Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Plett’s amendment to Senator Gold’s motion to have the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs study the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

The second paragraph of the motion would authorize the committee:

 . . . 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;

Senator Plett’s amendment deletes this paragraph from the motion, effectively significantly reducing opportunities for the committee to meet for the purposes of this study, as it would be unable to do so during Senate sittings.

At the end of the session, when committees are overloaded and senators’ schedules are difficult to coordinate, greater flexibility is crucial. More leeway will enable the committee to organize itself more efficiently in order to complete its work in spite of tight deadlines and time constraints.

[English]

That said, I’d also like to endorse Senator Harder’s caution about expanding the practice of conducting pre-studies on certain bills. Pre-studies are sometimes necessary and justified, particularly in the case of budget bills, appropriation bills or bills subject to judicial deadlines. These bills have special status under our parliamentary practices and customs, and require a certain deference on the part of the Senate.

When assessing the need to conduct a pre-study of a bill that does not fall into these categories, we should also consider the criterion of time constraint. Is there any justification for the time constraint imposed on the Senate to study this bill?

Extending this practice is not necessarily consistent with the Senate’s traditional role in exercising its objective second look at legislation. The Senate must be able to take the time it needs, when appropriate.

I, too, would like to caution the government and colleagues about changing practices and customs that would diminish the breadth and depth of our committees’ studies of bills we receive from the other place.

[Translation]

I believe that Senator Plett’s proposed amendment is unnecessary at this time, because I trust that our fellow senators will make the right decision when they vote on the original motion.

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved third reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading as the sponsor of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

Bill S-252 proposes to recognize jury duty appreciation week during the second week of May each year in Canada.

Over the past few years, I’ve had the privilege of speaking on a number of occasions in this chamber in support of the recognition of jury duty in Canada. In particular, a motion I moved calling on the federal government to recognize a national jury duty appreciation week was adopted by the Senate on May 12, 2022. I was also the critic for Bill S-206, a bill sponsored by Senator Boisvenu that lifted the rule of secrecy in very specific cases and therefore allowed jurors to talk to a mental health professional about jury deliberations after a trial. That bill was passed and received Royal Assent in 2022. These interventions enabled me to shed light on an issue that was previously little known to parliamentarians.

As senators, we have the privilege of proposing bills to establish national days or weeks. Although the symbolic scope of this process sometimes draws criticism, it helps fill certain gaps by generating a national dialogue on issues that are important but less well known to governments and Canadians.

Weeks like this offer an opportunity to achieve a number of goals. In addition to promoting recognition, education and awareness among Canadians about this civic duty, a national week honouring the role of jurors would foster collaboration and coordination efforts by organizations, courts and provincial and territorial governments in implementing the recommendations of the 2018 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology made observations on the bill, and a national week would also permit an examination of those observations.

Why does the bill propose the second week of May as jury duty appreciation week? It’s a question that I was asked in committee and that I would like to answer in this chamber as well, to explain the reason for this choice.

Spring marks the end of many trials, making it an appropriate time to express our gratitude to jurors and recognize their contribution to the justice system. The conclusion of a trial is also an opportunity to inform jurors about the support available to them.

In the United States, the second week of May coincides with the recognition of such a week by the American Bar Association and by other jurisdictions, notably California and Louisiana. In addition, courts across the U.S., as well as the Texas and Oregon legislatures and the Pennsylvania State Senate, also recognize a week dedicated to honouring jury duty in the month of May.

In Canada, the second week of May has already been acknowledged as a week of recognition for two years by various stakeholders and by the federal government, through the Minister of Justice. The Senate recognized the week in question when it adopted a motion on May 12. As you can understand, colleagues, it is not very efficient to propose a similar motion every year. These recognitions are not legislated and therefore provide no long-term certainty to those involved in and affected by this cause. We are talking about thousands of Canadians every year.

Bill S-252 is not just about the symbolic recognition of jury duty. Enshrining an official week in legislation could be a catalyst for change in many ways. The bill’s preamble not only helps us understand the bill’s purpose, but also enables us to look ahead to understand the potential scope of the proposal. The preamble recognizes that thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors every year and that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. Promoting jury duty could foster a sense of pride and accomplishment that would help jurors feel that their sacrifices are seen and recognized by the government and the justice system.

The preamble also draws attention to the link between the mental health and well-being of jurors and the proper functioning of our justice system. This is something that I really care about, since I myself have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of my experience as a juror. Tangible measures must be put in place to support jurors before, during and after their service. Better informing and preparing jurors before the trial could make a huge difference in their ability to handle this responsibility calmly and objectively. This means clear and transparent communication about how the trial will unfold, the rules the jurors must follow and the different types of cases that they may have to deal with.

When people are called for jury duty, they often have no idea what awaits them. All they get is an order to show up at court, or else they’ll be fined $5,000 or have to serve time. They’re told nothing about what’s in store for them. Faced with a complex system and strong emotions, they’re often unprepared to manage the stress and the psychological impact of the experience. Jurors also need support after the trial. They may need time to process the testimony and the verdict, time to talk about their experiences with others who have been through the same thing and time to talk to mental health professionals if necessary.

Jurors must receive better support throughout the process, right from that first summons. Designating an official week each year would increase awareness of how jurors’ well-being and the proper functioning of the Canadian justice system are interrelated. This will help certain key players understand the nature of that connection.

Lastly, the preamble states that this legislation will serve as an educational initiative seeking to inform and mobilize citizens, organizations, the justice system as a whole, and the provincial and federal governments, by promoting greater awareness and understanding of the complex issues involved in performing this civic duty. An initiative to celebrate a national appreciation week will help address the fragmentation in our current system, which encourages discussions in silos between various organizations and the provinces and territories when it comes to the administration of justice or even the delivery of mental health services. While respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories, the bill lays the foundations for cooperative federalism in juror support and builds a bridge between a variety of civil society actors who work in fields related to justice, education and health.

[English]

To address gaps in support for jurors, a dedicated jury duty appreciation week could significantly enhance the juror experience across multiple aspects. Drawing on the accounts of former jurors and my own firsthand observations, the following examples highlight key needs that such a week could address.

Serving as a juror can be a psychologically challenging experience and may even lead to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Jurors and their families face a variety of pressures, and the repercussions of serving on a jury can be felt long after the trial is over.

The lack of financial support, especially for low-income individuals, is a major stress factor that undermines the representation and diversity of Canadian juries. Juror pay is currently below the minimum wage. In Ontario, for example, a juror receives $5 per hour, which does not compensate for the loss of income incurred by participating in the justice system. The lack of financial support can make it difficult for low-income individuals to serve on juries and can lead to a lack of diversity in the jury-selection process.

Employers often underestimate the challenges faced by employees called for jury duty. Support and compensation from employers, provinces and territories are mostly negligible and insufficient. The lack of support can make it difficult for employees to serve on juries and can lead to financial hardship and job loss.

Finally, after a trial our society expects jurors to return to their normal lives as if nothing had happened. Employers often perceive this extended absence as vacation time. Educating employers, in particular, is essential. Employers need to be made aware of the challenges faced by jurors, and they need to be prepared to support their employees who are called for jury duty.

It is imperative to address these unrealistic expectations and start discussions about removing these barriers in order to create a more inclusive and equitable jury system. Supporting the well-being of those who make sacrifices to ensure the proper functioning of the Canadian judicial system and democracy is essential. This includes providing adequate financial support, ensuring job security and offering mental health resources to jurors.

[Translation]

Bill S-252 is the key to creating an environment conducive to achieving these goals.

Based on my experience as juror number one in a first-degree murder trial, conversations with former jurors and stakeholders, and the reflections of our parliamentary committees, I’ve come to believe that federal leadership is necessary. There is a real gap that needs to be filled at the national level.

I will now briefly discuss the federal government’s role with respect to jury duty. The lack of federal leadership partly results from the fragmented and inconsistent services and supports provided to jurors. This same deficiency also accounts for the failure to recognize how the juror’s role contributes to justice and democracy in Canada.

Justice is a shared jurisdiction. The role of the federal government and the Department of Justice is pivotal in each of the recommendations made in the 2018 report entitled Improving support for jurors in Canada. All this is also consistent with the purpose of Bill S-252.

For example, the report recommends federal funding in certain areas and the sharing of best practices with the provinces and territories. It also highlights the importance of raising awareness among judges, coroners and judicial officers about the potential impact of court proceedings on the mental health of jurors.

[English]

While jury duty is a vital function of our justice system and democracy, the federal government has not yet taken a leading role in supporting jurors. This bill proposes an effective way for the federal government to address this gap, all while respecting the provincial and territorial administration of justice.

I had the privilege of appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology as part of its study of Bill S-252. The members of the committee listened to my testimony with attention and compassion. I am very grateful for their kindness and consideration.

The committee members not only showed great sensitivity toward me and the other witnesses, but also took a pragmatic and analytical approach to examining these issues. The committee’s report does not contain any amendments, but it does make three constructive observations.

The first observation concerns the lack of diversity in juries in Canada, particularly with respect to the representation of racialized, Black and Indigenous peoples. The committee therefore recommends that the federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments try to identify measures that improve the diversity of juries in accordance with the intent to be judged by a jury of our peers.

The second observation concerns vicarious trauma experienced by jurors, and mental health programs and services. As defined by Health Canada:

Vicarious trauma is the experience of bearing witness to the atrocities committed against another. It is the result of absorbing the sight, smell, sound, touch and feel of the stories told in detail by victims searching for a way to release their own pain. . . . Vicarious trauma is the energy that comes from being in the presence of trauma and it is how our bodies and psyche react to the profound despair, rage and pain.

I wish I’d known the notion of vicarious trauma when I was going through difficult times as a result of my experience as a juror. It would have helped me understand that my feelings were both normal and valid, and I’m sure it’s the case for many other former jurors. Understanding the science behind our experience can be powerful in our recovery, and having access to evidence-based programs is crucial.

With respect to this second observation, the committee expresses concern about the lack of mental health support for jurors before, during and after a trial. It therefore recommends the creation of comprehensive government programs focused on trauma management to support and protect the well-being of jurors.

The third observation underlines the financial impact on the participation of Canadians in jury duty, particularly in terms of lost wages, but also the lack of adequate compensation for expenses incurred in the performance of jury duty, including child care and travel. These financial barriers partly explain the lack of diversity on juries. In response, the committee proposes that the Government of Canada consider using the Employment Insurance program to provide financial support to jurors during their service.

On the subject of financial compensation, Tina Daenzer, a former juror who testified before the committee, explained as follows:

Jury pay is still woefully inadequate in order to ensure a truly well-balanced jury panel. In fact, in Ontario, it has not changed since I sat on the Bernardo trial in 1995. The initial ten days are unpaid until the tenth day, when you receive $40 per day.

She sat in 1995, I sat on a jury in 1989, and the same rules applied then.

Millions of Canadians work in minimum wage jobs or in the gig community, which means that they are financially unable to participate in the jury process. If we truly want a jury of our peers, then we need to ensure that every Canadian can participate.

The former jurors and other witnesses heard by the committee were unanimous in their view that this week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate those who have exercised this duty. A national week would provide an opportunity for in-depth reflection and discussion on the observations made by the Social Affairs Committee and the recommendations contained in the Justice Committee report from the other place, which now dates back six years.

The Senate has already voted in favour of recognizing jury duty appreciation week through a motion. I hope, colleagues, that I can count on your support for this modest and simple legislative proposal. The adoption of Bill S-252 by Parliament would reflect the scope and importance of the contributions of citizens who serve as jurors. This recognition would show our appreciation for the sacrifices they make and the important role they play in ensuring the proper functioning of our justice system.

I’d like to quote Tina Daenzer once again, this time on Canadian society’s lack of appreciation for jurors. During her testimony before the Social Affairs Committee on Bill S-252, she said:

If the job of sitting on a jury is so important to our entire legal system, why are the people selected so underappreciated in both adequate pay and mental health support? Many studies have shown that recognition in the workplace boosts engagement, attracts better employees, helps employees find meaning and reinforces the positive. As a country, we should all want that not just for employees but also for those who are chosen as jurors. We must ensure they feel supported and appreciated, and at the end of the trial, they can walk away feeling like it was a rewarding and enriching experience.

I’m going depart from my speech for a minute. This is probably the last time I will speak on my experience as a juror, and I will tell you a story.

For the last 35 years, I’ve been worried that the people who were convicted would someday come out of jail and come after me or anyone who was on the jury. That was one of my concerns. The other concern that I had as a juror was about the first-degree murder verdict that we decided upon. There was always a doubt — not because we didn’t have the evidence, but because there was always a thought: “What if I made a mistake, or what if it was the wrong verdict?”

A little while I go, I decided to google the names of the two convicts. I came up with the name of one of them. That person has been out of jail since 2014. He is now 62 years old. He is a reformed inmate. In the segment that I saw, he was speaking about his life as an inmate. Not only did he confirm that he had killed the person who was the subject of the jury trial upon which we served when he was first convicted, but he also killed again when he was in prison.

What I could see from his testimony today is that this man is reformed. Like I said, he is a 62-year-old man. He lives somewhere in this country. He’s a grandfather, and he is reformed. He has written a book. He goes into schools and testifies and speaks to young people there, and he talks about his experience. He talks about how he became an inmate, how he got into the life that he did, what happened to him in prison to make him change his way of thinking, and that what he developed while he was in prison was empathy. He started to understand that everything he was doing had consequences on others.

This man is now a reformed man. He’s now a working Canadian. He is part of our society. After reading this, I told my husband, “I saw this.” He said, “Are you telling me that you pardon him for what he did?” I said to him, “I’m not sure if I pardon him, and I’m not sure how I feel about this man today.” But I’ve always wanted to make sure that there was something good that came out of the work that I had done 35 years ago. I only googled the name of the person, so I was only able to find the information on one person. This man has also written a book.

It’s just a story. For me, it is like closing the loop on this. I still don’t know how I feel about this man and where he is in his life today. One of the things that he said is that he is not proud of what he has done. He was incarcerated for 32 years, but he said, “I still live in a prison of my own making because I’m still living with what I have done, and this is something I will carry to my death.”

[Translation]

On that note, I would remind senators that by supporting Bill S-252, we are raising awareness among Canadians and governments, every year, about the many issues associated with jury duty.

I’m sure you can see that time is of the essence. This bill needs to go back to the House of Commons. I humbly request your support so this bill can go through the process in the other place quickly.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

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: Official language minority communities refer to groups who have historically faced discrimination, and continue to face discrimination through policies, legislation and funding of their institutions by provincial and territorial governments. These communities are afforded special constitutional guarantees to address historical and ongoing challenges.

Official languages, on the other hand, undeniably served as a tool of colonization, contributing to the eradication and weakening of numerous Indigenous languages — a regrettable legacy that we now seek to reverse. My hope is that Bill C-35, along with other legislation that this government brought forward, such as the Indigenous Languages Act, can facilitate the revitalization and reappropriation of these languages by Indigenous peoples.

We need to collaborate and stand united in an effort toward reconciliation. Polarizing politics should have no place in this chamber, and both the government and this chamber have a duty to protect minorities.

Both official language minority communities and Indigenous peoples benefit from specific constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is essential to give due consideration to these rights in our deliberation on Bill C-35. As is often the case in government bills, numerous constitutional rights and guarantees coexist within the same legal framework. It does not mean that they are the same, or that they need to be compared. Explicit references to the holders of some guaranteed rights do not, in any way, diminish those of other groups.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: We heard this afternoon, on three occasions, the mention of interpretation of laws. I would like to add to this versus “legally binding wording.” There is an important nuance that has to be brought into this context. So I start out of my text, but going into my speech.

[Translation]

I rise to speak to the amendment moved by Senator Cormier at third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The amendment seeks to explicitly include a guarantee of long-term funding for official language minority communities, or OLMCs, in clause 8 of Bill C-35. I thank Senator Cormier and his team for all their work on this matter. His office and mine have worked together on this. During my speech at second reading, I expressed concerns about the fact that a department could draft such a critical piece of legislation for the vitality and survival of OLMCs without even mentioning them.

My concerns grew during clause-by-clause study of the bill at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I observed that Employment and Social Development Canada officials showed a very poor understanding of the constitutional rights and guarantees of OLMCs, as well as a certain absence of curiosity and sensitivity towards these communities in terms of the realities they experience and the potential impact of this legislation on their vitality and growth.

In this speech, I will outline the risks associated with the fact that clause 8 lacks any such guarantee, as well as the impacts of the proposed amendment, while also taking into account the relevant jurisprudence. As part of my analysis, I will attempt to refute the government’s interpretation of the so-called potential problems that the amendment in question could create.

In my opinion, the interpretations put forward are erroneous and even worrisome. They could be of particular concern if the courts were to draw on the comments that certain officials made to the committee when analyzing the legislator’s intent regarding the interconnectedness between the rights of Indigenous peoples and those of official language minorities.

First, I will talk about the proven dangers of omitting official language minority communities. Why is this amendment so important? As I argued at second reading, access to child care services in the language of the minority is key to the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to minority language education.

The bill seeks to create a national early learning and child care system in order to make services accessible to all. Under current bilateral agreements, funds are spent specifically to guarantee services for the children of rights-holders and Indigenous peoples. The government and its officials have tried to reassure us by pointing out the terms of these agreements, but you will understand that the purpose of the study is Bill C-35, not the agreements.

In addition, as a francophone in a minority situation, I fully understand the legal hierarchy between a bilateral agreement and federal legislation. Accordingly, including OLMCs in these agreements does not reassure me in the long term. I’m also mindful of the fact that governments change while statutes endure, hence the importance of considering an amendment to clause 8, as suggested by Senator Cormier.

Moreover, when it comes to services funded as part of the exercise of the federal spending powers, we must expect services of equivalent quality to be offered to both francophones and anglophones in this country. It is also imperative that Indigenous peoples receive adequate funding, in keeping with the exercise of their rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With regard to OLMCs in particular, the facts, as documented over many years of jurisprudence and by the stakeholders who were heard at the committee, highlight the systemic and structural barriers these communities face when it comes to having their constitutional rights to access education in their language recognized and exercising those rights.

This jurisprudence also points to a history of tensions between OLMCs and provincial governments when it comes to upholding the rights of these minorities. These tensions are fuelled by omissions similar to those currently found in clause 8, which have allowed provinces and territories to justify infringing on the rights of OLMCs across the country for years. It is time to change this dynamic and grant these communities the means to assert their rights before the courts.

The bill, in its initial form, provided no specific guarantees for OLMCs. Although three mentions were added at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place, François Larocque, a professor, lawyer and language rights expert, and the Honourable Michel Bastarache, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, both highlighted, in their testimony to the Social Affairs Committee, the persistent inconsistencies and risks associated with omitting official language minority communities from clause 8 of the bill.

Clarification enshrined directly in the act is critically important. It plays a decisive role in the courts’ analysis of the legislator’s intent, taking into account the intrinsic evidence.

Indeed, Canadian jurisprudence on language rights is clear in this regard. François Larocque, in his brief to the committee, refers to the decision in Caron v. Alberta, in which the Supreme Court of Canada refused to acknowledge the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant legislative and constitutional documents.

Colleagues, the legal risks inherent in this omission are real and substantiated by the facts and by the relevant jurisprudence on language rights. The absence of any explicit reference in clause 8 is therefore deeply concerning to official language minority communities. In my opinion, the committee should have taken the opportunity to clarify the legislator’s intent directly in the wording of the bill in order to minimize, as much as possible, any risk of causing harm to official language minority communities.

[English]

However, the government was unequivocally against any amendment and misled the committee in several aspects of its arguments.

New funding mechanism: Initially, the government claimed that the suggested amendment would establish a new funding mechanism for the official language minority communities. Respectfully, this interpretation of the proposed amendment is inaccurate.

Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada, stated:

 . . . legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or role in delivering ELCC programs and services and in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system as the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners do. Adding a reference to that group, then, in clause 8 would create the expectation for dedicated and increased funding. . . .

While the official was correct in distinguishing roles in program delivery, the interpretation of the amendment is misleading. Nowhere in the amendment was there a suggestion to treat official language minority communities as a governing body entitled to direct funding from the federal government.

In response to a specific question posed by the bill’s sponsor at the Social Affairs Committee, Professor Larocque provided the following statement to assist the committee in their deliberations:

Clause 8, on the other hand, specifies that funding is passed on through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, and not directly to the communities, and that’s not what’s being asked for and reflected in the suggested amendments.

So it’s not a new mechanism that’s being proposed here, but quite simply, as my colleague suggests, taking into account the linguistic rights of official language minority communities in a firm long-term commitment.

Clause 8 currently reads:

The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. . . .

We can observe that the scope of the commitment in clause 8 extends to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, while specifying a commitment for the long-term funding of programs and services for Indigenous peoples because of the word “including.” However, the inclusion or exclusion of official language minority communities from this commitment is unclear, and that is the problem. Following this, the clause states:

The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.

This enumeration establishes that funding must be granted through the appropriate mechanism. For official language minority communities, if they were to be included in clause 8, it would be done through the provinces. Official language minority communities do not have a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government, unlike Indigenous governing bodies. Adding a reference to official language minority communities will not substantially change the law of the land, and it would be absurd to pretend that it will.

Adding an explicit reference to official language minority communities regarding guaranteed long-term funding by the federal government does not, in any way, diminish the protection and guarantees afforded to Indigenous peoples under this bill and under our Constitution, nor does it grant official language minority communities any rights that they don’t already possess. It provides them with a legal tool if the services in their languages are fewer and of lower quality than those provided to the majority of a given province.

The second argument brought forward by the government was regarding competing rights. Officials stated that the amendment could be detrimental to Indigenous languages. Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Employment and Social Development Canada, said the following:

I’ll highlight that we officials were following the testimony of Indigenous representatives here last week. As Senator Moodie highlighted, President Obed was quite vocal about the absence of Indigenous Languages Act references and suggested the exclusive references to official languages came at the detriment of Indigenous languages.

First and foremost, this statement would be inconsistent with clause 3 of the bill which explicitly guarantees the rights of Indigenous peoples. It states:

This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

The statement of Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, was distorted both in committee and at third reading of the bill. In committee, when I asked Mr. Obed for his thoughts on this potential amendment to clause 8, he answered the following:

I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.

In this context, Mr. Obed addressed official languages while committee members were led to believe that his statement related to the amendment, which specifically concerns official language minority communities rather than official languages. The use of “official languages” and “official language minority communities” interchangeably by government officials and the bill’s sponsor created confusion when informing senators about the amendment’s impact on Indigenous peoples. Let me elaborate on the distinction between these two concepts.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-234 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 2,

(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:

(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.

Thank you.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I really liked the questions that were asked, because they were all about figures and numbers. If there is one thing we didn’t study about Bill C-234, it was the whole financial side of things, which would have allowed us to distinguish between capital expenditures, taxable expenses, expenses related to heating costs, and so on. The fact that we skipped this aspect means that part of the conversation around Bill C-234 was left out.

[English]

I rise today to speak at third reading on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Amending the Greenhouse Gas Pollutioning Pricing Act is a complex issue.

The Agriculture Committee heard from numerous experts during their five meetings on Bill C-234. Many of those witnesses told the committee that while alternatives to propane and natural gas grain dryers were limited, many efficiency improvements are already available, which can offset the cost increases associated with the carbon price by reducing fuel use by 30%.

In short, there was no clear consensus on Bill C-234. Many witnesses opposed the exemptions set out in this bill, particularly those who don’t stand to benefit from it.

Given that the Agriculture Committee report was rejected, this bill, once again, deals with barn heating. Witnesses spoke about technologies that are available today to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in barn heating. Tom Green from the David Suzuki Foundation said there are evermore examples of farms that are reducing their fossil fuel consumption and improving energy efficiency.

For instance, a poultry farm in Linden, Alberta, has a 175‑kilowatt rooftop solar system. In other cases, a poultry barn built with a high-efficiency thermal envelope reduces energy consumption by 83% per ton of eggs — 83% efficiency increases. This technology is now available.

Colleagues of mine on the Agriculture Committee could have spent significant time digging further into the benefits and drawbacks of this policy decision. They also said they would have appreciated a report from the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance which never came and which I think would have been important for the calculations that are very important in this bill, as I said earlier.

Importantly, the committee didn’t fully explore the realities of climate change and the potential cost to the agricultural sector if left unmitigated. However, we must conclude that those costs are consequential.

We heard that this bill will lead to less action on climate change. Mr. Lindberg, a manager with Environment and Climate Change Canada, said that:

. . . economics and massive experience with markets tell us that without this incentive, all things being equal, less action will be taken to reduce the use of these fuels. . . . All things being equal, without carbon pricing, we definitely see higher emissions globally in the economy.

Senators, we need action on climate change. We should not incentivize inaction. While some colleagues have determined this legislation is necessary to present circumstances, I think we can all agree that we do not know whether such a carve‑out will be necessary in eight years from now. But this legislation assumes we will need to extend the carve‑out far into the future, which is why this legislation includes a very unusual set of clauses which empowers the government — eight years from now — to extend the sunset period through an order-in-council and motions in both houses. This, colleagues, is a low bar and the decision to extend the sunset period for this carve‑out implies a willingness to perpetuate it in the future.

As Senator Woo pointed out at the Agriculture Committee on October 24, the eight-year sunset period will make it more difficult for any farmers to make a transition if they have not done the necessary preparations in the intervening period. The carbon price will have gone up substantially between now and 2031.

I don’t think we heard evidence that this justifies the inclusion of this uncommon, low-bar approach to extending the effective life of this carve‑out.

Given the real and devastating crisis caused by climate change, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to conduct fulsome analysis of our policy decisions and their impacts today and into the future. If, when this legislation sunsets, lawmakers wish to create a new carve‑out, they can introduce new legislation to address this issue.

For those reasons, I would like to move the following amendment, which eliminates Bill C-234’s mechanism to extend the exemption beyond the sunset period by Governor-in-Council resolution and motions of the House of Commons and the Senate.

Senator Moncion: I believe that it is similar.

Senator Moncion: Yes, I will.

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the recent changes to the Senate Room Allocation Policy by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended as follows:

1.That the Senate Administrative Rules be amended

(a)in Chapter 5:03 by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

“Basic staff

Additional Staff

(2) The Internal Economy Committee may direct the Clerk Assistant, Committees, to provide a committee with any additional staff that the Committee sees fit.

Schedule and room allocation

(b)in Chapter 5:04 by replacing subsection 2(2) with the following:

“Meeting schedule

(2) The Clerk Assistant, Committees, in consultation with the caucus spokespersons, will assign a meeting schedule and reserve a room for each caucus that meets regularly. Due consideration should be given to the size of a caucus and its status as a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, as defined by the Rules of the Senate.”; and

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark Co-op Week, which was from October 15 to 21, 2023, with the theme “All for one.”

Co-op Week is an opportunity to celebrate the cooperative model and raise awareness of its virtues among the business community, Canadians and governments. Unlike capitalist businesses, which are primarily profit-driven, the cooperative model is rooted in a perspective of sustainable, responsible socio-economic development that puts people, communities and their needs first.

The cooperative model has proven itself over the years, both nationally and worldwide, through innovation, goodwill and a surprising ability to adapt.

To illustrate my point, I’d like to highlight a few success stories from across Canada and around the world. They include Agropur, Federated Co-operatives Limited, Co-operators, Sollio Cooperative Group, Gay Lea, Arctic Co-operatives Limited, Fogo Island Co-Operative Society Ltd. and many others. They also include the Green Bay Packers, Ocean Spray, Crédit Mutuel and Mondragon.

Although the cooperative business model doesn’t always lead the way in terms of rapid return on investment, the fact remains that it meets the needs of those who choose to work together.

I’ve spoken to you before about the Coopérative régionale de Moonbeam Ltée. Senators will recall that, in 2012, the local grocery store was about to close its doors because it couldn’t find a buyer to take over.

The people of Moonbeam took action to form a cooperative, raise funds and elect a board of administrators. Eleven years later, the co-op is still in operation and has been so successful that it is now expanding. A new, bigger and more modern store will be built in the coming year, so that the co-op can do an even better job of serving its customers.

Co-op Week is an opportunity to promote the co-op model and business success stories like that of the Coopérative régionale de Moonbeam Ltée.

I’d like to take this opportunity today to thank the representatives and organizations in this sector, who work hard and promote the interests of co‑ops to local, provincial and federal governments. Your contributions are essential in developing inclusive laws and policies that make the co-op model a solution of choice.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration entitled Annual Report on Parliamentary Associations’ Activities and Expenditures for 2022-23.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. I welcome the arrival of this bill in the Senate because it delivers an essential blueprint for society that will allow Canadian parents, especially Canadian mothers, to access the labour market. For many mothers, accessing the labour market depends in large part on access to affordable child care.

[English]

The purpose of my speech is to shed light on the issues of equity in access to child care services for children belonging to official language minority communities. The enactment of this law is an opportunity to give ourselves the means to achieve our ambitions so that these children have access to early learning and child care services of equivalent quality to those of the English‑speaking majority.

For francophone parents, access to French-language child care services is a question of language survival in the context of the steady decline in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. For these parents, the transmission of the language — from early childhood onward — enables their children to enter the French-language education continuum. Serving as a vehicle for linguistic and cultural transmission, early childhood education and child care services contribute to the survival and vitality of official language minority communities from generation to generation.

[Translation]

Protecting linguistic vitality through early childhood education is also a matter of rights for these communities.

Access to child care services in the language of the minority is key to the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to minority language education.

To give francophone children an equal chance at success, they must have access to educational services in French, beginning in early childhood. The early childhood learning environment prepares children for school by giving them the language skills that are essential to their scholastic and academic success.

The other side of the coin is assimilation. Before they even begin to speak, children who don’t have access to child care services in their language are faced with significant pressure to assimilate that could compromise their chances of living in French.

Practically speaking, if these children end up in anglophone child care facilities because they don’t have access to French services, their parents could end up sending them to an English school because they are worried that their child doesn’t have the language skills they need to succeed in a minority language school. That’s one of the factors that might explain why we are seeing the demographic weight of francophones in Canada dropping little by little.

Indeed, access to French-language education throughout the education continuum is a monumental challenge for many francophone parents in predominantly English-speaking provinces and territories.

In a 2016 report entitled Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of Francophone Minority Communities, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages highlights some of the important issues facing francophone parents. The report states the following:

Programs and services for young children have been developed with various systems of governance, funding streams and training for staff. As a result, families face a highly fragmented early childhood landscape of unconnected options, diverse eligibility criteria and payment requirements.

These comments from the commissioner suggest that the needs of francophone minority communities must be at the forefront in the development of a national system of early childhood learning and child care.

The legislative framework for this system should clearly include a commitment from the federal government to ensure solid core funding for these communities.

Let me give you a few figures to illustrate the disparities that currently exist in some provinces.

[English]

According to Statistics Canada’s 2021 census data, we have 141,635 children aged zero to four who are French-speaking rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These children have a constitutional right to instruction in their language from early childhood. However, according to the Commission nationale des parents francophones, it’s estimated that only 20% of these children are served in French, as there are about 29,000 of these children in French‑language preschool daycare — it’s a difference of more than 110,000.

In New Brunswick, for example, 1,900 daycare spaces were announced — only 300 of these are reserved for francophones. This figure represents barely 16% of the population, whereas New Brunswick’s French-speaking population is around 30%. In Alberta, out of the 1,500 new spaces announced, only 19 are reserved for francophones — representing 0.013% of spaces for francophones, who account for 2% of Alberta’s population.

This is a trend observed across Canada, from province to province and territory to territory. According to data from Ontario’s Early Years and Child Care Annual Report 2022, there would be a shortfall of 36,567 French-language spaces to meet the needs of mother tongue French-speaking children in the province — not counting children whose first official language is French, but whose mother tongue is not French.

I propose to give you an overview of the bill as it relates to official language minority communities. It’s worth noting that the first version of the bill tabled in the House of Commons makes no mention of official language minority communities or official languages. This touches Quebec as much as it touches everywhere else in Canada. Needless to say, I was disappointed that the official language minority communities must constantly remain vigilant so as not to be forgotten by governments, whether provincial, territorial or federal.

[Translation]

Is that due to a lack of knowledge or an oversight of children’s language rights on the part of Employment and Social Development Canada, or a lack of collaboration between different departments, including Canadian Heritage?

I have in-depth knowledge of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, and I know that oversights like this one are, unfortunately, all too common within the government. We have to do better and expect better if official language minority communities are to be taken into account in legislation right from the start, when appropriate.

The bill was passed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on May 2, 2023.

Thankfully, amendments made by the committee of the other place greatly improved the bill in that regard. These amendments reassured communities, but concerns still remain. The Commission nationale des parents francophones, or CNPF, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, who speak for francophone parents in Canada, expressed their concerns about the legislation as it was passed in the other place, especially regarding the omission of official language minority communities, or OLMCs, in section 8.

Three amendments passed by the committee added mentions of OLMCs in the bill.

Clause 7 sets out the objectives of federal investments in the area of early learning and child care. An amendment was made to this clause by adding the words, “. . . and of children from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity . . . .”

The second amendment adopted by the committee adds a paragraph to clause 7 that sets out the government’s commitments. The new clause specifies that:

Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act

The third amendment amends clause 11, which has to do with the appointment of members of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. The amendment specifies that official language minority communities must be represented on the council. Indigenous peoples were also added to this clause in the same amendment. It is rather strange that this was omitted.

This clearly shows the importance of a strong, unambiguous legislative text.

The government already has many obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act when spending money on early childhood education. Despite the lack of investments, the envelopes related to this act are usually given to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As I said earlier, the first version of the bill did not include official language minority communities. OLMCs have fallen through the cracks at the Department of Employment and Social Development. That’s why it’s important to be cautious in drafting legislation to govern how the department manages its funds.

That makes me wonder if the text of the bill, with the amendments by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, is sufficient to ensure implementation consistent with the language rights of OLMCs under section 23 of the Charter and with the government’s obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Even though most of the bilateral agreements between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments include provisions designed to meet the needs of OLMCs, they’re vague and don’t include specific targets.

Official language minority communities know these agreements are fragile and temporary. These bilateral agreements are based on legislation that should be muscular and unambiguous.

These are the lessons we learned during our study of Bill C-13 to amend the Official Languages Act.

As far as implementing the act goes, the omission of OLMCs in certain sections can have an impact on programs rolled out by the government through the public service, policies resulting from the bill and the negotiation and implementation of future agreements with provinces and territories.

In terms of statutory interpretation, when considering a bill, legislators must also examine the interconnection between the actual text of the bill and how the courts may interpret it in the future. Statutory interpretation requires judges to take into account a series of weighted factors in order to determine the true or best meaning of an act’s wording.

With the judicialization of language conflicts in Canada, legislators have to take this exercise seriously and make the wording as clear as possible and as close as possible to its true intention. We have to take a close look at the impacts of omitting to mention OLMCs, notably in clause 8, which codifies the commitment to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services.

Bill C-35 could be improved to better consider the needs of OLMCs. I hope that my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will study this bill from the perspective of including official language minority communities, and francophones in particular.

I support sending this bill to committee as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

Senator Moncion: Thank you for the question.

I completely agree with you, senator. It’s important to hear from the people involved in those calculations because they can connect those dots for us — we’re running out of time, and I don’t know if senators want to give us a little more.

Senator Moncion: Of course, Senator Cormier.

Senator Moncion: Thank you, colleagues.

The group that deals with that sent us the dollar amounts and number of child care spaces, and, yes, we’ll give you that information. We’re going to ask the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to invite those people because they really have a lot of information gathered from coast to coast to coast. These people, who are with the FCFA, will be able to provide guidance as we revise the act to ensure that it recognizes and enforces the rights of francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

I don’t think I answered your question fully, but I believe that, as we study this matter, we’ll monitor things carefully and some people will keep an eagle eye on the bill and its potential impact on francophone families outside Quebec and anglophone families in Quebec.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of June 13, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the adoption of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended in Chapter 3:05

(a)by repealing the heading before section 1, section 1, subsections 10(2) and (3) and section 11; and

(b)by replacing the heading before section 2 and subsections 2(1) and (2) with the following:

“Committee Budgets

(a) adopted by the committee;

(b) submitted by the committee to the Internal Economy Committee for its consideration; and

(c) presented to the Senate by committee report, with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee attached.

(2) A budget prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) must contain a detailed estimate of the committee’s special expenses for the fiscal year.”; and

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

She said: Honourable senators, this motion proposes consequential changes to the Senate Administrative Rules that are necessary to implement a new financial policy for Senate committees, which was adopted by the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023. The new policy will come into force at the end of September 2023.

[Translation]

I want to point out that this policy compiles into one comprehensive document long-standing decisions, policies, practices and guidelines of the Internal Economy Committee that apply to Senate committees in the area of financial management and committee budgets. Most of these measures are nothing new and will be familiar to senators who have participated in committee travel activities in the past.

[English]

The new policy streamlines the committee budget process to reflect the activity-based budgeting system that has been in place for over 10 years. It also replaces outdated financial reports on committee expenditures with the new legislative requirement for proactive disclosure. I would also note that last week, the Senate adopted changes to the Rules of the Senate, which also repealed obsolete sessional financial reports. Committees will continue to post quarterly, public, proactive disclosure reports, along with an annual report, which follow the fiscal years on the Senate of Canada website. These changes are simply to align our Senate Administrative Rules with the new policy, and will help ensure that the Senate continues to inform the public about spending by its committees in an open and transparent manner.

Thank you again, colleagues, for your consent.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in light of the recent changes to the Senate Room Allocation Policy by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended as follows:

1.That the Senate Administrative Rules be amended

(a)in Chapter 5:03 by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

“Basic staff

Additional Staff

(2) The Internal Economy Committee may direct the Clerk Assistant, Committees, to provide a committee with any additional staff that the Committee sees fit.

Schedule and room allocation

(b)in Chapter 5:04 by replacing subsection 2(2) with the following:

“Meeting schedule

(2) The Clerk Assistant, Committees, in consultation with the caucus spokespersons, will assign a meeting schedule and reserve a room for each caucus that meets regularly. Due consideration should be given to the size of a caucus and its status as a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, as defined by the Rules of the Senate.”; and

2.That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, yesterday, September 25, was Franco-Ontarian Day, an opportunity to recognize and celebrate our language, culture and diversity.

For many years, Ontario’s governments treated its francophones with contempt, even though they made significant contributions to the province’s economic success. Take, for example, Regulation 17, which was adopted in 1912 and prohibited the use of French as a language of instruction.

Over time, that contempt would evolve, leading to important changes for Ontario’s francophones. In 1968, under the leadership of Conservative premier John Robarts, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed the Schools Administration Act, or Bill 140, and the Secondary Schools and Boards Act, or Bill 141, which provided for the creation of a French-language school board.

Then, a milestone was reached with regard to the recognition of the rights of francophones in Ontario when Bernard Grandmaître, the minister responsible for francophone affairs under David Peterson’s Liberal government, introduced the French Language Services Act in 1986. That legislation came into force in November 1989.

That legislation recognizes the historic, honourable role of the French language, as well as its status as an official language of Canada in the courts, in education and in all institutions of the legislature and government of the province. It also recognizes the contribution of the cultural heritage of the francophone population, enriched by its diversity and by a desire to preserve it for future generations.

In June 2001, the Ontario government recognized the Franco‑Ontarian flag as a symbol of solidarity and irrevocable involvement in the province’s economic and political environment. In April 2010, it officially designated September 25 as Franco-Ontarian Day, formally recognizing the language rights and cultural identity of the minority community.

Finally, on March 2, 2017, the song Notre place, meaning “our place,” became the official anthem of the Franco-Ontarian community following a motion moved by Grant Crack, the MPP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. This inclusive song invites all francophones in Ontario, no matter where they live or where they come from, to stop hiding their language, to put French accents where they belong, and to sing their pride.

Through more than 100 years of history, perseverance, sustained effort and collective solidarity, Franco-Ontarians have freed themselves and now occupy a special place in the huge tapestry that is Ontario.

With this statement, I wish to acknowledge all those who have fought over the years, and those who continue to fight, for the recognition of the rights of francophones in Ontario.

It’s thanks to them that I can say, loud and clear, “I’m a Franco-Ontarian and proud of it.” Thank you.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the following documents, which form part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration from the Second Session of the Forty‑first Parliament, be referred to the Committee so that it may then authorize their disclosure for the purposes of an adjudication under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act:

1.email from the Honourable David Wells to the Honourable Leo Housakos dated November 30, 2015, at 11:17 a.m.; and

2.email from the Honourable George Furey, K.C., to the Honourable Leo Housakos dated November 30, 2015, at 1:55 p.m.

[English]