Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, on the heels of a very successful seventh Canada’s Agriculture Day, it is my pleasure to rise today in the Senate of Canada to share with you that 4-H Canada is hosting its fiftieth annual Citizenship Congress. Obviously, there were a few hiccups through the last few years with COVID, but for 50 years now countless members have come together in Ottawa to learn about citizenship and government. Certainly in the face of challenges and changes over those 50 years, the team at 4-H Canada has continued to be resilient, intuitive and include innovation in their programming.

This week, 4-H Canada youth delegates from coast to coast to coast are gathered in Ottawa to continue to build their skills in teamwork, communications, collaboration, leadership and problem solving. The organization continues to hone these important life, personal and work skills in each and every member through all the programs they offer.

Developed in 1972 to bring together 4-H members, the Citizenship Congress welcomes 55 delegates to Ottawa this week. I wish them the very best of luck in the coming days as they participate in many important events. Their hard work and determination continue to inspire many people, including myself.

For your information, the culmination event will take place on Sunday at noon when they will enter into this chamber and debate the following:

Be it resolved that the Government of Canada hold online [social media] platforms accountable for the [hate-speech/misinformation] postings of its users.

They will prepare for that debate throughout the course of the next few days, and I look forward to hearing the debate that day.

These members and those all across Canada represent our future, the future of Canadian agriculture and that of our urban and rural communities. Honourable colleagues, I can assure you the future is bright.

I will be particularly interested in welcoming three individuals from Ontario: Annalise Lilbourne, Caitlin McKercher, Ethan Russell and their chaperone Judy Hall when I see the group this evening at the parliamentary reception in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building.

Colleagues, I invite you to join me to meet these amazing young people and many other 4-H Canada representatives this evening. Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Andrii Bukvych, Deputy Head of Mission and Deputy Ambassador of the Embassy of Ukraine in Canada, and Tetyana Girenko, Legal Counsellor and Parliamentary Liaison. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Deacon (Nova Scotia) and Kutcher.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Busson, and I ask for leave of the Senate that following my intervention, the balance of her time to speak on this item be reserved.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved third reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin third reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner.

As a reminder, this is not a government bill. It was introduced by the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Anju Dhillon, a family and criminal lawyer. She is supported by Pam Damoff, the member for Oakville North—Burlington and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, and by Ya’ara Saks, the member for York Centre and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[English]

This trio of dedicated women secured the unanimous adoption of this legislation in the other place. I’m proud to work with these members of Parliament on this bill. I believe that for too long signs of domestic violence were ignored by the legal system. This has been due to an inadequate understanding of the long-lasting impacts of domestic violence on the other spouse and the children, including risks to their health, development and even life.

I also want to thank you, colleagues, for your support, and to acknowledge some individual contributions.

First, I thank the critic, Senator Manning, who has acted as a friendly critic. Incidentally, I support his Bill S-249, which proposes to establish a national strategy to address intimate partner violence.

Second, I thank Senator Hartling for her second reading speech on the bill and insights on the difficult issues of intimate partner violence, domestic violence and coercive control in family contexts.

Third, I thank the members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who agreed to promptly review this bill following the review of Senator Boisvenu’s Bill S-205. That legislation also proposes amending the Criminal Code to promote the use of electronic monitoring devices in cases of intimate partner violence.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater and her spouse, Philip Viater, a lawyer. Both are devoting tremendous time and energy to change false perceptions and wrong assumptions in our legal system to prevent, as much as possible, tragedies like the one that happened to them on February 9, 2020.

On that day, Dr. Kagan-Viater’s four-year-old daughter, Keira, lost her life during a period of access granted to her father, a person described as violent and controlling. This access occurred despite her mother’s numerous attempts to warn all those intervening in their divorce proceedings of the risk, including several judges.

With Bill C-233, we will send the following message to Canadian society in memory of little Keira: A violent and controlling husband is always a danger to the spouse and the children.

As Senator Hartling said, “Any act of intimate partner violence is an act of violence against the whole family, especially children. . . .”

The violence link was ignored by the legal system because these intervenors were untrained in connection with domestic violence and the associated risks.

Hopefully, recent changes to the Divorce Act, along with this bill, will change attitudes within the legal system towards domestic violence. This change of attitudes should prevent or at least significantly reduce tragedies of family violence.

Honourable senators, let me now briefly review the contents of Bill C-233.

[Translation]

I would remind senators that this bill centres on two proposed legislative amendments.

First, the bill proposes to amend the Judges Act to strongly encourage the Canadian Judicial Council to provide continuing education on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control.

The ultimate goal is to have trained judges who are aware of the need to consider indicia of violence before deciding matters of custody and access rights.

This part of Bill C-233 is often described as “Keira’s Law,” in memory of the little girl I spoke about briefly earlier, who died over three years ago.

[English]

This part of Bill C-233 specifically targets federally appointed judges, not provincially appointed judges, by amending the Judges Act. The Judges Act, as you know by now, provides for the remuneration and benefits, education, training and the treatment of complaints related to the conduct of federally appointed judges, as I explained last week when I spoke to Bill C-9 and earlier today when Senator Cotter also spoke to that bill.

Of course, federally appointed judges are only one component of the legal system and, to a certain extent, a minor part of it.

In reality, domestic violence is an issue often dealt with by police officers, social workers, family therapists, provincial judges and Crown prosecutors, all regulated by provincial laws.

However, by adopting an amendment to the Judges Act, Parliament will not only strongly suggest the need for continuous education of federally appointed judges on domestic violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships; it will also send a powerful signal to the provinces and the territories and to all those involved in the legal system to take the same approach. We can no longer ignore domestic violence and its tremendously negative impact on children.

As matter of fact, Dr. Kagan-Viater, Mr. Viater and many groups involved in the issue of domestic violence are campaigning for provincially adopted measures. Doctor Kagan-Viater told me that Queen’s Park is considering amending provincial laws to ensure that training is provided to provincially appointed judges, Crown prosecutors and police officers.

[Translation]

Second, Bill C-233 adds a provision to section 515 of the Criminal Code that specifically calls upon judges and lawyers, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the alleged victim’s safety and security, to have the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.

Of course, it is only possible to order an accused to wear an electronic monitoring device if such devices are available in the region in question.

(1530)

As I mentioned in my speech at second reading, it is important to consider recent developments in this regard in several provinces. In Quebec, for example, recent legislative and regulatory amendments and the allocation of five years of funding made it possible to gradually roll out a system for supplying equipment and continuously monitoring those accused or convicted of offences related to intimate partner violence.

I would remind senators that the first 18 months post‑separation is when incidents of violence and even femicide are most likely to occur. This is the high-risk period targeted by the proposed addition to section 515 of the Criminal Code. Under that amendment, the court may, at the request of the attorney general of the province, impose as a condition of release that a person accused of an offence related to intimate partner violence be required to wear an electronic monitoring device. It could be a device that monitors the accused’s movements to ensure that the person is in fact where they should be, or it could be a geolocation device that ensures that the accused is abiding by the terms of the no-contact order imposed by the court.

As Senator Boniface so rightly pointed out, intimate partner violence in rural and urban areas poses unique challenges and requires the implementation of adequate internet access or other appropriate means of communication.

Besides access to means of communication for the purpose of monitoring, we must also, as Senator Boisvenu stated, give violent men access to care and prevention programs.

Above all, as other senators, including Senator Pate, have stated, we must address the root causes of this violence.

I would like to borrow the analogy Senator Hartling used. As she said so well, ending intimate partner violence is like building a house. We need a foundation, as well as walls and a roof.

We need a comprehensive strategy that focuses on prevention, screening and rapid intervention.

This bill represents progress and another step in the right direction. It may be incomplete, but it is very useful.

[English]

Mindful that the comprehensive approach is required, the members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee have attached to their report the following observation:

In line with witness testimony regarding the urgency of addressing this issue in our society, this committee urges the government to also invest greater resources in initiatives that enhance financial, social and health supports that help ensure: capacity and resources for emancipatory anti‑violence supports, centres, including women’s shelters, financial supports, more responsive and respectful treatment of victims by police and prosecutorial authorities, and effective interventions to interrupt and address misogynist and racist violence, including with aggressors.

In the design of a global approach to intimate partner violence and domestic violence, the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and territories should seriously consider the Spanish model. I referred to it at length during my second-reading speech.

This includes specialized courts; specialized trained police officers; an effective public awareness campaign on domestic violence; an information platform maintained by police officers and the various institutions that care for abused women; and an electronic surveillance command centre connected to what was then the department of health, social services and equality, which is responsible for 24-hour monitoring of the bracelets in use in Spain.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I know how important it is to this chamber to move forward on an issue as sensitive as intimate partner and family violence.

Therefore, I invite you to pass this bill swiftly so it can be implemented as quickly as possible, which will help save lives. There must not be another Keira.

[English]

Thank you for your attention, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (goods from Xinjiang).

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, for the second reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gagné, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

(1430)

Hon. Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, February 16, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada, respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and requests, for the purpose of such study, that it be empowered to:

(a) to travel within Canada.

The original budget application submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee were printed in the Journals of the Senate on June 9, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the Senate approved the release of $21,826 to the Committee.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT BLACK

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1270.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled Canada’s Restrictions on Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan, tabled in the Senate on December 14, 2022.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; and

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the ParlAmericas concerning the Ninth Summit of the Americas, held in Los Angeles, United States, from June 6 to 8, 2022.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I would like to ask a question, if I may, to the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Senator Seidman. Would you accept a question?

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Yes, senator.

Senator Plett: Senator Black, I believe this report involves a trip to Guelph. Since it was a public meeting and not — as the translators in our committee like to say — a secret meeting, it was discussed that you had asked for a certain sum of money. I believe that was cut almost by half. Does this report reflect what the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approved this morning or does it reflect what you asked for?

Senator Black: Honourable senators, as we all know, in the preparation of a travel budget, committee clerks err on the side of caution. Therefore the request that we did send in was on the side of caution.

After my appearance at the Senate budget committee last week, subcommittee members lowered the participation from 12 senators to 9, and removed the costs associated with interpretation. As such, only nine people will be travelling and we will not be offering interpretation services to the committee for the trip.

Recognizing that the travel is coming up quickly, we need to get on with purchasing those tickets and the things we need. This report does reflect the lower amount.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our colleagues who recently left this place a little sooner than expected, but in a manner that seems perfectly fitting for her: quietly, without fanfare, but with a lasting impact.

Despite her request not to have a formal period for tributes, I would still like to ensure that the retirement of Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas does not go unmarked. She has been a devoted champion for the rights of Indigenous women and girls, both before her appointment and through her work here. It would certainly not be an understatement to use the term “trailblazer.” She received the Order of Canada in 1990 and the Governor General’s Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case in 1992. Though she will be missed, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have sat with her in this chamber and to have learned from her.

A Maliseet woman from the Tobique First Nation in New Brunswick, Senator Lovelace Nicholas was the first female Aboriginal senator to represent Atlantic Canada. At the time of her appointment in 2005, her name was already well known. It has arguably become forever tied to the issue of improving the rights of Indigenous women and girls, as hers was the name in the case taken to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1981, Lovelace v. Canada. This ruling, in her favour, was the catalyst that began years of work to amend the Indian Act in order to end the gender discrimination that impacted the rights of First Nations women and their children. Along with colleagues like former senator Lillian Dyck, Senator Lovelace Nicholas continued to advocate for changes to the Indian Act, drawing our attention to the consequences of this ongoing injustice. During debate on Bill S-3, she told this chamber that:

. . . Canada cannot disconnect the ongoing discrimination against indigenous women in the Indian Act from the current human rights crisis of murders and disappearances.

How fitting that she spoke those words as the truth-gathering process was beginning in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, another issue for which she fought.

Honourable senators, there have only been nine Indigenous women appointed to the Senate of Canada. But following the retirement of Senator Lovelace Nicholas, half of them — five — are currently in our chamber. Seeing this progress and knowing the senators who are now representing these voices, I do not doubt that the issues Senator Lovelace Nicholas steadfastly pursued will continue to be ably advanced.

Her first speech in the Senate was in honour of International Women’s Day, when she delivered a statement about the late Mavis Gores, another Tobique First Nation woman who advocated for gender equality. At that time, she spoke these words, which seem equally fitting to describe Senator Lovelace Nicholas herself:

Honourable senators, if it had not been for the strength of First Nations women in our communities, and women’s groups across Canada, we would not have been able to accomplish what was once considered impossible: The changing of federal legislation by women who thought they did not have a voice.

Your voices have certainly been heard.

Woliwon, Sandra, thank you. Thank you for being you. You will be missed.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, two days ago, thousands of friends, admirers, dignitaries and citizens of Mississauga and beyond gathered there to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Her Worship Mayor Hazel McCallion, who passed away on January 29 at the age of 101.

Hazel McCallion presided as Mayor of Mississauga for 36 years, from 1978 to 2014, easily winning 12 elections and serving until age 93. She built her city of Mississauga from three small townships, cow pastures and sleepy meadows into one of this country’s largest, most livable and successful communities.

Mayor McCallion was a character, a force, with a big personality, and I was so happy that I got to know her. She got her start in politics after she and her husband, Sam, moved to a small community west of Toronto named Streetsville, which eventually became incorporated into Mississauga. Stints as Mayor of Streetsville and city councillor led to her first and successful run for mayor against a popular incumbent in 1978. She had been in office only a few months when a Canadian Pacific train carrying toxic chemicals derailed, accompanied by explosions and chemical spills. McCallion oversaw the successful evacuation of 200,000 Mississauga residents, gaining considerable praise and fame, and there was no looking back.

Her admirers named her “Hurricane Hazel,” a nod to her ability to get things done, including massive development, transit systems and infrastructure. She was a practical achiever and a superb communicator.

As a pollster, I always admired her extraordinary approval levels, higher than those achieved by any prime minister or premier that I had seen. At one public meeting where satisfaction with city services in Mississauga was being discussed, she was informed that her approval level was 95% and that 2% of citizens disapproved. “Two percent disapprove,” she said, “and I know them both.” Yes, she could count her detractors on the fingers of one hand.

Hazel McCallion received countless honours during her lifetime, including an Order of Canada, an Order of Ontario, an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Toronto and more. This was how I got to know the mayor when Equal Voice, which promotes women in politics, honoured the mayor with our EVE Award. The Royal York was filled for her speech that day in 2007, and every time I saw her after that, she went out of her way to tell me how much that award meant to her and how much it meant to be seen as a role model for women in politics.

That she was. One thing is sure — she reminds us that women in politics have diverse styles and views, that successful women do not have to fit into one mould and that you can be true to yourself. I loved her feisty iconoclasm. She was Hurricane Hazel, and for me she was the perfect storm. Thank you.