Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Karina Gould, P.C., M.P., Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, will take place on Wednesday, April 27, 2022, at the later of the end of Routine Proceedings or 2:30 p.m.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator McCallum: Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Poirier, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

Senator Pate: Yes.

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

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

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

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

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

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest, for the second reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary).

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Clement, but I must interrupt.

It is now six o’clock and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair and suspend for one hour, unless it’s the wish of the Senate to not see the clock.

If honourable senators wish to suspend, please say “suspend.”

Senator Plett: Suspend.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Would Senator Black take a question?

Senator Black: Absolutely.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Senator Gold, my question once again concerns the Canada disability benefit bill, which died on the Order Paper and has yet to be reintroduced.

On April 12, 73 members of Parliament from all parties published an open letter asking that the bill be immediately reintroduced and fast-tracked. Several senators recently made a similar request. In addition, a petition signed by 18,000 people was tabled last month in the House of Commons calling on the government to fast-track the design and implementation of this new benefit.

Despite the urgent needs of people with disabilities and the fact that nine in ten Canadians support this direct financial assistance, there is no mention of this measure in December’s fiscal update or in the April budget.

Senator Gold, why has the government failed to reintroduce this bill and take steps to fast-track it?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the equality of English and French in Canada and to strengthening the Official Languages Act. As we know, many criteria are taken into account when these appointments are being made in order to ensure that the best person is selected to serve Canadians. Although the government is taking time to review this decision and consider next steps, it remains committed to protecting and promoting French across the country and advancing our linguistic duality.

Senator Gold: That’s correct. The government is considering next steps.

[English]

Senator Pate: My understanding is that they are not talking about mandatory treatment. They are talking about offering treatment as an alternative to the mechanisms that are currently used.

In my experience working with men convicted of sex offences, almost inevitably they will choose those options when they are available. The challenge is they are rarely available. We tend to go to a more so-called “law and order” response.

With respect, I don’t think we need a revolution. But I do think we need to have an honest assessment of what is being offered with this bill, and to identify that there are significant gaps when we say we are going to use electronic monitoring, and hope that will stop this.

In my discussions with women’s groups about your bill and about this approach, it’s very clear that some are looking at it as one of the only options being offered, and I agree that is an indictment of all of us if that’s all that is being offered to them. I am not in any way questioning your support or your desire to see an end to violence against women. I think, though, we need to be honest about how best we can achieve that. It is clear that one of the downsides of this bill is it will look as though something is being done and it may stop one or two men, but is unlikely to stop many, if any.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic for the Honourable Mobina Jaffer’s Bill S-213.

As you know, dear colleagues, because I have said it many times in this chamber, I believe that mandatory minimum sentences are important to ensure balanced sentencing and to make sure victims have access to a rigorous and credible justice system.

I oppose this bill because it would have us believe that judges will still have the option to use mandatory minimum sentences, whereas victims’ groups see it as a veiled attempt to abolish them.

Under Bill S-213, mandatory minimum sentences will be neither “mandatory” nor “minimum.” They will become a sort of category of sentences that judges can use as they see fit, and they will be added to a range of sentences that already exist. They will lose all meaning, which just happens to undo the work of all previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, in the name of pseudo-progressive moral standards backed by a government whose primary concern is making the justice system as lenient as possible for criminals. As usual, the government’s excuse is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms justifies criminals’ right to such leniency.

That is not my idea of fair and equitable justice, and it is not the system of justice that the Fathers of Confederation built in this place, which has always recognized the sacred principle that a sentence must be fair, just and proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. In my view, victims must be recognized and protected, while criminals must be convicted and rehabilitated.

Honourable senators, I would first like to comment on one of the passages in the preamble, which I see as rather disturbing, and I quote:

Whereas judicial discretion to depart from a minimum punishment is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice — including, but not limited to a wrongful guilty plea — and to ensure a just and appropriate sentence;

Colleagues, a plea is entered before sentencing. At that stage, the court is obliged to ensure the validity of the guilty plea, in particular that the person admits to the elements of the offence. A person must therefore admit to committing the acts of which they are accused and having the requisite state of mind to do so, and they must be informed that the court is not bound by any suggestion or agreement as to the sentence to be imposed upon conviction, before a court can accept the plea and find the person guilty of the offence that they admitted to having committed. This is set out in section 606 of the Criminal Code.

That is the first inaccurate statement.

It is inaccurate to say that a court’s discretion to depart from a minimum punishment could have an impact on guilty pleas validated before sentencing and, moreover, prevent wrongful pleas.

During her speech on Bill S-207, which is identical to Bill S-213, Senator Pate tried to justify this bill using the example of the Supreme Court of Canada’s recommendation in R. v. Lloyd, which was to enact:

 . . . “a safety valve that would allow judges to exempt” from the application of minimum penalties “outliers for whom the mandatory minimum will constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”

It would seem that the purpose of this bill is to be a legislative response to this Supreme Court of Canada decision. However, I refute the idea that this bill responds to the recommendation I just cited. It develops no mechanism, because abolishing mandatory minimum sentences is not its only purpose. It provides no new solutions, and it does not respond to the recommendation from the Supreme Court, which clearly stated that this should apply only to “outliers.”

I remind senators that Canadian legislators established objectives in the Criminal Code that must guide the courts in sentencing. These objectives are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code. It has been accepted that the courts must show deference to the will of the legislator regarding the principles of sentencing and the restrictions on sentencing. The minimum sentences established by the legislator indicate the strong social disapproval of certain morally unacceptable behaviours in our society and reflect the values of society. In certain cases, the objectives of deterrence and punishment must override other objectives.

R. v. Lloyd provides some guidance to the legislator to prevent minimum mandatory sentences from being struck down as unconstitutional. I would like to quote a few passages.

Another option to preserve the constitutionality of offences that cast a wide net is to provide for residual judicial discretion to impose a fit and constitutional sentence in exceptional cases. This approach, widely adopted in other countries, provides a way of resolving the tension between Parliament’s right to choose the appropriate range of sentences for an offence, and the constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Furthermore:

If Parliament hopes to sustain mandatory minimum penalties for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit the mandatory minimum sentences.

Courts that are seized with the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence take a prudent and rigorous approach to the work of Parliament. In that same ruling, the Supreme Court was clear about the scope of the courts’ judicial discretion. The Supreme Court stated:

The residual judicial discretion is usually confined to exceptional cases and may require the judge to give reasons justifying departing from the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by the law. It is for the legislature to determine the parameters of the residual judicial discretion.

However, Bill S-213 clearly has a much broader scope than is needed to prevent a provision from being declared unconstitutional, and it disproportionately deviates from the Supreme Court’s objective as established in Lloyd. The courts recognize that they must show great deference to Parliament and to the legislative intent behind its decision to impose mandatory minimum sentences for various offences. The minimum sentences will be proportionate and appropriate in most cases.

Under Bill S-213, the courts will be required to consider all possible alternatives to avoid imposing a minimum prison sentence. The combined effect of these new provisions will force the courts to ignore the restrictions already set out in the Criminal Code, especially as regards the types of sentences associated with a given offence, in order to consider any sentence but imprisonment. Courts will have to be convinced that there is no option other than a minimum prison sentence and that the minimum sentence is a fair and reasonable punishment. In such cases, they will have to provide written reasons.

This bill promotes an approach that is dangerous for all serious crimes, such as first or second degree murder, because it gives the most lenient judges the freedom to eschew minimum sentences in favour of sentences of less than 10 years or 25 years.

That is what is surprising about this bill, because in R. v. Luxton, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on sentencing for first degree murder as follows:

These sections provide for punishment of the most serious crime in our criminal law, that of first degree murder. This is a crime that carries with it the most serious level of moral blameworthiness, namely subjective foresight of death. The penalty is severe and deservedly so. The minimum 25 years to be served before eligibility for parole reflects society’s condemnation of a person who has exploited a position of power and dominance to the gravest extent possible by murdering the person that he or she is forcibly confining. The punishment is not excessive and clearly does not outrage our standards of decency.

Take the case of Marylène Levesque, which shocked Quebec in 2020. The murderer, who had originally been sentenced for murdering his wife, Chantale Deschênes, escaped the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada and murdered a second woman, Marylène Levesque.

The murderer, who had stabbed his first wife to death, had managed to trick the court into convicting him of second degree murder by claiming that the killing was unintentional and that the whole thing was his wife’s fault because she had come after him first with a hammer. A minimum sentence would have kept this murderer off our streets for many years.

Unfortunately, as a result of the CSC’s negligence, which had already been condemned in the Auditor General’s 2018 report, the murderer was let out on day parole and killed a 22-year-old woman, Marylène Levesque, by stabbing her 30 times. In this sordid case, investigator Guy Carrier managed to get the murderer to admit that the killing was premeditated. A minimum sentence of 25 years will ensure that this monster is kept out of society for a long time.

The question I obviously ask myself is the following: Had this legislation been in force at that time, what would have been the verdict in cases involving a man as manipulative as Eustachio Gallese?

The bill requires that the judge consider all other possible options before handing down a minimum sentence. This turns mandatory minimum sentences into sentences of last resort.

This bill puts Canadians in terrible danger because it makes it possible for offenders to get out of jail much more quickly. Men like Gallese cannot be rehabilitated as easily as you think.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the previous version of this bill, Bill S-207, 3% of persons convicted of murder will receive determinate sentences rather than life sentences and, in the long term, this means 100 fewer offenders in prison. As members know, offenders who receive determinate sentences receive statutory release after serving two thirds of their sentence, in accordance with section 127 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The report also said that 87 offenders convicted of murder will serve their sentences in the community.

For example, in 2017, in Lanaudière, Quebec, a 78-year-old man murdered his spouse. He locked her in the trunk of his car and deliberately crashed into a truck. The car caught on fire, and his spouse died of asphyxiation. He was sentenced to six years and nine months in prison, which was far too lenient. He is now out on day parole, having served half of his sentence, and the parole board members believe he is at low risk of reoffending.

One of the parole board members, however, had the following to say about this man’s actions. I quote:

You have not shown an ability to fully acknowledge your responsibility. You focused quite a bit on the victim’s alcohol consumption, which is not relevant.

The victim’s son told La Presse, and I quote:

What do we want correctional services to do? Actually rehabilitate people, or just release them as soon as possible?

This is a serious matter, colleagues, because this man took someone’s life, and yet he was released without really acknowledging his responsibility.

I believe that Bill S-213 will result in more of these types of injustices and sentences that do not make sense. That is not what we want to do to keep Canadians safe, and it is not what we want to do to show respect for the victims.

I would like to come back to the Auditor General’s 2018 report entitled Community Supervision. According to his findings, there is a real problem with regard to accommodation options when offenders are reintegrating into society. CSC does not have a long-term program to deal with the growing demand for parole. Parole officers across Canada already have workload issues, as the Gallese case showed. I am very concerned about all this, because Bill S-213 may accelerate the release process, which would only aggravate the situation. Clogging up our release process will inevitably lead to more risks in terms of assessment, reintegration and supervision. This bill seeks to make the system more lenient without accounting for these realities.

A penitentiary or prison may not be the best solution depending on your perception of justice. However, these institutions still allow society to protect its members by sequestering dangerous individuals. In many cases, imprisonment prevents further tragedy. Better still, the correctional system enables offenders to take a break from their criminal trajectory and work on their deviant behaviour.

The job of the courts is to administer justice. They apply the rules of justice in accordance with the legal and constitutional structure. The judicial branch is independent, but it is responsible for interpreting laws passed by the legislative branch. We are the legislative branch, and we represent Canadians as a whole. As such, our responsibility is not to find ways to give judges more discretion, but to ensure that Canadians are adequately protected from criminals. Minimum sentences are important because they meet that objective. I would like to quote the Department of Justice on that:

Politicians may implement these MMPs as a response to public perception that these types of crimes (or offenders) are especially egregious or irredeemable.

Judges alone cannot determine the sentence. It is up to us as legislators to set guidelines and establish rules to better equip them. The Criminal Code cannot disregard public opinion, which is that certain crimes should be punished more harshly.

Senator, your philosophy runs up against the reality that judges have some power, but they do not have absolute power.

In the words of the Department of Justice:

Discretion is not unfettered or whimsical; it is exercised, constrained and guided by jurisprudence, the facts of a case, and existing sentencing legislation.

In your quest to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, you run into another problem. By conferring more power on judges, you will increase sentencing inequality between offenders who committed the same crime in similar circumstances.

You should consider that without minimum sentences, the decision may differ from one judge to the next, and this difference could be influenced by external factors or considerations other than the arguments in the courtroom. This will bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the victims’ families and the public.

Judges must always navigate carefully between independence and impartiality. There is a delicate balance between those two elements. Judges cannot be seen as individuals who hold the absolute truth. They are human beings who, like everyone else, have their own contradictions. The debate on the impartiality of judges is not new. Finding answers to these questions is no easy task. We would have to analyze every decision a judge has taken in their career to know how impartial they are.

In a 1997 article, Luc Bégin of Laval University acknowledged that judges provide a moral reading of rights. However, structural restrictions other than those described by the philosopher Dworkin may help ensure the impartiality of judges.

With your bill to condemn systemic racism and discrimination against communities, the opposite could occur. There are always risks that the ruling could be biased by considerations other than the legal arguments, potentially opening the door to discrimination against the very people you are defending.

That is the second contradiction that I see in Bill S-213. Ever since Gladue in 1999, judges have had all the leeway required in sentencing a member of an Indigenous community. As you know, that ruling requires the justice to consider the culture of origin of the accused.

In her speech, Senator Jaffer gave the impression that her bill responds to a request from the Indigenous, Black and disabled communities.

I believe that there are families from Indigenous, Black and disabled communities that are the victims of serious crimes and that want the offenders to be sentenced by the courts and removed from their communities.

Minimum sentences are necessary because they put everyone on an equal footing and they prevent discrimination. If people are found guilty of murder when it was a legitimate case of self-defence, it is the legal process that must be reformed, not the sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences provide the legal system with a guideline for the type of sentence that should apply depending on the type of crime committed.

I completely agree that society needs to find both economic and social solutions to prevent potential offenders from committing offences or crimes. I am well aware that our society is not perfect and that there are certain circumstances that can lead to criminality, such as disadvantaged neighbourhoods, street gangs, drug addiction or a difficult upbringing.

Honourable senators, this bill does not take victims’ perspectives into account. Rather, it again takes the perspective of offenders and criminals into account. It treats inmates like victims and faults our justice system.

I heard a lot of arguments about the difficulties that offenders and their families face in the speeches that have been made in support of this bill. I often hear that most offenders convicted of murder would give their lives to bring back the person who died.

No one will bring back my daughter. No one can erase her suffering. Like many other families, I must live every day with the image of her brutal death. My mission now is to ensure that when her murderer is released from prison he will never do to another victim what he did to my Julie and he will never put another family through what my family went through.

For Senator Pate, who is constantly working to make our Criminal Code softer on crime, does an equitable justice system mean allowing repeat offenders who commit crimes against children, women or seniors to be given sentences that are less harsh than minimum sentences?

What is more, I am appalled that none of her speeches have alluded to victims of crime.

Senator Wetston provided a perfect illustration when he shared Professor Kent Roach’s comments on minimum sentences, and I quote:

 . . . they are blind to whether offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental-health issues, have experienced racism and abuse in the past or have children who rely on them.

I would like to remind you that in the case of murder, victims’ families are destroyed forever. Far too often, we ignore the collateral damage among loved ones. On television, no one ever talks about job losses, depression, high suicide rates among fathers, school dropout, and divorce, but most of all, no one talks about how many families never recover.

Survivors of attempted murder or sexual assault can be scarred for life and can develop serious health problems.

Statistics show that the scourge of intimate partner violence accounts for one third of violent crimes committed and reported by police. The numbers don’t quite reflect reality, because many women don’t dare report their partner for fear of reprisals. According to data collected in 2021, during the pandemic, for every woman killed, another 3,000 lived in fear of reporting their abuser. I believe that one of the problems with our justice system is that victims of intimate partner violence don’t have the protection guarantees they need to report their abuser. This bill will exacerbate that feeling, because it does not guarantee minimum sentences for attempted murder, sexual assault and homicide.

Victims will be even more alienated from the justice system, and many will be deterred from reporting. These women take huge risks to report their abuser. For many, it amounts to signing their own death warrant. To take that step, they need assurances that they will be safe and protected and that their abuser will not be allowed to get near them. Yet here we are sending them a signal that we, as lawmakers, have decided to relax sentencing, and that will cause them to lose faith in us. The upshot is that the lives of many women will be in jeopardy.

This bill seeks to discredit and even demonize mandatory minimum sentences. Yet mandatory minimum sentences are not an ideological issue. Previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, chose to increase them because they felt they were effective and well suited to the reality of crime. This debate is not always initiated by the Conservatives. It is a debate that the Liberals and Conservatives have been having for a very long time. In fact, I repudiate the so-called polls or studies that suggest that Canadians are against mandatory minimum sentences and think they are unfair. The scenarios proposed in those studies gave extreme examples that are not representative of crimes committed in Canada.

Senator Pate’s 2018 speech on the importance of minimum sentences cited several examples. I would like to quote a few of them now:

For example, in 1988, Gordon Stuckless, a former Maple Leaf Gardens equipment manager, pled guilty to 24 counts of indecent and sexual assault. He had been sexually abusing young boys at the Gardens for years. His sentence? Two years less a day.

Four days after Gordon Stuckless was sentenced, one of his victims, Martin Kruze, killed himself. How ironic that not only did the original offence create a victim, but the sentence itself created another victim. While Stuckless’s sentence was later increased to five years by the Ontario Court of Appeal, this is still ridiculously low.

Then there was Graham James in 1997. James pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault which involved [more] than 350 incidents with two underage players over a span of 10 years. He was sentenced to only three and a half years in jail.

In 2010, James faced new charges for sexually assaulting two other players. He pled guilty and was sentenced to two years for each charge but was able to serve them concurrently.

At the time, legal experts noted that light sentences like these were not unusual. They pointed to a Newfoundland man who was given a three-year sentence in 2012 for raping and sexually assaulting his 11-year-old niece over a six-year period of time. That same year, a Saskatchewan man was sentenced to 18 months for raping his stepdaughter.

Dear colleagues, of course I am not indifferent to the arguments concerning the incarceration of Indigenous women. I am well aware that it is a major and worrisome issue. I am prepared to sit down with Senator Pate or Senator Jaffer to find constructive solutions to this problem.

I am open to dialogue and solutions. I believe that Senator Pate raises a legitimate problem, but I do not believe that the solution her bill proposes is appropriate. However, it is inconceivable to me that this bill could pass through all the stages of the parliamentary process. Abolishing minimum sentences outright is a danger to public safety and an affront to victims of crime.

Colleagues, in all honesty, I strongly oppose sending this bill to committee. On behalf of victims, I urge this chamber to reject this bill. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: I will make a comment. Go back and look at my speech, more specifically the case I quoted, the Supreme Court ruling that allows a judge not to apply the minimum sentence provided the judge can justify his decision.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, several decades ago, I was able to make a choice that would have an impact on the rest of my life: I chose to study in French at the University of Ottawa. Having grown up in Montreal and being fluent in both official languages, I was able to study law in French, which allowed me to serve vulnerable clients in both languages. All of this enabled me to put down roots in the lively town of Cornwall, cementing my identity as a bilingual legal aid lawyer and a proud Franco-Ontarian.

I rise today to speak in favour of Bill S-215, but beyond that, I want to note the importance of post-secondary education in French. Institutions in this sector have to be funded equitably, given the vital service they provide. In times of crisis, they ought to be supported by every level of government, which should collaborate to find solutions and a way forward.

I support Bill S-215 because I want generations of Canadian students to have the same opportunity that I did, to choose a top‑quality education, provided by a financially stable institution that inspires confidence, in the official language of their choice.

[English]

The linguistic history of our country is rich and complex, with more than 70 Indigenous languages spoken across Canada. There are eight Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that address Indigenous languages. The Government of Canada must prioritize its commitment to fulfilling these promises.

Post-secondary education can play a leading role in preserving Indigenous languages, but those institutions must —

Hon. Bernadette Clement: As I grew up in Montreal and was fluent in our two official languages, I was able to study law in French, which made it possible for me to serve vulnerable clients in both languages.

This skill also allowed me to become established in the vibrant city of Cornwall, which solidified my identity as a bilingual legal aid lawyer and proud Franco-Ontarian.

I rise today to support Bill S-215 and also to highlight the importance of French-language post-secondary education. The institutions in this sector must receive equitable funding given the importance of the service they provide. In times of crisis, they must be supported by all levels of government, which must collaborate to find solutions and the way forward.

I support Bill S-215 because I want many generations of Canadian students to have the same opportunity I had, namely to be able to choose quality education in the language of their choice provided by a financially stable institution that inspires confidence.

[English]

The linguistic history of our country is rich and complex with more than 70 Indigenous languages spoken across Canada. There are eight Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that address Indigenous languages. The Government of Canada must prioritize its commitment to fulfilling these promises.

Post-secondary education can play a leading role in preserving Indigenous languages, but these institutions must be financially supported and viable. Laurentian University’s financial crisis and ensuing restructuring weakened its tricultural mandate. This has had a negative impact on Indigenous students and languages.

In the spirit of reconciliation, we must keep Canada’s linguistic commitments in mind when considering this bill. Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions, aims to do two things.

First, it removes publicly funded universities from the list of those companies that can make use of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, and from the list of those corporations that can make use of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Second, it puts a federal minister in charge of finding solutions. Namely, they are to consult and report back to Parliament with a proposal for federal initiatives that would reduce the risk of post-secondary institutions becoming bankrupt or insolvent. This proposal would aim to protect students, staff and faculty from the effects of bankruptcy or insolvency. It would also seek to support the communities that would be impacted by such a dire situation.

[Translation]

I congratulate my colleague, Senator Moncion, on introducing this bill. We agree that post-secondary institutions play an essential role in maintaining the economic, cultural and social health of a region. Francophone communities, and indeed, all communities, benefit from the presence of these institutions, which contribute energy, development and inspiration. A thriving university can help a community thrive, and the federal government seems to understand that. Bill C-13, which would amend the Official Languages Act, was introduced in the other place and states quite clearly that the Government of Canada:

 . . . is committed to protecting and promoting the French language, recognizing that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English;

[English]

Bill C-13 also states:

The Government of Canada is committed to advancing opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education.

So this is the first question that I faced when reviewing Bill S-215: What is the federal government’s role in this provincial jurisdiction? The answer: In addition to official languages obligations, the federal government also contributes via transfer payments to the provinces.

The second question is more complicated. How could the federal government help? One Ontario college official suggested that when post-secondary institutions run into trouble, it’s up to both the province and the federal government to collaboratively find solutions.

[Translation]

Another official I spoke with, Lise Bourgeois, the innovative and dynamic president and CEO of La Cité college, explained that colleges may be less likely to experience a financial crisis because they have to comply with strict provincial requirements for financial reporting and compliance. Even though they have less independence, colleges are still agile and are essential to the development of a workforce that reflects Canada’s needs.

[English]

Yet, funding for francophone colleges and universities isn’t as secure as we need it to be. Base funding from the Official Languages in Education Program hasn’t increased in years, despite growing enrolment.

Instructing in French tends to be more expensive as there are fewer colleges in the French sector to collaborate on curriculum development and to capitalize on economies of scale. Francophone colleges also fund intense recruitment programs to compete for students who have the choice to study in either language.

[Translation]

Bill S-215 calls on the federal government to ensure the financial stability of all post-secondary institutions in Canada.

The bill is an attempt to respond not only to the recent crisis at Laurentian University, but to the very real possibility that other institutions will face a financial crisis of their own. Once again, the aim is to protect students, faculty, staff and communities.

On April 13, the Auditor General of Ontario released a preliminary perspective on Laurentian University. The province’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts has requested a special audit to determine what led the institution to resort to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, or CCAA. The report notes that Laurentian was the first public university in Canada to use a legal process designed as a last resort for private sector entities, and the impact could be significant. The report reads as follows:

The use of CCAA proceedings might make it more difficult for other universities to acquire debt, or to hire and retain faculty.

If we decide to ignore how Bill S-215 can help resolve this problem, consider the alternative. If another institution faces a crisis, it will cut programs, fewer Canadian and international students will attend, and the community will be deprived of the potential that institution brings.

[English]

I want to zero in on international students as an example.

In 2021, StatCan published a projected financial impact of the pandemic on Canadian universities. With costs rising, universities are relying more and more on tuition fees. The report says that international student fees are higher and increase at a faster rate.

COVID-19 impacted the number of international students enrolling in Canadian universities.

StatCan assessed enrolment numbers and research funding amounts and estimated the possible revenue loss for Canadian Universities in 2020–21 at anywhere between $438 million and $2.5 billion.

Let’s not forget that international students aren’t simply a source of revenue. If they choose to stay, and are able to, they contribute to the renewal and vitality of our country, of course, but they also contribute to minority language communities. We are having that conversation right now at the Official Languages Committee, especially as we study francophone immigration to these communities.

More important, we can’t rely on tuition fees alone to fund universities. They must be resilient when enrolment levels change or when there is an international crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Students, both those enrolled and potential students, should be able to trust the stability of these institutions. Can they currently do so? Is the status quo sustainable? Is this the best we can do?

[Translation]

The French Language Services Unit of the Ontario Ombudsman’s office investigated complaints about cuts to French programs at Laurentian University. In March, the office released its findings and recommendations. The report indicates the following.

Several of the complainants were students at the Sudbury-based university who were left with no other option but to relocate or continue their studies in English. Some, like those in the midwifery program, pointed out that the loss of their programs would also impact the Franco-Ontarian community at large — for example, no other school in the province trains midwives to provide services in French.

It is clear that stable access to post-secondary education in French deserves our immediate attention and decisive action. Bill S-215 should be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, where we will be able to study how the federal government can support universities such as Laurentian University.

As my colleague Senator Moncion stated, and I quote:

Transparency and accountability are part of the solutions that can significantly help the financial viability of post‑secondary institutions, and the federal government is fully aware of this. There is a way for the government to respect provincial jurisdictions while ensuring that its investments on behalf of the francophonie get to the right place, in accordance with its constitutional obligations.

[English]

There is a way forward, there is a role for the federal government and there are solutions to ensure that Canadian universities and colleges are sustainable. Like Senator Moncion, I have benefitted from a quality, stable education in the language of my choice — a language that has been vital to my daily life and that has supported me in some of my most vulnerable moments.

Education in French is the gateway to a life fully lived in French. It needs our care and attention, and not just on the part of francophones; la Francophonie is an asset to all Canadians, and we must all take responsibility for it to not only survive but thrive. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Second Reading, Order No. 12, by the Honourable Terry M. Mercer:

Second reading of Bill S-226, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speaker of the Senate).

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I’ll be quick. This report does not require a vote. I tabled the report, but it is about an important issue. It is short, so I will share it with you and read it quickly so you’re aware of it:

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to table its

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(c), to consider the orders and practices of the Senate and the privileges of Parliament, has considered practices of the Senate relating to the use of displays, exhibits, and props in Senate proceedings.

[English]

On June 10, 2021, a point of order was raised and subsequently withdrawn in the Senate respecting a senator holding an eagle fan during debate. On June 15, 2021, the Speaker invited this committee to review this issue and consider how the Senate should adapt and modernize its rules and practices to respect the importance of cultural and religious beliefs. This request was formalized by letter the following day. On March 21, 2022, your committee heard testimony from the Honourable Senator McCallum, who explained the significance of the eagle fan to Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

As noted in Senate Procedure in Practice, “Parliamentary usage does not allow the use of exhibits – physical objects used with the goal of reinforcing a point.” This was emphasized in a ruling from the Speaker on November 6, 2012, where the Speaker cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “Speakers have consistently ruled out of order displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions. Similarly, props of any kind, used as a way of making a silent comment on issues, have always been found unacceptable in the Chamber.”

[Translation]

Your committee notes that this prohibition relates to items used “as a way of making a silent comment” or in “reinforcing a point.” After Senator McCallum’s testimony, it is clear that this was not the case with respect to the eagle fan, and as such would not have been subject to that prohibition. Items of cultural and religious significance are not tools of debate, but an outward reflection of the identity of the holder, and should be welcome within an inclusive Senate.

[English]

Your committee further notes that this prohibition is not codified in the Rules of the Senate, and that its application relies on the application of precedent. This means that practices on this point are inherently flexible and subject to evolution. In practice, the Speaker would only rarely, if ever, proactively raise the issue; senators would instead have to raise a specific concern as a point of order. This is in keeping with the fact that the Senate remains a chamber in which senators themselves are largely responsible for order in proceedings.

[Translation]

Your committee is of the view that this approach provides the necessary flexibility to allow the practices of the Senate to adapt and reflect cultural norms of the day. Your committee does not favour developing an exhaustive list of items, or amending the Rules in relation to this point, since such prescriptive approaches would introduce undue rigidities into the operations of the Senate.

[English]

Finally, your committee notes that should any senators have any questions or doubts, as to whether an item they intend to hold or wear in debate may be perceived as a display, exhibit or prop, they are encouraged to contact the Speaker’s office or the Table in advance in relation to their intervention to ensure the Speaker is aware of the significance of the item, and can provide guidance accordingly.

Respectfully submitted . . .

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Amendments to the Rules — Committee mandates, presented in the Senate on April 6, 2022.