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.