Hon. Gwen Boniface: Would Senator Boisvenu take a question?

[Translation]

Hon. Gwen Boniface: I would like to ask a question of Senator Clement, if I may. Thank you.

I’m always caught on this issue because I also know that the reason this bail reform bill is coming before us — as opposed to the tragic circumstances you mentioned — actually involves the deaths of police officers. Domestic disturbances are one of the most serious issues that police officers respond to. I ask then, was any of that introduced at committee?

Second, what about the second victim of someone who is an abuser? What about the third victim? I appreciate the perspective you come from and, as Senator Batters says, that the data was absent, but I’m concerned we may be missing the point with the bill itself. Taking it out of the bill doesn’t resolve the issue of mass incarceration of Indigenous women.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, on August 14 we lost a great Canadian. The Honourable James Bartleman lived an extraordinary life, which began in my home region. He was born in Orillia and was a member of the Chippewas of Rama First Nation.

He spent his formative years in Port Carling, in the Muskoka Lakes region. His Honour benefited from the love and attention of his parents, who made sure their children were proud of their heritage and valued education.

A part-time job as a teenager cutting grass resulted in an unlikely friendship between him and a seasonal resident, who not only encouraged but subsidized his university education. That hand-up led him on an inspiring 35-year path of public service and advocacy.

James Bartleman’s impressive career began at Foreign Affairs, where he held diplomatic posts in the EU, NATO, Israel and Cuba. He also served as High Commissioner to South Africa and Australia and made history when he was named Ontario’s first Indigenous Lieutenant Governor.

As viceroy, he used the platform to champion Indigenous child literacy. I had the privilege to participate in one of his initiatives: a simple idea to collect donated books and provide them to remote First Nations communities. Well, 2 million books found their way to children in Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut.

His Honour also shone a light on mental health at a time when most suffered in silence. He bravely spoke out about his depression and PTSD, which were brought on by a brutal attack he endured while serving Canada in South Africa. Those efforts to reduce the stigma were recognized when he received the Dr. Hugh Lafave and the Courage To Come Back Awards.

James Bartleman received many other accolades including 13 honorary degrees and the National Aboriginal Achievement Award in Public Service. He was also named an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Despite all of that, he never strayed from his roots and the values his parents cherished. Chief of the Rama First Nation Ted Williams reflected:

He was a man of the highest integrity, he was a champion for the underprivileged and he was an inspiration for the First Nation community.

That alone is a legacy worth celebrating.

Please join me in sending condolences to his wife, Marie‑Jeanne; and his children, Anne-Pascale, Laurent and Alain.

Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Senator McCallum, thank you very much for explaining the bill. I wanted to bring something to your attention and ask you a question related to a discussion we had yesterday.

In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, policing would be done by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec in many of the northern communities, as well as by First Nation police services. In Northern Ontario, it’s the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service or the Treaty Three Police Service.

How will the amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act impact those? Because that would maybe mean provincial — or, in the case of tripartite agreements, between the federal and provincial — interplay with stand-alone police services in First Nation communities.

Is there a mechanism that will allow that to take place or will that need further legislation? Is that something the committee should look at?

Senator McCallum: I made a statement about how it doesn’t affect all the communities across Canada because some of them have their own agreements. It excludes them.

These are specifically for a certain group of people. I did ask that question because I was working with lawyers. I made a statement in there that it doesn’t involve the ones that already have their own ways of dealing with the issues. There are some bands in B.C. that have already dealt with this through a tripartite agreement. It doesn’t include them.

When this bill goes to committee, we will invite the groups that have their own agreements to tell us what works and what doesn’t in order to inform parliamentarians about any concerns we should have.

(On motion of Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, welcome back.

Toronto Police Constable Andrew Hong; South Simcoe Police Constable Devon Northrup; South Simcoe Constable Morgan Russell; RCMP Constable Shaelyn Yang; OPP Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala; Edmonton Police Constable Travis Jordan; Edmonton Police Constable Brett Ryan; Sûreté du Québec Sergeant Maureen Breau; RCMP Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami; OPP Sergeant Eric Mueller; OPP Detective Constable Steven Tourangeau.

Dear colleagues, 11 Canadian police officers’ lives were taken while in the line of duty in the past year. Eleven spouses and life partners no longer have their person. Twelve children have been left with a gaping hole they will feel for the rest of their lives. An unborn child will never meet their father. Parents an ocean away have lost their daughter. A retired police officer has lost the child who followed in their footsteps. It is a club nobody wants to belong to. It has been devastating for families and colleagues, and so tragic for our communities and our own sense of safety.

This Sunday is Police and Peace Officers’ National Memorial Day. Every year, on the last Sunday in September, a memorial service is held on Parliament Hill to honour the lives of police officers and peace officers who have been killed in the line of duty. The memorial gives an opportunity for their loved ones to gather, grieve and remember together.

Colleagues, we know this has been a tragic year — in a way that is unlike any other that I have experienced. I invite you to join my family and me, and all the dignitaries and the police family at the service, which begins at 11 a.m. on Sunday. The parade will step off at 10:15 on Wellington Street at the Supreme Court. Please join as we remember them, grieve with their families and honour their dedication and commitment to our communities. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today, once again. The grief in the Ontario Provincial Police is unbearable. There are simply no words to describe how this tragedy affects everyone in the service, in the little community of Bourget and across eastern Ontario.

Last Thursday, three officers were shot following a call to a residence in the rural community of Bourget, just 50 kilometres from here. Sergeant Eric Mueller was killed. The two other officers were hospitalized, one of them with critical injuries.

Sergeant Eric Mueller was a 21-year veteran of the OPP, having served with the Offender Transport Unit for four years before becoming a provincial constable in 2006. I had the privilege of swearing in Eric in my final year as commissioner. Eric served in the Leeds County detachment before transferring to Russell County. He became a sergeant in 2018.

Let me tell you who he was. He was a fine young man and a deeply dedicated police officer. Seriously injured on duty in 2008, he fought hard to fulfill his desire to return to work as a police officer. Eric was a leader amongst the finest to his shift mates; to his community, he was seen as a gentleman; to his friends and colleagues, he was described as one of the finest, kindest and smartest officers they’ve had the chance to work with.

He was a brother, a husband, a son and a father. He did his job to the best of his ability — a natural in the service to others. In 2015, Sergeant Mueller received the Commissioner’s Citation for Lifesaving after he helped rescue an injured suspect who was trapped under a burning vehicle.

Tomorrow, officers and first responders will gather to honour him and his family here in Ottawa at 11 a.m.

Colleagues, please take a moment to think of the many mourners who will gather here in Ottawa, but especially of his family, his colleagues and his friends. Please join me in wishing the injured officers a full and speedy recovery. To the officers of Russell County, I want them to know we are with them.

This tragedy is impossible to make sense of. We have lost a talented police officer. A wife has lost her husband. Two young children have lost their father. May we forever remember the sacrifice he has made.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to acknowledge May as the month that recognizes both Mental Health Week and National Police Week. Issues of mental health crisis make up as many as 40% of the calls for police assistance, a significant increase in the last decade.

The social services available to assist people experiencing a mental health crisis have failed to keep up despite the very good intentions of workers. It creates a revolving door of police calls with little assistance and few solutions for those who suffer.

In the police community, they too have been affected. Mental health issues resulting from trauma that they and their fellow first responders experience at work have had a devastating effect on officers right across the country.

An Ombudsman Ontario report found that police officers are more likely to die from suicide than a violent crime. In a study of two Canadian police departments, 88% of police officers reported moderate to severe anxiety. In some services and circumstances in my province of Ontario, 20% of police officers are off work because of mental illness, according to a report by the Chief Coroner.

As these facts move from the shadows to the light, I am grateful for officers who have endured the trauma, advocated relentlessly and succeeded in bringing awareness and resources to their fellow officers.

One such officer joins us today. Retired OPP Constable Dave Blair has volunteered and worked tirelessly to raise awareness and seek assistance for police officers and first responders who suffer from the cumulative effects of PTSD and moral injury. He was instrumental in bringing a California program to Ontario.

He and many fellow peer supporters continue to work hard to support those in need of a path of recovery.

Honourable senators, there is a drastic reduction in applicants to police services. Police services are, in turn, experiencing serious staff shortages which further exacerbate the situation: too many calls involving trauma, and too few people available to respond.

This weekend in Toronto, the Ontario Police Memorial will add the names of four officers who have died in the line of duty this year: Constable Northrup, Constable Russell, Constable Hong and Constable Pierzchala.

For those officers who responded to assist after those calls and suffer today, may they have all the support they need. In the police business, you cannot unhear what you have heard, unsee what you have seen or undo what has been done. May their journey forward take them into the light and not into the shadows. Thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much, senator, for your speech. I think you hit the nail on the head, and I congratulate you. I had the same question. That was my concern.

Just as an add-on, I am just asking if you would agree. I know, Senator Patterson, we need to hear from the police investigators that this doesn’t affect how they see investigations going forward. The last thing we want to do is create some notion of two pieces when we have been working under one.

I come from an organization, as you know, that has been deeply involved in this for a long time in terms of investigations, so that was my concern about unintended consequences. I can only assume you have the same concern. Would I be correct in that?

Senator R. Patterson: You would be correct. This is why I think it is very important that this bill gets to committee for this look. I believe that we would like to have it on record that this must be reported back on as the committee goes through its work.

Senator Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the inquiry put forward by Senator Harder with respect to the RCMP, its roles and its mandate.

As some of you know, I had the privilege of serving in the Republic of Ireland in my earlier days and was a part of the establishment of an inspectorate to oversee reform and modernization of the national police service there. Particularly, we looked at the structure, mandate, roles and responsibilities. It is from that perspective that I speak with respect to the RCMP.

The Garda, as they are known in Ireland, serve local, regional, national and international mandates on behalf of the republic and its 3.5 million people. What I learned working there, and which I think applies very much to Canada, is the history of policing is the history of a country. For Canada, I think the RCMP is very similar. At the core, problems within the RCMP are inherently structural. One hundred and fifty years later, it is time to design a fit-for-purpose police service.

The RCMP serves 8 provinces, 3 territories and 150 municipalities — some as large as a million people — and vast swaths of rural and northern communities. They police in hundreds of First Nations and Inuit communities. But I think what is most important is the role of federal policing because that is what keeps our country safe. They deal with national and international organized crime, cybercrime, major fraud, human trafficking, drug smuggling, anti-terrorism and other broad-based threats to safety and security that are national in nature and impact all of us.

Looked at globally, policing is a vast mandate that is largely unchanged from a century ago. It is a jumble of accountabilities and responsibilities, which inevitably lead to confusion rather than clarity. This is the difficulty, of course, on the federation of which our country is built, but it is also the foundation on which the RCMP was built, and, in turn, where they have developed.

For the RCMP, I believe that we have a structural impediment to policing in Canada, an organizational structure that is failing both them and the citizens, despite individual and collective efforts. As Canadians, we need to give our national federal police service the funding and resources that they need to face the challenges of tomorrow. Technology has completely changed in the world, but I can assure you, it has especially changed in the world of crime and crime-fighting.

This was reinforced in the Brown Task Force from 2007, more than 15 years ago. This report argued that:

. . . the RCMP’s approach to governance is based on a model and style of policing developed from and for another policing era.

Neither incremental change nor reforms led from within are going to make the RCMP the police force that times demand. It is structural change. That mandate change has to be led by government — it is not led internally — and successive governments have failed to take that initiative.

We need to ask ourselves a number of questions in this inquiry. Should a modern federal police service be a contract supplier of police services to 8 provinces, 3 territories, 150 municipalities and hundreds of rural communities and First Nations? I would argue that we would have to have a very clear picture of what we want as an outcome before you could move in that direction. It would also require legislation and cooperation of our provinces to mandate, as they have responsibility for policing. As we know from watching the changeover in policing in the City of Surrey, this can be a complicated, chaotic mess.

Two thirds of all RCMP personnel are in contract policing. Kevin Lynch, in a report that he provided recently, said:

. . . the real obstacles to getting out of contract policing are largely political, at both the federal and provincial levels, not operational—they are a function of history, culture and inertia.

I would firmly argue that they are also part of political indifference. The result is that Canada’s efforts in the critically important areas of federal policing are not adequately resourced, and this can pose a threat to public safety across Canada.

You and I know that we are living in complicated times. The RCMP has to create a modern culture and clear leadership values, which will have to be supported by recruitment, training and development. Training needs to be built to meet that fit-for-purpose organization.

Canada must as well move to a new Indigenous policing model. Ontario has been well advanced on this since the early 1990s, when the first five-year tripartite agreement was signed. I had the privilege of being present for that signing, and have closely watched First Nation police services develop and grow across the province. They have established themselves very well.

Uniformed RCMP constables in Indigenous communities are often seen as representative of the colonial past. This should not continue. It is the right way to go to ensure proper accountability for policing First Nation communities — to undergo a First Nation policing model for them.

The government must adequately resource the fit-for-purpose RCMP so that it can be a sophisticated and effective police service with a well-defined mandate. These proposed structural changes and any associated transitional measures will not be cheap, but it is necessary. Inaction will only exacerbate the problems, something that should be a very unappealing prospect for any future government of any party.

The process of reform is difficult. We need a broad public understanding of its purpose, and structural reform will particularly need to be based on consultation with stakeholders, including the provinces, the municipalities and the public.

Canada has long tended to underfund its obligations in the areas of policing, intelligence and security. With that failure comes risks and consequences that are only too apparent in the RCMP today. We will need a more effective governance framework and an appropriately empowered management board to provide effective external oversight and guidance. The current advisory board lacks transparency, clarity of mandate and meaningful oversight.

I am encouraged, however, by the recent appointment of Kent Roach as chair of the advisory committee. Mr. Roach is known to many of us in this chamber for his appearances before the Legal and Defence Committees. I believe he will bring clarity to the role, and help bring needed change.

We must, however, create a clear and clean line with respect to government direction and RCMP operational independence. This must be explored in this review. There is no government that has taken this issue as seriously as they should.

Therefore, I think this chamber sits in a very unique position to undertake this work, and I wholeheartedly support Senator Harder’s proposal. Thank you very much.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay homage to the Honourable Joan Bissett Neiman. She died on November 27, 2022, at the age of 102, after living a unique and rich life. At the time of her death, she had been the oldest living Canadian who served in this Senate.

Joan was born in 1920 in Winnipeg to Catherine and Dr. Edgar Bissett. Her father served as Member of Parliament for Springfield, Manitoba, between 1926 and 1930. Joan’s formative years were marked by spending time outdoors with their family at their beloved Willard Lake and voraciously reading all the books in her father’s library. She began her university studies at the tender age of 16 at Mount Allison University, earning a Bachelor of Arts in English. She was active in the students’ union, theatre society and newspaper. Soon after graduation, she served in the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service during World War II, retiring in 1946 as a lieutenant-commander.

Joan met the love of her life, Clem, at Osgoode Hall Law School, and they went into practice together in downtown Toronto. Together they raised four children and were married for 66 years.

Joan was appointed to the Senate in 1972, making her the fourteenth female senator at the time. She served for 23 years until her retirement. On the topic of female senators, she was quoted as saying:

 . . . it is nice that 15 of us are in the Senate today. That is a beginning. I think it has made a tremendous difference to have women in the Senate . . .

Her work as a senator included chairing both the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted suicide. She was very proud to have been the first Canadian to chair the human rights committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Following her retirement from the Senate, she continued to contribute to the issues she held dear, such as penal reform, women’s and Indigenous rights and universal health care. She was a member of the Dalhousie Health Law Institute end-of-life project, the Citizens Panel on Increasing Organ Donations and the Patron’s Council of Dying With Dignity Canada.

I had the pleasure of getting to know Joan in her retirement years, which she and Clem spent in our region. They were a formidable team. She was preceded in death by Clem and daughter Martha, and is survived by her children, Dallas, Patti and David, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

A memory shared by a friend summed up Joan perfectly:

Joan loved to giggle, especially at Clem’s jokes, and could express a point of view with the logic of a lawyer, the warmth of a mother and friend, and the experience of a WAC. She made a tenacious and inspired commitment to issues of public policy, and it must have been as rewarding to Joan as it has been to many others, for her pioneering ideas to now have the force of law.

Rest in peace, dear Joan, a trailblazer for all of us who stand in this chamber.

Thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to honour the life and service of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala. Greg was killed in the line of duty on December 27 when he responded to a call to assist a vehicle in a ditch near Hagersville in southwestern Ontario. He was 28 years old.

Greg was new to policing and had a full life and career ahead of him. He had previously served in the Canadian Forces and was a Special Constable at Queen’s Park in Toronto. Sadly, he had just learned that he passed his probationary period on the day of the shooting.

Greg grew up in Barrie, Ontario, and was an accomplished student and multi-sport athlete who is remembered for his grit and team spirit. He was also a lover of art. By all accounts, he was an inspiring, determined and compassionate man who always looked for the good in people.

Constable Pierzchala wanted to be a police officer since he was 5 years old and said he had finally found his dream job. He is described by his colleagues as a quiet leader with a strong character who quickly earned the respect of his peers.

On that fateful day, Greg answered a call — amongst many that snowy day — for a stranded vehicle in the ditch. He was shot shortly after his arrival. Despite valiant efforts of first responders and medical personnel, he did not survive.

Constable Pierzchala is the fifth officer killed in Canada since September — a disturbing rise that has rattled the law enforcement community. In early January, a joint statement was released by four of Canada’s police associations, “calling for action to address what they see as a growing wave of violence aimed at police officers and their communities.”

Constable Greg Pierzchala’s colleagues, community and family have been devastated by this senseless act of violence.

For those involved in that call, their lives are forever marked by Greg’s death: the dispatcher who sent him to the call; the first officers on the scene; the paramedics; his shift mates; his coach officer, who spent the last year teaching him how to keep himself safe; and his recruits class, who will always see a hole in their graduation picture.

Most importantly, I ask you to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family: his parents, Janina and Jan; and his siblings, Chris, Michal and Justyna.

Honourable senators, it is my fervent wish that this will be the last time I have to stand before you to remember an officer killed in the line of duty.

Rest in peace, Constable Pierzchala. Thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, let me begin by thanking His Honour for the moment of silence today.

I rise today, of course, with a heavy heart, as you would expect. My home region of Simcoe County is mourning the tragic loss of the two police officers who were killed in the line of duty.

Constable Morgan Russell and Constable Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service were fatally shot responding to a domestic disturbance call just last week. Their loss deeply affects all of us — not only me as a former police officer but also as a mother of one.

Constable Morgan Russell was 54 years old and had served for 33 years in his community. He was a founding member of the Emergency Response Unit, a coach officer, a recruiter and a crisis negotiator. He will be remembered for his kindness and for the calming presence he brought to difficult situations.

Friends describe Constable Russell as an absolute gentleman and a true example of what a community police officer is. This was further demonstrated when, earlier this year, he was awarded the Police Exemplary Service Medal from the South Simcoe Police Service for his continued years of service and commitment. Left to grieve are his wife, Marisa, and daughters, Madelaine and Maggie.

Constable Devon Northrup was only 33 years old and had served for 6 years in his community. He was a member of the mental health Crisis Outreach and Support Team and the Emergency Response Unit. Attending to calls like the one on that fateful night was typical work for Northrup. In 2020, he received the South Simcoe Police award for Excellence in Emergency Response for his work in assisting a suicidal man.

Prior to becoming a police officer, Devon was treasurer and director-at-large for the York Region Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, and a security officer. Colleagues from MADD remembered him as a gentle giant who had a smile that would light up a room. Devon Northrup is survived by his spouse Annie, also a police officer.

The devastated communities of Innisfil and Bradford and the tight-knit family of the South Simcoe Police Service are leaning on each other to cope with the loss of these officers.

A joint funeral service was held this morning in Barrie, which was attended by thousands of fellow officers and first responders from across North America. Brothers and sisters from the Ontario Provincial Police responded to calls for service within the South Simcoe jurisdiction to allow the many colleagues of the fallen officers time off to attend the funeral.

Dear colleagues, police officers leave their homes and their loved ones each day knowing the inherent risks of this type of work. Please, let us show them our support and our appreciation for all they do to serve and protect.

Hon. Gwen Boniface rose pursuant to notice of September 29, 2022:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.

She said: Honourable senators, thank you for your indulgence at this late hour. I will only take about 12 minutes, unless you have questions.

On September 22, 2015, three women lost their lives at the hands of one man. He travelled around Renfrew County, Ontario, not far from where we sit, to seek out these women on their own properties, in their own homes, in what would be brutal and targeted attacks. Carol Culleton, 66; Anastasia Kuzyk, 36; Nathalie Warmerdam, 48 — three lives lost tragically and ruthlessly.

Unfortunately, all the warning signs were there but were missed. The perpetrator had a track record of violence against women, he had been deemed high-risk in multiple assessments, was known to the police and was on probation at the time of the murders. He flouted court orders without consequence and skipped the group counselling program he was mandated to attend, offering excuse after excuse to his parole officer, while never being charged with breaching his conditions.

Somehow, he was even allowed to relocate closer to one of his former victims of abuse, later to become a victim of his murders.

As a result of this atrocity, a chief coroner’s inquest occurred after much delay due to the pandemic, and the recommendations, over 80 of them, were published this past June. These are wide‑ranging, detailed and targeted to the Government of Ontario, the Chief Firearms Officer, the Office of the Chief Coroner, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and to the Government of Canada.

Inquests are held to inform the public about the circumstances of a death. Any conclusions of inquests are non-binding, but it’s always hoped that any recommendations, if implemented, will prevent further deaths.

Some of you may remember another prominent inquest on intimate partner violence, then known as domestic violence, that came out of Ontario in the 1990s. The May-Iles inquest of 1998 returned over 200 recommendations, ranging in areas from policing to victim assistance, education and training to all facets of the justice system.

The case involved a murder-suicide: Arlene May, the victim, and Randy Iles, the perpetrator. Mr. Iles had a past criminal history which included convictions for indecent exposure, harassing phone calls, breach of probation, possession of stolen property and a weapons offence. Ms. May and Mr. Iles had been in a relationship, and an assault on Ms. May occurred in November 1995. It was reported to police after a visit to a women’s shelter. Mr. Iles’ final appearance before the court in Grey County was on February 29, 1996, and he was released on condition that he leave the jurisdiction.

His criminal record provided to the court for that appearance was printed on February 26. Unfortunately, what was not known at the time of his release on February 29 was that there was also a warrant for his arrest in the neighbouring jurisdiction of Simcoe County, which had only been entered on the system on February 27. Therefore, the record for his February 29 appearance did not include the arrest warrant of February 27.

Mr. Iles moved with his family to the Oshawa area, and on May 6 another warrant was issued in Grey County for communicating with Ms. May. After he was advised about the most recent warrant by his lawyer, he purchased a firearm in Oshawa, rented a van and drove to the home of Arlene May. There he killed her and killed himself.

This case and subsequent inquests identified gaps in the process that could have avoided the tragedy, for instance, the gap in record-keeping that would have identified the arrest warrant in Simcoe County, and the failure to demand the surrender of Mr. Isles’ firearms acquisition certificate as a condition of bail. This was not recorded on his recognizance.

At the time of the May-Iles inquest — and I remember it very well — our understanding of intimate partner violence was less than it is now, but with such a detailed review of the May-Iles case, 200 recommendations, how do we find ourselves in a similar position 24 years later?

Since 1998, there are far more governmental supports in place, and our justice system hopefully has a better understanding of the risk factors involved, as do the policing partners.

While our comprehension of intimate partner violence has progressed, there is still much to do. The Renfrew County murders are sadly only one example of our continued inability to recognize and address the risk. For example, intimate partner violence, IPV, in urban settings has its own unique challenges that differ greatly from IPV in a rural community. The Renfrew County inquest shed light on the difficulties of combatting IPV in rural settings. Some of the following recommendations from the inquest relate to the reality, particularly for women, of living in rural areas in Canada.

Recommendation 19 suggests the creation of an emergency fund that includes the recognition of needs for rural and geographically remote survivors of IPV.

Recommendation 20 recognizes that funding in remote or rural communities cannot be the per capita equivalent of urban settings, and that the remoteness quotient be considered for use, akin to other social services, such as education and policing.

Recommendation 29 seeks to provide professional education and training for justice system personnel on the IPV-related issues that include the very unique rural factors.

Recommendation 52 seeks to expand cell service and high‑speed internet in rural and remote areas.

In the summer of 2020, my office sought the aid of a law student, Kallisti Sipidias, to research IPV in women’s shelters in Ontario. She did a fantastic job. She contacted many women’s shelters to discuss their experience and challenges. Some of this research was in relation to the pandemic, but much of it also applied more generally. In her findings, issues with women’s shelters included shelters operating at full capacity with many demands unmet, a lack of affordable housing to which the women could move and the eligibility requirements and red tape in applying for affordable housing. The shelters themselves lack appropriate governmental funding as well. She discovered the provincial government, as an example, provides funding for 50% to 80% of a shelter’s total costs. Many times, shelters are required to make up the shortfall in operating costs through fundraising endeavours and federal grants. Federal grants are temporary and often intermittent, and fundraising efforts consume a lot of time and human capital to meet operational baselines, neither of which shelters have. This creates a burnout situation which ultimately has consequences both for those who run the shelters and those who desperately rely on them.

I was pleased to see that Kallisti’s findings are echoed in the inquest. Recommendation 21 seeks to have the provincial government develop a plan for enhanced second-stage housing for survivors. Recommendation 20 seeks to realign the approach to public funding provided to service providers to one that is annualized, like every other public service, and to also enhance funding considering the differences in rural and urban realities.

Rural communities have other challenges that many of us might not consider because we take them for granted. Those in rural communities may have spotty or no internet access or cellular coverage. Women may not have access to personal transportation and certainly less access to public transportation, if they have it at all. Availing themselves of any services that may exist can be an uphill battle or could be hours away. All of these are mentioned in the inquest recommendations. But even before coming to the decision to seek out services, there may be many personal reasons preventing IPV victims from reaching out.

As Pamela Cross, a lawyer and expert on violence against women, remarked in the Ottawa Citizen:

There’s a lack of anonymity in rural communities that prevents some women from seeking help . . . . A shelter worker could be a friend. The OPP officer answering a call might play hockey with the woman’s partner. The partner’s mother might see her car parked outside a law office.

This accounts for an added layer of complexity in rural communities. A tight-knit culture of rural living doesn’t allow for many secrets, and this alone is enough of a reason to dissuade women from bringing cases forward to the authorities or seeking out help on their own.

Unfortunately, honourable senators, this is an epidemic. The first recommendation from the inquest is to formally declare it as such. What’s even worse is that IPV is more prominent in rural areas, and with more IPV in rural areas comes more firearm‑related intimate partner violence. The perpetrator’s tool of choice for two of the murders in Renfrew County’s triple homicide was a firearm; the first woman was strangled. Statistics from 2020 indicate there were 8.1 female victims of firearm-related IPV per 100,000 female population in the rural South, and 31 per 100,000 in the rural North. In urban areas, that number is 4.1.

Firearm-related intimate partner violence for male victims was low compared to female victims across all three categories. Overall, one in four female victims of firearm-related violence was targeted by a current or former spouse or intimate partner.

Firearm-related homicides further paint a devastating picture for women. Between 2015 and 2020, statistics on firearm-related homicide cases show that in solved cases, 70% of the homicides involve a current or former spouse, another intimate partner or a family member.

Now, these are generalized statistics for all of Canada, but in rural areas, the situation is even more dire. Firearm-related homicides of female victims by a spouse, intimate partner or family member hits 84% in the rural areas of Canada and 81% in the North, compared to 62% in urban areas.

I’ve outlined but two inquests, spaced decades apart, to help honourable colleagues understand the situation that we continue to face today. Despite the progress that has been made, we are still far from creating continued safe environments for intimate partner violence victims or reducing occurrences of violence against women altogether.

The Renfrew County inquest wants this formally declared an epidemic. This should be a wake-up call to all levels of government. Year-to-year funding, burnout amongst staff, overcrowded shelters and gaps in the system continue to put intimate partners, particularly women, at risk of violence. Recommendations are worth as much as the paper on which they’re printed if actions don’t follow. While I raise this issue through an Ontario lens, the rest of the country is not immune to the epidemic.

The purpose of a Senate inquiry is to draw the attention of the chamber to an issue and this, in my view, is an issue that needs highlighting. An inquiry does not result in a vote, but I nonetheless encourage all senators to speak from their own regional perspectives on this topic to help push the intimate partner violence narrative forward for the safety and security of all victims, past, present and future. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

(At 9:56 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to commemorate the life of Constable Andrew Hong who was tragically killed in the line of duty on September 12. Constable Hong was 48 years old and a 22-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service. He was the victim of a senseless and targeted attack. Andrew had been taking a lunch break after spending the morning instructing a motorcycle operations course — a job that he loved and excelled at. He leaves behind a devastated family: his wife, Jenny, and his children, Mia and Alex.

Constable Hong’s fellow officers in the Motor Squad described him as a beloved colleague who was passionate about his work. Friends say Hong lived life to the fullest and loved helping others. Many have remarked that his towering physical stature did not match his gentle, kind and fun-loving nature.

The funeral service for Constable Hong was held last Wednesday and was attended by thousands of police officers from 89 police services across North America. Andrew’s widow, Jenny, and daughter, Mia, spoke about his love for his job, the Toronto Police Service and how devoted he was to their family.

This past Sunday, I attended the Canadian Police and Peace Officers’ National Memorial Day held on Parliament Hill. The memorial day provides an opportunity for Canadians to express their appreciation for the dedication of our peace and police officers who have paid the ultimate price for their service. This year, the names of six fallen officers were added to the Wall of Remembrance. We honour their service; their loss will not be forgotten.

Honourable senators, please join me in sending deepest condolences to Constable Hong’s family. I also invite you to reflect on the officers who have selflessly served our country, the loved ones who they have left behind and those who continue to serve and protect us.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at report stage of Bill S-7.

Let me begin by thanking the committee for their collegial nature; Senator Dean for an organized clause-by-clause consideration, his first as chair; and Senator Wells as critic of the bill.

As indicated in the report, Bill S-7 was amended at committee in a number of areas to put into the legislation network disconnection before a personal digital device, or a PDD, search could occur. This was originally intended to be in regulation.

Other amendments concerned the protection of information, like solicitor-client privilege, through order-in-council-making authority. There was a proposed amendment to the bill to ensure that note taking would be found in the regulations, but the draft regulations provided to the committee proved those requirements were captured, which satisfied the committee, and the amendment was subsequently withdrawn.

As you would expect, the amendment I would like to address for the remainder of my time concerns the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect.”

Let me quote the mandate of the CBSA:

The agency is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods, including animals and plants, that meet all requirements under the program legislation.

National security and public safety are at the heart of their mandate. In discussions with many of you, we talked about the balance of individual privacy rights on one hand and the protection of collective security rights on the other in the context of who and what crosses our borders.

Border officers are in an operationally unique position. They rely on an extremely brief interaction in order to make a determination of whether there has been a potential violation of any program legislation. Border security is a complex business. The CBSA enforces more than 90 acts, regulations and international agreements as part of the program legislation.

It is in this context that I remind you of Senator Dupuis’ pertinent question at second reading, and one that she followed up on earlier. Speaking of “reasonable general concern,” she said:

The problem is not that this is a new concept, because it was the Court of Appeal itself that introduced it. When the Court of Appeal states that the existing concept may be too strict for the situation we want to address, the legislator could favour a less-strict concept that creates fewer obligations for customs officers.

The fact that it is a new concept is therefore to be expected, but shouldn’t we focus instead on whether the concept chosen by the government in its bill is legally appropriate for the situation we want to address?

That is an important question. My views, as you know, were evident in my second reading speech.

The intention of the government, which we heard at committee, was to create a threshold that is reasonable; that requires objective and verifiable factual indications; that is general, and does not point to a specific contravention of the over 90 pieces of CBSA-enforced program legislation; and that includes a concern, which must be individualized and attributable to the specific person or their device.

The CBSA processed almost 19 million travellers in 2021 and conducted approximately 1,800 personal digital device examinations. In 2021, the CBSA was operating under internal policies determining when a device search could occur; Bill S-7’s intent was to take those internal policies and put them into law.

As stated at committee by Scott Millar, Vice President of Strategic Policy for the CBSA, “policy that exists now will be enshrined in legislation.” It was creating a legal threshold out of their policies. The lack of a threshold in law was ultimately why 99(1)(a) was found to be unconstitutional in R v. Canfield.

Canfield, at paragraph 109, states that:

The policies put in place by the CBSA go some way to recognizing the need for such safeguards, however policies are not “prescribed by law” as required by s. 1. . . .

There, the Canfield decision is referencing section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Essentially, in order for something to be Charter compliant, it must be prescribed in law. Internal CBSA policies are not prescribed by law because, at the time, they were not found in law. The court did not reject internal CBSA policy as not meeting an adequate threshold; those internal policies were not even applicable in 2014 when the searches in Canfield took place because they were non-existent until 2015.

In drafting Bill S-7, the government believed that Canfield opened the door to a lesser threshold for personal digital device searches, and only for such searches.

At paragraph 75, the court states:

Whether the appropriate threshold is reasonable suspicion, or something less than that having regard to the unique nature of the border, will have to be decided by Parliament and fleshed out in other cases. . . .

This became the crux of the committee’s deliberations. This will be the first time that a law specifically in relation to personal digital devices will be in place at our borders. The uniqueness of the border for the purposes of section 8 privacy considerations has been settled in law for some time. The Supreme Court ruled on this in R. v. Simmons, and reaffirmed it in R. v. Jacques and R. v. Monney. On the topic of privacy rights at the border, paragraph 48 of Simmons says, “National self-protection becomes a compelling component in the calculus.”

Then, paragraph 49 states:

I accept the proposition advanced by the Crown that the degree of personal privacy reasonably expected at customs is lower than in most other situations. People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny. It is commonly accepted that sovereign states have the right to control both who and what enters their boundaries. . . .

Monney builds on this statement, and says in paragraph 43 that:

. . . decisions of this Court —

— the Supreme Court of Canada —

— relating to the reasonableness of a search for the purposes of s. 8 in general are not necessarily relevant in assessing the constitutionality of a search conducted by customs officers at Canada’s border.

It is critical to find the appropriate balance and threshold for personal digital device examinations at our borders. The court in Canfield did what I believe was a masterful job in coming to their conclusion that a lesser threshold than reasonable suspicion may be necessary for device searches. The court balances the informational privacy concerns with the border context in paragraph 66:

The key question is to what extent an expectation of privacy is reasonable in the context of an international border crossing. In the domestic context it is well-recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their personal electronic devices: see Morelli, Vu, Fearon. However, reasonable privacy expectations at an international border differ from reasonable expectations of privacy elsewhere. . . .

They continue in paragraph 67:

The high expectation of privacy that individuals have in their personal electronic devices generally must be balanced with the low expectation of privacy that individuals have when crossing international borders. Since border crossings represent unique factual circumstances for the reasonableness of a s 8 search and seizure . . . the reasonable expectations of privacy international travellers hold in their electronic devices must be considered anew and in context.

It was recognized by the court at paragraph 34 that we can’t sweep all personal digital device searches into one broad category for privacy considerations since different considerations are at play based on the information available to the border officer. The constitutional merit will eventually be determined by individual cases. But just because something is novel in law, as it was in the original draft, does not mean it’s unconstitutional. Each case has a different level of evidence determining whether a threshold is met. These are different depending on the goods being searched.

For example, the threshold issue of mail was often used as a comparator in committee, as it was in the chamber — and rightly so. The Customs Act provides that mail can be examined without any threshold; “reasonable grounds to suspect” is triggered when that mail is opened. Much information can be gleaned from an unopened piece of mail. It can be picked up and felt; perhaps it has an address, or a return address, and both can be searched; the envelope can be tested for drugs or organic matter; and, more importantly, it can be X-ray scanned to see if anything is inside.

All of this is possible without a threshold. This evidence is what develops the reasonable suspicion needed to open the mail. This allows a border officer to more readily point to a specific contravention necessary to meet a threshold of reasonable suspicion.

Senators, even bad things come in small, inconspicuous packages. In a piece published in the Calgary Herald, Benjamin Perrin, former lead criminal justice advisor to Prime Minister Harper, interviewed CBSA officials and was told that 1.9 million pieces of mail enter Canada from China monthly, and fentanyl has been found in packages as small as greeting cards.

For mail, there are many methods: It is more difficult for personal digital devices, hence the reliance on more generalized factors needed to search a device — that is, factors that don’t point to a particular contravention. This contributed to operational effectiveness.

At the same time, it was rightly argued that the amount of data on the device is so significant and so personal that the justification should be higher. But just because fentanyl is physical, does that somehow mean it’s also more harmful than what can be found on an electronic device? That’s the crux.

The minster told our committee that it’s not only child pornography that can be found on personal digital devices at our border entries, but also things like hate propaganda or evidence of drug importation, all of which are extremely harmful as well.

“Reasonable grounds to suspect” isn’t used only in the Customs Act for goods where evidentiary tools avail border officers to reach that legal bar. It is also the threshold for body searches, including strip searches. The court in Canfield states in paragraph 75 in relation to the Supreme Court ruling of Fearon:

We agree with the conclusion in Fearon at paras 54 and 55 that, while the search of a computer or cell phone is not akin to the seizure of bodily samples or a strip search, it may nevertheless be a significant intrusion on personal privacy. To be reasonable, such a search must have a threshold requirement. As was noted in Simmons at para 28, “the greater the intrusion, the greater must be the justification and the greater the degree of constitutional protection”. Given that, in our view the threshold for the search of electronic devices may be something less than the reasonable grounds to suspect required for a strip search under the Customs Act.

The Supreme Court in Fearon and the Alberta Court of Appeal in Canfield agreed that searches of personal digital devices are “not akin to . . . a strip search,” yet this is where we find ourselves today.

Senators, there are different levels of searches available as we cross the border, depending on what the border officer is looking for. Luggage, purses, coats and briefcases don’t require a threshold. Strip searches are at the level of reasonable suspicion. This amendment equates a search of a person with that of a personal digital device. Border officers will have to suspect a specific contravention in more than 90 acts, regulations and international agreements to search a personal digital device if this bill as amended passes.

Alberta and Ontario have been operating using the higher threshold of reasonable suspicion at their points of entry since the beginning of May, after the expiration of the constitutional invalidity. Statistics on the effects of this change are preliminary and high-level, but they offer us a glimpse of what may come for border security and their operations. In a document tabled with the committee, it showed that May 2021 saw a traveller volume of 606,000 for Alberta and Ontario; May 2022 saw 2,595,000. This is a fourfold increase from the same time last year. Sixty‑three personal digital devices were examined in May 2021 in Alberta and Ontario; May 2022 saw only 18.

Senators, this is an examination rate of 1 in 10,000 last May, and 1 in 144,000 this May. This is a substantial change in searches, no matter how you cut it. Yes, we can look at the impact of COVID, travel patterns and staffing levels at our ports of entry, and I would hope that any incoming disaggregated data allows us to better understand the true impacts of this change in device searches. But the higher threshold for border operations is obviously going to have an operational impact.

A final note is that this bill also amends the Preclearance Act, 2016. This act is based on the agreement between Canada and the U.S. and will therefore require U.S. pre-clearance officers to be trained on the new threshold as well. It is important to note that border officers in the United Kingdom, Australia and the U.S. when they are on their own soil have no-threshold searches for personal digital devices.

I want to express my sincere thanks to all senators who put lots of thought and interest into this bill, including, of course, all those on the committee. Senators, the Canfield decision left it to Parliament to decide where the threshold for the search of personal digital devices should be. The committee has completed its work, and I look forward to third-reading speeches and the important continuing debate in the House of Commons. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Boniface: Yes, of course.

Senator Boniface: I am at the mercy of the chamber. I would be happy to take Senator Wells’s and Senator McCallum’s questions, and perhaps we can agree to call it there.

Senator Boniface: I am happy to continue answering questions if the chamber is agreed.

Senator Boniface: They have such a unique role and they have such a short interaction. In fact, this is what they do every day. This is how they are trained. With every person they meet, they are making an assessment of what that interaction means and what the indicators are.

As they move on issues regarding personal devices, they would be sent to secondary for that examination to take place. You would have the interaction of more than one person as well. But this is what customs officers do every day. They make those assessments based on the questions they ask and based on the types of behavioural things that they observe. Like the rest of people in those fields, they are tested on their accuracy. I just want to draw to your attention, again on the personal devices — what we would call the hit rate — the fact that 27% of them are actually finding contraband on those, which tells me that they are actually doing quite well when you compare it to any other area of work like that. They are very focused and looking for the right stuff.