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: 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.

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: Thank you very much for the question. As I have said before in the chamber, it is my privilege to sit on that committee with you and my colleagues Senator Harder and Senator Carignan.

Many questions arose as a result of the inquiry in terms of how the inquiry and the parliamentary committee would sit together. Let me speak to how the legislation works, which I think makes it clear for us.

The inquiry was anticipated in the legislation, it was announced and it deals with the circumstances leading up to the declaration of the emergency, generally.

With respect to the parliamentary committee, it deals with the declaration of emergency from the point of invocation to the point of revocation. Mr. Beatty appeared as a witness. I cannot quote him, but let me paraphrase him. He indicated that, at times, one will bleed into the other because you need certain information in order to satisfy questions that may arise pertaining to both.

The committee has heard from two ministers so far. We will have further witnesses, and we anticipate that the RCMP and CSIS will appear next week. Last week, we heard from Department of Finance representatives.

We will proceed with our work plan. I must say that the committee has shown an air of cooperation in order to advance the work plan. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I am sure there will be many more to come who will help to satisfy the questions that we, as a committee, need to answer.

Hon. Gwen Boniface moved second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin second reading on Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016, regarding the examination of personal digital devices at the border.

The mandate of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, is first and foremost to protect national security and public safety at Canada’s borders while facilitating the legitimate flow of persons and goods. This mandate is carried out in accordance with CBSA program legislation.

Personal digital device examinations are conducted sparingly and selectively. However, these examinations have a high success — or resultant rate — of uncovering regulatory contraventions.

In 2021, the CBSA processed just under 19 million travellers and conducted approximately 1,800 personal digital device examinations. This represented an examination rate of less than 0.01% or around 1 in every 10,000 travellers.

However, over 27% of the approximately 1,800 examinations of personal digital devices uncovered a regulatory contravention. This ranged from the discovery of prohibited goods posing a threat to public safety, including child pornography and other obscenities, to evidence of undervalued and undeclared goods.

This statistic is significant and demonstrates the means of identifying indicators delivering a very good outcome.

Regarding child pornography in particular, personal digital devices are now the primary method of importation of this prohibited material. As we all know, senators, child pornography is not just about pictures, it is about victims — child victims.

In 2019, the WeProtect Global Alliance reported 18.4 million referrals of child sexual abuse material were made to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Europol reported that over 46 million unique images or videos related to child sexual abuse existed in its repository.

The screening and examination of people and goods at the border, including the examination of personal digital devices, are fundamental to maintaining border integrity and protecting the health, safety and security of everyone in Canada.

CBSA officers, whose day-to-day activities will be impacted by the proposed amendments in Bill S-7, are authorized to examine all goods crossing Canada’s border, to execute the agency’s mandate and to ensure harmful goods are intercepted before they can enter our communities. The CBSA derives these authorities from the Customs Act and also screens for compliance with other statutes, such as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Special Import Measures Act and numerous others defined as “program legislation” under the CBSA Act.

This mandate includes assessing value for goods; collecting any duty and taxes owed; and intercepting any prohibited, controlled or regulated goods. Courts have long upheld these authorities — the rights of a sovereign state to control what enters its borders and the lower expectation of privacy at the border.

However, CBSA’s long-established authorities to examine imported goods have come under greater scrutiny in recent years. This scrutiny is directed at personal digital devices, such as smartphones, laptops and the like, given the exceptional capacity for storage they now have and the degree of personal information they now contain, compared to what would have been purses and baggage.

So, senators, how does this relate to Bill S-7?

In October 2020, the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled in the cases of R. v. Canfield and R. v. Townsend that the examination of the content of personal digital devices by CBSA officers under paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act was unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as no limits were imposed on these examinations. In both those cases, it involved the importation of child pornography on digital devices.

The prevailing authority on border searches dates back to the 1988 Supreme Court case R. v. Simmons, but it is an important backdrop to understand where CBSA finds itself today. At the time, the court in Simmons recognized that the degree of personal privacy reasonably expected by individuals at the border is lower than in other situations. Three types of border searches were identified with an increasing expectation of privacy.

The first was routine questioning, something that every traveller goes through at a point of entry, which can be accompanied by a search of baggage and/or a frisk of outer clothing. I’m sure most of us have been through this routine process. The second was a strip or skin search, which is conducted in a private room. The third is a body-cavity search, usually looking for drugs, obviously the most intrusive, with the utmost expectation of privacy. Of course, with each added layer of search, the justification must be greater to ensure its constitutionality.

As indicated in Simmons, the first search, that of routine questioning with a potential baggage search or frisk, is the least intrusive type of search and does not raise constitutionality flags under section 8 of the Charter. As a reminder, section 8 reads, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

That is because of the lower degree of personal privacy at the border, as per paragraph 49 of Simmons, which reads as follows:

. . . 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. For the general welfare of the nation the state is expected to perform this role. Without the ability to establish that all persons who seek to cross its borders and their goods are legally entitled to enter the country, the state would be precluded from performing this crucially important function. Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. . . .

As the court notes, searches at the border are unique by having to find the balance between privacy rights and public safety, which emphasizes public safety over privacy, especially at the first level of searches defined in Simmons.

So now that we know that, based on the prevailing jurisprudence of Simmons, there are three levels of searches in a border context, and that the first level of searches does not engage Charter rights under section 8, then why do we have this bill before us?

Senators, the issue is with the term “goods” found in paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act. This subsection reads:

Senators will notice that this paragraph authorizes border officers to examine any goods but omits any kind of legal threshold to be able to do so. By comparison, paragraph (b) of the same subsection requires “reasonable grounds” to open a piece of mail.

The definition of “goods” can be found in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act and “includes conveyances, animals and any document in any form.” In the border context, “goods” has been interpreted to include electronic documents that can be found on a personal device, such as a laptop, cellphone or tablet. You can see the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal case of R. v. Bialski and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R. v. Moroz for those interpretations.

This information leads to our constitutional quandary. The Customs Act’s definition of “goods” and its application to subsection 99(1)(a) allow a border officer to search personal digital devices with no legal threshold to do so and with no constitutional remedy, as the first category of searches described in Simmons, of which this category applies to “goods,” do not engage section 8 of the Charter.

But more than this, technological advancements have changed drastically since the Simmons ruling in 1988. Digital devices have the ability to hold an exorbitant number of documents in electronic form — something that could not have been taken into consideration in the year of the Supreme Court ruling in Simmons. Back in 1988, the types of documents that could be searched were physical and in the person’s possession at the time of the border encounter, such as a briefcase, a purse or another form of baggage. It makes sense that these types of documents were able to be checked without breaching section 8 of the Charter through what would be deemed a normal search.

But, senators, as we all know, times have changed.

Nowadays, and especially in the new millennium, electronic devices are the norm. Most people in Canada have a digital device, and most people travel with a digital device. Those tools now hold an abundance of information, including some very personal information. You are able to create photo albums and music playlists or unlock your front door from thousands of kilometres away with the simple touch of a button. You can bank remotely and pay for your groceries without ever using a physical debit or credit card. These devices have all our likes and dislikes, our connections and our calendars. They hold the keys to our most personal and private information, and the law currently allows for customs officers to search it without a threshold and without Charter protection.

As you all know, honourable senators, the doctrine of legal precedent is fundamental to our legal system. The Supreme Court of Canada is the final arbiter of intervention, so when they make a ruling, as they did in Simmons, that ruling stands. But that doesn’t mean that Supreme Court rulings cannot be revisited. As was stated in the 2015 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) case, “. . . stare decisis is not a straitjacket that condemns the law to stasis.”

Trial courts can reconsider higher court rulings, including the Supreme Court, in a couple of circumstances: The first is if a new legal issue is raised, and second — important to the situation here — is when there is a change in circumstances or evidence that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate.

Senators, the advancement of technology between Simmons in 1988 and Canfield last year are substantial. The Court of Appeal of Alberta recognized that the change in advancements “fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate,” which allows for the revisitation of the Supreme Court ruling in Simmons.

It is for these reasons that the Court of Appeal of Alberta found subsection 99(1)(a) to be unconstitutional, despite the 1988 precedent-setting case.

The court declined to declare an acceptable specific threshold in order to examine personal digital devices. It instead acknowledged that something lower than reasonable grounds to suspect may be more appropriate for the border context.

In paragraph 75 of the Canfield decision, 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.

The court continues in paragraph 112:

We are mindful that protecting the privacy interest in an individual’s personal electronic devices while recognizing the need for effective border security will involve a complex and delicate balancing process. It will be up to Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach that imposes reasonable limits on the ability to conduct such searches at the border.

The Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that a declaration of constitutional invalidity of one year was appropriate for the government to craft a solution to this unconstitutional provision. The Government of Canada did apply for an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada following this Alberta ruling, but it was subsequently dismissed.

As outlined in paragraph 112 of the ruling, the government did so choose to devise a new or novel approach to strike a balance between privacy and personal digital devices and border security.

The Government of Canada is proposing a bill to strengthen the current legislation governing the examination of personal digital devices by both CBSA officers and the United States Customs and Border Protection officers who conduct pre‑clearance here in Canada. This bill will create standards that must be met before a traveller’s device can be examined. It proposes legislative changes that include these three measures: first, establishing a new threshold for the initiation of a personal digital device examination that requires reasonable general concern, and I will expand on that shortly; second, creating an authority to examine documents on personal digital devices in the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, which is required to differentiate these devices from other goods, including commercially imported or exported digital devices; and, finally, requiring specific-purpose limitations that formally restrict examinations of personal digital devices to regulatory border-related examinations.

The key component of the bill is the new examination authority under section 99.1 of the Customs Act. This section details the requirement of a reasonable general concern before a designated border officer may examine documents on a traveller’s personal digital device to determine if the device contains contraband or evidence of a contravention of border laws regarding the importation of goods. Certain border officers, or a class of border officers, would be designated by the president of the CBSA under subsection 99.01(2) of Bill S-7 to conduct such examinations.

Similarly, the Preclearance Act currently authorizes U.S. pre‑clearance officers to conduct no threshold examinations of goods bound for the United States. Pre-clearance refers to the arrangement between two countries allowing customs and immigration officials from the country of designation to be located within the country of origin to determine admissibility of travellers or goods to the designated country. We all know the U.S. has been conducting pre-clearance at Canadian borders since 1952 under various arrangements, and this program is currently in place at Canada’s eight largest airports.

The Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport Preclearance Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America is the current treaty for pre-clearance with the United States. The Preclearance Act implements the provisions negotiated in the agreement into Canadian law.

For the purposes of the Preclearance Act, “goods” include currency and monetary instruments, animals, plants and their products, conveyances, and any document in any form. At the direction of a pre-clearance officer, travellers must present, open or unpack any goods in their possession.

Furthermore, all powers exercised by U.S. pre-clearance officers must be in accordance with Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given that the existing pre-clearance examination authorities are similar to those contained in the Customs Act as it currently reads, the proposed amendments to the Preclearance Act would continue to align pre-clearance examination authorities with those that apply to our CBSA officers. Namely, they would also require a reasonable general concern to examine personal digital devices during pre-clearance. Amendments to the Preclearance Act would ensure that U.S. pre-clearance officers working in Canada are bound by the same standards that apply to CBSA officers and honour our Charter.

Other pre-clearance changes would include a new authority for the Governor-in-Council to create regulations guiding the conduct of personal digital device examinations and a new authority for the Minister of Public Safety to issue directions.

Generally speaking, the changes will establish procedures that U.S. pre-clearance officers must follow when examining and searching documents on a traveller’s personal digital device, and requirements for detaining and transferring the device as applicable.

The proposed bill will provide a renewed legal foundation under which both CBSA and U.S. pre-clearance officers can lawfully conduct these examinations. This will preserve the ability of CBSA and pre-clearance officers to effectively identify contraventions of the program legislation and to intercept contraband while offering privacy protections to travellers in accordance with Canadian law.

To clarify, examinations of personal digital devices under these authorities must be conducted for regulatory purposes consistent with routine border processing. The purpose of such examinations is to ensure compliance with various regulatory rules that govern the import and export of goods under border legislation.

As is the case with physical goods, in rare circumstances where the officers conducting regulatory examinations discover what may be evidence of a criminal offence, that evidence may be provided to local law enforcement authorities who may then conduct their own criminal investigation and consider possible criminal charges.

With respect to the proposed changes to the legislative examination authority, while an established higher threshold, such as reasonable grounds to suspect, was considered, this threshold is used in limited contexts in border processing and was deemed to be inappropriate for these types of examinations.

Further, the new reasonable general concern threshold ensures that officers need not identify a specific suspected contravention prior to beginning an examination. In the border context, there may be a difficulty identifying specific contraventions given CBSA officers have short interactions with travellers and limited access to information.

Border officers gather additional information through their interactions with travellers, including baggage examinations and routine questionings. Through these interactions, officers may develop concerns resulting from the presence of indicators potentially signalling non-compliance with border legislation. Indicators of non-compliance may be behavioural in nature but do not point to a specific identifiable regulatory contravention.

These types of indicators are well recognized by officers who are trained in identifying them. The higher threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect was concluded to be too onerous for personal devices, and the difficulty of meeting the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold for cases involving personal digital devices could lead to an overall weakened border control and a likely decrease in the interception of prohibited materials, such as child pornography.

After careful consideration, as well as consultation with key stakeholders, a new threshold was developed that actively responds to the court’s ruling of unconstitutionality while balancing traveller privacy and operational enforcement priorities.

As I’ve mentioned, the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” is currently required under the Customs Act in order to initiate non-routine searches such as the personal search I referred to, either skin or strip search. As this is a more invasive exam, and beyond what is considered routine exams, it would require the higher “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold, and it would have to be satisfied.

This new threshold of reasonable general concern requires that concerns be individualized to the traveller’s personal digital device at the time of border crossing; however, it does not require a specified suspected contravention to be identified.

The threshold has been tailored to respond to the unique border context where courts have long upheld that travellers have reduced expectation of privacy. It is meant to require a lower degree of concern as compared to the reasonable grounds to suspect. At the same time, the reasonable general concern threshold requires indicators to be objective and factually grounded. This will ensure that CBSA officers’ conduct is subject to meaningful review.

This is a novel approach only in that this new legislation threshold does not currently exist in Canadian statute. For the first time, and after careful deliberation and analysis, a new threshold for personal digital device has been constructed to respond specifically to the unique border context. It is a unique threshold for personal digital device examinations only. It requires that the officer have reasonable and objective concerns related to a specific location — the border — and a specific person — the traveller. To emphasize, currently the Customs Act has no threshold for personal digital device searches, but Bill S-7 seeks to implement one.

Honourable senators, it being said that there is no legislated threshold on personal digital device searches does not mean that our border officers have been operating in an unconstitutional way. The CBSA is very aware of privacy rights and the effects that searches may have on those rights. The CBSA has used their own internal policies to guide searches of devices for quite some time as they relate to goods as defined in the Customs Act.

Bill S-7 is seeking to legislate those internal operational practices and policies that the CBSA has already been using but under a new section specifically tailored to documents on personal digital devices. This new section does not detract from the powers of the CBSA to search personal digital devices under their own internal policies. It simply legislates what they have already been doing.

For instance, the most up-to-date version of the policy from 2019 indicates that:

An examination of a traveller’s digital device should occur only if there is a multiplicity of indicators suggesting evidence of a contravention of CBSA program legislation may be found on the device.

An “indicator,” for the purpose of CBSA policy, is:

. . . a single piece of information, trend, abnormality, or inconsistency that when added to other information or data raises a concern to an officer about the threat presented by a traveller or shipment. It is possible that over the course of an interaction with a traveller, a single, substantial, and articulable indicator observed by a CBSA officer may be sufficient to justify the examination of a traveller’s digital device.

It is these indicators that would give a border officer a reasonable general concern that there has been a regulatory contravention. Again, these indicators are general in nature and don’t have to point to a specific contravention, but clearly the CBSA has been operating in a fashion that is being considered legislatively. They already conduct their searches with the same alacrity as was found in Bill S-7.

The CBSA policy also clarifies when a personal digital device can be searched. It emphasizes that the examination of the device should not be construed as a matter of course, that CBSA officers can’t examine digital devices with the sole or primary purpose of looking for evidence of a criminal offence and that examinations of a personal digital device must be performed with a clear link to administering and enforcing the CBSA program legislation.

To ensure that the actions taken by border officers in generating a multiplicity of indicators warranting a search of the device, comprehensive note-taking requirements are mandated, even if the search does not have a result. These note-taking requirements are necessary to assist border officers in being able to articulate the steps of a digital device examination for the purpose of their legislation, to serve as evidence should legal proceedings arise, to hold the officers and the CBSA at large to account should allegations of misconduct arise through complaints and, finally, to serve as a record of the use of statutory authorities to officers.

As for the types of information that should be tracked in the note-taking process, examples include but are not limited to indicators observed by the border officer, the rationale for the personal digital device examination, the type and description of the device, the steps taken to disable network connectivity, the date and time as it appears on the device, the local date and time, duration of the examination, areas and items examined on the device, the rationale for examining each type of data — for example, photos or documents — the traveller’s demeanour and relevant communications with the traveller with respect to the device and its contents, who was involved in the examination and how the examination was performed.

Now, a question came up with respect to passwords. As for device passwords, there’s a two-step process if evidence or prohibited content is found. The first step is to write the numeric or alphanumeric password on a piece of paper. Biometrics-enabled passes, such as fingerprint or face scans, should be avoided, as any device with biometrics-enabled pass normally also has a numeric or alphanumeric password. If the examination is non-resultant, the piece of paper is handed back to the traveller seeking entry into Canada and isn’t officially recorded in the note taking. If evidence or prohibited content is found, this password would then be officially recorded as part of the note taking for further steps.

As was mentioned, personal digital devices can only be searched with the network connectivity turned off, limiting the search to what can be found on the device only and not what would be in the cloud. Border officers are not allowed to access any data that is stored remotely.

Honourable senators, this is how the Canadian Border Services Agency operates now through internal mechanisms. The examinations are limited to content of concern related to the program legislation and only to areas of the device and data directly related to indicators or concerns identified by the border officer during the interaction with the traveller.

The reasons for an examination have to be clearly articulated, and diligent note taking is a must. There is also a reporting requirement to CBSA headquarters for all examinations of personal digital devices which tracks the number of examinations, their dates and at which port of entry they occurred.

Creating a new threshold for personal digital device examinations in Bill S-7 won’t alter the border security landscape too much for those officers who are at the border. They are currently operating with restrictions in place without any legislative necessity to do so.

The CBSA has already taken upon itself to put into place proper safeguards to balance the protection of privacy of those entering Canada with the protection and security of Canada, and the court in R. v. Canfield has acknowledged their efforts. I am confident that their transition to this legislated regime could be seamless.

Though the court’s ruling was only applicable to CBSA officers in the province of Alberta, these legislative amendments will mean that all CBSA officers and U.S. pre-clearance officers operating in Canada must meet the reasonable general concern threshold in order to initiate an exam of personal digital devices.

Bill S-7 is even more timely, considering that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice also ruled that subsection 99(1)(a) was unconstitutional in a duo of cases, R. v. Pike and R. v. Scott, just last week. These cases are similar to Canfield in that they involve the importation of child pornography.

The Ontario court decided that its ruling would be coextensive with Canfield, meaning that its suspension of constitutional invalidity would expire on the same day as Alberta’s.

This reasonable general concern examination authority includes specific purpose limitations, ensuring that the examination must be regulatory in nature and will be limited to what is stored on the device at the time of the border crossing.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, on January 19, Orillia lost a treasured member of our community. Michael Allen Westover Jones died after a battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Michael was a devoted husband, beloved son, brother, uncle, mentor and friend. He was an internationally recognized leadership educator, facilitator, and a gifted pianist who combined his music and storytelling to inspire and challenge his audiences.

Michael was born in Bramshott, England, in a military hospital during World War II, raised in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and spent the last 35 years in Orillia.

Michael played a key role in helping me develop a Truth and Reconciliation round table and contributed to its growth during the past two and a half years. He supported our regular gatherings with his wise counsel and his expertise in facilitation and sparking dialogue. With Elder John Rice, the two became a formidable team.

Michael devoted his time and energy to many other local projects, including facilitating action towards creating a city commons here in Orillia. He believed deeply that healthy communities need a sense of place, and said it didn’t have to be a physical place, but that it helped.

A celebration of Michael’s life took place on February 9. The ceremony included some of his music and favourite poetry. Friends and family shared stories and memories highlighting the humble, gentle way he touched their lives and helped them discover and share their gifts. Michael authored three books on reimagining leadership: Artful Leadership, Creating an Imaginative Life and, most recently, The Soul of Place. In this book, readers are invited to be the soul of place through their presence, inspiring transformation through a pathway of homecoming, belonging, “regenerativity” and transformative celebration. Michael was also a Juno-nominated composer who recorded 17 albums.

I send my deepest condolences to Judy, his wife of 47 years, his mother Laura, and siblings Myron, Chris and Lisa.

Dear Michael, you will be missed.

Meegwetch, thank you.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, on a rare occasion, you meet someone whose friendship lasts a lifetime. This makes loss even more difficult.

Carol-Ann Marshall walked into our lives in 1978 at our Ontario Provincial Police detachment. She was the first Black female officer to join the OPP at a time when her peers were White and overwhelmingly male. She was courageous, fearless, brilliant, had a vivacious laugh and suffered no fools.

Carol-Ann was born in Kirtons, Saint Phillip, Barbados, in 1953. Her father, Ashton, was an assistant commissioner with the Barbados police and her mother, Doreen, a nurse. She grew up attending Rices Methodist Church, singing in the choir and honing her beautiful classical soprano voice.

At 17, Carol-Ann left Barbados to study in Virginia on an international scholarship, eventually finding her way to Canada to attend Trent University. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in geography and an education degree from the University of Toronto.

A woman always taking on new adventures, she was a teacher in Ontario public schools, she served six years with us in the Ontario Provincial Police and moved on to a variety of roles in public service, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She taught English language to adults in Japan and Toronto and took classical voice training at the Victoria Conservatory of Music. Her work was never done.

In 2017, she wrote a book called I Dare You! to help women assess emotional abuse in their relationship and to provide them with practical and legal resources to leave toxic relationships. She drew on her personal experience.

Carol-Ann was taken from us both suddenly and unexpectedly on October 28. She had a second book in the making, a new business to run, another mountain to climb after mastering Machu Picchu and so many dreams to fulfill.

She would want me to remind you, senators, that this is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I encourage all of us to continue the important work that meant so much to her.

I send my condolences to her many friends — particularly the ”posse,” as she called them, who cared for her during her short illness — and to her family in Barbados and in England. She was a remarkable person, and will be missed.