An Hon. Senator: Fifteen minutes.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Amendments to the Rules, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved third reading of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill S-210 on protecting young persons from exposure to pornography. I’ve been the sponsor of this initiative for the past two and a half years, and this is the second time that the Senate is debating the bill at third reading. The bill we’re studying was improved by this process.

I’d like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, especially the then chair, Senator Mobina Jaffer. I also wish to thank the critic of Bill S-210, Senator Yonah Martin, our law clerk, Marc-André Roy and, in my office, legal experts To-Yen Tran and Jérôme Lussier, for their invaluable work. They believed in the bill.

I supported this bill with conviction because it appealed to my many identities.

I am a mother and my two children are part of the generation that had access to the first free pornography sites. Previously, explicit sexual content was for adults only; suddenly, there was nothing to prevent children from accessing pornography on the internet. At that time, just like today, parents were powerless to address this boundless access and total lack of controls.

I am also a feminist, and I’m concerned that young people’s exposure to pornography undermines gender equality in their intimate relationships. Porn too often encourages and normalizes sexist practices of domination that directly contradict the values we wish to instill in young men and women. According to a report released last week by the U.K. Children’s Commissioner, 47% of young people in England believe that girls expect sex to involve physical aggression, and 42% stated that most girls enjoy acts of sexual aggression.

Finally, for me, who has always believed in the importance of equal and comprehensive sex education in schools, it is clear that the avalanche of porn available online is having harmful effects on young people. Among other problems, teenagers who consume pornography develop unrealistic expectations about their bodies, what is expected of them and what they are supposed to look for in love.

At its core, Bill S-210 is based on the simple idea of protecting children from pornography in the virtual world as we protect them from pornography in the real world.

Twenty years ago, pornography was still largely restricted to adults, even on the internet. The huge influx of free porn sites has been a total game-changer. These companies want to maximize their viewership and they make no attempt to control the age of their users. For example, it is estimated that 14% of the people using Pornhub, a Montreal-based company, are minors who have unlimited access to millions and millions of porn videos that are often violent and degrading.

This is a pressing public health issue because an entire generation is getting their sex education by watching these videos. Studies have demonstrated the risk of trauma, addiction, distorted views of consent and one’s own desires, young girls’ misconceptions and even erectile dysfunction. There is an urgent need to act.

The major innovation contained in Bill S-210 would be to require porn sites to verify a user’s age, failing which they will be subject to a criminal offence. Most importantly, delinquent porn sites, even if they are based outside Canada, would be subject to a blocking order in Canada.

Again, for adults, Bill S-210 doesn’t change anything. All content legally available today will continue to be, once an age verification has occurred, which takes only a few minutes. At the recommendation of a witness, I proposed an amendment during the study in committee that enhances privacy protection for users and their personal information in the age verification mechanisms that will be clarified in the regulations. That amendment was adopted.

[English]

Of the 30 witnesses and briefs received by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 25 supported the bill, including a majority of the legal experts who testified.

The bill has the support of pediatricians, psychiatrists and sexologists, but also of many parents who need help to protect their children. Research in the United Kingdom and Australia show about 80% of parents agree with age verification to stop children from watching porn.

The bill passed unopposed at the committee stage. However, we had interesting and, at times, difficult debates about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

It won’t be easy, of course. This is a new legislative field, technology changes regularly and some people seem to think that the internet should be exempt from any laws and regulations that apply in the real world.

But that’s no reason to give up. Other countries have acted or are in the process of doing so. Germany and France have already passed laws similar to Bill S-210. The British government is also considering legislation that would require age verification for porn sites. This is a global issue, and Canada must do its part. The more countries that hold porn sites accountable, the more effective the measures will be.

Here is how the Canadian Centre for Child Protection sums up its support for the bill:

The digital nature of online pornography does not and should not mean that society abrogates its responsibilities to children and youth. It makes no sense that a 14-year-old cannot watch an R-rated movie with simulated sex scenes in a movie theatre but can easily access pornography on her phone. We cannot let adult websites dictate the sexual education of Canada’s children.

Like the other members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I am aware that Bill S-210 is part of a larger and more complex puzzle. The same applies to alcohol, drugs, gambling and other harmful content or activities from which we want to protect children. There is a role for parents, for education and for legislation. Age verification is part of the solution; it is not the whole solution.

In 2020, the Australian Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs published a report entitled, Protecting the age of innocence, which focused on age verification for online porn. Here is one of its main conclusions:

The Committee acknowledges that age verification is not a silver bullet — some websites containing pornographic material may not be captured, and some determined young people may find ways to circumvent the system. However, when it comes to protecting children from the very real harms associated with exposure to online pornography, the Committee’s strong view is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You will not be surprised to know that I fully concur with our Australian colleagues.

And for this reason, I believe that Bill S-210 should be sent to the House of Commons where the debate can continue and be enriched. I urge you all to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: When I had the privilege of sitting in on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee during the evolution of this bill, I raised concerns about the use of facial recognition software as a method of age verification. Could you tell me what the bill lays out as possible ways to verify age that might be less intrusive?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your question, Senator Simons.

To be extremely clear, the bill does not include any solutions or age verification options. All of that will be in the regulations. Why did we decide to do it that way? The reason is that the technology is changing very quickly, and we could not include specific solutions, such as using a certain card or form of identification, in the bill because it would become outdated very quickly. Instead, what we did was to establish safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals and customers. Everything else will be set out in the regulations.

However, please know that the strictest regulations in this area require third-party companies to conduct that verification. We are talking about companies that will be approved by the government. We will have companies that will follow the privacy rules, companies that are not the pornography platforms themselves because there is no way that those platforms should be entrusted with the age verification. They already have so much information about what customers are doing, even more than banks have. We do not want to give them even more power.

The issue that you raise about the use of facial recognition is indeed very controversial. It would be quite possible to list in the regulations the approved methods and those methods that are not approved. That is already being done in Germany and will soon be implemented in France and Great Britain. Thank you.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I also rise today in support of Bill S-210.

First, allow me to warmly thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for her perseverance, rigour and work on this important issue.

[English]

Colleagues, if I were to ask you the question: Between protecting young people from the harms of pornography exposure or increasing traffic to one’s online platform, which of these two goals might be a priority for the owner of a commercial pornographic website? That is, choosing between the health and safety of children or the profits from increased traffic? Yes, we can all easily guess the answer. And it is this obvious answer that, in my humble opinion, justifies the relevance of this bill and the urgency to send it to the other place as soon as possible to increase its chance of becoming law.

It is important to note that we have before us an issue on which there is near unanimity on the need to act. Whether in this chamber, in committee, among experts or in families, everyone is clear: Children should never have access to sexually explicit content.

This bill fills a void, and that is crucial given the increasing prominence of technology in our homes and schools. Screens are omnipresent in our living and working spaces. More than ever before, we have a life online, and it will only grow. We sell, we buy, we trade online. Children are learning, playing, interacting, communicating and gaming online. They increasingly have their own smartphones, tablets, laptops and a Wi-Fi or mobile internet connection, and this at a relatively young age. On the other hand, experts are developing advanced techniques to keep them engaged and connected as long as possible.

We hear this concern from parents everywhere, and it is growing from year to year in all socio-economic backgrounds. The management of screens, to which access has multiplied, is the parental challenge of the 21st century, especially after the pandemic of COVID-19.

[Translation]

In this world that is changing before our eyes at a speed unlike anything we’ve ever experienced, parents will have to be given additional tools, which they really need in order to properly fulfill their roles and experience greater peace of mind. Some might argue that it is the responsibility of parents, not the government. On the one hand, I think it’s a shared responsibility. On the other hand, it’s important to realize that when it comes to accessing illegal content, educating and supervising a child in 2023 is a much bigger challenge than it was in my day, with only one TV in the house and my Walkman as a source of entertainment when I went out.

Our children are bombarded from all sides, and they are curious. They are under pressure from others and they want to push the limits, which is quite normal. They are passionate about digital technology. Are we equipping them properly? We also need to help them protect themselves from online content that is harmful to their psychological and emotional well-being.

Once this bill passes, companies that distribute commercial pornography will be required to implement an age verification mechanism before providing access to their content.

That way, as is the case in the real world, only adults would be able to legally access this content, which must be kept away from our children for various reasons. I will come back to this later in my speech.

I’d like to highlight the amendment passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The amendment ensures greater respect for users’ privacy and protects their personal information. Senator Jaffer and Senator Miville-Dechêne described it in detail during their speeches at report stage.

[English]

Colleagues, restrictions on youth access to pornography already exist, and these restrictions are widely accepted in our society, such as access to adult magazines and films and to sex shops, which are restricted to those over 18, and proof of age is required. If something is forbidden in a physical context, don’t we all agree that obviously it should also be forbidden in the virtual world?

To quote Senator Martin:

The same rules should be in place online as well in the real world. For example, accessing explicit material from a store, for a minor, is illegal and heavily enforced by store owners, requiring proof of identification.

[Translation]

Adults are allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. At the Société des alcools du Québec, the same logic applies to online sales as applies to in-store sales. In store, the buyer’s age will be verified if necessary and, for online sales, mandatory proof of age is required upon delivery of a product purchased via their website. For the purpose of this speech, I verified and found that the Société québécoise du cannabis website applies the same principle to the delivery of its products. No delivery can be made to anyone under the age of 21, even if the products have already been paid for.

How do we deal with the online world now that it has merged with the real world, for which most of our laws were designed? Now, these two worlds coexist and our laws and regulations must take that into account. They must reflect this new reality and evolve.

Colleagues, by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has committed, as set out in Article 19, to:

 . . . take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse . . . .

The experts are clear on that and I agree. Giving children access to pornography is essentially child abuse. The negative psychological impacts have been documented for years and the findings are all the same. In this chamber and in committee, we have heard solid arguments on the negative short- and long-term effects of exposure to pornography, which we know often includes violent images.

Béatrice Copper-Royer, a psychologist who specializes in child and adolescent psychology, is very clear. She said, and I quote:

It is disastrous for a child to happen upon these images or videos by accident. It is a violation. It destabilizes them and they choose not to talk about it because they can sense it is terribly wrong.

She goes on to say the following, again about youth, and I quote:

The older ones choose to look at this content for a laugh or to try to get away with something in a world where there is not much you can’t get away with. It is also disastrous in that these images give them a violent and degrading view of sexuality and trivialize violent sexual behaviour.

During the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ study of a previous version of this bill, Laila Mickelwait, founder of the #Traffickinghub movement and the Justice Defense Fund, said the following:

 . . . we have over 40 years of peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the harm pornography does to children who are viewing this content. We talk about viewing and doing. A study was done which showed that over 88% of mainstream pornography films contain sexual violence. When children view this content, research has shown that it does something in their brain that creates permission-giving beliefs, which then enable them to more easily act out in sexually violent ways.

It is troubling, to say the least. More troubling still is the fact that every study says the same thing, in other words, that there are definitely serious risks for children.

[English]

Being exposed to this type of content at an early age is undoubtedly a form of violence, of abuse. It deeply distorts the representations of a child in his or her relationship with the other, in the creation of his or her sexual identity, in the nature of his or her relationships with others. And then, of course, it has contributed to a banalization of sexuality, violence and a hypersexualization of society.

Honourable senators, my speech is certainly not about taking a moral position on pornography. What an adult does legally in his or her spare time is clearly none of my business, but what is our business, our responsibility, is to ensure that our children are protected and that we maximize their chances of growing up in healthy environments. This is a responsibility that we all share — as parents, as a society, as a country and here in this room. We must act. We must legislate.

To conclude, I think that not acting on this is equal to saying that we’re fine with our youth having access to porn, even though we know it has serious consequences. So, I guess the question is this: If it makes so much sense, why hasn’t it been done yet? We can’t hide behind the argument that it’s too complicated. We are now able to make it happen. We are able to do it, so let’s do it.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, for the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the third reading of Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

Hon. Diane Bellemare moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am not sure if you read the report. Some of you read it carefully, I’m sure. The fact remains that it is rather opaque, since it proposes changes. I will briefly go over what it contains.

[English]

Last April, the Rules Committee wrote to the Clerk of the Senate, inviting the Senate Administration to identify changes to the Rules of the Senate that the committee may wish to consider. Over the course of two meetings on June 14, 2022, and September 27, 2022, the Clerk, accompanied by other senior officials, outlined a number of potential issues. After further consideration by the committee, the report before you today reflects the changes that the committee agreed to.

Many of the changes reflect minor corrections, errors in translation or elements that are no longer required due to legislative changes. I will not go into detail on these items, but they include such things as the removal of the prohibition on smoking in Senate and committee proceedings. Since 1988, the Non-smokers’ Health Act has prohibited smoking in federal workplaces, making those provisions of the Rules obsolete.

However, there are some elements that require some explanation, and I will address each of these in turn.

[Translation]

Rule 10-10, as it now stands, deals with the preparation and printing of Senate bills. It hasn’t undergone a major review since the rule that existed prior to that, which was adopted in 1923. As a result, it hasn’t kept up with modern practices, particularly the new bill format implemented in 2016 by the three federal entities that draft legislation, the Senate, the House of Commons and the Department of Justice.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel recommended that the rule be repealed in its entirety because its component parts — form of amending bill, typographical indications of amendments, explanatory notes on amending bill and reprints of Senate bills — have not been strictly followed for many years and hearken back to a time when legislative information could be difficult to obtain.

In its place, the law clerk proposed a new rule 10-10, which would enable the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to make administrative and typographical corrections to bills. That would simplify that clause-by-clause consideration, reduce the risk of errors in legislative texts and minimize the risk of having to adopt additional amendments to correct errors introduced into bills throughout the legislative process before the two chambers of Parliament. The proposed wording is similar to that of House of Commons Standing Order 154.

[English]

Rule 12-23(6) currently requires a committee report recommending amendments to a bill to:

. . . have attached to it a printed copy of the bill on which the amendments are clearly written. The chair or deputy chair shall sign or initial this copy of the bill as well as all the amendments.

In practice, this has resulted in a time-consuming process where amendments were physically cut and pasted into a copy of the bill. The committee learned that in recent years this process was replaced by attaching a copy of the committee’s report to the bill. However, as this copy is not required at any subsequent stage of the legislative process, it serves no purpose, and its continuation is not necessary.

Rule 12-26 requires committees to table reports on financial expenditures in the previous session. Progressive changes to the Senate’s proactive disclosure requirements, in accordance with provisions contained in the Access to Information Act, have rendered these reporting requirements redundant, as this information is already required by legislation to be reported publicly on at least a quarterly basis.

As the reports under rule 12-26 cover the period of a session rather than a quarter or fiscal year, these reports can cause confusion, since the same information is reported in different ways. As such, the committee is recommending that rules 12-26(2) through 12-26(4) be deleted. As noted, this reporting practice has been overtaken by other reporting requirements, thus rendering this requirement redundant. It will in no way reduce the transparency surrounding committee spending.

[Translation]

Rule 14-1(6) provides that when a rule, statute or order requires a report or other document to be filed with the Senate, it may be deposited with the Clerk. As a result, officials from government departments and agencies must go to the Clerk’s office to hand in physical copies of the hundreds of annual reports and other documents that are required to be tabled in the Senate.

As part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Senate adopted sessional orders that allow for these documents to be deposited with the Clerk’s office electronically. While this was initially done as a result of COVID-19 — to limit the number of people needing to enter the Senate of Canada building — it was quickly found to have benefits outside the context of the pandemic. When these documents are deposited electronically, it is easier to compile them, disseminate them to senators and the public as needed, and archive them. It also helps reduce paper consumption, which is consistent with the Senate’s environmental goals.

There is currently a sessional order authorizing this practice to continue, but the committee recommends that it be written into the Rules through an amendment.

[English]

Finally, the committee is proposing a new rule 1-1(3), which would allow the Speaker of the Senate or the chair of a committee to authorize reasonable adjustments to the application of a rule or practice in order to allow a senator’s full and equal participation in the Senate. This rule entrenches a long-standing but informal practice where the Speaker and senators have exercised discretion, compassion and common sense to allow senators to continue to participate, even though they may not be able to strictly conform to certain provisions of the Rules.

It should be noted that this is intended to allow minor variances in order to allow senators to continue to participate in proceedings within the current context. Substantive changes to that context itself should only be addressed through a substantive motion adopted by the Senate.

Now, before I conclude, I would like to highlight one element of the clerk’s proposal that is not included in this report, and that has to do with consideration of reports from the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators.

The clerk had identified potential challenges with the timelines within which a report concerning a senator must be considered and the possibility that a vote on the report may need to be put forward before the senator in question has been given the opportunity to speak to it. Before addressing this point of timing, the committee wanted to consult with the Ethics Committee, which is why it was not included in this report. However, those consultations have taken place, and potential amendments to the Rules in that regard will be put to our committee for consideration. If adopted, a further report will follow.

On that, I thank you very much, and I hope you will adopt this report in due time.

Senator Downe: Thank you. I trust the intention, but I’m sure colleagues would agree that it should not be left to discretion whether senators can have full participation because they suffer a disability. In the past in this chamber we have had people with a vision problem and adjustments were made. It should be automatic that all senators have full participation. I agree with the intent, but I don’t think it is here.

My second question is on rule 2-8(a):

When the Senate is sitting, it is not permitted:

(a) for Senators to engage in private conversations inside the bar, and if they do, the Speaker shall order them to go outside the bar; . . .

There has been a long tradition that when there is a disruption, if somebody is too loud — and I have been guilty of that myself — people frown, and the Speaker will intervene if necessary. But according to this rule, if I’m speaking to my seatmate I’m in violation of the rule; is that correct?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: You are probably quite right and that is the current rule. Nothing has changed. As for rule 2-8(a), it was not changed, but the reference to smoking being prohibited was deleted. Rules 2-8(a) and 2-8(b) are part of the current rule. No changes have been proposed in this case. We cannot have a conversation in the Senate and disturb others, but no changes were made to this point, which remained the same.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Greene:

Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;

Whereas a person’s personal circumstances or the availability of real property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the required property;

Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who own real property of a minimum net worth;

Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;

Whereas, in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral Division;

Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respecting the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the Schedule hereto.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Black:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.except as provided in this order, the question not be put on the motion for third reading of a government bill unless the orders for resuming debate at second and third reading have, together, been called at least three times, in addition to the sittings at which the motions for second and third readings were moved;

2.when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill; and

3.when a motion has been moved pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order, the following provisions apply:

(a)the debate shall only deal with whether the bill should be deemed an urgent matter or not;

(b)the debate shall not be adjourned;

(c)the debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes;

(d)no senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes;

(e)no senators shall speak more than once;

(f)the debate shall not be interrupted for any purpose, except for the reading of a message from the Crown or an event announced in such a message;

(g)the debate may continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, if necessary, until the conclusion of the debate and consequential business;

(h)the time taken in debate and for any vote shall not count as part of Routine Proceedings;

(i)no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain senator be now heard or do now speak;

(j)when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and

(k)any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and the bells shall ring for only 15 minutes.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, as we celebrate the early days of spring here in the traditional and unceded lands of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, a time of renewal and hope, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-232, sponsored by our colleague Senator Gwen Boniface.

Bill S-232 is, in fact, a bill about renewal and hope — renewal in terms of how our society approaches illegal substances, the people who use them and the systems that surround them, and hope that we can look with clear eyes and open minds at the abundance of evidence that exists to guide us through this important moment of necessary change.

Senator Boniface reminded us in her speech that this bill does two things. Firstly:

It mandates conversations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories and other stakeholders so that the federal government can report to Parliament with a national strategy as to how best tackle the epidemic of substance use. The second thing it does is remove the criminal sanctions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession, also known as decriminalization.

The bill’s short title, the “Health-Centred Approach to Substance Use Act,” signals the shift in approach. Our colleagues Senators Pate, Campbell, White, Busson, Dean and Ravalia have weighed in with important perspectives from their front-line experiences in support of this bill and Senator Boniface’s previous one, Bill S-229.

My intention today is to add to the debate by speaking first to the broader issues of substance use and substance use health, then touch on the limitations and adverse effects of criminalization — otherwise known as prohibition — highlighting recommendations from studies from over the past 50 years, bringing forward voices from last week’s United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs held in Vienna and end by encouraging us to get this important and long-overdue bill to committee for the in-depth study that it deserves.

Honourable colleagues, Dr. Marc-Antoine Crocq in his article “Historical and cultural aspects of man’s relationship with addictive drugs” indicates:

Our taste for addictive psychoactive substances is attested to in the earliest human records. Historically, psychoactive substances have been used by (i) priests in religious ceremonies . . . (ii) healers for medicinal purposes . . . or (iii) the general population in a socially approved way . . . . Pathological use was described as early as classical Antiquity.

He points out that in Shakespeare’s play Othello, we get two different takes on substance use with Cassio declaring:

Oh thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil.

And then Iago’s, “Come, come, good wine is a good familiar creature, if it be well used . . . .”

Colleagues, the Community Addictions Peer Support Association, or CAPSA, in its document called Understanding Substance Use Health: A Matter of Equity, points out that the term “substance use” is often incorrectly used as a synonym for addiction or substance use disorder. They indicate that similar to physical and mental health, substance use health occurs across a continuum.

CAPSA and Ottawa Public Health have a visual illustration of this, which includes five points along a spectrum. Picture the spectrum. At the one end, we have no use of substances, then beneficial use of substances with positive health or social effects. In the middle, lower risk with occasional use of substances that has negligible health or social effects. Towards the other end, we see problems occurring with substance use that has negative consequences for individuals, families or communities. Finally, we have substance use disorder, a diagnosable, chronic medical condition based on 11 criteria listed in the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition — the DSM-5.

In that same CAPSA document earlier, the association makes the point that all kinds of people in Canada use all kinds of substances. For instance, in 2017, 78% of us — I say “us” — 23.3 million people in Canada aged 15 and over reported alcohol use. In Canada, in 2020, 6,000 people died due to opioids, 14,800 people died from alcohol-related illnesses and 37,000 people died of smoking-related causes.

Colleagues, most of the substances Canadians use are legal and regulated, including alcohol, tobacco and now cannabis. CAPSA promotes a strength-based, health promotion approach to substance use with a spectrum of services along the spectrum of substance uses — legal and illegal — which includes everyone, not just those with disorders. This is absolutely critical to reducing stigma.

The bill we are currently debating at second reading, known as the health-centred approach to substance use act, is focused on illegal substances and, in particular, the opioid crisis my colleagues have so vividly described. Colleagues, criminalization — prohibition of substance use — is not achieving the objectives of improved health and safety in our communities.

According to Mark Thornton of Auburn University, alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was a failure. I will quote him:

National prohibition of alcohol (1920–33) — the “noble experiment” — was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene . . . .

At the beginning of Prohibition, the Reverend Billy Sunday stirred audiences with this optimistic prediction:

“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and . . . corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume . . .

— it was adulterated —

. . . crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point . . . . No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons . . . provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition — a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Colleagues, in 1973, the Le Dain Commission issued its final report on the Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in Canada, recommending, among others, that medical treatment for individuals addicted to opioids be offered instead of criminal punishment.

A recently retired colleague, the Honourable Larry Campbell, reminded us that his predecessor, B.C. Chief Coroner John Vincent Cain, recommended in a 1994 report on illicit narcotic overdose deaths that the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General:

Enter into discussions with the federal Ministers of Justice and Health on the propriety and feasibility of decriminalizing the possession and use of specified substances by people shown to be addicted to those . . . substances.

And today, almost 30 years later, we finally have a pilot exemption in B.C., and the City of Toronto just last week has renewed its request for the same exemption.

The 2011 report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy stated:

The global war on drugs has failed . . . .

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.

They recommended to:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Colleagues, the sixty-sixth session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs was held in Vienna earlier this month. In his introductory remarks, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, said:

Non medical use of drugs leads to at least 600,000 deaths worldwide each year largely due to viral hepatitis, HIV and overdose. People who use drugs often suffer criminalization, stigma, and discrimination and are denied access to health services further compounding the harms of drug use.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk added at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

The so-called war on drugs paradigm is detrimental to public health. Fear of arrest and widespread stigma around drug use prevents people who use drugs from accessing health care, harm reduction services and voluntary treatment services. Drug crime is one of the key reasons that well over 2 million people are in prison worldwide.

If drugs destroy life the same can also be true of drug policies.

Representing Canada at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Jennifer Saxe, Director General of Health Canada’s Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, spoke about Canada’s response to the drug toxicity overdose crisis, where she indicated, “Canada continues to advance drug policy that respects human rights . . . .” She stated that “more needs to be done” but she did not mention decriminalization.

Finally, and very importantly, in their brief to Canada’s Minister of Health leading up to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Canadian Civil Society Working Group on UN Drug Policy said — and I will quote at length from them:

The criminalization of drug possession has been ineffective in reducing drug use and has only perpetuated widespread human rights violations and discrimination towards marginalized groups such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, women, people of diverse gender identities and those with mental health conditions.

One of the main drivers behind stigma and discrimination, criminalization hinders people from seeking harm reduction and treatment services. Drug-related deaths continue to rise.

Criminalization of drug possession also means resources are directed towards the criminal justice system instead of toward health and social services.

In Canada, the push for decriminalization has been advocated for by civil society groups and professional organizations for many years. In 2021, the Federal Task Force on Substance Use recommended the same. That same year 112 human rights and public health organizations released a platform advocating for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, and the removal of sanctions for related activities such as sharing or selling drugs to support personal drug use costs or provide a safer supply. Provincial, municipal and law enforcement authorities have supported those calls.

For effective decriminalization, a range of policies and practices that are evidence-based and tailored to the situation are needed. It is critical that administrative penalties such as fines, mandatory treatment referrals, or drug confiscation are not substituted for criminal sanctions, otherwise, this will allow law enforcement to continue monitoring and policing people who use drugs, and will likely still disproportionately affect Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities.

Colleagues, as I move toward concluding my remarks, I want to emphasize three important points:

First, criminalization of people who use drugs does not work. I repeat what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said, “. . . if drugs destroy lives, the same can also be true of drug policies.” Colleagues, I know that we all want our policies to make life better, and certainly not cause more harm.

Second, health is the common bond that Canadians can get behind. Viewing substance use health as part of our overall physical and mental health, and ensuring that health — with both upstream and downstream considerations — is the focus will be the key to breaking free of this whole convoluted, stigmatizing, ineffective, expensive and dangerous paradigm that we are currently caught up in.

Third, in order to develop a successful national strategy — based on a new health-focused paradigm — it is essential to have people with living and lived experience with drug use at the centre of that process, including Indigenous people and Canadians of African descent.

Honourable colleagues, we are at an important societal crossroads — one where we have an opportunity to save lives while building a healthier and safer Canada for all.

Honourable senators, let’s demonstrate the leadership of this chamber, and move Bill S-232 — Senator Boniface’s important paradigm-shifting bill — to committee. Thank you. Wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Scott Tannas: Before I speak to Bill S-241, I’m sorry, colleagues, that I missed my call for Bill S-201. I was at a subcommittee meeting, and three senators who were supposed to speak today didn’t; I missed it. I have apologized to Senator McPhedran, who was expecting me to deliver that speech — and also to Senator McCallum, who was also ready to speak today on that subject. We will get to it.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. It certainly has some high expectations, I would suggest, with such an internationally eminent person agreeing to attach her name to it.

Speaking of eminent people, illuminous former Senator Sinclair was the former sponsor of this bill. I want to thank him for bringing it forward. I also want to thank Senator Klyne for taking the torch upon Senator Sinclair’s retirement.

At some point, there will be committee hearings on this. I know there are other speakers on Bill S-241 before we get to a second-reading vote. It’s my hope that the committee will look carefully at the bill and at the potential amendments, if they’re needed.

I have two concerns that I’m hopeful the committee will spend some time on — they’re around the unintended consequences of the bill.

The first one that I worry about is the transition of the current population of animals that are affected by this bill, particularly in the context of the restrictions on the activities that are immediate, but might also be part of the funding process for the care and feeding of those animals.

In any of the preliminary inquiries that I’ve made, I have not heard of any amount of time that’s been spent on a real, practical plan to deal with the thousands of animals whose lives we are going to change through the restrictions that come into effect right away — never mind that those animals are grandfathered in the possession of whom they are now. In some cases, I suspect that the restrictions that are there for the future activities of those grandfathered animals may prevent people from being able to afford feeding them and caring for them.

The committee needs to satisfy itself that there is a plan, as well as what the plan is, who is going to conduct it and how it will be paid for. I would like to ensure that there are a couple of ways that the committee is, in fact, doing its due diligence on this.

The best thing would be for the committee to report — when it reports back to us — on their estimates regarding the transition of animals to zoos and sanctuaries. How many animals will age in place because they are owned by people who have funding that isn’t reliant on exhibitions, and how many animals will be euthanized? If we’re going to pass this bill, we’d better ensure that we understand all of those things, in addition to the plan regarding how animals arrive at zoos; how animals arrive at sanctuaries; how we’re going to police the idea that people will treat these animals humanely, and have the capacity to feed them; and the result for those who can’t afford them, can’t sell them, can’t trade them and can’t do anything other than euthanize them. We owe it to ourselves to know all of that. I think it will also help us prevent what could be a horrifying tragedy during the transition period that would outrage lots of Canadians, including the Canadians that are probably the most keen to see this bill passed. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we have, in the cold light of day, examined that particular unintended consequence.

My second concern, which has been spoken to before, is around the animal advocate legal status that the bill confers in certain circumstances. There is a legitimate concern posed by certain groups and people that this somehow could be a first step toward influence or interference in animals for food. That is a legitimate concern and the committee should listen to those groups and try and find ways to mitigate that concern rather than simply dismiss it.

Both those items, the transition plan and the advocate role, are potential unintended consequences that we must spend the time working on here if we are going to propose this bill and send it over to the popular house that may or may not spend as much time on sober second thought as we would if the roles were reversed. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gignac, for the second reading of Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Hon. 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. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am sure that you read this report religiously. For those who may have missed the opportunity, I would like to highlight some of the main points.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, has carefully reviewed the Senate Administrative Rules in light of the creation of the new Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, or AOVS, and recommends a few non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules. Simply put, this report is about housekeeping to align the Senate Administrative Rules with the mandate and role of AOVS. It is therefore my pleasure to propose the adoption of the sixth report of CIBA.

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.