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.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Galvez’s Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I am particularly drawn to this bill because it combines two issues that interest me, namely finance and the environment.

Given my past work in financial institutions, and particularly my experience as former president and CEO of L’Alliance des caisses populaires de l’Ontario, I fully understand why Senator Galvez is looking to redefine financial risk management to account for environmental risks, using a systemic approach.

[English]

This bill targets the big players, those with the greatest interest in the financial stability of our country. These are federally chartered financial institutions and other entities, including the Bank of Canada, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and certain pension funds. In managing and assessing risk, financial institutions are concerned about so-called “black swans.” A black swan is an unpredictable event that, if it occurs, could have serious consequences on financial markets. Examples include the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the global economy or the 2007 commercial paper crisis, which represented a $33 billion financial risk for Canada.

In environmental matters, we use the term “green swans” to refer to the risks associated with climate change. Again, these are risks whose impacts are extremely difficult to predict or manage, but which can have catastrophic consequences for our country. These catastrophic consequences are not always of a nature to disproportionately affect financial markets; think of forest fires, floods, wind storms, ice storms and the like. Over the past five years, these climatic events have cost insurance companies more than $13 billion, but have not destabilized the financial markets. The question then becomes whether a weather event could have a high enough impact to cause a financial crisis.

[Translation]

The legislative framework Senator Galvez proposes in her bill is innovative because it covers risk management to mitigate these green swans. This is an excellent solution for financial institutions and other targeted entities.

We need to be careful, though. This proposed legislation would fit into a unique economic context in which financial institutions are resistant to change and slow to get on board with more effective environmental risk management. Why are they so resistant?

The pace of our green transition is important and needs to be evaluated in terms of transition-related risks.

Transitioning toward a new environmental risk management approach is difficult in part because major financial system players are also the entities that finance major polluters. I will come back to this.

[English]

Throughout my time in financial institutions, financial risk management was omnipresent. We had to identify significant activities and evaluate our business practices, analyze our financial position, determine our risk profile and have the funds in reserve to remain profitable under any circumstances. Over the years, and with advances in environmental science, our understanding of climate risk has evolved significantly. Today, we better understand the interrelationship between climate change and the economy, and many environmentalists are sounding the alarm — the green swan alarm.

At the same time, certain industries whose practices do not always align with climate commitments are the livelihood of many Canadians and, in the same vein, Canadians are in large part dependent on these industries. How do we reconcile this dichotomy?

[Translation]

In finance, the “transition” risks associated with an accelerated transition to a low-carbon economy coexist with climate change-related risks.

The relationship between these two types of risk factors that, on the surface, appear contradictory should be taken into account and studied by a committee so we can make sure the measures proposed in Bill S-243 will ensure a sustainable and inclusive transition. We have to try to strike the best possible balance between the risks and the opportunities presented by climate change.

[English]

Senator Galvez is proposing an ambitious, thoughtful and comprehensive legislative framework to allow the big players to manage risks upstream rather than have to pay the price downstream. Let’s remember that if we don’t compel entities to act, the status quo remains and nothing changes. Bill S-243 invites us to reflect, and proposes and invites these entities to step out of their comfort zone and act to bring about change. Thus, in order to ensure market stability in the medium- and long-term, it is incumbent upon the federally regulated financial sector to adapt their operations in a way that mitigates climate change or, at the very least, does not exacerbate it. When this bill is studied in committee, I think it will be important to consider the following elements.

One is assessing the economic impact of the transition on Canada’s GDP. Canada is an oil-and-gas-producing country and part of its economy is based on this sector. How will we finance the transition from oil and gas to other energy sources, and what will the economic impacts be? How fast can this transition take place? Are the timelines reasonable? Realistically and honestly, this transition will take longer than environmentalists would like. How long are we talking about?

The current geopolitical situation has just destabilized the global oil and gas balance. How does this affect decisions made in Canada? What role will Canada have in the global oil and gas supply market? What are the impacts of Europe’s dependence on the transition to clean energy? All of these issues deserve special attention.

While the objective of the bill is laudable, it must also be assessed in a context that takes all factors into account.

[Translation]

Assuming that Canada is serious about the environment and climate change, resistance from key stakeholders can easily put this project on hold indefinitely.

Senator Galvez’s bill proposes seven separate measures. The first concerns the consideration of climate risks. The second is about the alignment of various organizations with climate objectives. The third measure is an obligation for setting targets, planning and reporting. The fourth concerns climate expertise on boards of directors. The fifth has to do with establishing capital adequacy requirements. The sixth is about aligning financial products with climate commitments. The final measure concerns the public review processes on the progress made.

Senator Galvez did an excellent job presenting these measures in her speech, and I invite you to refer to them. I thank her for her leadership and for all the work she does to educate us about the environmental situation in Canada and elsewhere in the world. We have a duty to support her work, which can help ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. I urge you to vote in favour of this bill at second reading and refer it to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce for study. Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the second report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Use of displays, exhibits and props in Senate proceedings, tabled in the Senate on April 5, 2022.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Senator Wells, you did speak a little bit about airplane mode. I don’t know if your phone is different from mine, but switching to airplane mode is just the flick of a finger. However, border officers can also flick it off. Then airplane mode is off, and they can go through your phone. You didn’t touch a lot on this. As critic of the bill, I would like to hear from you on this.