Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, for the second reading of Bill S-265, An Act to enact the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act, to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to establish a framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Galvez, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

Hon. Brent Cotter, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 12, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWENTY-SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of November 3, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Delete clause 3, page 3.

2.Delete clause 4, pages 3 and 4.

3.Delete clause 16, page 6.

4.Delete clause 18, pages 7 and 8.

5.Clause 20, page 8: Replace lines 39 to 41 with the following:

6.Clause 24, page 9: Replace line 19 with the following:

“Act, with specific analysis of the inculpatory and exculpatory effects that DNA sampling have had on Indigenous, Black and racialized populations.”.

Respectfully submitted,

BRENT COTTER

Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

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

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

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

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(d), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, and without affecting progress in relation to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act:

1.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-56;

2.the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than Routine Proceedings on Thursday, December 14, 2023, and be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting; and

3.for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Poirier:

That Bill C-21 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 28 —

Shall I dispense, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic for Bill S-265, An Act to enact the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act, to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to establish a framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime.

[English]

From the outset, I must be transparent and express that I will be a friendly critic because, upon initial review of the legislation, I believe this bill has a real chance of improving the life of victims in Canada and should, therefore, be thoroughly studied in committee.

I would also like to thank my dear colleague and sponsor of this bill, Senator Boisvenu, for his hard work and dedication to finding solutions to improve the situations of victims of crimes in Canada.

In this speech I will first summarize the four main parts of the bill. Second, I will propose an analysis highlighting certain elements that will require further study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I think we can all support the objectives behind Senator Boisvenu’s bill, which is to take steps to improve the lives of victims of crimes in Canada. This is a laudable and timely objective, almost 10 years after the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into force.

[Translation]

Although victims are directly affected by crime, our justice system often confines them to the role of observer. The Minister of Justice recognizes that victims often feel revictimized and supports the need for major changes to better defend their rights.

[English]

Individuals who have fallen victim to criminal acts have historically been marginalized and overlooked within our criminal justice system.

However, criminal acts impose a significant toll on both victims and society at large. Governments must provide customized solutions and extend personalized supports to victims, treating them with compassion, respect and dignity.

Governments occasionally exhibit a lax approach when jurisdiction is shared. It could be presumed that this has impeded advancements in the realm of victims’ rights throughout the history of criminal law in Canada.

Undoubtedly, criminal justice is a shared responsibility among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. As a result, within defined limits, the federal government possesses the authority to implement measures aimed at safeguarding and assisting victims of criminal acts.

The committee’s study would assess the constitutionality of the bill, ensuring alignment with the areas of jurisdiction outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867 and pertinent jurisprudence.

In practical terms, what is the purpose of Bill S-265? It aims to enhance the rights and support for victims of criminal acts in Canada by establishing an independent body, the ombudsman, and expanding and strengthening victims’ rights.

[Translation]

More specifically, the first part of the bill enacts the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act. This act creates the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime and defines the powers, duties and restrictions of this new entity. It also specifies the ombudsperson’s missions, including victim support, complaint assessment and recommendations.

The second part of the bill amends the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to strengthen the rights of victims of crime, particularly with regard to access to information, investigations and proceedings, and rights to information about the offender or accused. The amendments to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also broaden the scope of the right to compensation and support for the enforcement of reparation orders.

Part 3 requires the Minister of Justice to create an implementation framework specifying how the rights of victims of crime guaranteed under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will be implemented and respected. The implementation framework covers a variety of aspects, such as the assessment of availability of services, the remedies available when rights are not upheld, the minimum standards for support services, a public awareness campaign and mechanisms to strengthen victims’ participation in the criminal justice system. The framework also requires the Minister of Justice to consult with the representatives of the provincial governments who are responsible for the administration of justice in their respective provinces and other relevant stakeholders.

Finally, Part 4 specifies that the coming into force of the act will be done by order-in-council. Sections 1 to 8, which have to do with the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman, depend on a recommendation by the Governor General regarding the appropriation of funds for the implementation of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime Act, and on the appropriation of funds by Parliament.

Allow me to make a few observations on the position of Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

At present, the ombudsman is appointed by the Governor-in-Council for a renewable three-year term. He reports to the Department of Justice. The ombudsman is also required to report on his activities in an annual report tabled in Parliament.

The purpose of Senator Boisvenu’s proposal is to confer on the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime the status of an independent legal entity, directly accountable to the Canadian Parliament, rather than maintaining it as a departmental program under the authority of the Department of Justice Canada.

As Senator Boisvenu pointed out in his speech, there are several advantages to this approach.

An independent body can play a crucial role in protecting victims’ rights by providing an impartial mechanism for dealing with complaints and recommending improvements. As an independent entity, an officer of Parliament enjoys autonomy from government departments and agencies, which reinforces its impartiality and promotes greater transparency.

Equally, the notions of independence and impartiality reinforce his or her legitimacy as an agent of change in the criminal justice system.

The submission of an annual report by this entity could also help to raise awareness among the public and political decision-makers of the specific issues that victims may face in the criminal justice system, and the formulation of recommendations could inform necessary reforms in the criminal justice field.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ 2022 report entitled Improving Support for Victims of Crime, the committee highlights the testimony of Heidi Illingworth, former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Ms. Illingworth points out that the office’s limited financial resources and small number of full-time employees significantly hinder its ability to carry out its missions effectively.

[English]

Ms. Illingworth further specified that these constraints primarily manifest in the reduction of the number of systemic investigations the office can undertake and its capacity to address emerging issues. Additionally, multiple witnesses have underscored the imperative of ensuring adequate funding for the ombudsman’s office so that it can fully fulfill its mandate.

Will the creation of a distinct and independent office genuinely lead to an improvement in the situation of victims of criminal acts, or are the inefficiencies and shortcomings in implementing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights solely attributable to a lack of resources and funding?

It will be crucial for the committee’s study to delve into this matter, gaining a better understanding of the funding requirements for the proposed entity compared to an internal department within the ministry of justice. This inquiry aims to precisely identify the sources of the issues at hand.

Although the coming-into-force provision requires an appropriation of monies by Parliament for the creation of this entity, the question remains as to whether independence will make a real difference in a context of inadequate resources.

[Translation]

I’d now like to turn to the proposed amendments to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

It’s interesting to note that Senator Boisvenu sponsored Bill C-32, which enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. He therefore has the knowledge and legitimacy to propose improvements to this legal tool. The bill received Royal Assent on April 23, 2015, and at the time represented a significant step forward for victims in Canada.

In terms of amendments to the bill of rights, Bill S-265 proposes to replace the “right to restitution” with the “right to reparation,” reinforcing the concept of compensation granted to victims. This proposal seems useful and appropriate, but the impact of this amendment will obviously have to be studied in committee.

The bill also includes a new provision to ensure that victims receive support in the event of non-compliance with a restitution order. It was suggested in the other place’s committee study that we should, and I quote,

 . . . examine best practices implemented in other provinces with respect to victim support for restitution, with a view to replicating these initiatives elsewhere.

Heidi Illingworth noted that some provinces, such as Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, already have successful programs in place to help victims with the enforcement of restitution orders. The committee responsible for studying Bill S-265 should conduct a comparative analysis to identify best practices for enforcing restitution orders in the various provinces and territories. This approach is also consistent with recommendation 13 in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which calls for the following, and I quote:

That the Department of Justice work with the provinces and territories to agree on effective means to assist victims in the enforcement of restitution orders.

With regard to the framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime, as Senator Boisvenu pointed out in his speech at second reading, echoing the words of Heidi Illingworth, since the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was passed, its implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent.

In her progress report, published in November 2020, the former ombudsman noted that “the adoption of a law in the books is different from its implementation in action.”

In this report, she highlighted, in particular, the limitations of training for criminal justice system officials and the lack of initiatives to inform citizens of their rights.

The creation of an implementation framework seeks to remedy that problem by giving concrete meaning to the legislation. Again, consultations with the provincial governments and other stakeholders, as proposed in the bill, reinforce the collaborative approach that is needed for significant change.

[English]

I congratulate Senator Boisvenu for his work in developing this bill. As you can attest throughout my speech, his proposals are based on the recommendations made by the Justice Committee of the other place in its report Improving Support for Victims of Crime, as well as on the recommendation of Ms. Heidi Illingworth, who has in-depth knowledge of the legal regime governing victims’ rights in Canada.

I note, however, that the bill is silent on the question of the evidence required to assess needs. In her 2020 report, Heidi Illingworth explicitly recommended the collection of such data to better understand the needs and gaps in support for victims of crime. In her report, she makes the following recommendation:

Collect nationally consistent data on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system and report on it publicly. Data indicators should align with the rights enumerated in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights so that this information can be tracked and measured to evaluate how rights are being upheld across all jurisdictions. The Department of Justice should consider the creation of a Task Force on Victims’ Data that would bring together representatives of the Department of Justice with provincial and territorial attorneys general, academics and Statistics Canada in a national collaborative effort to achieve this goal.

She also expresses concern with the lack of consistent and usable data on how the criminal justice system treats victims. She wrote:

. . . While the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights clearly delineates victims’ legal rights, adequate provisions have not been made to require all officials to measure or record how and when they inform victims of their rights, or which rights victims exercise or when. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of systems. As well, we need data that can inform system improvements—not just administrative or internal data that never gets reviewed. This issue has been a concern of this Office since the Act was introduced.

I hope the committee will thoroughly consider including a provision for data collection in the bill as it is essential to assess the divergent treatment of victims and its broader impact on specific groups and our society. I would like to emphasize the importance of exploring how the bill could more effectively address specific issues, including those related to missing and murdered Indigenous women, as well as other concerns involving structural aspects of systemic discrimination.

I encourage you, colleagues, to promptly refer this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It should be studied diligently with due regard for the compassion, respect and dignity of victims of criminal acts in Canada.

[Translation]

I would like to conclude my speech by acknowledging Senator Boisvenu’s outstanding contributions to Canadian legislation and the criminal justice system. Senator Boisvenu has devoted his career in the Senate to being the voice of an under-represented group: victims of crime. He embraced that mission with dedication, passion and compassion. Senator Boisvenu turned a life-changing personal tragedy into a force for good, seizing every opportunity to transform adversity into progress for Canadian society.

Senator Boisvenu’s remarkable contributions will continue to guide future reforms towards a fairer, more victim-friendly criminal justice system.

The senator is not here, but I have a message for him nonetheless: Dear colleague, thank you for your endless dedication and congratulations on your impressive career. I wish you the best for the next chapter. Colleagues, thank you for listening.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Bellemare, you have a question?

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Would Senator Moncion take a question?

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, one of the Senate’s mandates is to defend our country’s minorities. In that sense, we have a duty to ensure the well-being of the most vulnerable.

I rise today to firmly support Bill S-280, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. I salute and congratulate Senator Mégie for introducing this crucial bill.

I am not a doctor and definitely not an expert on this terrible hereditary genetic disease, which is transmitted through the parents and affects people from birth.

I’m speaking to this bill because I have known and know people, families and friends living with this disease that our colleague so eloquently described in her speech at second reading.

Senator Mégie explained that sickle cell disease is a genetic condition that affects a significant number of Canadians, especially those who come from Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Central and South America, certain areas of India and the Mediterranean Basin.

However, honourable senators, it would be a mistake to think that those with different origins are safe. We live in a world where populations intermingle and unions of persons of different origins are becoming more and more common. The possibility that the gene could be transferred from one group to another does exist. We must therefore act now for the future of all our people.

Let me tell you a personal story. When my husband and I got engaged in Cameroon in 1984, the civil registrar demanded a screening test for sickle cell disease. The hemoglobin electrophoresis test, as it’s called, showed — thank God — that our results were both negative. I had never heard of that disease before. By confirming that we were both negative, we were allowed to get married with no risk to our future children. I could say that we were lucky.

Imagine two people in love who learn that one or both of them are carriers of that gene. That terrible news means that they have to make a decision with far-reaching consequences: to form a union in full knowledge of all the risks.

Then comes the dilemma: to form a union knowing that they are likely to have children who will carry the gene and have a high probability of developing the disease, or choose not to have children. At the time, in Cameroon, the life expectancy of people suffering from serious forms of sickle cell disease was barely above 20 years, mostly due to the poor state of the country’s health system.

Coming back to the people around me in Quebec, where I live, several people who are close to me have the disease. I will give you just a few examples of the people I have personally known.

I have seen Lisa’s pain attacks and frequent hospitalizations. Lisa is my hairdresser’s daughter. She suffers from the most severe form of the disease and requires frequent medical attention, which affects her and her family’s quality of life.

This obviously impacted her studies, which she never finished. At 35 years of age, she has never been in a romantic relationship. Lisa desperately lacks in self-confidence. She struggles with fear, loneliness and anxiety every single day.

I can also tell you the story of my friend Mario, who, unlike Lisa, is an accomplished professional. Mario decided to fight the disease by tackling it head-on. He understood from an early age that he was not gifted with the health of an athlete, so he has always known that he would attain his dreams through education and intellectual work, even with this disease.

He graduated with high honours from some of the most prestigious universities in the world, despite having had to be hospitalized regularly throughout his life. Married, with one child, Mario is diligent in getting his treatments and has found creative arrangements around his professional and personal life to be able to live as well as possible with this disease. This helped him develop a great sense of empathy towards others.

To summarize, colleagues, despite the difficulties they face, people with sickle cell disease accomplish extraordinary things in life and for our society, even if they sometimes have to hide their medical condition in order to advance in demanding professional environments that leave little room for vulnerability.

What most inspired me to give this speech was the story of Mamadou Camara, the director of a docufiction pilot project entitled “Suffering silence.” We invited Mamadou to the Senate, and Senator Mégie and I organized a screening of his film in the Senate in June. Mamadou suffers in silence. He plunges us into the intimate life of a family to show us the parents’ distress at their powerlessness to relieve their child’s suffering.

It helps us understand the anxiety felt by carriers of the gene and their families. As Mamadou says, he lives with a death sentence, a sword of Damocles dangling over his head.

Colleagues, sickle cell disease has serious implications for family dynamics, affecting the emotional, physical, psychological and financial health of those close to the patient.

This bill is important for several reasons: it will improve awareness among health care professionals, create a national research network, establish a national registry, ensure universal access to neonatal screening, promote public awareness and provide the financial support needed to advance research into this disease.

As Senator Mégie said so well, far too few health care professionals are aware of the disease and its symptoms. As a result, when some sufferers having an attack arrive at emergency rooms, they are often misdiagnosed, which leads to poor management and care, or even an underestimation of the care that is required. In 2023, in Canada, that is not acceptable.

This disease requires a consistent and proactive approach from our government. By establishing a national framework, we can guarantee equitable access to health care and support for patients and their families.

By voting in favour of Bill S-280, we are helping to build an ecosystem that will give every child a fulfilling, stigma-free life and equitable access to health care, regardless of their genetics or background.

Congratulations, Senator Mégie.

Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, for the second reading of Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?