign the consent forms to be sterilized, presented to her before the operation. She said:

. . . they brought up a tubal ligation. Since they would already be operating on me, they said that this would be a quick process. . . . At that point, I didn’t second-guess my decision, because the only thing that was on my mind was surviving and the survival of my unborn child.

Other survivors recounted how doctors took it upon themselves to perform these procedures, unknown to the patient at the time, who would only discover years later when attempting to have children. Many were deliberately misinformed by medical providers of the procedure’s permanency and the risks, or they faced pressure tactics at a time of high emotion and severe pain and disorientation.

Colleagues, all the women who came forward to speak before the committee were courageous. Some did not mind their faces being shown and their names being shared. Others did mind, for reasons I cannot even begin to imagine. Some of these survivors conducted their testimony under pseudonyms and in silhouette.

The reason I share these details with you, colleagues, is to illustrate the level of damage forced sterilization has inflicted upon thousands of women, in many cases being so severe that they do not want to be identified. Shame was forced upon them.

Some of the survivors expressed burying their memories until hearing others speak about similar traumatic experiences.

These forced procedures have left many women terrified of the health care system so that they avoid necessary care for themselves. Isolation, guilt and other trauma-induced responses have snowballed, in addition to the physical harms and consequences of the procedures. This doesn’t even include the effect that it has had and continues to have on the family life of the victims and their partners.

Hearing all of this, it is extremely unfortunate that we are still debating the need for such a law. The reality is that forced sterilization is a blatant violation of human rights, and it is time we took decisive action to put guardrails around this procedure and protect vulnerable members of our society.

I would like to take a moment in my remarks to commend Senator Boyer for her efforts in bringing to light the issue of forced sterilization in Canada. This is no small feat and a hard reality that’s not been addressed on a national level before. No words can convey the pain and trauma victims of forced sterilization endure. Being robbed of the ability and choice to carry life is the utmost violation to bodily autonomy. Full credit and respect go to our colleague Senator Boyer for being the superhero to these victims.