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

[Translation]

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

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

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

This brings me to the bill before us.

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

[English]

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

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

There is no substitute decision-making here at all.

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court ruling reads as follows, and I quote:

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

[English]

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

Meegwetch. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Senator Manning that:

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

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

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

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

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

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth, compensation for victims of sexual and domestic violence.

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

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

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

[English]

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . they tied me down to the bed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Wells: Honourable senators, since criminal law falls under federal jurisdiction, we should consider whether the federal government should provide compensation to victims or provide funding for in vitro fertilization where it is still possible or desired by victims. The government’s failure to act is a de facto acquiescence to the practice.

Let there be no mistake: As critic of this bill, I’m supportive of the bill unamended, unless there are ways to strengthen it even more and to build on the work that Senator Boyer has done — and not just during committee study but over the course of her career.

While I am the critic and my job is to find weakness in the legislation and improve it, I have not found any. What I have found is inaction by governments over the years on what is clearly a violation of human rights and a key provision of medical professionals whose first obligation is to the health and well-being of the patient, not to their societal thinking and prejudices.

Forced sterilization is a form of violence and a gross violation of bodily autonomy, and it is unacceptable that such a practice has been allowed to occur in Canada. We have laws that could have prevented this and addressed this, and yet the government has chosen not to use existing assault charges at its disposal.

Criminalizing forced sterilization would not only deter offenders and hold those responsible accountable but would also provide a legal recourse for victims. It is long overdue for Canada to take decisive action to criminalize forced sterilization, and that time is now. We must ensure that everyone has the right to make informed decisions about their own bodies and that they are not subject to coercion or force in any form.

Bill S-250 is the next right step. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, for Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of Bill S-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child or an intimate partner’s child).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child or an intimate partner’s child), which I introduced on November 2, 2022.

I would like to begin my speech by sharing with you the tragic story of a victim of domestic violence. On August 1, 2015, Cheryl Bau-Tremblay, a 29-year-old woman who was four months pregnant, was tragically murdered by her partner.

I would like to read you something that Cheryl’s mother Nicole passed on to me about her, as follows:

I keep her memory alive inside me, as best I can. She taught me that small doses of courage can lead to beautiful discoveries, and that passing judgment can be an obstacle to the affirmation of others and lead to derogatory comments. People were drawn to her vibrant energy. Like an indomitable thoroughbred, she was unwaveringly loyal once trust was established. She could be reckless at times, perhaps misjudging the level of danger, because of her love for adventure and discovery. As a nature lover, she did not abide animal suffering, and so she was a vegetarian. She was unconventional, and certain events brought out her rebellious side. Always seeing the good in humanity, she always gave second chances. Discreet, she left this world with many secrets. From high up among the stars, she cares for her little baby, who has since grown up. She sends light and a lot of love to me and to the family.

Cheryl was also a victim of domestic violence. Like many women murdered by their partners in Canada, Cheryl was repeatedly and violently abused by her spouse. A week before the tragedy, she locked herself in her bathroom and called 911 for help. I would like to quote a passage from the call between Cheryl and the 911 call centre, as reported by La Presse:

I’m with my partner and things are bad. Please send someone. The situation is getting worse! He is aggressive.

After making the call, Cheryl went to her sister’s to protect herself from his violent outbursts. She gave him an ultimatum and told him to stop his violent behaviour and his drinking. Unfortunately, when she returned to their home on August 1, 2015, Cheryl, who, I remind you, was four months pregnant, was strangled by her partner, who hid her body under the bed in their room. It was not until five days later that the police found her body while the murderer was being interrogated by the Sûreté du Québec, claiming that he had not heard from Cheryl, who had supposedly left several days earlier.

Since then, he has continued to blame his partner, now his victim, describing her as jealous and angry. Despite being convicted of second degree murder, he sought to appeal the decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which rejected it. He pleaded self-defence.

I would like to share with you the message from Cheryl’s mother, who wanted me to bring this to your attention. She stated the following:

The loss of a loved one causes a tsumani in our day-to-day and in our entire life. Those responsible for these vile acts are judged in different ways; extenuating circumstances are considered, but at the end of the day, they change nothing about the tragedy for those who are affected by it. Considering the seriousness, the impact and all the consequences for the victim’s loved ones, I can only support Senator Boisvenu’s bill, which, in its own way, can only contribute to prevention and deterrence efforts, while encouraging reflection on domestic homicides.

Honourable senators, I would also like to share the story of Geneviève Caumartin, who supports Bill S-255. Her mother was murdered by her partner, who strangled her in June 2016. Ms. Caumartin deplored legal proceedings that were far too long and cumbersome and unfortunately ended up with a negotiation between the Crown and the defence that resulted in a more lenient sentence. All this happened despite the fact that she was assured from the outset that the evidence was strong enough and that all the requirements had been met to prove second degree murder. She was told that based on some of what was found at the crime scene there was even a chance of proving that this was a premeditated murder.

What a shock for Ms. Caumartin, the victim’s daughter, to find out that the charges would be reduced to manslaughter. That means that the murderer received a shorter sentence with the possibility of being released from prison after serving only a third of his sentence. What is worse, he did not get a life sentence, so he will not be monitored for life for this horrific crime. There was no trial and the sentence was not harsh enough. Justice was never served for Ms. Caumartin and her family.

The murderer got out of prison on parole in 2022, five years after he was sentenced.

I would like to read you a few words that Ms. Caumartin sent me about her mother, Francine Bissonnette, and that describe her so well.

My mother was my rock, my anchor. When I was a child, she was the pillar of the household, the centre of my life. I hardly ever went to day care, except on rare occasions. I walked to school and I came home for lunch. My mother was waiting for me with my lunch all ready. I watched “The Flintstones” while I ate and then I went back to school for the afternoon.

When I was sick, she was the one who took care of me. She is the one I automatically turned to when something was wrong. She was very patient. She was the model mom. What happened to her later was unimaginable.

She worked for the Patriotes school board for more than 20 years. She loved children and enjoyed a varied career, including a long stint as a support worker for children with disabilities. Her job was to help them in class on a daily basis.

She was a woman of many talents: a seamstress, a knitter and a macrame maker. She even sold her handmade items. Without a doubt, her ruling passions were her cats, plants and fashion. It was important to her for everything to be beautiful, orderly and in its place.

She was also a doting grandmother. She was very generous, despite her modest means, and did everything she could to make her granddaughter happy. I have so many fond memories of her and my daughter. She was a vivacious person who loved music and dancing and who took care of herself. At 62, she still had plenty of good years ahead of her. She was in good health, very active and well supported.

Colleagues, the purpose of Bill S-255 is to spark a real conversation about the serious issue of intimate partner homicide in this country. In Canada, one woman is murdered every two days, typically in the context of intimate partner violence. These murders are becoming more and more frequent, and, sadly, we are becoming accustomed to it, even though this is not normal. In fact, it is unacceptable for a society. Over time, these murdered women are reduced to statistics in reports prepared by national organizations.

We must not forget these victims, and they must not become a mere statistic. These women represent lost lives that could have been saved, stolen futures, grieving children and parents, and, all too often, broken families. The 641 women who have been murdered over the past four years had a future ahead of them, children to raise, families, friends, jobs and dreams, and they made daily contributions to society.

I know many names and stories of women who had their whole lives ahead of them, but are no longer with us. Consider the case of Romane Bonnier, a young woman, just 24 years old, who was murdered on a sidewalk in the Plateau Mont-Royal area of Montreal in 2021. She was a musician known for her charisma, her joie de vivre and her kindness. She was a happy young woman who loved to sing and reinvent melodies from the past. Romane loved life and had many plans she never got to carry out.

She lives on in the hearts and memories of her loved ones and through her voice and the music she left behind.

Honourable senators, taking someone’s life has permanent, irreparable consequences. Murder is the most serious crime committed in our society. That’s why it’s important to pass legislation to pass harsher sentences on the criminals who commit the irrevocable act of murder, all too often involving an intimate partner.

Bill S-255 is a clear response to society’s growing condemnation of family murders. It also sends a strong message that legislators are committed to tougher sentences for perpetrators in order to bring justice to victims and support the goal of combatting family violence and violence against women.

It is difficult to accurately determine the scope of intimate partner violence, given that many of the violent acts committed by a partner or former partner will never be reported to the authorities by the victims.

Intimate partner violence takes many forms. There are several criminal offences that are likely to be considered intimate partner violence, particularly crimes against the person including assault, sexual assault, attempted murder, and various physical assaults up to and including the most serious crime, murder.

That said, thanks to the statistics we have at our disposal, we are able to get a good idea of the scope of intimate partner violence in Canada as well as the resulting homicides. Here are some numbers. In 2022, there were 185 femicides and, in 55% of those cases, the women were murdered in a context of intimate partner violence.

In 2021, 537 women per 100,000 population reported being a victim of intimate partner violence. It marked the seventh consecutive year of gradual increase for this type of violence. Also in 2021, police reported 114,132 victims of intimate partner violence, a 2% increase from 2020.

Between 2019 and 2021, there was a 36% increase in the number of women and girls violently killed in Canada, not counting their children.

In 2021, Quebec saw a 28% increase in cases of intimate partner violence.

According to the Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes au Québec, a Quebec federation of women’s shelters, in 2022, 300 women were victims of attempted murder in Quebec alone.

Honourable senators, Bill S-255 would add a subsection to section 231 of the Criminal Code with the legislative objective of imposing harsher penalties for intimate partner homicide as a deterrent. This clause seeks to ensure that a murder committed within a family is automatically classified as first degree murder.

Right now, section 231 of the Criminal Code already provides for the automatic classification of some murders as first degree murder, such as a murder committed following a sexual assault, criminal harassment or intimidation. It is also first degree murder if the murder is committed in association with terrorist activities or a criminal organization or the victim is a peace officer.

Bill S-255 would add a new subsection to section 231, which means anyone found guilty of murdering their intimate partner, their own child or the child of their intimate partner would automatically be sentenced for first degree murder, if they are found guilty.

I want to clarify that the bill does not change anything about the process of a criminal trial. Crown prosecutors and defence attorneys will still play the same roles, and the defence attorneys will still be free to raise whatever defence they wish, such as self-defence.

The only thing that will change is the sentence imposed on a person found guilty of murdering their intimate partner or their child. If this bill is passed, the criminal will automatically be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, even if there is no evidence of premeditation, as required under the current definition of first degree murder.

It is often difficult for the prosecutor to prove premeditation in order to have an accused convicted of first degree murder.

In a context of intimate partner violence, it is not uncommon to learn that a murder has occurred following a sudden fit of rage, even though it may have been an impulsive, unpremeditated act, and even though acts of intimate partner violence and coercive behaviour may have been part of the victim’s daily life for a significant period of time.

In drafting this bill, I looked to foreign legislation that was similar or in the same vein. Take France, for example, which metes out severe penalties for intimate partner homicides. Article 221-4 of France’s penal code provides for a sentence of penal servitude for life with no possibility of parole for 18 to 22 years in the case of a murder committed by the victim’s spouse, unmarried partner or civil partner. Penal servitude for life is equivalent to the life sentence for first degree murder in our Criminal Code, and the parole eligibility period under French criminal law is a period associated with a sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment during which the offender cannot benefit from any changes to their sentence, such as day parole or conditional release.

In the state of Minnesota in the U.S., any offender with a history of intimate partner violence against a current or former partner who commits intimate partner homicide would automatically face the sentence for first degree murder if convicted. I would remind you that the penalty for first degree murder in Minnesota is the most severe penalty available under Minnesota law, a life sentence.

Finally, also in the U.S., the North Carolina Senate enacted a new law on the subject that came into force on December 1, 2017. Britny’s Law was drafted in memory of Britny Puryear, who was killed by her boyfriend in 2014. Britny was only 22 years old, and their five-month-old baby was present at the time of the murder. This bill was modelled after the Minnesota law and therefore serves the same purpose of imposing a first degree sentence on any offender with a history of intimate partner violence who is convicted of killing their intimate partner.

Honourable senators, intimate partner violence can no longer be regarded as a simple act of violence against one’s partner. It is a complex relational process of control and domination of one partner over another, with behaviour that gradually turns into repeated episodes of violence and, in some cases, death.

From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court of Canada has already indicated in some of its decisions that a murder committed by someone who exploits a position of power over their victim warrants harsher punishment.

In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on the constitutionality of certain subsections of section 231 of the Criminal Code, which are similar in some respects to the new subsection proposed under Bill S-255.

For example, in 1990, in R. v. Arkell, a young woman, Lisa Clark, was murdered and burned while her murderer sexually assaulted her. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that automatically characterizing a sexual assault followed by murder as first-degree murder does not violate the rights guaranteed in sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court was referring to the organizing principle that treats a murder committed while “the perpetrator is illegally dominating another person as more serious than other murders” and thus justifies the harsher sentence imposed for first-degree murder.

In fact, I’d like to share some of this decision, which reads as follows:

The section is based on an organizing principle that treats murders committed while the perpetrator is illegally dominating another person as more serious than other murders. Further, the relationship between the classification and the moral blameworthiness of the offender clearly exists. Section 214 only comes into play when murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of Martineau, this means that the offender has been proven to have had subjective foresight of death. Parliament’s decision to treat more seriously murders that have been committed while the offender is exploiting a position of power through illegal domination of the victim accords with the principle that there must be a proportionality between a sentence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender and other considerations such as deterrence and societal condemnation of the acts of the offender.

Still in 1990, in another Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. Luxton, there was Charmayne Manke, a taxi driver who was confined in her taxi by one of her clients and brutally stabbed several times to death. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that no fundamental right had been violated under paragraph 214(5)(e) of the Criminal Code.

Honourable senators, in light of the many examples that I just shared with you, I think that Bill S-255 aligns with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada and that a context of domestic violence that leads to a murder inevitably arises from illegal domination of the victim by the offender. Accordingly, it is justifiable for us, as legislators, to legislate to ensure that there is proportionality between the sentence and the guilt of the offender in a context of domination that leads to violence between intimate partners in order to provide justice for the victims.

I’d like to continue my speech by saying that this bill is equally about the murder of an intimate partner as it is about the murder of one’s own child or the child of an intimate partner. I’m sure that we are all sensitive to the happiness and development of our children. We also hope for our children to grow up in a safe society that watches over them and protects them.

Unfortunately and all too often, many children in Canada experience, either passively or actively, domestic violence in their homes. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves in an unhealthy and violent environment where their parents tear each other apart. Some of these children will not survive. It is not uncommon to learn in the media that when a femicide occurs, the partner has also murdered his children.

I’d like to tell you about another family of victims who support this bill, a family devastated by the tragic fate that befell them on the night of October 10 to 11, 2020. A terrible tragedy took place at a home in Wendake, near Quebec City, when two children, five-year-old Olivier and two-year-old Alex, were murdered by their own father. After committing the fatal act, he photographed the two lifeless bodies of his children and sent a photo to his mother and to his former partner, the mother of the two victims.

Dear colleagues, I will pause briefly to ask you the following question: Can you imagine for a few seconds the suffering that a tragedy of such violence can inflict on an entire family? Since the murder of my daughter Julie in 2002, I have lost count of the number of tragedies that I have involved myself in, but there are some that are more difficult to talk about than others.

Justice François Huot, who presided over the trial of this terrible tragedy, made the following statement to the murderer — I share his opinion and I’m sure you do too — saying, and I quote:

I’m sick of these cowards who take revenge on innocent children to further their agenda and satisfy their thirst for revenge.

Yet, despite the horror of these two murders and the modus operandi used, the murderer was convicted of second-degree murder and will be eligible for parole in 16 years. In the opinion of the victims’ family, this sentence isn’t commensurate with the seriousness of the crime committed, and I agree that it doesn’t reflect the moral culpability of this heinous act. I’d like to quote a message from the grandfather of the two children. He said the following about the bill, and I quote:

I fully support the bill’s objective. In my opinion, the justice system is not working properly if the murder of my two grandchildren is found to be second-degree murder. The murderer filmed his actions and sent a text message to my daughter telling her that it was her turn to suffer. I simply can’t believe that he didn’t know what he was doing, and it’s appalling that he is now hiding behind mental illness. These murders should automatically be classified as first-degree murder.

Honourable senators, I’m certain that classifying all murders of an intimate partner or of their children as first-degree murder would be a legislative response that addresses the need to protect those who are victims of domination in a context of domestic violence.

In addition, this legislative change would provide a deterrent to violence against an intimate partner and children given the heightened severity associated with the first-degree murder charge.

Colleagues, as a responsible society, let’s send a clear message about the scope of intimate partner violence by ruling that spousal homicide is socially unacceptable in Canada and that the legal consequences must be proportionate to the severity of the heinous act that was committed. Taking the life of one’s wife or children is in no way acceptable and these murders, all too often predictable, must now be punished more severely.

It is time for Canada to make the necessary decisions and become a leader so that we can be held up as an example when other countries take these same steps. Too many innocent victims’ lives have been taken in silence and ignorance. Only together, as members of this chamber and of an increasingly accountable society, can make a difference.

Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Will the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Boisvenu: Yes.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, the sun hadn’t yet come up on September 30, 2021, when people started to gather at the Port Lands. If you were watching from a distance away, you would have seen something quietly momentous happening as the sun rose.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne hosted city council, staff, the Cornwall Police Service and other local officials for a tobacco burn ceremony. We were about 40 people — most of us wearing orange, and all of us muted in the dawn light.

It is difficult for me to express the emotion of that morning. The gathering was one of promise. This historic meeting was a commitment that we were in this together, and that we wouldn’t let each other down as we set precedent as equal partners.

I want to tell you about the future of the Port Lands and its potential, but, first, the background.

[Translation]

The Port of Cornwall opened in 1967 and served as a space to unload raw materials, such as coal and cotton, and materials for the factories of such companies as Courtaulds and Domtar, the backbone of our local economy for many years.

[English]

In 1987, Transport Canada started operating the Cornwall port. By 2016, the divesting process had begun, and Akwesasne and Cornwall had signed an historic agreement to co-own 16 acres of land. This partnership was no accident. The federal government insisted on an equal partnership, committing to this divestment only if it was to both communities. Transport Canada endowed $5 million for the remediation of the property.

In 2020, two councils broke bread together for the first time in 10 years. As mayor, it was my top priority to bring our two communities closer, and I’m grateful for my friendship with Akwesasne Grand Chief Abram Benedict and for his continued leadership on this ambitious project.

By 2021, we had worked in partnership to demolish a derelict building and create a temporary green space that would invite folks from either side of the river to enjoy the Port Lands. We launched a public consultation to see how residents in both communities wanted to see the space grow. Not long after, I was appointed to the Senate and resigned as mayor. However, my interest in the success of the Port Lands has not wavered. There is a call for proposals now to bring engaging community events to the Port Lands this summer, and work is progressing on environmental assessments.

Yet, this past year has been challenging for progress at the Port Lands. We always knew that it would be hard, and that the solutions for forging ahead would require compromise. This will take time, work and money. Building friendships takes work. Educating communities about truth takes time. Developing a framework for this new partnership takes proper financing.

But the challenges inherent in the development of the Port Lands are also incredible opportunities — opportunities to build bonds of friendship among Cornwall and Akwesasne leaders and residents; opportunities to show the rest of Canada how shared economic development can take place; and opportunities to show the federal government how municipalities can be actors for change in truth and reconciliation.

[Translation]

This statement is in response to the inquiry launched by my friend, Senator Simons. Its objective is to draw the Senate’s attention to the challenges and opportunities of Canadian municipalities and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between our municipalities and the federal government.

[English]

I can’t think of a better and more relevant example than the Port Lands because all politics is local. Nothing has a bigger impact on the daily lives of Canadians than their municipality. If we want to move reconciliation forward in meaningful ways, municipalities must have a seat at the table. Municipalities are not the only ones looking for recognition. Indigenous communities need a seat at the table too.

I will tell you a story: Back in 2020, cruise ship passengers were quarantined at a conference centre in Cornwall — that is back when we were saying “coronavirus” and not “COVID-19.” The community felt blindsided. This was long before we understood what COVID-19 was, and residents wanted information and answers. After hosting a press conference, I met with an Indigenous leader and spoke about feeling disrespected by the federal government. And she responded, “Welcome to my world.”

In launching this inquiry, Senator Simons argued that municipalities urgently need fiscal and political resources to lead us to a more just, prosperous and creative future. Her inquiry has prompted statements from my distinguished colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Éric Forest suggested that the federal-municipal relationship can evolve and that other changes are necessary.

Senator Omidvar showed how cities are ideally positioned to come up with innovative, local solutions to national and world problems.

[English]

Senator Cotter told us that our communities are the starting point for our identity. We take pride in where we come from. The health and prosperity of our towns and cities matter today more than ever.

Senator Sorensen, a former mayor too, spoke to the gap between what municipalities are expected to do and the funding they have access to in order to meet those needs.

[Translation]

Senator Ravalia pointed out the unique status of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador and talked about the fight to support cities that are being crushed under heavy administrative and financial burdens.

Senator Cormier talked about something that is of interest to all of us, specifically the role that municipalities play in protecting and promoting our official languages.

[English]

I couldn’t agree more with them. Municipalities are often small, under-resourced and occupied by daily tasks, such as removing snow, scheduling ice times, delivering transit services and managing goose poop along the St. Lawrence River — you wouldn’t believe how much time I spent as mayor talking about goose poop and about a million other issues. Yet, all day, every day, municipalities are leaders, and they should be recognized, resourced and supported as such.

What Cornwall and Akwesasne are attempting to do together at the Port Lands is unheard of in Canada. Co-ownership by a First Nation and a municipality of strategic waterfront property is a unique approach that should bring economic and social benefits to both communities. During consultations, the public’s imagination ran wild, and it was clear that they wanted to make the space their own. They wanted an accessible area that included boardwalks and green spaces, as well as an opportunity for artists and vendors to bring the community together. There was a strong interest in connections with the water, fishing, boating, swimming, canoeing, a pier, a dock and another marina. Most agreed that the project was extremely important to both Cornwall and Akwesasne. They said that the Port Lands project could add vibrancy to our area, bring in tourists and offer expanded public access to the waterfront.

There is so much work to do — not only to bring residents’ vision to life, but also to finish developing how this partnership will work on a day-to-day basis. Tasks like putting up a sign, coordinating tax payments and completing an environmental assessment can be challenging. Luckily, Akwesasne and Cornwall are up to the challenge. In divesting the Port Lands to these communities, the federal government entrusted us with a huge responsibility. It was as though they were saying to us, “So, let’s see what you can do.”

I’m proud that Akwesasne and Cornwall were trusted to take a huge step in economic development and, more importantly, in reconciliation. I hope that together they lay the groundwork for more municipalities to be able to take the lead.

[Translation]

If I could redefine the relationship between the municipalities and the federal government, if I could wave my magic wand, I would make two wishes. First, I would wish that Canada would trust its municipalities to take big steps in areas such as climate change, immigration, social issues and especially reconciliation. Second, I would wish that Canada would provide the municipalities with adequate resources and give them opportunities like the ones I described today to meet the objective of establishing relationships and a dialogue with Indigenous communities.

[English]

Second, it’s important that Canada provides support when things get difficult — because they always do. Municipalities want to be treated as equal partners, consulted and considered during strategic planning, implementation and beyond. Municipalities want communication — talk to them. Give them a seat at the table, and you may be surprised by their contributions.

Thank you. Nia:wen.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Senator Simons’s inquiry that calls on our chamber to explore the challenges and opportunities that municipalities face, as well as the importance of understanding and redefining the relationship between Canada’s municipalities and our federal government. I would also like to thank my honourable colleague for introducing this very important inquiry. Municipalities play a critical role in each and every one of our lives. If there is one thing I know, it’s rural. I have spent my life in and around rural communities, advocating for rural residents. With that being said, I hope to highlight the role of rural municipalities, the unique challenges and opportunities they face and the importance of continued federal support for all things rural today.

As many of you know, I’m a lifelong resident of Fergus, Ontario. It’s where my ancestors settled in 1834, and it’s where I continue to reside today. Fergus is a rural community most famous for its scenic river views, waterfalls, limestone gorge and the annual Fergus Scottish Festival.

Now, I’ll share a little history lesson: Fergus has deep Scottish roots dating back to 1833 when settlers called it “Little Falls” because of its scenic waterfalls.

In 1858, with a population of 1,000, the town was incorporated and renamed Fergus in honour of one of its Scottish founders, Adam Fergusson. While you may be wondering why I wanted to share this information with you today, I believe it’s important to show that the history of our rural communities is woven into the history of our country as many of them predated Confederation. Unfortunately, municipalities that encompass rural Canada are sometimes forgotten when governments are developing policies that impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As a senator, I have met with countless community leaders across rural Canada to learn more about the concerns and needs of their communities. The rural residents and leaders that I have met are always one thing, regardless of where they live or work: They are consistently clear in what their communities need to prosper and thrive. Typically, they need support from their province and the federal government to help achieve their goals and realize projects related to infrastructure, community development and access to services. Their stories and ideas have both inspired and informed how I approach issues here in the Red Chamber.

Rural communities have their own unique set of challenges and opportunities, and should be treated as such. While in many areas rural population growth has slowed, these communities still play a critical role in our economy providing food, fresh water, recreation and resources for those living within and beyond their boundaries. They all have a story to tell, and I am hopeful that more will be done to bridge the rural-urban divide in the years to come.

While our community histories are important for understanding those who live there, it is also important to take a step back and reflect on the role of the municipalities’ governance that helps build and develop these rural regions. Each municipality — large and small, rural and urban — has a governing body.

Our local governments play an integral role in the everyday lives of their residents. From waste disposal and public transit to fire services, policing, community centres and libraries, municipal governments are responsible for it all.

Fergus is located within Centre Wellington, a township within Wellington County. As such, Fergus is supported by both the Centre Wellington Council and the Wellington County Council. Both councils, along with every municipal government from coast to coast to coast, provide residents with the support they need to live, work and play in their communities.

I am proud to have served as the Ward 5 representative on Wellington County Council before being appointed to the Senate. It gave me the opportunity to really understand how municipalities operate and the important ways in which it affects each and every one of us.

I’d like to take this time to acknowledge the good work of both Centre Wellington and Wellington County Councils, and congratulate those who were elected in last autumn’s municipal elections. I look forward to seeing what can be achieved over the course of this term and I extend my very best wishes to all councillors in supporting their communities.

Today, municipal governments in rural and urban communities play a complex role in the lives of their residents. The environments in which they operate have become much more complex and demanding. With that comes more complex challenges they must face. In the case of rural communities, many face challenges they cannot afford to address alone.

At this time, I’d like to acknowledge the Association of Municipalities Ontario, or AMO, and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, or ROMA, for their efforts to support municipalities across Ontario and, in turn, help to strengthen and enhance their efforts to support their residents.

AMO works to make municipal governments stronger and more effective. Through their organization, Ontario’s 444 municipalities, rural and urban, work together to achieve shared goals and meet common challenges.

I believe that our municipalities benefit immeasurably from the support of these organizations, as well as others in Ontario and across Canada. It is clear that organizations like AMO and ROMA, or the many other wonderful organizations that my colleagues have mentioned in their speeches, provide immeasurable value to communities across this country.

Late last year, we welcomed the Minister of Rural Economic Development in this chamber for Ministerial Question Period. We heard, through a number of questions, about a wide array of challenges that rural Canadians face and opportunities for the federal government to provide support, including through access to reliable broadband, developing and enhancing rural transportation, increasing access to health services, immigration programs, housing and community building, among many others.

In order to better support rural municipalities, I call on this chamber and the federal government to adopt a rural lens when exploring the challenges and opportunities that municipalities face.

Aging infrastructure, competing priorities and access to critical services are just a few challenges that rural municipalities face. However, they simply cannot address these challenges alone. For example, in my community of Centre Wellington, there are 113 bridges, three quarters of which are in need or near need of replacing. I am also hopeful that this inquiry encourages the federal government to re-evaluate and redefine its relationship with municipalities.

It is clear that both rural and urban municipalities require long-term financial and policy-driven support that will encourage long-lasting, positive changes.

The Canada Community-Building Fund, or the former Gas Tax Fund, provides some support to some municipalities. It is clear that more support is needed, though, especially for those underserved communities.

Another support for rural Ontario, the Rural Ontario Institute, or ROI, is a charitable not-for-profit that delivers programs that develops strong leaders who are critical voices around opportunities and key issues facing rural and northern Ontario. This organization is close to my heart, as I was previously the chief executive director and I know just how hard their team works to support rural communities across the province.

I would also like to take a few minutes to highlight an initiative by the University of Guelph: the People’s Archive of Rural Ontario, also known as PARO. PARO has done an amazing job of capturing the resilience and revitalization of rural Ontario through the many stories of communities, individuals and experiences pulled together in one place. If you have never heard of PARO, I invite you to visit their website at www.ruralontario.org to learn more.

I am proud of initiatives like this that are working to help to bridge the gap between rural and urban across Canada, but much more needs to be done.

Honourable colleagues, we cannot ignore that rural municipalities require the same attention as their urban counterparts. It is not enough to treat these communities as an afterthought. These municipalities are just as important as their urban counterparts, and I hope that this inquiry and future federal policies will reflect that.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Coyle, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise again this evening to speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and our planet.

I am and always will be an “agvocate.” I’ve worked in agriculture for most of my life. It’s what I know best and will remain a primary focus as long as I serve Canadians in the Red Chamber.

Thus, my focus this evening will be agriculture’s role in the fight against climate change and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in support of Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero emissions.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2016, agriculture contributed about 17% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and that figure does not include an additional 7% to 14% caused by changes to land use. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 10% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.

These are significant numbers that we need to work to bring down. However, the onus cannot be placed solely on the farmers and the agricultural industry. They work hard to provide us with food, and most of them are good stewards of the land. And, as stewards of the land, farmers are and have been heavily invested in the fight against climate change and mitigating its impacts.

In many cases, our farmers face the brunt of climate change as Canadian agriculture suffers greatly from the effects. The frequency of extreme weather events has doubled since the 1990s. There has been an increase in floods, droughts, forest fires and storms that, unsurprisingly, interfere with harvests and disproportionately affect farms of all sizes.

While we must recognize that agriculture is part of the problem when it comes to climate change, the agricultural sector has demonstrated continuous improvement over many years while emissions from other sectors have risen over time. Agriculture truly has an amazing potential to be an important part of the climate change solution.

In fact, many farmers have already taken steps over the years to make their land a zero-till operation. This technique increases the retention of organic matter and nutrient cycling, which in turn increases carbon sequestration. Or they use perennial forage cover crops: There is more carbon in soils under perennial forage than annual crops, due in part to the former’s ability to better transfer carbon to the soil.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture shared that farmers have kept their emissions steady for 20 years while almost doubling production, resulting in a decrease of greenhouse gas emission intensity by one half.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also recognizes that agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing — or sequestering — carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

We have also seen more technological advancements and innovation, including precision agriculture, the use of artificial intelligence and drones, that aim to decrease negative environmental impacts while also increasing profitability. We can also explore the possibility of scaling up technologies that we already know yield positive environmental outcomes.

There are many other innovative methods farmers employ in order to protect the environment without sacrificing profitability. An example of this is reintegrating livestock and crops on the farm and managed grazing, which can increase livestock’s nutrient consumption as well as increase soil organic matter. Additionally, vertical farming and urban farming have gained popularity in recent years.

These innovative ways of producing quality foods allow us to grow crops in cities without taking up much space.

We’re also seeing the use of hydroponics, meaning growing crops directly in nutrient-enriched water rather than soil.

The challenge for the agriculture and agri-food sector will be to mitigate their emissions while adapting to the impacts of climate change without jeopardizing food security.

To do so, Canadian agriculture producers and food processors will need the government’s and the public’s support in transitioning their operations to be more sustainable, and they will also require their support while they seek to change decades‑long practices and procedures.

Many organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council, among others, have highlighted their dedication to supporting Canada’s fight against climate change over the past few years.

There are, of course, specific concerns to each sector regarding such issues as fair carbon pricing and other potential impacts to the overall sustainability of the industries, but overall, Canadian agriculture knows that they have a critical role to play as stewards of the land, which involves preserving ecosystems and resources, such as soil and water, as well as minimizing the environmental impacts of their activities through the implementation of beneficial agricultural practices.

At this time, I would like to pivot to the role of soil health and the environment and how it can and does affect climate change. I have risen on a number of occasions in this chamber and in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to speak about the importance of soil health.

As you may know, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is undertaking a new soil health study. As one of Canada’s most precious natural resources, soil conservation is a top-of-mind matter for the agriculture and agri‑food sector. The future of this country is intrinsically linked to the health of its ecosystem, which in itself hinges on soil health. In relation to this inquiry, soils across Canada play a critical role in carbon storage and can help deliver on Canada’s net-zero targets.

Healthy soil is arguably one of the most critical resources for the health of our natural and agri-ecosystems so that they can sustain food production, as well as the provision of ecosystem services. Knowing how to manage soils and understanding how soils function is key to their productivity and long-term sustainability.

Ensuring the health and conservation of Canadian land is a shared responsibility and will require collective leadership and sustained commitment and action by those directly responsible for managing soil across the country.

However, it is concerning to think that Ontario is losing almost 319 acres of farmland every day. At this time, I would like to acknowledge the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s Home Grown campaign. It is high time that we work together to protect local farms across this province and across Canada from being lost to urban sprawl. When we lose farmland, we lose the food that would have been cultivated there as well and the positive benefits of green space. That loss directly contributes to our ability to maintain a strong, stable food supply chain and contributes to the loss of ecosystems.

In March 2019, a report by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute entitled Clean Growth in Agriculture highlighted that:

Canadian agriculture . . . has steadily reduced its GHG emissions intensity as a result of dramatic disruptive technological changes. The efforts by governments, industry and academia continue to enable the industry to reduce its emissions . . . . becoming a net sink and providing solutions for the rest of the economy.

Soil health and climate change are intrinsically linked. On the one hand, soils are the second-largest carbon sink after our oceans, storing three times more carbon than is found in the atmosphere. On the other hand, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can lead to soil erosion and fertility loss and a decline in soil’s ability to carry out basic ecosystem services.

We know that soil is not a renewable resource, and we don’t have much time left to save our soil — some experts say less than 50 years. Additionally, the cost of soil degradation in Canada is estimated at over $3 billion annually. That cost will only increase if nothing is done.

Improving soil health is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour across Canada’s varied landscape, but it is clear that healthy soil has an important role to play in our economy, environment and society, including helping our country reach our net-zero targets.

Honourable colleagues, we know that climate change is one of the biggest issues facing our world. It is clear that the agricultural industry understands and supports the call to action to fight climate change. However, we are asking a lot of our farmers. Many agricultural operations rely on decades-old practices that have only recently been deemed as environmentally detrimental. I am taking this opportunity to once again call upon the Canadian government to work collaboratively with our agricultural industry so that it can help make the journey to environmental sustainability a little easier for everyone.

I am confident that the agricultural industry, which has been innovating for as long as it has existed, will continue to rise to the challenge by helping in the fight against climate change. Of course, initiatives must come from all sectors and be a joint effort from all of us. In order to achieve our goals in greenhouse gas reduction, government and industry must work together.

I know that many of us in this chamber have children and grandchildren. Without working together to challenge and change the effects of climate change, I fear they will be living in a world entirely different than the one we know today.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide an agricultural perspective in the Senate. I thank my honourable colleague for bringing this inquiry forward. Thank you, meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

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

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-228.

It is about time that we acknowledged the ongoing social injustice that pensioners and future retirees with a defined benefit registered pension plan face when a company goes bankrupt.

Bill C-228 responds to this important concern, which is shared by all parliamentarians in the other chamber.

Nevertheless, our role in the Senate is to provide sober second thought. That is why, as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, I wish to share the witnesses’ thoughts on this bill with all those who did not participate in the committee’s study and to explain the reasons for my vote.

We received many emails about this bill, encouraging us to pass it quickly. You will understand, as I did, that this bill addresses the needs and uncertainty expressed by thousands, if not millions, of pensioners, because it will cover approximately 1.1 million employees in the private sector, in addition to an even larger number of already retired pensioners.

Some of the organizations and individuals who testified or submitted briefs told us not to act hastily. Today I will recap what we heard.

First, this bill will unfortunately not solve all the problems for current and future pensioners in the private sector. In other words, Bill C-228 is not a panacea or a cure-all.

Bill C-228 aims to prevent high-profile cases like the bankruptcy of Sears and other companies that pushed pensioners and older workers into poverty because they were relying on their company pension plans to provide for them in their old age. In some cases, their pensions were reduced by as much as 30%.

The approach chosen by the sponsor of this bill, MP Gladu, is to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in order to ensure that retirement pensions are given priority in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. I believe Senator Moncion explained the legal context of this bill quite well last week.

However, there is no guaranteed protection. Let’s be clear. This is not a retirement insurance plan like those that exist elsewhere in the world. Prioritizing pension funds during bankruptcy proceedings does not guarantee that the proceeds of a company’s liquidation will fully cover the promised pensions.

A company expecting to go bankrupt could act accordingly and make special payments to reduce the amount recoverable by the pension fund. Bill C-228 does not prevent such behaviour. The brief from the Council on Aging of Ottawa, which is made up of a variety of experts, points out the following:

An ethical and financial problem can be created if firms approaching bankruptcy make decisions to run down remaining assets by making special payments to executives, directors and shareholders. Any “special” or “unusual” payments to any of these groups should be recoverable by the pension fund if made within a specified time period before the application to be declared insolvent.

The bill does not provide for that option.

Furthermore, this bill will not produce any real results for four years. Many pension managers are happy about that and would have liked even more time. They talked about as much as 10 years in some briefs. Meanwhile, pensioners and workers will not be given priority in the case of a recession or bankruptcy until four years from now, once the bill is given Royal Assent. We need to plan for a four-year period before this comes into force.

Second, the scope of Bill C-228 would affect very few people in terms of the whole issue of registered pension plans in the private sector. Over 12 million Canadians are employed in the private sector and very few of them have defined benefit pension plans.

According to Statistics Canada data, the percentage of workers who are members of a registered pension plan has been steadily declining, from 46.1% in 1977 to 37.1% in 2019. This percentage has remained stable in the public sector, where 88% of public sector employees have a registered pension plan, but it has been steadily declining in the private sector, where it is now at 22.4%. Two in ten private sector employees have a registered pension plan.

The percentage of workers covered by a defined benefit registered pension plan has also declined significantly from 34.5% in 1999 to 24.7%, to the benefit of defined contribution plans, which have seen participation rates increase from 0.7% to 5.5% in 20 years.

The coverage rate of defined benefit registered pension plans such as our pension plan, such as the pension plan that Bill C-228 is trying to protect, has remained rather stable in the public sector. It has gone from 83% to 80% in 20 years. It has drastically decreased in the private sector, going from 21.3% to 8.8%. Fewer than one in ten private sector workers have a defined benefit registered pension plan. Bill C-228 seeks to protect these workers and pensioners covered by these plans.

Again, I would like to quote the brief submitted by the Council on Aging of Ottawa, which notes the following:

Canada’s retirement income system has been designed on the assumption that workplace pension plans will play an important role in helping people with moderate to high earnings maintain their standard of living in retirement. Success in meeting this objective has been modest and recent trends are worrisome.

Furthermore, as stated in the Canadian Federation of Pensioners’ brief, private sector defined benefit pension plans are practically in their death bed. The brief says the following:

The reality is that no one tracks data on private single employer defined benefit pension plans.

The Canadian Federation of Pensioners brief continues as follows:

What we do know, according to a 2022 survey of Canadian Federation of Pensioners member organizations, is that all our member plans are closed. This means new members are not allowed to be enrolled. In fact, most of these plans have been closed for up to twenty years. Our survey also showed that there are far more retired members than active members of these plans. For every 6 retirees, there is only one active (i.e. working) member.

Other briefs submitted by pension fund managers maintain that Bill C-228 could accelerate the disappearance of private employer-sponsored registered defined benefit pension plans. This already seems to have happened. They also submit that there are other ways to protect these pensions.

In summary, the pension issue is complex and, to add to the complexity, the financial stakes are enormous. I found the numbers quite startling. According to Statistics Canada, in 2019, total employer and employee contributions to a registered pension plan, or RPP, which is not a public plan, reached $71.1 billion. Also in 2019, the market value of all registered pension plan assets exceeded $2.1 trillion. That’s the value of Canada’s GDP. Of course, these issues raise many questions.

Why pass Bill C-228 so quickly when the issues are so complex and other solutions do exist?

Certain submissions from the Council on Aging of Ottawa, whose members are experts and former trade unionists, recommended that we take our time to propose sustainable solutions. They said, and I quote:

 . . . Bill C-228 creates a real dilemma. On the one side, the members of surviving defined benefit plans will have increased protection — but not complete protection — when the employer/sponsor of their defined benefit plan becomes insolvent. On the other hand, as Committee members have been warned, there is also reason to believe that Bill C-228 may contribute to the further decline in coverage of defined benefit pension plans.

Colleagues, you may be wondering whether this threat is a real possibility. The reasoning is simple. Once this bill comes into effect, the fact that pension benefits get priority would increase borrowing costs for businesses, since financial institutions would be at higher risk of not being able to recover their stake in the event of bankruptcy proceedings because they are no longer the priority. In short, if borrowing costs increase, companies will drop defined benefit plans in favour of defined contribution plans, as many are currently doing, because they do not present the same constraints for lenders.

Parliamentarians face a tough policy choice, according to the experts at the Council on Aging of Ottawa. Here is what they said:

This policy choice would be difficult under any circumstance. But the choice is especially difficult given that, as far as we are aware, there are no analytics in the public domain that would help in understanding the consequences of the choice. Important bills, like Bill C-228, should not reach the stage of passage that Bill C-228 has reached, without there being substantial analytical support in the public domain so the Members of Parliament (MPs) and the public at large can understand their consequences.

To make our decisions even more difficult, other witnesses warned that Bill C-228 could harm foreign investment as well as the restructuring of Canadian businesses. Those are some scenarios that were mentioned.

The Canadian Federation of Pensioners, which is in favour of Bill C-228, had this to say in its brief, and I quote:

Canada has 11 different pension jurisdictions, each with different requirements, rules, and enforcement standards. Superpriority under Bill C-228 is the best way to achieve fair and equitable protection for all defined benefit pensioners within Canada’s complex pension regulatory environment.

That is the backdrop against which all this is playing out, and the Association of Canadian Pension Management, which is very critical of this bill, noted that Canada would be the only OECD country, besides South Korea, to respond to the issue of what happens to registered pension plans in the event of bankruptcy proceedings by drafting a law that operates through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. So what should we do? Canada is lagging far behind other countries, which protect their pensioners and future retirees in the private sector. They prefer retirement insurance plans. The United States, England, Germany and Ontario all have such a plan. We need to move toward that solution, but as senators know, that will be difficult to achieve, given the large number of jurisdictions we have in Canada.

To me, I think it is crucial to vote in favour of the bill at this time, because this will force us to reflect on it for the next four years so we can discuss it in further detail. As the Council on Aging of Ottawa said, if we vote in favour of this bill, we should undertake further analytics to advance this issue.

Pensions in Canada are in bad shape. We have public plans that provide the minimum, which is good. However, registered pension plans are woefully inadequate.

I hope the Senate will get things moving. That is its mission and its duty. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).