Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Welcome, minister. Your mandate letter requires you to work closely with the Minister of Natural Resources and his department in a number of areas, including energy sector emissions. On Monday, in the other place, Minister Wilkinson was asked whether Canada would help European democracies replace Russian gas with our own natural gas.

He replied, and I quote:

We are working very closely with our colleagues in the United States and in Europe to not only address short-term energy volatility but also to explore long-term energy options.

Minister, how do you see Canada’s liquefied natural gas exports to Europe fitting into our economic, environmental and national security priorities? Is this something you would support, especially in light of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (information about the victim).

He said: Honourable senators, my thoughts are with the families of victims of crime as I rise today to speak at second reading stage of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (information about the victim).

This bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament, is more important than ever, because it honours the memory of the victims and ensures respect for their families.

This bill bears the name of a victim of domestic violence who perished at the hands of her husband, as so many women in Canada do. Her name was Véronique Barbe, and this bill is dedicated to her memory and the memory of far too many victims of crime.

I would have liked to show you her photo today, but the Senate Rules do not allow me to do so. It is very important to put a face to a victim, because unfortunately, they are often forgotten too quickly.

Véronique Barbe was a 41-year-old woman, a mother whose life tragically ended on September 14, 2017, when she was killed by her husband at their home in Saint-Eustache, in Québec. I also want to pay tribute to Yvon Lacasse, who was also brutally murdered by this same murderer during his deadly rampage.

According to her mother Claudette and her father Pierre, Véronique Barbe was a smiling, happy and loving woman. She loved life and shared her happiness and love with her children, who were always her top priority.

According to her mother, Véronique was a caring mother who spoiled her children, as her mother told me, and a ray of sunshine to the whole family. Her sense of humour enlivened family meals.

Unfortunately, like many women in Canada, Véronique was a victim of domestic abuse and found herself unwillingly trapped in a downward spiral for many years, dominated by a violent spouse. She had previously taken steps to contact the police, seven years before she was murdered. In 2010, she began reporting what was happening to her, including the episodes of violence. These serious incidents of physical and psychological abuse should have been taken seriously by the authorities at the time. Despite her cries for help, our criminal justice system failed to offer her assistance, protection or freedom from this toxic relationship.

In Quebec, 26 women were murdered in 2021, and the vast majority of these murders were committed in a context of domestic violence. This is the highest number since 2008. According to a preliminary report from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 160 women were killed in Canada in 2020, half of them in a domestic violence context. I want to reiterate that it is essential and urgent that the Senate study and quickly pass my Bill S-205, which seeks to combat the scourge of domestic violence. The preliminary data on femicides in 2021 clearly show that this number will be greatly surpassed.

Coming back to the case of Véronique Barbe, the murderer has since been convicted and is currently incarcerated. However, showing no respect for the memory of Véronique and her family, this coward continued to post images of himself and Véronique, his victim, on his Facebook page, despite the family’s many attempts to get the web giant to permanently shut down his account.

Facebook denied the family’s many requests without explanation. Facebook did not respect the principles of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which is a supra-constitutional law in Canada. It took a lot of media pressure to get the murderer’s profile taken down for good and to get Facebook to apologize to the family. I want to thank Le Journal de Montréal for also denouncing Facebook for its lack of cooperation and for helping the family prevail over this web giant. Apologies do not go far enough to ease the pain of Véronique’s family, who had to fight hard to get that Facebook account shut down out of respect for their daughter. It was outrageous for the murderer to do this, and it was a serious failure on the part of Facebook.

I would like to quote a statement made by Véronique’s mother about this bill. She said:

It was very hard on the family to see photos of Véronique with her murderer on social media, but with Senator Boisvenu’s help, we managed to close his account on Facebook with this long-awaited bill. I am grateful that it is named in honour of Véronique. Victims of crime and their families have the right to expect respect for any information and images pertaining to them.

I also heard from a father in Montreal who lived through a terrible family tragedy almost two years ago. This man lost his 11-year-old daughter, who was murdered, sadly. This bill is also dedicated to the memory of that girl. The man’s second daughter, just five years old, was almost killed, and she’ll be traumatized for life by these tragic events that should never have happened. The girls’ mother, who was found not criminally responsible for these crimes, still has a Facebook profile and still posts pictures of her murdered daughter, which causes the father much suffering and rage.

I would like to share a moving statement he sent me, which is addressed to this house. He said:

Today, I just want to share what my two daughters mean to me. They have been my everything since the day they were born. They were and will always be my greatest pride and my most wonderful accomplishment. I’ve never made anything as beautiful, as good, as wonderful or as important. In other words, my life revolved exclusively around my two girls, and they are the ones who truly taught me to love and to give unconditionally. I also want to say that I somehow found enough strength — and love — inside me to take care of myself and my youngest daughter, who is still in shock, and to keep doing what I’ve always done for my girls: defend and protect them. That’s why I have spoken to the media numerous times to condemn the sharing of photos of my daughters on social media sites . . . of the accused and her family.

For many people, posting pictures of their children on social media sites like Facebook is totally normal. But for me, for us victims, the fact that pictures are being posted of my two daughters, especially the one who was killed, is intolerable, hurtful, painful and even revolting, since I believe, in addition to the flagrant lack of respect towards the memory, the life and the legacy of my deceased daughter, that the images of my two daughters, who are minors and victims of an extremely violent criminal act, should remain private and do not belong in the public sphere. . . . That being said, nearly two years after the tragedy, I still want to fight to protect the dignity, the image, the memory, as well as the integrity of my daughter who was killed, to speak only of her, because I miss her so much. . . . I therefore ask you today, very humbly, to pass Senator Boisvenu’s bill, since it aims, first and foremost, to truly protect the dignity, memory and images of all victims of crime in Canada, by prohibiting and criminalizing the dissemination of their images and information on social media by criminals. As for my youngest, who survived, I keep telling her every day, “I love you.”

It is in this context and at the request of these two families that I decided to introduce this bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in order to reinforce the right to better protection for victims and families in similar situations. The Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues believes that this is an important bill that will guarantee the dignity and protect the memory of victims who are ruthlessly murdered.

This bill amends the Victims Bill of Rights by adding a paragraph to section 11, entitled “Privacy,” which would require the criminal justice system to take measures to prohibit an offender from posting any images or information about their victim on the internet and on social media. This reinforcement will be included in the section on the right to protection in the Victims Bill of Rights. This bill also amends the Criminal Code to prohibit any offender or accused from posting images or information about their victim or keeping existing images of their victim on social media either during legal proceedings or after being convicted.

An accused or offender who is ordered to comply with such a ban or who commits to complying will be at risk of being indicted on new charges if they fail to comply. The burden will be on the accused or offender to remove any information, images or videos about the victim they may have posted. That way, the participation and collaboration of social media networks such as Facebook or other sites such as YouTube will no longer be required. This will undeniably be a major advantage for achieving the desired effect, because we all know that it is nearly impossible for victims and their families to get these social media networks to cooperate in taking down offensive content, despite existing internal policies on content distribution.

The changes to the Criminal Code will revolve around the addition of a section to every stage set out in the Criminal Code with respect to an accused’s legal proceedings, including the issuance of an undertaking to appear by police, an interim release while awaiting trial ordered by a justice, detention pending a bail hearing, or detention during legal proceedings.

I believe that this new provision does not violate the constitutional protections afforded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that a certain number of rulings along these lines have already been made by the courts. These rulings have made it possible to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression of the accused to ensure safety and privacy for the victim.

I plan on doing the same with the Criminal Code section governing offenders convicted of a criminal offence, in particular for probation orders, conditional sentences and detention sentences. This new section also applies to everything concerning 810 orders, such as the general order, fear of forced marriage or marriage under the age of 16 years, fear of a sexual offence or where there is fear of serious personal injury.

To conclude, there is also a provision for a person found not criminally responsible. In that case, a review board is established and a hearing is held to determine the safety risk that the offender may represent and to impose conditions. I am of the opinion that the provision I am proposing must also be added to this section of the Criminal Code. I remind senators that the second case I mentioned in my speech involved a mother who was found not criminally responsible for the murder of her daughter.

Honourable senators, I would like to take this opportunity, as I did in my previous speech, to talk to you about the importance of improving the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. As you know, I was the co-founder of the bill, which was passed nearly seven years ago in June 2015. For victims of crime, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is, first and foremost, a recognition of their rights within the criminal justice system. Let’s not forget that this bill of rights is supra-constitutional and consists of four pillars based on four fundamental rights that actors in the criminal justice system have an obligation to uphold: the right to information, the right to participation, the right to protection and the right to restitution.

This bill that I am speaking to today is the only one in the past six and a half years that seeks to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to improve and enhance it. Unfortunately, according to the many accounts that I hear every week, this bill of rights is all too often applied inappropriately and not complied with, as in the example I shared about Facebook. It is therefore urgent that Parliament undertake the five-year review of the legislation and get victims to actively participate in this legislative exercise. I spoke to Minister David Lametti about this during a private meeting we had this morning.

Bill S-238 reminds us that we have a Victims Bill of Rights that has the force of law in Canada and applies equally regardless of gender, religion or community. Legislators like us must use it more, respect it more, and the Senate of Canada must ensure it is applied across the country out of respect for all victims of crime and their families.

Esteemed colleagues, I know you care about protecting and respecting victims’ rights. That is why I invite and urge you to take part in improving the bill of rights by amending it every time you feel victims’ rights were not respected. Victims should not have to fight hard, over and over, when there is already a tool that should keep victims and their loved ones from being re‑victimized.

This morning, I also reminded the minister that it is unacceptable that victims and their families, like the ones in Portapique, do not have access to a government-appointed ombudsman. I think this situation sends a very negative message and shows that the government lacks empathy for victims and their families. Contrast that with the correctional investigator position, which has never been vacant for more than 24 hours.

In closing, honourable senators, in memory of Véronique Barbe, in memory of the young girl who lost her life at the tender age of 11, and in memory of the many other families of victims you may know, I ask you to pass the bill at second reading so it can be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for prompt consideration.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2022-23, presented in the Senate on February 24, 2022.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today to support the motion presented in the Senate on November 25, 2021, by Senator Dalphond. First, this motion would have the Senate recall that section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires the Constitution to be fully written in both official languages, that is, in French and English. At present, this provision is not being respected. Of the 31 enactments that make up the Constitution, 22 have not yet been translated, including almost all of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Second, this motion seeks to include in the Official Languages Act a requirement for a review, every five years, of the efforts made by the Government of Canada to comply with section 55 of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the foundation of our federation. It is commonly known as the foundational text and sits at the very top of our hierarchy of norms. It provides subtle coordination of our institutions and always manages to balance each of their powers. The Fathers of Confederation worked hard on it, often at their peril, and a failure to respect the Constitutions or one of its provisions would be a betrayal of their efforts. The basic text of the Canadian Constitution came into force in 1867, after long negotiations among the four founding provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. This foundational text, which was called the British North America Act at the time, is the bedrock on which the federation was built.

In 1969, the Parliament of Canada decided to enact the Official Languages Act for the first time, to officially recognize bilingualism within Canadian federal institutions. The repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 allowed Canada to definitively break from the United Kingdom and enshrine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states the following in section 16:

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

In order to uphold section 16 of the Constitution and end the injustice toward francophone communities, section 55 of the Constitution reads as follows:

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

As Senator Dalphond said in his speech, section 55 is not currently being respected because only 9 of the 31 constitutional texts have an official translation in French.

In an October 2018 brief entitled “Access to Justice in French and English in the Context of Modernizing the Official Languages Act,” the Canadian Bar Association did a great job of explaining how harmful this failure to uphold section 55 is for francophone communities in Canada.

According to the report, francophone communities in Canada face a serious barrier to access to justice and defending the rule of law. The constitutional texts are not officially translated, and the unofficial translations do not have force of law. When courts render constitutional decisions in French, they refer to the unofficial French translations, which do not have the same legal or constitutional force as the wording in the official English version.

As a result, French-speaking jurists and litigants are at a disadvantage in the discussions on the interpretation of the constitutional texts that set out the fundamental principles of our rules-based state.

I would remind senators that Canada’s history acknowledges three founding peoples: the British, the French and the Indigenous people, or rather, the Indigenous peoples.

These three peoples have contributed to the construction, culture and development of today’s Canada. The province of Quebec and Canada’s francophone minorities total 10 million people. The federal government must fulfill its duty to ensure that bilingualism is recognized, as enshrined in our Constitution, because by ignoring the importance of the French language, it is contributing to the rejection of national unity and dismissing the identity, culture and social mores of millions of French Canadians.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in Mahe v. Alberta:

Language is more than a mere means of communication, it is part and parcel of the identity and culture of the people speaking it. It is the means by which individuals understand themselves and the world around them.

In his speech, Senator Dalphond pointed out that the first obligation imposed by section 55 of the Constitution, namely that of drafting an official translation of the constitutional texts as soon as possible, was fulfilled back in 1990.

Unfortunately, the implementation of this provision has been met with a series of failures and setbacks in the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces. It has now been more than 20 years since the federal government last resumed negotiations. That is how long it has been shirking its institutional obligation to uphold section 55 of the Canadian Constitution.

In closing, I fully support Senator Dalphond’s motion. It is based on the second recommendation in the brief submitted by the Canadian Bar Association and proposes that the federal government include in the official languages bill, which it announced in the last Speech from the Throne and which should be introduced shortly in the other place, if it has not been already, a requirement that a report be submitted every five years detailing the efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I invite you, colleagues, to support Senator Dalphond’s motion to have the Government of Canada do its homework and implement the provisions of our Constitution to ensure that the rights of francophone Canadians are finally respected. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Kutcher:

That the Senate adopt the following Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement, to replace the 1993 Senate Environmental Policy, adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration:

The Senate of Canada is committed to reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices in its operations. Achieving this goal requires a whole-of-organization approach which prioritizes reduction of outputs and utilizes standard-leading emission offsets. The road to net zero will include quantifiable regular reporting on progress towards target. These actions are to demonstrate leadership as an institution on climate action, to encourage accountability of federal institutions and to inform the legislative process.

The Senate is committed to achieving its objective through adherence to the following principles:

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration examine the feasibility of implementing programs to establish:

(a)an accountability framework and annual reporting cycle;

(b)the promotion of climate-friendly transportation policies and reduced travel;

(c)enhanced recycling and minimizing waste;

(d)a digital-first approach and reduction in printing;

(e)support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of operating a sustainable Senate; and

(f)a process for senators and their offices to propose environmental and sustainability recommendations; and

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration acquire any necessary goods and services to examine the feasibility or to implement these recommendations.