Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Wallin, I have a few questions about witnesses, how they’re defined in your bill and how that’s characterized. How is the term “independent witness” defined in your bill? I know under your bill, the patient’s declaration must be:

. . . witnessed by two independent witnesses to confirm that it was made voluntarily and not as a result of external pressure and each witness signed and dated it . . .

I have a further question about that, but could you answer about “independent witnesses” first, please? Thank you.

Senator Wallin: This is a concept that already exists in other parts of law, but “independent witnesses” would be best characterized as those that the client, the patient and the person who is requesting MAID, in consultation with medical professionals over time, has suggested would be independent and would not have a vested interest in the outcome or the decision of the patient.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

He said: Honourable senators, today, I have the honour to commence second reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

This bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 2022, by Anju Dhillon, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle and a family and criminal lawyer, in cooperation with Pam Damoff, the member for Oakville-North—Burlington and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, and with Ya’ara Saks, the member for York Centre and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

It was changed slightly by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and then unanimously passed by 326 MPs on June 1. Unfortunately, this bill arrived in the Senate when we were working exclusively on government bills.

Although it consists of only four provisions, including one on the coming into force of the act, Bill C-233 proposes two measures that should help reduce incidents of violence, including femicide, against women who want to end a toxic relationship.

[English]

First, Bill C-233 proposes to amend the Criminal Code where an accused is charged with an offence against an intimate partner. Before making a release order, this change would require a justice to consider whether it is desirable — regarding the safety and security of any person — to include that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of the bail order.

Second, Bill C-233 proposes to amend the Judges Act to signal to the Canadian Judicial Council the importance of continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

I will start with the two proposed amendments to the Judges Act.

Those of you who were here in 2017, 2018 and 2019 remember the failed attempts in this chamber to reach a final vote on Bill C-337 introduced by the former leader of the Conservative Party, the Honourable Rona Ambrose. That bill aimed to improve judges’ knowledge relating to sexual assault law and social context by inviting the Canadian Judicial Council to establish seminars on these issues.

In September 2020, the government introduced a bill to the same effect, Bill C-3, that included social context, systemic racism and systemic discrimination. That bill was adopted by the Senate and became law on May 6, 2021.

Bill C-233 proposes that the Canadian Judicial Council be invited to offer seminars to judges on the following subjects: intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

Thus paragraph 60(2)(b) of the Judges Act would read that, “In furtherance of its objects, the Council may”:

. . . establish seminars for the continuing education of judges, including seminars on matters related to sexual assault law, intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination . . . .

With this proposed change, Parliament will signal to the Canadian Judicial Council and to judges the high importance that our society places on intimate partner violence and coercive control.

(2030)

Notably, Parliament would signal the necessity of protecting all family members from becoming the victims of the father exercising coercive control. In addition, Parliament will invite the Canadian Judicial Council to provide information on its annual reports on seminars offered on all the matters indicated in paragraph 60(2)(b), which I just read.

This part of Bill C-233 is described as “Keira’s Law,” in memory of Keira Kagan, a four-year-old girl killed in Milton, Ontario, by her violent father in what was likely a murder-suicide in February 2020.

Despite serious allegations by the mother that the father was a violent husband, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted him access rights. In fact, it seems that the judges tasked in 2018 and 2019 with deciding on access rights had assumed that the violence manifested by the husband against his wife did not mean that he could not be a good father and that he should, therefore, be denied access rights to their daughter, Keira.

Since this tragic event, the mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, and her spouse, Philip Viater, a lawyer who practises family law, have been working relentlessly to ensure other families do not suffer the pain of losing a child killed by a violent parent. Among the measures they seek is more training for all those involved in family law cases, including judges, about the importance of considering indicia of violence before deciding matters of custody and access rights.

Those proposed additions to the Judges Act will encourage the Canadian Judicial Council to continue and even expand its efforts to train judges on intimate partner violence and controlling spouses.

In the last two years, the Canadian Judicial Council has authorized numerous conferences, seminars and tools for judges, all provided by the National Judicial Institute. Those initiatives are funded by public money. The annual budget of the council exceeds $30 million, including over $6 million for education and assistance tools for judges.

As you might remember, in the 2019 budget, Parliament authorized the government to increase the amount allocated to judicial education by $5 million over the following 10 years.

Let me give you some examples of the programs currently offered.

One is a mandatory 10-day course for newly appointed judges that is intended to provide them with the essential knowledge, skills and understanding of social contexts to succeed in their new role. The course includes training on sexual assault trials, and on the myths and stereotypes that might arise in those trials. It also includes training on the importance of considering violence in family law matters.

As for sitting judges, they must attend two courses called Judging in Your First Five Years: Criminal Law. One is related to criminal law and the other one to family law. In addition, as part of their continuing education plan, sitting judges are invited to participate in national seminars and conferences in family law, criminal law, access to justice for children, jury trials, gender‑based violence and similar topics.

Furthermore, appeal courts and superior courts organize annual general meetings that include training. Since January 2018, 50 live-education programs have been offered during these annual meetings, dealing in whole or in part with issues related to intimate partner, domestic or family violence; sexual assault trials; and social contexts.

Digital resources are also made available to judges on sexual assault, Indigenous people’s issues, intimate partner and family violence, evidence, family law and jury instructions.

As said previously in this chamber, studies have shown that violence against a parent harms the children of the family. In fact, a violent husband cannot be a father who is able to act in the best interests of the children.

That is why Parliament adopted substantial amendments to the Divorce Act in 2019. Those changes were designed to identify violent acts and to force all those involved in divorce proceedings, including lawyers, social workers, psychologists and judges, to consider such acts in reports, agreements and decisions relating to sharing parental time and responsibilities.

The ultimate goal of those amendments has been to protect the ex-spouse and the children against further violence following separation, especially from husbands who have exercised coercive control over their spouses. Studies show that despite a separation, such husbands will often resort to violent acts to try to resume coercive control, including harassment, threats, assaults and even murder.

[Translation]

Since the coming into force of the reformed Divorce Act on March 1, 2021, we have seen a shift in the jurisprudence. A growing number of rulings handed down by the lower courts, appeals courts and the Supreme Court of Canada are noting the importance of considering incidents of family violence, assuming they are against the best interests of any child and putting measures in place to ensure that the former spouse or the children are no longer exposed to violence.

On May 20, in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, the Supreme Court of Canada stated, and I quote:

The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis: s. 16(3)(j) and (4). The Divorce Act broadly defines family violence in s. 2(1) to include any violent or threatening conduct, ranging from physical abuse to psychological and financial abuse. Courts must consider family violence and its impact on the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child.

That is a clear and unequivocal message from the Supreme Court to every judge and member of the judicial system and the law societies.

I could also quote numerous rulings handed down by provincial criminal court judges, superior family court judges and appeal courts across the country that confirm that Canadian courts now take family violence and intimate partner violence very seriously.

In my view, this change in attitude is the result of several factors. These include the aforementioned amendments to the Divorce Act and the Criminal Code relating to intimate partner violence, the importance that media and society have placed on the issue of spousal violence, and the increased knowledge within the justice system of the serious consequences associated with spousal and family violence. This growing awareness in the court system needs to be further encouraged, specifically through training for judges and lawyers.

I will now move on to the amendments to the Criminal Code.

[English]

Bill C-233 proposes to amend section 515 of the Criminal Code that deals with judicial interim release, called bail orders.

(2040)

When a person is arrested and charged, the principle is that the accused should be released without conditions pending the completion of the judicial process, unless the Crown shows that the detention of the accused is justified or that the release order should be accompanied by conditions.

There are some exceptions to that rule. For example, further to the adoption of Bill C-75 in 2019, when the accused has been previously found guilty of a violent offence against an intimate partner, it is up to the accused to show that their release could be managed safely for the alleged victim. Bill C-233 proposes to add that when the person is accused of an offence involving violence against an intimate partner, the judge can impose as a condition of release that the accused must wear an electronic monitoring device if the attorney general of the province makes the request.

In our digital and connected world, there are two types of devices. It could be a bracelet, worn by an accused, which is connected by radio frequency to a telephone line in the place of residence in order to indicate to a monitor in real time that the person is always in the place of residence. For example, if a convicted person has been released under the condition of staying at home at all times, such a device ensures compliance or at least serves as evidence of a breach of compliance.

A second type of device allows for the geolocation of a person at any time. In cases of intimate partner violence, such a device could be ordered for a convicted person when the release order includes the condition to maintain a certain distance from the house or place of work of the victim. A breach of the order could automatically be signalled to a monitoring centre that could alert the victim and dispatch the police. A more sophisticated system provides a corresponding electronic device to the victim that will automatically signal the presence of the accused if they are within a certain range.

Under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, a judge could order an accused person to wear an electronic bracelet as a condition of a bail order, assuming that it is available in the place of residence of the accused. This condition is often offered by the accused to show his desire to comply with the bail order and willingness to assume the associated costs.

One of the main providers is Recovery Science Corporation of Bradford, Ontario. According to its website, since 2010 over 800 people across Canada have been granted pre-trial release when including its GPS program as part of their plan of supervision. The company then enters into an agreement with each participant that includes a comprehensive waiver of confidentiality that enables it to report violations and share monitoring data with police, as well as the payment of over $600 per month for the service.

Incidentally, in a case before the Superior Court of Quebec in November 2021, this company acknowledged that with a good pair of scissors it was possible to cut off the bracelet, and that it had happened about 130 times so far, which is, more or less, about 15% of the cases.

It is also worth noting that wearing a bracelet may be ordered currently pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to monitor compliance with conditions such as house arrest, curfew or not leaving a certain area. Bill C-233 proposes to make it clear to the Crown, the accused, the victim and the judiciary that such a condition in a bail order should be considered as a way to not only deter non-compliance but also protect the alleged victim in cases of domestic and intimate partner violence, pending criminal proceedings.

The sponsor of the bill in the other place has chosen to focus on bail orders because it is in the first 18 months post-separation that many women or children are killed. Statistics show that the post-separation period is an enhanced period of danger for the victims of violent partners. Of course, adopting this bill won’t prevent Parliament from providing for monitoring devices in other circumstances, such as those contemplated in Bill S-205 proposed by Senator Boisvenu.

In all cases, it must be clear that reliance on electronic monitoring devices depends on the existence of proper infrastructure to provide a reliable device, constant monitoring and a timely response if triggered, including from the police. Otherwise, the victims may live with a false sense of security. That’s why it is proposed that such a bail order condition can be imposed by a judge only at the request of the attorney general of the province. Hopefully, this should create an impetus for provincial governments to establish the required infrastructure for such monitoring systems.

[Translation]

On that note, I want to highlight the important initiatives undertaken in my part of the country, Quebec, to establish a monitoring device system. The Government of Quebec is acting on recommendation 84 of a report entitled Rebuilding Trust, which was tabled on December 25, 2020, by the expert committee on support for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Recommendation 84 states the following:

Where appropriate, consider requiring the accused to wear an electronic bracelet as a means of further protecting the victim.

This committee also recommended that victims have free‑of‑charge access to rapid intervention tools, such as emergency telephones, and encouraged the use of other technological methods for keeping victims safe, all at no charge to them.

In response to this report, Quebec adopted various measures. For example, the National Assembly passed Bill 24 in the spring. This bill amends the Act Respecting the Québec Correctional System and authorizes the director of a provincial prison or the Quebec parole board to require, as a condition of release, an offender convicted of domestic violence and sentenced to less than two years to wear a monitoring device that tracks their whereabouts at all times.

Of course, in order for an electronic monitoring device to fulfill its function, the victim’s location must also be known at all times. Therefore, this release condition can only be imposed with the victim’s consent. Quebec correctional services provide victims with the necessary equipment, such as cellphone software that tells the victim when the offender is within a certain distance of her. This is all at no cost to victims. These devices can only be imposed if the judge has ordered it for the accused as part of an application for release.

A budget of $41 million over five years has been allocated to implementing this system. This budget includes funding to train stakeholders in assessing abusive partners, and to cover the cost of equipment and the monitoring of the system. Incidentally, continuous monitoring of these electronic devices has been entrusted to a non-profit security company, the Commissionnaires du Québec, which includes former members of the Armed Forces and the RCMP.

On May 20, 2022, the Quebec government announced the launch of a pilot project in Quebec City. This will be followed by a gradual rollout across Quebec, with four regions to be added this fall, followed by eight more in the spring and, finally, the rest of Quebec in the fall of 2023.

The Quebec Ministry of Public Security estimates that 500 electronic monitoring devices should meet the requirements when the program is implemented across the province. Three devices have been ordered so far as part of the pilot project.

(2050)

This initiative is in addition to others introduced by Quebec, in particular the creation of courts specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence, the allocation of financial assistance to 11 municipal police forces for the hiring of staff specialized in the fight against domestic violence and femicide, and the provision of funding of treatment services for offenders.

I would remind colleagues that 26 women were murdered in Quebec in 2021, the majority in the context of domestic violence.

The monitoring device is therefore an interesting tool. We hope that, based on the Quebec experience, the National Parole Board will consider requiring offenders involved in intimate partner violence to wear a monitoring device while noting that the effectiveness of this device requires not only the consent of the victim but an adequate system of supervision.

That said, I believe it’s important to point out that to address intimate partner violence we need a comprehensive strategy as demonstrated by the Spanish experience after the adoption in 2004 of legislation addressing intimate partner violence that integrates an approach based on the victim, often a woman, as is the case here in Canada, in approximately 80% of cases.

I would like to highlight five features of the Spanish system: specialized courts; specially trained police officers; an effective public awareness campaign on domestic violence — a survey found that 8 out of 10 women in Spain are aware of these programs; an information platform called VioGén, maintained by police officers and the various institutions that care for abused women; and an electronic surveillance command centre, connected to the Spain’s department of health, social services and equality, which is responsible for 24-hour monitoring of the bracelets in use.

The use of monitoring bracelets in protection orders increased by 800% between 2009 and 2018, going from 166 to 970, which represents 5.6% of all violence-related orders issued in Spain. In fact, Spain is a leader among democratic countries in terms of the number of bracelets per capita.

These measures seem to be working. In fact, since the 2004 law, the number of femicides in Spain has decreased by 25%.

[English]

According to researchers and numerous scholarly articles, documented violations of these orders have been very scarce.

Some of the research also indicates that some victims of domestic violence are resistant to the use of electronic monitoring because this reminds them too much of the dynamic experience when they were living with their controlling partner. They felt monitored at all times. However, the feeling of security and confidence in the system has increased over time, according to Spanish police. It seems that more and more victims are satisfied with the system and that the number of false alarms is decreasing.

Several jurisdictions have followed Spain’s example: Portugal, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Chile and Japan.

[Translation]

Electronic monitoring bracelets were implemented in France in 2019. The French government announced an operational capacity of 1,000 units nationwide. As of April 1, 2022, French judges had ordered 995 electronic bracelets to be worn.

In that country, the imposition of an electronic bracelet, which is also referred to as being “placed under electronic monitoring,” may be applied before conviction or as part of the sentence.

What is more, a family court judge may issue a protection order to shelter a woman who is a victim of domestic violence, independently from any criminal proceedings.

Nevertheless, some victims feel that electronic monitoring devices are inadequate because they are not automatically ordered by judges.

It should also be noted that emergency telephones are another device that are recommended for Quebec. France implemented them in 2014, five years before the electronic bracelets. The device consists of a cellphone with a specific button that the victim can press to quickly alert the help line, which is informed of the call and the victim’s geographic location at that precise moment. This service dispatches law enforcement officers who are connected to the service through a special line, either with local police or with the national police force.

According to the French justice department, 3,512 of these phones were available on French territory as of March 1, 2022; 2,566 of them were assigned. That means another 1,000 are available for use.

However, in 2021, some associations criticized the fact that these phones were being handed out so sparingly.

According to the French justice department’s website, the electronic monitoring device is a more versatile tool than the emergency telephone.

There seems to be a big difference between outcomes in Spain and those in France, largely due to the funding allocated to other measures enabling women to get away from violent partners. For example, Spain has 8,600 specialized shelter spaces compared to 5,000 in France, even though France’s population is 30% bigger.

[English]

In conclusion, I want to thank the sponsor of Bill C-233, MP Anju Dhillon, and all members of the House of Commons for having unanimously adopted Bill C-233. It contains two interesting measures that could effectively help protect against further domestic and intimate partner violence. Thus, I invite you to adopt the bill at second reading as soon as possible and to send it to committee for review.

However, it should remain clear that the incremental steps contained in Bill C-233, though useful, are insufficient to end intimate partner and domestic violence. A comprehensive strategy must be developed. It must include help for aggressors — especially men — access to resources for victims, including shelters, public education and training for all those asked to intervene, such as police officers, social workers and judges.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention. Meegwetch.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Mégie: Senator Wallin, during my medical career, I worked with people with serious and incurable medical conditions, including people with neurocognitive disorders.

We are using the advance medical directives system. If Bill S-248 is passed, what will the interdependencies be between advance requests for medical assistance in dying and the provincial advance medical directives system?

[English]

Senator Wallin: I have discussed this whole issue at length with the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers. These are doctors. They are often family doctors. So these are people who have known the patient over years and over time.

I just had this discussion with someone last week. The importance of us all filling out these forms and making wishes clear over time and with a variety of people helps ensure that kind of independence. It may be that you have some of your family members involved. You may have friends or outsiders. You might go to a lawyer. You might go to a separate doctor from your own family doctor. There are many options.

If you make those comments, thoughts and beliefs known to your friends, family and, more importantly, written down, then you have that guarantee or backup. The medical professionals who are engaged in the medical assistance in dying, or MAID, area very much want this to happen. They are seeking provincial rules — that’s part of what they negotiate and deal with — to clarify this.

You will find in any of the forms that you are asked to fill out — of course, you can have variations on that, if there’s something that gives you, specifically, more comfort — that there are lots of ways to make this clear.

I’m a woman who doesn’t have children or a husband, so I would obviously have to go beyond the parameters of immediate family — perhaps a more distant relative, a niece or nephew. But I would have made this action very clear early in the process. That is why I keep suggesting and almost begging that I wish we would do this not only for ourselves to ensure that our own requests and wishes are respected, but that we do this for the sake of those who love us and want to make sure that these really are our wishes and that it’s carried out.

It does mean responsibility for us earlier in life. I know when you’re 29, nobody thinks about this. But for most of us in here, it’s well-timed for us to be thinking about these issues. It’s clarity for yourself as well. If you go through this process of filling out these forms and going through the exercises that are required, it really makes you examine your own feelings. It makes sure that there is a definition there. There’s a certainty there. There’s a commitment there.

If you ask others to participate in that process with you, be they a lawyer, family or friends, then you actually are getting that sense of security from them and for them that they are willing to bear witness to this.

It’s an obligation. It’s a heavy obligation. We have to take it most seriously. The sooner we start that process, the better. That’s where we would get to those definitions because it would be a group of people who would be engaged in this process over time.

[Translation]

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

(On motion of Senator Loffreda, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

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. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Senator Gold. I have another question that might help you with your research.

The government is working on a bill about the harms. You know there have been consultations, in which I participated. Will this bill crack down on children’s unlimited, free access to pornography? I would remind you that, around the world, online pornography is now beginning to be seen as a real public health crisis.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I can understand why people may want to request assisted dying, but I don’t think that any of us in this chamber can say that it will not be used as a coercive tactic. I have had calls from elders and disability communities. One elder in particular told me that, when he went to his medical doctor, he was offered it. He didn’t request it, nor did he want it. Now he’s afraid. He’s an Indigenous elder.

When you look at the vulnerable populations, we can say it’s coercive. When we look at the issue of forced sterilization that’s occurring with Indigenous women today, there is no choice. There’s no option for them: It has been taken away from them.

What safeguards will be put in place for Aboriginal people and the disability community — that is, those who are looked upon as subordinate by many people in Canada? What safeguards will be put in place for them?

Senator Audette: Thank you very much for sharing and explaining your arguments for this bill. Many of the women here — perhaps all women — know one or more people affected by human tragedy. Indigenous women are certainly among them. I understand that we’re talking about intimate partner and family violence, but might it be possible for the provisions to include women who have repeatedly reported individuals who aren’t current or former partners so that they can be kept safe too? Is this only for partners and ex-partners?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, senator, for this question, which allows me to clarify. I may not have been clear enough in my speech. Anyone who is accused of violence against another person can be forced to wear a bracelet, whether it is a case of intimate partner violence or domestic violence. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the individual’s spouse. It can be a lover, a former partner, and so on.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much, Senator Wallin.

I want to commend you for your ongoing and consistent advocacy for advanced requests. Your comments brought back a rush of memories going back to 2016-17 when we debated and studied Bill C-14. There was a lot of emotion. There was also a lot of substance.

This issue of advanced request, I want to ask you, is it unique or new in Canada? There are other jurisdictions — most famously, the Netherlands, but also Belgium and Switzerland — that have physician-assisted dying laws.

Is there anything that you can share with us from your study of this issue from other jurisdictions and what can we learn? Have they had some experience here that could inform us?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I really don’t know specifically what the government may be doing with regard to CRA delays on audits. Thank you for the question, and I will certainly look into it. I won’t take up time to underline and agree with you how important small business is for the economy, not only post-pandemic but 12 months a year, year in, year out.

Hon. Josée Verner: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in light of the reports of the Senate Ethics Officer dated March 9, 2017, and June 28, 2019, concerning the breaches by former Senator Don Meredith of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators as well as the statement made in the Senate on June 25, 2020, by the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration expressing regrets to the victims of Mr. Meredith’s misconduct, the Senate call upon the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific style and title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, earlier this month, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion, Ahmed Hussen, told Parliament that he had been alerted to the anti-Semitic tweets of Laith Marouf, a consultant hired by your government, a month before he even acknowledged the situation publicly. MP Hussen characterized the delay as a matter of procedure, saying it took time to consult with the legal department to cut off funding for Mr. Marouf.

Leader, even if that were the case and the minister had to wait for legal approval to cancel the funding, this still does not justify the timeline of your government’s silence on this issue. Surely your government doesn’t need weeks to put together a statement.

Leader, I would like an honest answer here, please. Why did your government wait an entire month until mounting media reports and public pressure forced you to finally say something?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Keeping Canadians safe is the responsibility of every government, this government included.

The government knows that the situation of missing foreign criminals facing deportation is completely unacceptable. I’m assured that the government is working closely with CBSA to address and remedy the situation.

The government is committed and will continue to be tough on crime, putting the safety of Canadians first.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question again is for the government leader in the Senate, and again it has to do with energy and heating costs in this country, which are rising at astronomical speed right now, and Canadians, of course, in this vast, beautiful, cold country of ours need to heat their homes as the winter comes around.

It’s a very simple question, government leader. Why is it that in a country like Canada, where we’re sitting on an abundance of oil and gas, in our province of Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, 50% of the oil is being imported from foreign sources? Explain that to me.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of October 6, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be designated to conduct a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) and the Special Economic Measures Act, pursuant to section 16 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law);

That, in accordance with subsection 16(2) of the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the committee submit its report on this review no later than June 23, 2023.

Senator Audette: I want to ensure I understand. If it’s not a former partner or lover, but someone whom the woman doesn’t know but who has already had a complaint lodged against them, someone that has gone to prison, been released and come back to harass, intimidate or assault the woman in question, is it possible that the individual could be forced to wear a monitoring device?

Senator Dalphond: Based on my understanding of the amendment to Bill C-75, the person must have been convicted of intimate partner violence. This time, the onus will be on the offender to show that they can be released without jeopardizing the safety of any person. It will be up to the offender to convince the judge, who may propose that the offender be ordered to wear a device in order to secure their release.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Budget—study on foreign relations and international trade generally—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on October 6, 2022.

Senator Batters: Is there a definition that already exists under Bill C-7 or Bill C-14 or something that it’s referring to or is this an extra definition? That’s what I’m wondering about. Maybe you can find that out and let me know if you’re not sure, because there could be a few different definitions. It might be that that person is not entitled to benefit under the estate, or it also might be someone who is not related to that person. I’m wondering about that because it’s an important definition.

I’m also wondering if it would be correct that under your bill it would be the “medical practitioner” who certifies that under subparagraph 3.22(e)(iii), “each witness is an independent witness as described in subsection (5).”

What I’m wondering there is: How would a medical practitioner be able to determine that? By the way, it’s important to recall that such a medical practitioner under the medical assistance in dying laws could be a doctor or a nurse practitioner. I’m wondering how a medical practitioner would have that level of knowledge. Thank you.