Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the recent changes to the Senate Room Allocation Policy by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended as follows:

1.That the Senate Administrative Rules be amended

(a)in Chapter 5:03 by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

“Basic staff

Additional Staff

(2) The Internal Economy Committee may direct the Clerk Assistant, Committees, to provide a committee with any additional staff that the Committee sees fit.

Schedule and room allocation

(b)in Chapter 5:04 by replacing subsection 2(2) with the following:

“Meeting schedule

(2) The Clerk Assistant, Committees, in consultation with the caucus spokespersons, will assign a meeting schedule and reserve a room for each caucus that meets regularly. Due consideration should be given to the size of a caucus and its status as a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, as defined by the Rules of the Senate.”; and

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of June 13, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the adoption of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended in Chapter 3:05

(a)by repealing the heading before section 1, section 1, subsections 10(2) and (3) and section 11; and

(b)by replacing the heading before section 2 and subsections 2(1) and (2) with the following:

“Committee Budgets

(a) adopted by the committee;

(b) submitted by the committee to the Internal Economy Committee for its consideration; and

(c) presented to the Senate by committee report, with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee attached.

(2) A budget prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) must contain a detailed estimate of the committee’s special expenses for the fiscal year.”; and

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

She said: Honourable senators, this motion proposes consequential changes to the Senate Administrative Rules that are necessary to implement a new financial policy for Senate committees, which was adopted by the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023. The new policy will come into force at the end of September 2023.

[Translation]

I want to point out that this policy compiles into one comprehensive document long-standing decisions, policies, practices and guidelines of the Internal Economy Committee that apply to Senate committees in the area of financial management and committee budgets. Most of these measures are nothing new and will be familiar to senators who have participated in committee travel activities in the past.

[English]

The new policy streamlines the committee budget process to reflect the activity-based budgeting system that has been in place for over 10 years. It also replaces outdated financial reports on committee expenditures with the new legislative requirement for proactive disclosure. I would also note that last week, the Senate adopted changes to the Rules of the Senate, which also repealed obsolete sessional financial reports. Committees will continue to post quarterly, public, proactive disclosure reports, along with an annual report, which follow the fiscal years on the Senate of Canada website. These changes are simply to align our Senate Administrative Rules with the new policy, and will help ensure that the Senate continues to inform the public about spending by its committees in an open and transparent manner.

Thank you again, colleagues, for your consent.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of September 22, 2022, moved:

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration relating to the study of the Long Term Vision and Plan from previous parliamentary sessions, be referred to the Committee so that it may then authorize the disclosure of certain presentations prepared for the committee to Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

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

That the Senate recognize that, each year, thousands of Canadians are called to jury duty and contribute to the Canadian justice system; and

That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week in Canada, to encourage those Canadians who provide this public service and to recognize their civic duty.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 9, in which I make two proposals. First, I propose that the Senate recognize the contribution made to the justice system by the thousands of Canadians who are called to jury duty each year and, second, that the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week, or Semaine d’appréciation du jury in French.

The week proposed in the motion, the second week of May, coincides with similar jury appreciation weeks in other jurisdictions, including California. The week is also recognized by the American Bar Association. This year, the week will unofficially be held from May 8 to 14. The Canadian Juries Commission will be running a social media campaign in collaboration with prominent Canadians to thank current and former jurors.

Senators, I think you will agree that the issues that affect jurors deserve our attention and the attention of Canadians at least once a year. These include recognition of the contribution of current and former jurors to the justice system, the mental health and well-being of current and former jurors, access to justice, and issues of representation and diversity on juries.

Steady progress has been made over the past few years on the plight and well-being of jurors. Allow me to share some notable events that have helped advance the cause.

[English]

Mark Farrant was a juror in a first-degree murder trial in 2014. He helped shed light on the need for more jury support in Canada. Drawn from his own experience, he identified the gaps in support provided to jurors and discovered that he was not alone. Mark was diagnosed with PTSD after the trial and struggled to find support in his home province of Ontario. In 2016, his advocacy helped prompt the Government of Ontario to launch a free counselling program for former jurors.

In 2017, to help move things forward at a national level, Mark brought to the attention of parliamentarians and government officials what has become known as the “12 angry letters.” In those letters, 12 former jurors chronicled their suffering and struggle to find support to deal with the trauma after exercising their jury duty.

[Translation]

This initiative paved the way for a study on the support provided to jurors, conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and the tabling of the report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada in May 2018. The fourth recommendation in this report turned into a bill, Bill C-417, which was introduced in the House of Commons on October 29, 2018. This bill has had a bumpy ride and is now known as Bill S-206. It is my hope that it will pass in the House of Commons in the coming weeks. I thank the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, Senator Boisvenu, whose work helped ensure this bill’s speedy passage in the Senate during this session.

As you know, this bill amends section 649 of the Criminal Code to authorize jurors to discuss proceedings with mental health professionals after the trial. In the meantime, in 2019, Mark Farrant founded the Canadian Juries Commission. This is the first not-for-profit organization dedicated to representing the interests of jurors specifically. Among the initiatives introduced by this organization, I would like to highlight a pilot project to support jurors in British Columbia called Jury Duty Peer Support and Mental Health First Aid and Wellness Training for Sheriffs and Court Officers. This project supports and encourages Canadians to participate in jury duty by providing in-trial and post-trial support for jurors and promoting the importance of mental health within the justice system.

The commission also conducted a national opinion study in June 2020 that showed only 18% of Canadians are willing to participate in jury duty. The study also found that a number of former jurors experience repercussions long after the trial. Some former jurors reported being re-traumatized by media coverage of similar cases. Others reported being traumatized at parole hearings in their own cases.

In contrast, the House of Commons Justice Committee report indicates that, in general, serving as a juror can be a rewarding experience and result in a sense of having contributed to one’s community. These aspects of the juror experience should also be promoted. The federal government should encourage Canadians from all walks of life to do this civic duty, and it should support them.

If the government were to designate Jury Appreciation Week, we could continue to promote this cause and the implementation of all the recommendations in the report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada across the country. As the critic for Bill S-206 in the Senate, I have certainly spoken at length in this chamber about the report’s fourth recommendation. Today I would like to talk to you about the other 10 recommendations.

[English]

As I had mentioned, in May 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report entitled Improving Support for Jurors in Canada. Because the issue of juror support falls mostly within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, given the responsibility for the administration of justice, most of the recommendations contained in the report direct the Minister of Justice to encourage the provinces and territories to implement the recommendations.

Let me go through some of these recommendations. First, the provinces and territories should make available to prospective and selected jurors an information package about jury duty. This package should contain the role and responsibilities of jurors, the compensation provided, the legal concept and mechanism of the trial process or the inquest and the deliberation process, including tools to help jurors manage interpersonal conflict.

The package should be available in both official languages and, where appropriate, in Indigenous and other languages.

The second recommendation provides that the provinces and territories should implement the policy that would ensure that the jurors be offered a debriefing session after the trial.

As a former juror, I can confirm without a doubt that I would have benefited greatly from having access to debriefing sessions. The idea would be to provide debriefing sessions to allow jurors to share, express and better understand their emotions with others who have had similar experiences. This collective process could allow jurors released from their duties to better resume the normal course of their lives.

The third recommendation relates to psychological support and provides for the provinces and territories to offer psychological support and counselling programs to all jurors after the trial. Some provinces have a counselling program for former jurors. I alluded to this earlier in my speech.

The Province of Ontario offers free, confidential and professional counselling services to jurors as part of the Juror Support Program since 2016. Former jurors can speak to a qualified and experienced counsellor 24-7. Saskatchewan has a similar program, the Juror Assistance and Support Program. I invite former jurors to investigate the different resources offered to them in their respective provinces and territories.

The fifth recommendation relates to daily allowance. Jurors should be offered a daily allowance for services rendered of at least $120 throughout the legal proceedings, which should be adjusted to reflect the cost-of-living increases.

The compensation to jurors varies across Canada, but in most cases the compensation offered is lower than the minimum wage in that province or territory. This hurts the diversity on juries in Canada because some individuals simply cannot afford to be jurors.

[Translation]

Similarly, and this is also very important for ensuring greater diversity among our jurors, the report’s sixth recommendation states that the provinces and territories should be encouraged to offer jurors compensation to cover the costs associated with serving as a juror, such as the cost of child care, travel, parking and meals.

The seventh recommendation has to do with providing jurors with the optimal physical environment. The provinces and territories should strive to provide an environment that minimizes casual interactions between jurors and other participants in the proceedings outside the courtroom to reduce the potential for intimidation and awkwardness.

[English]

Some of those interactions can be a significant source of stress for jurors and contribute to mental health issues experienced by jurors during and after a trial.

[Translation]

The discretionary power of certain actors in the judicial system must not be overlooked in the search for solutions. The eighth recommendation is about the federal government providing funding to the National Judicial Institute to develop training designed to increase judicial awareness of the mental health needs of jurors. With proper training, judges, coroners and judicial officials who interact with jurors may be better able to identify stress in some jurors and offer advice and support where appropriate.

[English]

Similarly, the ninth recommendation relates to the importance of increasing awareness. The provinces and territories should support training programs aimed at increasing awareness among judges, coroners and judicial officers who interact with jurors of the potential impact of legal proceedings on the mental health of jurors.

As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the pilot project in B.C. is an attempt to implement this recommendation in at least one province. The federal government should exercise leadership at a national level to have this program implemented in all provinces and territories.

The tenth recommendation relates to federal funding on a one-time basis for provinces and territories to cover some of the costs resulting from the implementation of this report’s recommendations. More needs to be done with respect to helping the provinces and territories implement the various recommendations.

Finally, the eleventh recommendation provides that the Minister of Justice shall share the practices recommended in this report with the minister’s provincial and territorial counterparts during the next meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. The report was shared with provinces and territories and raised during the fall of 2018 federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for justice and public safety.

It is important that high-level conversations like these continue over time and that progress reports be made public and available to all Canadians.

On May 22, 2018, the government responded to the report recognizing the leadership role of the federal government with respect to supporting jury duty across the country. Let me quote part of the response:

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting jurors in their duties and is committed to working with the provinces and territories to improve support measures for jurors, and facilitate the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

Officially recognizing a jury duty appreciation week could be helpful in that regard.

[Translation]

In its response, the government agreed on the importance of continued collaboration with the provinces and territories to ensure that adequate supports are provided to jurors. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada concluded at the time, and I quote:

Ensuring that they [the jurors] are adequately supported before, during and after their service is an important objective to maintain public confidence in juries, minimize the impact that jury duty has on jurors’ lives, and help ensure jury representativeness in various ways.

One very simple and effective way for the federal government to put words into action would be to officially recognize Jury Appreciation Week in Canada, which would foster and promote ongoing and ad hoc dialogue between the provinces and territories and the various stakeholders on the support provided to jurors across Canada.

Colleagues, I urge you to support this motion calling on the Government of Canada to officially designate the second week of May in each year as Jury Appreciation Week. Furthermore, from May 8 to 14, I invite you to mark this week in your own way, to show your support for this cause.

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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