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

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I’m pleased to speak as the critic of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. This bill, formerly Bill S-203, is one that I think we can all agree, in principle, is an important bill that will protect our children and youth.

The Honourable Senator Linda Frum spoke as critic in the last Parliament and congratulated Senator Miville-Dechêne:

. . . for introducing this important bill and for the thoughtful effort she put into crafting it. . . . pornography that if consumed at a young and immature age has the potential to do irreparable harm to the mental and spiritual health of the viewer.

I echo her comments. I once again thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her tireless work for many children, youth and families who will be protected by this bill.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states that:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

As a former educator and mother of a daughter, I know firsthand how impressionable young minds are and how important it is to teach and protect children from a young age. For them and for future generations, we as parliamentarians can play a vital role in shaping their future and ensure that, above all, we protect them from harm.

Bill S-210, when enacted, will make it an offence for organizations to make porn available to young persons on the internet. It will also enable a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent porn from being made available to young persons on the internet in Canada.

As Senator Miville-Dechêne explained so eloquently in her speech last week, Bill S-210 is an improved version of Bill S-203 and will restrict the scope of the regime and further clarify its intention. The objective of this bill, as outlined in clause 4, is to “protect the mental health of young persons” and more broadly to “protect Canadians — in particular, young persons and women — from the harmful” repercussions of porn.

Clause 5 of the bill sets a maximum fine of $250,000 for a first offence of making sexually explicit material available to a minor for commercial purposes. This new bill narrows the scope of the criminal offence to exclude individuals and only targets organizations as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. This ensures that individuals, such as sex workers on various porn platforms, will not be in violation of this bill. This narrowed scope makes it possible to directly target commercial distributors of porn.

This question then remains: How can we protect our children from the rapidly growing online world of porn? Unlike the real world, the online world is much more complex. Given the past two years, when much of the world has shifted to online platforms and means of communication, we must ensure there are rules in place to control and protect what is accessible online, especially for children. There still seems to be uncertainty as to how websites should check the age of their visitors before they access pornographic material.

The same rules should be in place online as well as 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. An age-verification process would provide that layer of protection and a wall to block minors from being exposed to pornography. At the same time, it will still allow pornography to remain accessible to adults in Canada after completing the age-verification component.

This bill aims to create consistent standards, which would then be followed by the regulators who determine the appropriate forms of identification. Bill S-210 would prohibit websites from making porn available to minors by requiring them to implement an age-verification process. Failure to comply with this order would result in a fine, and it could also result in a blocking order against the offending site.

In the previous Parliament, the bill was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The committee carefully studied the bill and heard from witnesses on the merits of, and the need for, this bill.

Laila Mickelwait, who holds a Master of Public Diplomacy, founder of Traffickinghub, Justice Defence Fund, said:

Studies have shown that child exposure to pornography is most often unwanted. The Kaiser Family Foundation has reported that well over two thirds of 15- to 17-year-old adolescents have seen pornography when they did not want to or intend to access it, with nearly half reporting being very or somewhat upset by it. Unwanted sexual experiences are what we call sexual assault. . . . when a child witnesses porn through unwanted exposure or even by curiously stumbling upon it, unaware of what it would contain, it can become a serious and traumatic event in the life of that child.

And Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law and Associate Professor, Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary, said:

The impacts of children viewing pornography can be profoundly harmful. Arguably, children have a human right to be free from exposure to pornography . . . . But we do have to be mindful that, for adults, viewing pornography is legal and protected expression. . . .

The goal is to reduce the exposure of children to pornography that they should not have access to.

The bill passed third reading in the Senate and was sent to the House of Commons but it died on the Order Paper, like many other bills, when the election was called.

Honourable senators, while I do not feel qualified to offer expertise on the technical merits of the digital age-verification processes associated with Bill S-210, as a woman, mother, former educator of 21 years and as a legislator, I believe Bill S-210 is an important step forward, above all, to do what we can by law to protect our children, young people and women through limited but specific measures.

Therefore, I stand firmly today with Senator Miville-Dechêne and others who have spoken in the past and who will look at this carefully at the Legal Committee and hopefully return it to the chamber quickly this time around. I ask all of our colleagues to support this strengthened bill so that we can send Bill S-210 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further review.

In an increasingly digitized world, with the proliferation of porn sites — far too many, as cited by Senator Miville-Dechêne — that are too easily accessible to everyone, including minors, I believe we need this bill passed into law — and the sooner the better. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Miville-Dechêne, but I have to interrupt you.

(At 4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate earlier this day, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

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

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

(1540)

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, our colleague Senator Richards recently asked you an excellent question in light of the Women’s Tennis Association’s suspension of all tournaments in China out of fear for player safety following the disappearance of player Peng Shuai. It’s one that bears repeating, especially given the lack of clarity in response to similar questions from reporters at today’s press conference. What are the Government of Canada’s contingency plans if Canadian athletes are detained by Chinese authorities? We’ve seen the belligerent behaviour by this regime when it comes to detaining Canadians, as we experienced with the two Michaels. What are we going to do to ensure the safety of our athletes in these upcoming Olympics?

And the question that Minister Joly seemed to be fumbling all over the place on today is a very simple one: What are we doing to provide security for our athletes with regard to the inherent risk by going to Beijing and these Olympic Games? Are we going to have more RCMP officers dispatched to protect Team Canada and our Olympic athletes?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

The Government of Canada recognizes that seniors and all Canadians are struggling with the problems brought about by both the pandemic and the measures implemented by the government to keep them safe, and it takes these problems very seriously.

The government is also aware of the communication challenges that exist in this and other areas. It will do its best to ensure that all Canadians are informed of any changes to the procedure or rules in a timely manner.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, yesterday we heard from the two candidates for the position of Speaker pro tempore, and the Clerk provided all senators with information by email on to how to vote. This information was recirculated earlier today to all senators who had not yet voted.

I would like to thank all senators who have taken the time to vote and would remind senators who have not yet done so that you have until 6 p.m. today to do so. Furthermore, the Clerk will be in his office from shortly after adjournment today until 6 p.m. should you wish to contact him directly.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

December 8, 2021

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 8^th day of December, 2021, at 10:49 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Wednesday, December 8, 2021:

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy) (Bill C-4, Chapter 24, 2021)

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, at a press conference on Friday, the Government of Quebec announced a new action plan to fight the sexual exploitation of minors. The obvious conclusion is that we need much harsher treatment for pimps and johns, as well as more support for victims of sexual exploitation of minors.

Young girls, some just 12 or 13 years old, are having their lives destroyed by pimps who, in too many cases, get off with light sentences. In 2019 in Canada, 21% of all human trafficking cases involved girls under the age of 18.

In Montreal last week, a pimp was sentenced to nine years in prison for repeatedly raping a 15-year-old girl and forcing a 21-year-old woman into sexual slavery. Maybe you think nine years is harsh. Don’t forget: This pimp will be eligible for parole in three years. The violence these two young women were subjected to was horrific and inhumane, and it is happening right here in Canada.

We cannot allow such cruel crimes to continue to be perpetrated over and over again and, above all, to be trivialized, given that the penalties imposed on pimps are far from being proportional to the seriousness of the crimes. It is high time that these unscrupulous criminals were taken off our streets for a long, long time and that the johns were sanctioned, too. It is important that the victims be adequately supported, so that they’re not afraid to denounce their pimps.

Yet, despite the urgency and magnitude of the problem, there is one person who remains silent in the face of this scourge, and his name is Justin Trudeau.

The Deputy Premier of Quebec, Geneviève Guilbault, sent a clear message at her press conference: She wants tougher penalties in the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction.

The time is long overdue for the Prime Minister to stop worrying only about what happens to criminals in penitentiaries and to start protecting their victims.

While Bill C-452, which imposed harsh penalties on pimps, was passed with unanimous support in both Houses of Parliament in 2015, it hasn’t been implemented because Mr. Trudeau considered harsh penalties to be inhumane for pimps. That’s unacceptable. Isn’t it inhumane for teenagers to have their lives ruined?

With that in mind, I would like to end my statement by quoting Minister Guilbault, who had the following message for the Trudeau government:

I’ll tell him that I think sexual exploitation, of all the offenses, could be one of those that a party that is not necessarily repressive could afford to be. You can be progressive, but at some point, pimping disgusts everyone, even people on the left.

Mr. Trudeau, it’s time to act.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. In August, the federal government began sending letters to just over 4,000 fishers across Atlantic Canada seeking to claw back almost $26 million in COVID-19 emergency relief that they received last year under the Fish Harvester Benefit and Grant Program. The federal government is asking about 300 fishers in the province of New Brunswick to repay $1.5 million.

The Canadian Independent Fish Harvester’s Federation has said people were given incomplete and incorrect information when they applied for the assistance last year and that the government failed to design the program based on how taxes are filed in the fishing industry.

Leader, will your government do anything to help the fishers who desperately needed assistance keep their benefits under the Fish Harvester Benefit and Grant Program?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising this important issue. I don’t have the details of the programmed response that the government may implement. I will certainly make inquiries and try to provide an answer as quickly as I can.

Senator Poirier: It has been about four months since thousands of fishers began receiving letters from the Trudeau government demanding this repayment, yet we’re no closer to the resolution on their behalf. Leader, we’ve seen many structural and qualification changes take place in the various relief programs offered by your government since the pandemic began. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada are all involved in this program.

Will you please ask these departments to sit down together and come to an agreement on how to treat the fishers fairly under this program?

Senator Gold: I will certainly be pleased to communicate your concerns and your requests to those instances.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I rise today in this chamber to pay tribute to the four teenagers who were killed on the streets of Montreal since the beginning of the year.

Hani Ouahdi, a young man just shy of his twentieth birthday, was killed last Thursday in Anjou. Thomas Trudel, age 16, was killed on November 14 in Saint-Michel. On October 18, Jannai Dopwell-Bailey, also age 16, was stabbed to death in front of his school, and last February, Meriem Bendaoui, an innocent bystander, was killed in a drive-by shooting. She was only 15 years old.

I extend my sincere condolences to the victims’ families and friends.

As a mother and a Montrealer, I am very concerned and deeply troubled by all of this gun violence.

On November 19, the Union des municipalités du Québec unanimously called on the federal government to do the following, and I quote:

 . . . quickly enact legislative changes to put an end to tragedies involving handguns while strengthening controls on illegal weapons crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

On Sunday, Quebec announced that it will invest $52 million to do more to prevent this type of crime. Premier Legault is also calling on the Trudeau government to take action.

We need to work harder for gun control. People are losing their lives to gun violence not just in Quebec but also in many major Canadian cities.

I agree that this is a sensitive and polarizing issue. However, we have the right and the duty to call for meaningful action from our leaders. What I would like to see, in memory of the victims and on behalf of Canadians who are affected and appalled by this violence, is our governments taking the initiative to talk with each other. It is absolutely necessary to take action and immediately start focusing on this societal issue. A collaborative structure coordinating the efforts of all levels of government is absolutely essential to reducing gun violence in this country.

Finally, in these early days of December, I would be remiss if I did not mention the 1989 femicide at the Polytechnique, 32 years ago now. In memory of the 14 women who were brutally killed, PolyRemembers is lobbying to have handguns and assault weapons banned in Canada. I commend your courage and your perseverance over the years to advance this important cause. Let us never forget.

Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of December 7, 2021, moved:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed:

1.Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, R.S., c. 33(2^nd Supp.):

-Part II;

2.Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47:

-paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16) and 85;

3.Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32;

4.Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34:

-sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168;

5.Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12:

-subsections 107(1) and (3) and section 109;

6.Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7:

-sections 70 to 75 and 77, subsection 117(2) and sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283;

7.An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26:

-sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43;

8. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30:

-Part 18 other than section 125;

9.An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, S.C. 2005, c. 54:

-subsection 27(2), section 102, subsections 239(2), 322(2) and 392(2);

10.An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, S.C. 2007, c. 6:

-section 28;

11.Budget Implementation Act, 2008, S.C. 2008, c. 28:

-sections 150 and 162;

12.Budget Implementation Act, 2009, S.C. 2009, c. 2:

-sections 394, 399 and 401 to 404;

13.An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, S.C. 2009, c. 9:

-section 5;

14.Payment Card Networks Act, S.C. 2010, c. 12, s. 1834:

-sections 6 and 7; and

15.An Act to promote the Efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, 2010, c. 23:

-sections 47 to 51 and 55, 68, subsection 89(2) and section 90.

She said: Honourable senators, today I rise in support of the motion on the adoption in the House of a resolution that the act and provisions of 14 other acts listed in the motion not be repealed on December 31.

I am asking the Senate to ensure that this act and these provisions, which have not come into force since their enactment, are not repealed pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act.

[English]

Honourable senators, before I continue, I want to bring your attention to an email my office sent to yours yesterday. Since I cannot possibly offer all the details behind the Statutes Repeal Act and the provisions of 14 other acts in my allotted speaking time, my office has prepared a document explaining the purpose of the act.

The document includes an annex that lists the government ministries that have recommended the deferral of repeals, including the reasons for the recommended deferrals. I hope this will give both our new and seasoned senators a better understanding of this annual statute repeal process. This being said, let me offer the chamber some general information about this year’s Statutes Repeal Act.

[Translation]

Bill S-207, the Statutes Repeal Act, received Royal Assent on June 18, 2008, and came into force two years later. The act is an administrative measure that tidies up federal legislation by regularly pruning provisions that have not been brought into force within 10 years.

Section 2 of the Statutes Repeal Act requires that the Minister of Justice table an annual report before both Houses of Parliament on any of the first five sitting days in each calendar year. This report lists the acts of Parliament or provisions of acts of Parliament not yet in force that were enacted nine years or more before December 31 of the previous calendar year.

However, these acts and provisions can be saved from automatic repeal if they are brought into force before December 31 or if one of the Houses of Parliament adopts a resolution exempting them from repeal.

This is the eleventh annual report under the Statutes Repeal Act. It was tabled on January 26, 2021, in the House of Commons and on February 8, 2021, in the Senate.

Since the tabling of the report, the Department of Justice has contacted the departments responsible for the act and provisions listed in the report to verify whether they should be saved from repeal.

This year, some provisions of An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters will be repealed on December 31 by operation of the Statues Repeal Act, because the minister responsible has not recommended that their repeal be deferred.

The reason for the repeal is that these provisions are no longer needed and their repeal has no impact.

In total, 11 ministers recommended that repeal of the provisions for which they are responsible be deferred.

[English]

The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Transport have each recommended a deferral of repeal for one provision of one act. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Northern Affairs and the president of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada have each recommended deferral of repeal for certain provisions of one act under their responsibility.

With respect to the Minister of Northern Affairs, I want to highlight how the first deferral of repeal recommendation concerns sections 70 to 75 of the Yukon Act. These provisions allow the Yukon government to appoint its own auditor general and cease to use the services of Canada’s auditor general. The Yukon government needs to establish a position of auditor general before these provisions can be brought into force.

The other provisions of the Yukon Act for which a deferral of repeal is recommended are consequential amendments to other acts that should be brought into force when the federal Yukon Surface Rights Board Act is repealed and the Yukon legislature enacts legislation in its place.

The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the President of the Treasury Board are each recommending a deferral of repeal for certain provisions of two acts each under their responsibility.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is recommending deferrals of repeal for one act. The deferral recommendation concerns the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act.

Finally, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General are each recommending a deferral repeal for certain provisions of three acts under their responsibilities.

Now, the reasons for deferring repeal include: an external event must occur before the legislation can be brought into force or repealed, such as the coming into force of an international treaty or the enactment of legislation by provinces and territories; proposed legislation repealing, replacing or bringing into force the not-in-force provisions is currently under way; additional time is required to deal with matters currently being adjudicated; additional time may be required to obtain the approvals necessary for bringing the provisions into force or to complete regulations; additional time is required to complete the necessary policy work or consultations; and failure to defer repeal could have a negative impact on international relations, relations with Indigenous peoples or with the provinces and territories.

[Translation]

Once again esteemed colleagues, you will find more details about the provisions being repealed in the document that my office emailed to you yesterday.

The Statutes Repeal Act specifies that repeal deferrals are valid for one year only, and any act or provision whose repeal is deferred this year will appear in the next annual report.

We must adopt the resolution before December 31, 2021. Otherwise, the entire act and the provisions of other acts listed in the motion will be repealed on December 31, 2021, pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act. If the resolution is not adopted by then, the result could be gaps in federal legislation. Repealing certain provisions could even cause tension between the federal government and the provinces and territories. It could also affect Canada’s international relations.

Furthermore, if the resolution is not adopted in time, federal departments will have to introduce new bills to address the gaps in legislation that will occur if these provisions are repealed. These bills will have to go through every stage of the legislative process, from policy formulation to Royal Assent. It is a long and costly exercise.

In closing, I am asking you to support this motion and vote in favour of the resolution that the entire act and the legislative provisions listed in the motion not be repealed on December 31 of this year pursuant to the Statutes Repeal Act.

Thank you.

Senator Gagné: I would.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate). I stand here in support of this bill and ask that this chamber unanimously pass this bill once again.

Let me begin by thanking the sponsor of the bill, Senator Bovey, for her outstanding commitment and determination. This is the fourth iteration of this bill, and Senator Bovey has very eloquently articulated the importance of incorporating the universal language of the arts into our parliamentary sphere.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank former Senator Moore who first introduced this bill in 2016. Even after he retired in 2017, Senator Moore continued to fight for the bill at the committee stage.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of Senator Eggleton, Senator Cormier, Senator McIntyre and Senator Harder who have also spoken in previous sessions of Parliament to support this bill.

For colleagues who are not familiar with the Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate Bill, it simply establishes a position for an office of the library whose job is to promote the arts in Canada through Parliament. The visual artist laureate will foster knowledge, enjoyment, awareness and development of the arts. This new position will bring contemporary artwork into this institution and provide us with new perspectives while preserving Parliament’s history through the visual arts.

The challenging but exciting work of a parliamentary visual artist laureate is to use their unique talent to challenge, question and present social issues. Thus, a visual artist laureate will assist in presenting policy and legislation to Canadians from a different perspective. At the same time, we will gain a greater understanding of various societal aspects, as artists can express their concerns virtually and can communicate messages through different mediums, reaching far more people than we ever could alone.

Artists often have the capacity to break down complex issues and present them in an accessible manner, which transcends linguistic barriers.

The position would also be a way to highlight the Canadian cultural sector’s contribution to society. Let us not forget that nearly 800,000 Canadians were employed in cultural occupations in 2017, which represents 4% of all employment in Canada. Furthermore, cultural establishments represented over 3.8% of all establishments in the Canadian economy in 2017.

By passing this bill, we publicly acknowledge the importance of artists and are better able to promote their talents. Therefore, honourable senators, I humbly ask that you support this bill. Thank you.

Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much, colleagues.

Senator Dalphond, everyone knows that this is a very important bill that concerns a pillar of the judicial system, namely jury duty by citizens who give their time and often compromise their health to ensure that we have the most equitable and fairest justice system possible.

This bill was passed unanimously in the other place. It is a bill that for three or four years has been at the mercy of the political winds in the legislature. Will senators agree to proceed to third reading of the bill this afternoon?

Senator Boisvenu: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move that the bill be read the third time now.