Parliamentary information: Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs: Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016 (May 30, 2022)

Summaries of Senate technical briefings

April 19

9:00 am to 9:52 am

Attendees

Senate of Canada:

• The Honourable Senator Gwen Boniface (Bill Sponsor)
• Cameron Ross, Office of Senator Boniface
• Michael Milech, Office of the Government Liaison in the Senate

Office of the Minister of Public Safety:

• Kelly Murdock, Director of Parliamentary Affairs
• Conor Lewis, Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):

• Scott Millar, Vice President, Strategic Policy Branch
• Graeme Hamilton, Executive Director, Traveller Policy
• Terri Gabbatt, Manager, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Meaghan Kuntz, Senior Policy Advisor, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Patrick Gray, Parliamentary Affairs

Justice Canada:

Scott Nesbitt, CBSA Legal Services

Public Safety Canada:

• Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy Directorate
• David Thelen, Director, Border Policy Division
• David Vicente, Manager, Preclearance

Summary

Scott Millar, Vice President, Strategic Policy Branch opened the presentation by providing a high-level overview of the legislative proposal. Graeme Hamilton, Executive Director, Traveller Policy walked through the briefing deck presentation in greater detail.

Overall, the briefing went well. Of note, discussion emphasized:

• The need to be practical and straightforward in providing Senators with an outline of the way border processing would be impacted by the legislative proposal, and to avoid getting tied up in overly legal or complex language
• The potential for discussion and debate in the Chamber or at Committee to touch on the status of the Government’s commitment to introduce legislation to create a review body for the CBSA

The discussion also featured a number of questions and answers and several requests for additional information were taken on notice.

Questions and answers

1. Question: (Senator Boniface) Comparison to other jurisdictions.

Answer: (Scott Nesbitt, CBSA Legal Services): No other jurisdictions have used similar terminology, and only New Zealand has legislated an examination threshold.

2. Question: (Senator Boniface) Clarity on the sequence of events that led to Bill S-7, and on whether this is purely an exercise in enshrining in law current operational practice.

Answer: (Mr. Hamilton): In 2014, there was little policy and guidance. We developed a robust policy in 2018 to 2019 and are now trying to legislate that policy.

(Terri Gabbatt, Manager, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy): An Operational Bulletin in 2015 gave provisional direction on the matter. More detailed policy work followed, and the policy came out in 2019. We want to give that policy force of law.

3. Question: (Senator Boniface) Training for Border Services Officers.

Answer: (Ms. Gabbatt): Some training is being done, but it will depend on the language ultimately passed into law.

(Mr. Hamilton): This issue will feature in training of both new recruits and of existing officers.

(Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy Directorate): With this proposal, CBSA will also be required to provide training on the matter to US preclearance officers. It’s worth noting the US presently has no examination threshold related to personal digital device examinations.

4. Question: (Senator Boniface) Charter Compliance.

Answer: (Mr. Nesbitt): Justice Canada’s assessment is that Bill S-7 would survive a Charter challenge. We’ve released a Statement to that effect.

5. Question: (Senator Boniface) Potential contention around “housekeeping” amendments.

Answer: (Ms. Gabbatt, Mr. Koops): There are no contentious proposals among those amendments.

6. Question: (Cameron Ross, Office of Senator Boniface): Difference between “area” and “perimeter” in the PCA, 2016.

Answer: (David Vicente, Manager, Preclearance): “Area” is the operational area where travellers and goods are stationed for departure to the US; “perimeter” is the physical space around the conveyance.

7. Question: (Mr. Ross) Difference in language used for amendments to the Customs Act vs. PCA, 2016 (sections 9, 12; “for greater certainty”).

Answer: (Mr. Nesbitt): The difference is a result of an asymmetry between the two laws: the Customs Act has separate sections related to detention and examination authorities, the PCA, 2016 has them bundled together.

8. Question: (Mr. Ross) Reason for the Clause 7 alignment with the Income Tax Act.

Answer: (Ms. Gabbatt): A lot of CBSA legislation is still tied to Canada’s tax regime.

Requests for additional information

1. Supplementary outline of comparisons between the approach outlined in Bill S-7 and those used in other jurisdictions
2. Information on the sequence of operational guidance, training, and policy milestones that led to Bill S-7
3. A copy of Bill S-7’s Charter Statement and Q&As on Charter compliance
4. A copy of the current CBSA policy concerning the examination of digital devices
5. A copy of Mr. Hamilton’s remarks, which expanded on the briefing deck presentation
6. An explanation of the Clause 7 alignment between the Customs Act and Income Tax Act
7. An update on the status and next steps related to the Minister of Public Safety’s Mandate Letter commitment to introduce legislation to create a review body for the CBSA

(VP Millar committed to a 24hr turnaround)

Next steps

Senator Boniface anticipates opening debate in the Senate at Second Reading on Tuesday, April 26, 2022. She expects the Bill will move to committee relatively quickly.

SECD (National Security and Defence) is the most likely subject-matter committee; LCJC (Legal and Constitutional Affairs) may also receive the referral, but less likely.

April 28

9:00 am to 9:50 am

Government Attendees

Office of the Minister of Public Safety:

• Conor Lewis, Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
• Emily Horonowitsch, Office of the Minister of Public Safety

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):

• Julia Aceti, Director General, Traveller, Commercial, and Trade Policy
• Graeme Hamilton, Executive Director, Traveller Policy
• Janine Harker, Director, Commercial and Trade Policy
• Terri Gabbatt, Manager, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Meaghan Kuntz, Senior Policy Advisor, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Nicole El-Koussaifi, Parliamentary Affairs Unit
• Catherine Chartrand, Parliamentary Affairs Unit

Justice Canada:

Scott Nesbitt, CBSA Legal Services

Public Safety Canada:

• Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy Directorate
• David Thelen, Director, Border Policy Division
• David Vicente, Manager, Preclearance

Senators:

• Gwen Boniface
• David Wells
• Kim Pate
• Renee Dupuis
• Pierette Ringuette
• Tony Dean
• Amina Gerba
• Bev Busson
• Hassan Yussuff

Summary of the English briefing

Julia Aceti, Director General, Traveller, Commercial, and Trade Policy, opened the presentation by walking through the briefing deck of the legislative proposal presentation. The presentation covered the requirement for this legislation, the case history, why it matters, and what changes are being proposed to the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Overall, the briefings went well. Senators were provided with detailed answers to all of their questions. DG Aceti addressed all questions. There were no follow-ups in the English briefing, however, there was one taken on notice during the French briefing (see summary of the French briefing below).

Questions and answers

1. Question: (Senator Dupuis): the new threshold, is reasonable general concern lower than reasonable grounds to suspect?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): yes, reasonable general concern is lower than the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold. The new threshold has been designed to account for the unique border context. The main difference is that reasonable grounds to suspect threshold requires that the suspected contravention be particularized. This is often difficult in a border context as may observed indicators of potential non-compliance are behavioural in nature and cannot be easily attributed to a specific contravention. The reasonable general concern threshold does not require that the contravention be particularized but does require that the concerns be reasonable and objective.

2. Question: (Senator Wells): when a Border Services Officer (BSO) sees a traveller coming in and they look nervous, does that trigger reasonable grounds?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Observed nervousness alone would be considered more along the lines of mere suspicion. We are proposing a threshold that that is lower than reasonable grounds to suspect, but higher than mere suspicion. Routine questioning and processing would take place first before any examination of a personal digital device. There needs to be reasonable and objective facts to initiate a digital device exam, not just mere suspicion. So, a nervous traveller alone is not enough grounds.

3. Question: (Senator Wells): does a BSO have access to criminal records of travellers?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): An officer may pick up indicators in primary inspection or causes for concern that may result in the traveller being flagged and they would be sent to secondary. An officer will have access to criminal records in the secondary examination area.

4. Question: (Senator Wells): does the US have similar authorities?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): there is a no-threshold exam in US. They have a two-tier system. If they use tech assistance to search device, that action requires reasonable suspicion. The manual search of the device has no threshold in the US.

5. Question: (Senator Wells): what about unlocking a device? Does non-compliance with providing a password equal criminality?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): a passcode must be provided to the BSO by the traveller as traveller are required to present their goods for examination. If it is not given, the officer can detain the device under the Customs Act. Yes, that is seen as non-compliance as they are required by law to give access.

6. Question: (Senator Wells): with documents that fall under solicitor-client privilege, is it a blanket exemption?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): any documents on the device marked as privilege cannot be examined. If an officer becomes aware of solicitor-client privileged documents, they will include that in their notes, but they will not access the documents.

7. Question: (Senator Wells): if a traveller has a photo album of child pornography, or a web link, on the cloud, or something that is not residing on the device, but is still accessible. What’s the dividing line between residing on the device and accessible on the device?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): a BSO can only search what is residing on the device. BSOs must disable network connectivity before searching a personal device.

8. Question: (Senator Ringuette): is this issue of threshold going to hamper the officer intuition that they developed through experience but may be difficult to articulate I’m concerned because I find that this intuition is extremely helpful.

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): we’ve considered this carefully. We’ve put forward the novel threshold to recognize that unique context and recognize that officers will develop this “intuition” as they gain experience over time. We’re trying to find that balance of offering protections to travellers while protecting the ability for officers to do what they’re able to do.

9. Question: (Senator Ringuette): does the PDD exam take place during primary or secondary?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): it takes place at secondary. Once a PDD exam is initiated, the officer is required to take notes, write down indicators, etc.

10. Question: (Senator Dean): what are you hearing by way of criticism from civil liberties associations and those who worry you might not have done all you could to protect privacy rights?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): there is not a ton of dialogue in the public domain. Civil liberties associations had some initial concern that this is new and questioned whether it goes far enough. The OPC has been engaged with this issue over the years, but we haven’t received much public feedback yet. We’re moving in a direction that the OPC has advised in the past.

11. Question: (Senator Dean): how dependent is this new process on the regulations? Are the regulations being developed concurrently?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): the threshold and regulatory changes work together to provide a robust limit. We are working concurrently to ensure that the regulations can come into force shortly after the passing of Bill S-7.

12. Question: (Senator Gerba): visible minorities face racial profiling everywhere. I have concerns about the application of such a law for visible minorities. Will officers be trained to avoid unconscious bias?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): we take this very seriously. We are ensuring that proper protections are in place and it is an important part of training. We are training our officers to guard against this bias. While our enforcement actions are not driven by racial profiling, there is always room to improve.

13. Question: (Senator Yussuff): there is not a good history for the CBSA with regards to racial profiling. There’s been enough findings on CBSA conduct. Some people are prone to act nervously. How do we have assurance that travellers can be protected against racial profiling?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): there are different training courses that we’re making more and more robust, particularly to understand unconscious bias and how different groups may interact with the CBSA differently, so that officers can factor in these dynamics as they consider indicators of concern. The concept of reasonable general concern requires a multiplicity of indicators, not just nervousness, but this is a very important issue to the Agency, and we aim to continually improve.

14. Question: (Senator Yussuff): since you are now behind on court deadline, what is the expectation of the Senate?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): there will be a gap. The legislative process needs to play out in its fullness as it should. We hope the process isn’t terribly long, but we are working with our front line officers in the impacted provinces (Ontario and Alberta) to mitigate this gap until this legislation can pass and be applied nationally.

Next steps

Senator Boniface anticipates opening debate in the Senate at Second Reading on Thursday, April 28, 2022. She expects the Bill will move to committee relatively quickly.

SECD (National Security and Defence) is the most likely subject-matter committee; LCJC (Legal and Constitutional Affairs) may also receive the referral, but less likely.

May 5

12:30 pm to 1:20 pm

Attendees

Office of the Minister of Public Safety:

Conor Lewis, Office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):

• Julia Aceti, Director General, Traveller, Commercial, and Trade Policy
• Graeme Hamilton, Executive Director, Traveller Policy
• Terri Gabbatt, Manager, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Meaghan Kuntz, Senior Policy Advisor, Traveller Facilitation and Customs Policy
• Nicole El-Koussaifi, Parliamentary Affairs Unit

Justice Canada:

Scott Nesbitt, CBSA Legal Services

Public Safety Canada:

• Randall Koops, Director General, International and Border Policy Directorate
• David Thelen, Director, Border Policy Division
• David Vicente, Manager, Preclearance

Senate of Canada:

Senator David Wells

Summary of the briefing

Julia Aceti, Director General, Traveller, Commercial, and Trade Policy, opened the meeting by walking through a high-level version of the legislative proposal since Senator Wells attended the all-Senators briefing on April 28, 2022. The presentation covered the new threshold (reasonable general concern), the typical process at the border (for example, when a referral to secondary screening would be done), scenarios of travellers processed in secondary at the border, and the outcomes of examinations (for example, fines, destruction or detainment of goods, referral to police of jurisdiction, etc.).

Overall, the briefing went well. Senator Wells was provided with answers to all of his questions by Julia Aceti, Scott Nesbitt and Randall Koops. There were no follow-ups required, however, Senator Wells requested that officials be available for future briefings should he require one. Officials confirmed they were at the Senator’s disposal and would be available to brief on S-7 again.

Questions and answers

1. Question: Would every CBSA officer that has a responsibility to do searches at secondary have that training? Or is there a separate category of officers who would be able to conduct these exams?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Officers conducting examinations would be required to complete the training. Over time, we would make that training wide-spread. It takes time to get officers trained.

2. Question: If in secondary, there’s an officer that doesn’t have the training, would they be permitted to do the PDD search?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): No, the supervisor needs to make sure the officer should be trained.

3. Question: In primary, with reasonable general concern, who gets the training, who does the search, who decides the reasonable general concern, etc.?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): The next part of the presentation will provide greater insight on your questions.

4. Question: If every traveller is pre-screened, I am assuming there is some kind of list? Is that what pre-screening is?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): If there are any wants or warrants, it is flagged in primary, then the traveller is referred to secondary. There could be police of jurisdiction engaged as well. We are pre-screening for terrorism, national security issues, etc. Pre-screening is happening before primary as the information is coming from airline carriers.

5. Question: You mentioned that S-7 is policy being moved into law. Is that the policy today – that the device be turned on airplane mode? How long has it been in place?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Yes, that is the policy today. It has been in place since 2015. An officer is required by policy to disconnect connectivity to a network.

6. Question: What happens in instances where the officer does not indicate the choice of turning off connectivity to a traveller?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Officer undertakes this action themselves and could advise traveller it is taking place, but the officer must put the device on airplane mode.

7. Question: Would there be instance where a CBSA officer would delete something they found that may not have reached something at the level of chargeable offence?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): No, officers do not delete material on PDDs.

8. Question: Where on the device (like, in the instance of child pornography) would be the first place an officer would look in an airplane mode state? How does that work without connectivity?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): If we’re talking about undeclared goods, it could be a receipt on email. Photos could be searched as well. It depends on the case and the indicators of that case, but we’re reviewing things that are resident on the phone.

9. Question: Is no action from a traveller (in other words, not providing a password for a PDD) considered hindering a BSO?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): It could be considered as such under s.13. The CBSA officer could detain the device under s.101 and send the device to forensics if the traveller does not unlock the device. Travellers’ refusal to unlock their device could be another indicator, but not the sole requirement to meet the threshold. The password to the PDD is written on a separate piece of paper and then given back to the traveller to destroy. It is not recorded in an officer’s notebook.

10. Question: Are BSOs looking for something specific? For example, if an officer suspects that a person has child pornography or other contraband material? How do you hone in on something specific when you don’t know the connection between reasonable general concern and child pornography?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Contraventions have to relate to border legislation. We’re not zeroing in on a particularized contravention. We’re looking for broader inference, but constrained to border legislation. This stops short of needing a particularized indicator. Officers are making these assessments based on limited information as it is presented at the border. There could be a variety of contraventions manifesting in the same way. Example, e-receipts for undeclared jewellery, contraband material like child pornography, etc.

11. Question: With reasonable general concern, can it be triggered by one indicator?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): There could be cases of one strong indicator. It depends on the facts of case.

12. Question: What is a typical indicator? Is it a behavioural indicator?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): It could be a combination of behavioural changes with the specifics of the case. For example, we would be looking at the trip, length of trip, inability for traveller to answer questions, etc. We know that a lot of travellers can feel behave differently when being screened because they are tired from travelling, etc., but that is not a strong enough indicator on its own.

13. Question: Let’s just talk about phones. Aside from the indicator of a traveller coming in with multiple hard drives, what would be the other indicator for someone coming across with one carry on, one bag, etc. It’s a pretty low bar. I’m trying to get to why a person would be targeted if the bar is so low that it’s enough for a CBSA agent during primary to refer to secondary?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): The vast majority of travellers with one phone, one piece of luggage, etc. are unlikely to be set aside for examination (less than 1%). Perhaps you could have a scenario where a traveller has an expensive watch and is asked about the value of the watch, whether it was declared, among other things, but they cannot provide compelling information. The vast majority of travellers are processed through primary without being referred to secondary. It could also be the routing of the trip. For example, a single male traveller coming from a destination that is known for sex tourism. Additional, if the provided details are shifting, they cannot provide proof, they cannot negate indicators, then those pieces of information would be gathered to reach the reasonable general concern threshold.

14. Question: If someone is coming from an area that is known for sex tourism, and it’s a single male (whatever age is common), what happens if that person has something on the cloud or has an email attachment that is not openable without connectivity? What happens then? What compels the officer to get the password, but not tell traveller to put on airplane mode? Is the CBSA officer compelled to tell the traveller they have that right to put the device on airplane mode?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Officers must disable connectivity, then indicate that to the traveller. It happens every time. Officers are obligated to do that.

15. Question: Well, it doesn’t always happen every time because it happened to me.

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Then that BSO is not meeting his or her obligations and not abiding by the policy they must be following.

16. Question: Let’s talk about subconscious bias. Is that part of training?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): This is a very important issue that we are aware of. Our targeting processes are not triggered by racial profiling. Unconscious bias is recognized and there are training courses for all CBSA employees, including BSOs.

17. Question: Why reasonable general concern? Can’t get a lower threshold other than no threshold.

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): We are going higher than no threshold or mere suspicion. Reasonable general concern allows for objective indicators. The requirement for particularized suspicion is different between both thresholds (reasonable general concern and reasonable grounds to suspect). Evidence of a contravention could be found for offences at the border in a more general way under the new threshold. For example, prohibited goods. So, reasonable grounds to suspect is used at the border for personal searches, skin searches. This is more invasive. The reasonable general concern threshold is lower than that degree of invasiveness.

18. Question: Are skin searches typical when there is a suspicion of drugs?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): It can be when there is primary suspicion.

19. Question: Regarding the US, what is their threshold and have you been working with US border agency regarding their threshold and how their requirements might match ours?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): There is currently no threshold in the US unless they are using technology to search the phone.

Answer: (Randall Koops, PS): Principally, the bill is concerned with the exercise of those powers by US preclearance officers in Canada. They would be subject to the same threshold and same standard as CBSA officers. The US is well aware these cases are making their way through the system and is well aware of the bill. We are in close discussions with them. Nothing that the Canadian government has done here comes as a surprise to the US. Ministerial Direction can be employed by Minister quickly to impose legally binding conditions on preclearance officers and regulations are the longer term tool. The intent is that the conditions imposed on US officers in Canada would mirror that of CBSA officers. Provisions in S-7 mirror those for the Customs Act to differentiate PDD from regular goods and create that different threshold for different classes of materials.

20. Question: How many airports have this facility where CBSA officers are at an airport outside of Canada and they’re doing preclearance?

Answer: (Randall Koops, PS): There are no Canadian preclearance officers in the US. Work is underway to establish Canadian preclearance for travellers bound to Canada.

21. Question: Is reasonable general concern low enough for BSOs to effectively do their work?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): This threshold strikes the balance to provide protections and to maintain operational integrity at the border. It is lower than reasonable grounds to suspect, but it is still maintaining those two features.

22. Question: Part of my job is to make sure this doesn’t go to court. “Reasonable general concern” are three words that have a lot of flexibility. Why isn’t something more specific, something more metric, like one indicator or two indicators before a traveller is sent to secondary? Why isn’t it something more iron clad?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): We are looking at each word. “Reasonable” means that indicators need to be objective and articulable. “General” is to get at this distinction that we do not need to have a particularized contravention identified. “Concern” is to distinguish it from suspicion and the existing case law making it clear that this is novel and for the border.

23. Question: Reasonable grounds of concern is not tight enough to eliminate a court challenge…

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): We do feel this is Charter compliant, but I will turn to Scott Nesbitt to provide more details.

Answer: (Scott Nesbitt, Justice): The intent is to create new threshold, so that we are creating something new between mere suspicion and reasonable grounds to suspect in this threshold continuum. The truth is, it’s new and the precise meaning will be elaborated over time. The meaning needs to be flexible because context is different in any given case. Your previous example is a great one to think about. You can’t say it’s one or two indicators because some are stronger than others. It’s a contextual assessment, not a mathematical formula. It depends on constellation of factors. It is correct to focus on each of the three words. A reasonable concern is objectively verifiable. It’s not a hunch that a BSO can’t explain, they must articulate the basis for that and satisfy the judge.

24. Question: Is that why note-taking takes place?

Answer: (Scott Nesbitt, Justice): Yes. It’s an accountability measure to make sure BSOs are respecting the limits of their authority. The general wording is important because it’s meant not to require a specific contravention be identified, because in the border context, that level of specificity is not available. We don’t want lack of specificity to hinder an officer to proceed with an examination. “Concern” distinguishes it from suspicion or belief. So, there is a degree of elevated concern about that device compared to other travellers. Right now, there’s no threshold under s.99(1)(a). This new threshold distinguishes a new authority from what currently exists.

25. Question: Let’s say a traveller has financial instruments, or someone is coming in with child pornography or drugs. Are there different indicators that our BSOs would see based on what kind of law is being broken? How do they know? How does their training or experience help?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): Pre-screening can help. The routing, the location, the demographics, the duration, the baggage, etc. can come together to form an indicator. For example, a single young woman, travelling from a known drug source country, on a ticket was purchased in cash by a third party. That scenario could result in more further questioning and referral to secondary. These things, like the circumstances of the trip, mount to reach that threshold. There is officer experience, but this is backed up by intelligence and previous enforcement records. This helps refine that expertise they’re bringing to bear.

26. Question: So, travellers coming from Bogota would more likely be subject to an exam when compared to travellers from Nashville?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): I don’t have that data. It depends on each traveller. A traveller coming from Bogota is not an indicator alone. There can be one strong indicator, but that alone would not qualify as a strong indicator. More information would be required.

27. Question: You talked about travellers coming from countries as part of a flag of concern where there might be proclivity of child sex trafficking and drug trafficking, how does that factor in?

Answer: (Julia Aceti, CBSA): How a traveller presents themselves with the routing information of their trip is assessed. Again, simply coming from a country known for sex tourism or drug trafficking is not a strong enough indicator alone.

28. Question: Can US officers search the cloud? Do they have that allowance?

Answer: (Randall Koops, PS): At the moment, they cannot. They have an internal policy which required them to put all PDD on airplane mode prior to a search. We propose those kinds of regulations for preclearance officers in US be implemented as well.

29. Question: Question for MO, how come this was introduced in the Senate and not the House of Commons?

Answer: (Conor Lewis, Minister’s Office): This bill is important and it would take a lot of time to get this bill through the House. We need Senators’ keen eyes on this and it’s important to get this bill passed.

30. Question: So, is the government open to amendments?

Answer: (Conor Lewis, Minister’s Office): I wouldn’t know and it’s not my place to comment, but we are grateful for the Senate’s work on this file.

Next steps

Once debate at Second Reading is completed and if the bill is adopted, the bill will be referred to SECD (National Security and Defence).

Summary of second reading debates in the Senate

Overview

Overall tone of debate was curious / cautious or oppositional. Subsequent to Senator Boniface’s introduction, responsive speeches were given by three senators. Most questions during debate were from senators who were not in attendance at the technical briefing.

Summary

Senator Gwen Boniface (Ontario)

April 28, 2022
Independent Senate Group (ISG)

Speech

Summary:

• Importance of personal digital devices exams as part of delivering the CBSA mandate
• Differentiating existing no threshold exam from newly proposed “reasonable general concern”
• Discussed the existing jurisprudence and case law surrounding personal digital device examination
• Expressed need for, and difficulty in gathering, indicators
• Importance to move quickly on the Bill so as to not prolong leg gap

Paula Simons (Alberta)

May 3, 2022
Independent Senate Group (ISG)

Speech

Notes:

• Tone was oppositional
• Discussed limited outcomes of exams, and untested legal threshold
• Took the position that the Canfield called for "reasonable suspicion"
• Published her speech on Twitter (picked up by civil liberties groups and defense lawyers) and continued sentiments in a Hills Times piece

Summary:

• Devices hold personal information: devices hold our most intimate and embarrassing secrets
• New threshold with no existing precedent: stated that court did not specify what it thought a proper constitutional threshold would be, but it suggested it might be something akin to “reasonable suspicion,” as opposed to the more stringent standard of “reasonable and probable grounds”
• Reasonable general concern is too low: fuzzy, ill-defined threshold, one that opens the doors to all kinds of possible misapplication or abuse
• New threshold allows racial profiling: officers would identify “someone who is Black or Muslim or Chinese or Indigenous. Or someone who is queer. Or someone who wears unconventional clothes. Or someone on the autism spectrum”
• Existence of reasonable suspicion in the Customs Act: obvious legal threshold to conduct a search already exists with personal searches and mail so why are we not using the same
• Unencumbered access to devices: officers conduct fishing expeditions into “our texts and photos, our love notes, our bank statements, our SkipTheDishes orders, our Amazon purchases, our dating history and our private health and fitness data”
• No balance between privacy and law: Bill S-7 lowers the bar for a search, diminishes privacy rights and grants officers more latitude to pry into personal devices. The novel legal threshold will create confusion and will undoubtedly become the subject of aggressive litigation
• Child pornography across the border is not the main vehicle into Canada: most child porn is not imported into this country physically, carried on individual personal computers, it is traded online
• Targeting based on political views: travellers could be targeted for phone and computer searches based on their political views (links to treasonous or seditious material)

David M. Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador)

May 10, 2022
Conservative

Speech

Notes:

• Tone was oppositional
• Discussed delay of legislation introduction by the opposition, untested legal threshold, exams lacking transparency, profiling and bias as reason for examinations
• Raised concerns related to the use of indicators and possible racial bias

Summary:

• Speed of policy implementation: Government that is both highly reactive in its policy-making and extremely slow
• Existence of current legal gap in both Alberta and Ontario
• Bill S-7 is a copy and paste policy exercise: use of existing internal CBSA policies to put them into law and it took 18 months and counting
• “Reasonable general concern” too low and vague: could, in fact, mean almost anything, if the CBSA officer said a traveller looked nervous, that would be grounds for a full search of a device
• Previous examination regime had no protections at all: exams are highly subjective, could be a single indicator or racial profiling and that Canadians are searched for no valid reason
• New threshold has no precedent: need to understand why the simple codification of CBSA’s policy is the best approach
• No limits seem to exist: implied that the Government has actually not engaged in such an exercise as part of this proposal as regulations have not been seen
• Access to devices: officers may be able to access everything including the Cloud. Told personal story where officers reviewed Visa statements in relation to declaration
• Need for balance: want to provide officers with sufficient capacity to intercept obscene or otherwise illegal materials but, at the same time, give Canadians the assurance that their privacy will not be compromised where there are absolutely no grounds
• Inform travellers of disabling network connectivity: may be appropriate to also advise travellers that this is being done, to improve their confidence that their privacy is being protected, but also ensure that only illegal material stored on the device is accessible by CBSA officers
• Miscellaneous amendments: expressed concern with decreasing maximum penalty for interfering with a CBSA officer (limited connection device exams, which it isn’t) – Note: intent of actual change is to make it a hybrid offence

Pierre J. Dalphond (Quebec)

May 11, 2022
Progressive Senate Group (PSG)

Speech

Notes:

• Tone was neutral to supportive
• Discussed the legal considerations and stressed the importance of conducting a thorough review

Summary:

• Need for balance: between protecting privacy rights and upholding the law and that there is a need for a threshold
• Different legal thresholds at play within law enforcement: they must be subject to objective analysis, supported by factual elements and permit an independent judicial assessment
• Testing “reasonable general concern”: it is an unknown concept in the law, and a court will have to examine its standing in combination with the binding regulations
• Committee should focus on:
  • pros and the cons of a new threshold in connection with documents found on personal digital devices rather than applying an existing test, reasonable suspicion (used in mail)
  • existence or not of equivalent thresholds in other democratic societies
  • hear evidence from legal experts about the ability of the proposed threshold to survive future legal challenges
• Resulting threshold: may be a bit lower than reasonable suspicion but may not be far from it

Annex: Questions asked during tech briefings and speeches

SECD Committee biographies

Tony Dean (Chair)

Independent Senators Group
Province: Ontario

Appointed on the advice of Justin Trudeau in 2016

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
• Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations

Tony Dean was appointed to the Senate of Canada on November 10, 2016. Prior to his appointment, Senator Dean was a professor at the School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Toronto and continues his association with the School as a Distinguished Senior Fellow. He has advised governments and international organizations on public service reform and building capacity for policy-making and delivery.

From 2002 to 2008, Senator Dean was Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service. He also served as Deputy Minister of Labour, and as the Deputy Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for cross-government policy coordination. In his role as a public servant, he provided non-partisan advice to NDP, Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments in Ontario.

Senator Dean has written on public sector leadership and co-authored a Mowat Centre report on pathways to fiscal sustainability in Canada. In 2012 he authored a report on integrated public service delivery in Commonwealth countries. Dean has chaired expert advisory panels on teachers’ benefit plans (2014), Occupational Health and Safety in Ontario (2010), and Business and Human Resource Planning in Canada’s public service (2008). He has also acted as an independent expert advisor on public sector pension plan governance. Dean has written for the Toronto Star and the UK-based Guardian newspaper. His book, Building Better Public Services, was published in 2015.

Jean-Guy Dagenais (Deputy Chair)

Canadian Senators Group
Province: Quebec
Senatorial designation: Victoria

Appointed on the advice of Stephen Harper in 2012

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages

Influenced by his father, who served 30 years on the Montreal police force, Jean-Guy Dagenais worked as a peace officer from 1972 to 2011 at the Sûreté du Québec. He held various positions, including patrolman, investigator, team leader, and education relations officer with schools. He also worked in the communications division and the VIP security service.

His involvement with the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec began in 1984. He served successively as delegate, regional director and vice-president of finance. He was elected president in 2004.

Mr. Dagenais has been a guest speaker at the Fédération québécoise des municipalités conference and has participated in many public security committees. He has also been a board member of both the École nationale de police and the Canadian Police Association. He was made Officer of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, which recognizes citizens from diverse sectors who have shaped Quebec’s development or contributed to its success.

Mr. Dagenais ran as the Conservative candidate in the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot in the 2011 general election.

Peter M. Boehm

Independent Senators Group
Province: Ontario

Appointed on the advice of Justin Trudeau in 2018

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
• Senate Standing Committee on National Finance

Born in Kitchener, Ontario, Senator Peter M. Boehm holds a Ph.D in History from the University of Edinburgh, a Master of Arts in International Affairs from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, and a Bachelor of Arts in English and History from Wilfrid Laurier University.

He was Deputy Minister for the G7 Summit and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister (Sherpa) from July 2017, until his retirement from the public service in September 2018. Peter Boehm had previously been Deputy Minister of International Development, Associate, and, subsequently, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. From 2013 to 2017, he concurrently served as Sherpa for the G8 and subsequent G7 Summits, as well as the Nuclear Security Summit.

A former career foreign service officer, he served as Ambassador to Germany from 2008 to 2012 and previously as Assistant Deputy Minister for the Americas, North America and Consular Affairs. Abroad, he was Minister (political and public affairs) at the Embassy of Canada to the United States in Washington and Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States. He has held a variety of diplomatic positions including assignments in Cuba and Costa Rica.

He was National Summit Coordinator for the Santiago and Québec Summits of the Americas, Special Envoy for the Organization of American States Democratization Mission in Peru and Personal Representative (Sherpa) of the Prime Minister for the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata in 2005. From 2005 to 2008, he was the senior official responsible for the annual North American Leaders’ Summit.

He is a recipient of the Public Service of Canada Outstanding Achievement Award and the Canadian Foreign Service Officer Award for his contribution to advancing peace in Central America.

Donna Dasko

Independent Senators Group
Province: Ontario

Appointed on the advice of Justin Trudeau in 2018

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications

She is a respected national pollster, media commentator, and private sector business leader with considerable public policy experience. She holds a Ph.D. and MA from the University of Toronto and a BA (Hons) from the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Dasko was formerly Senior Vice-President of Environics Research Group Ltd, and built the firm from a small consultancy into one of Canada’s leading research firms. During her career, she led major research studies for federal and provincial departments and agencies, private sector clients, and NGOs, in areas including the economy, budget priorities, tobacco control, health promotion, national unity, and many others. She was a leader in developing media-sponsored polling including the Globe-Environics Poll and election and special feature polling for the CBC.

As a community volunteer, she served in many roles including President of St. Stephen’s Community House, Director of the United Way of Greater Toronto, Governor of the Canadian Unity Council (devoted to Canadian unity and federalism), Chair of the National CEO Roundtable for the Alzheimer Society, and Advisor to GreenPac (which promotes environmental leadership).

Dr. Dasko’s passion for the promotion of women in politics has guided much of her advocacy. She is a Co-Founder and former National Chair of Equal Voice, a non-partisan organization aimed at electing more women in Canada. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), which promotes equality rights for women. In 2015, she co-founded the Campaign for an Equal Senate for Canada, an initiative to promote a gender-equal Senate. She works with National Democratic Institute on issues related to women in politics internationally.

She is a Senior Fellow at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and taught in its Master’s program before her Senate appointment. She is a member of Statistics Canada’s Advisory Committee on Social Conditions.

Marty Deacon

Independent Senators Group
Province: Ontario
Senatorial Designation: Waterloo Region

Appointed on the advice of Justin Trudeau in 2018

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
• Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce
• Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Prior to serving in the Senate, Senator Deacon completed a 35-year career in Education. As an Educator with a Masters of Education (Western University) she taught (Physics, Science, Physical & Health Education) in Secondary Schools (Waterloo Region District School Board), at two Universities (University of Toronto, Western University), was a Consultant, and an Administrator at the Elementary and Secondary School level. Deacon finished her career in Education as Superintendent. Following this career, Senator Deacon consulted across sectors with a focus on organizational excellence.

Senator Deacon is most passionate about the physical and mental well-being of all Canadians. She is an advocate for the future of women and young girls and children worldwide. She has mentored and supported leaders in developing countries with a belief that sport, the arts and education can build better communities, one community at a time.

Senator Deacon is dedicated to ensuring organizations can thrive and function at optimal levels. She has assisted with developing governance and policy that allows this to happen in a meaningful, purposeful and respectful way. Senator Deacon will use all of her skills and experiences to ensure an inclusive. inviting meaningful connection for all Canadians. All perspectives need to be heard and understood. Senator Deacon understands the importance of taking risks, participating in courageous conversations and learning every day.

Senator Deacon has been recognized through a variety of awards including: The Women of Distinction and Lifetime Achievement Award (YWCA), Waterloo Region, The International Olympic Committee, Education and Youth Award, the Jules Nisse “Playground to Podium” award, the Queen Diamond Jubilee Medal, Induction in the Cambridge Sports Hall of Fame and the Cambridge Hall of Fame.

Hassan Yussuff

Independent Senators Group
Province: Ontario

Appointed on the advice of Justin Trudeau in 2021

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce

In 1988, Senator Yussuff joined the Canadian Auto Workers union as the National Staff Representative, and later became their first Director of Human Rights. In 1999, he became Canadian Labour Congress’s first person of colour elected to an executive position, as Executive Vice-President. He went on to be elected as Secretary-Treasurer for three terms, from 2002 to 2014, before being elected President in 2014. He was re-elected in this role in 2017.

In addition to his work in Canada, Mr. Yussuff is a prominent international activist. In 2016, he was elected for his second term as President of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas, an organization uniting 48 national organizations and representing more than 55 million workers in 21 countries. He was also a member of the Executive Bureau and General Council of the International Trade Union Confederation and a member of the Ministerial Council of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr. Yussuff served on the Government of Canada’s NAFTA Council and its Sustainable Development Advisory Council. He also contributed to numerous other task forces and organizations, including as co-chair of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. He was recently appointed to the Net-Zero Advisory Body by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. He has recently been part of the Industry Advisory Roundtable on COVID-19 Testing, Screening, Tracing and Data Management and the COVID Communications Partners Roundtable.

Mr. Yussuff and the Canadian Labour Congress, with their tripartite partners, are recipients of the 2021 Canadian Freedom of Association Award for their instrumental collaboration in Canada’s 2017 ratification of the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 98. Mr. Yussuff has been a recent recipient of the Pearson Centre Progressive Leadership Award. He has also received honorary Doctorate of Laws from Brock University and Ryerson University.

Mobina S. B. Jaffer

Independent Senators Group
Province: British Columbia

Appointed on the advice of Jean Chrétien in 2001

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Chair, Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Senator Mobina Jaffer represents the province of British Columbia in the Senate of Canada. Appointed to the Senate on June 13, 2001 by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, she is the first Muslim senator, the first African-born senator, and the first senator of South Asian descent.

After spending almost a decade with the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Senator Jaffer had the opportunity to chair a number of studies including one on the sexual exploitation of children in Canada and the need for national action. A champion of Canada’s linguistic bilingualism, she advocates measures to advance the use of English and French in communities across Canada. As public safety has assumed a significant place in national debate and policy, Senator Jaffer raised awareness on the abuse of profiling in counterterrorism measures and the fundamental imperative to respect privacy, human rights, and the rule of law. Communities are at the heart of any successful policy initiative and progress; Senator Jaffer works to engage communities in protecting human rights, celebrating Canada’s diversity, and promoting progress.

Senator Jaffer served as Canada’s Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan from 2002 to 2006. From 2002 to 2005, she chaired the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace, and Security. Senator Jaffer is often invited to speak at international conferences on security issues and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which “urges all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts” and “calls on all parties to conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, in situations of armed conflict.” As a grandmother, women’s rights and children’s rights are central to Senator Jaffer’s advocacy.

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

Conservative Party of Canada
Province: Quebec
Senatorial designation: La Salle

Appointed on the advice of Stephen Harper in 2010

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
• Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce

He worked for more than 30 years in Quebec’s public service as a senior official and deputy minister. In June 2002, his eldest daughter was murdered by a repeat offender; it is then that he began championing the rights of the families of murdered or missing individuals, so that the justice system grants them the same rights as criminals. In November 2004, Senator Boisvenu and three other fathers founded the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association (MMPFA). This association, which supports and advises families who have suffered the sudden loss of a loved one, now has more than 600 member families. Through sustained media presence and the numerous talks he continues to give, Senator. Boisvenu has helped to increase awareness of the rights of victims of crimes among the Canadian public. He also created the Isabelle Boisvenu Fund, which provides scholarships for students in the field of victimology.

In November 2005, Senator Boisvenu was awarded the Government of Quebec’s Prix de la justice. This award recognizes a citizen’s significant contribution to the promotion of justice in the province.

Senator Boisvenu is co-founder of Le Nid, a shelter for abused women in Val-d’Or, and was a member of several boards and humanitarian organizations in the Eastern Townships. He was chair of the United Way of the Eastern Townships from 2006 until March 2010.

As a senator, he has worked to strengthen victim legislation and victims’ rights in Canada’s judicial system. He succeeded in passing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights during his term in office. He sponsored several government and private Members' bills: Bill C-23A (Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act), Bill C-310 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code-trafficking in persons), Bill C-316 (An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act-incarceration), Bill C-293 (An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act-vexatious complainants), Bill C-37 (Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act), Bill C-452 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code-exploitation and trafficking in persons) and Bill C-479 (An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders).

Larry W. Smith

Conservative Party of Canada
Province: Quebec

Appointed on the advice of Stephen Harper in 2010

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Larry Smith is a widely-recognized and respected figure in Quebec. He graduated from Bishop’s University with a bachelor of arts in economics in 1972, and a bachelor of civil law degree from McGill University in 1976. He is well-known in Montreal from his days as a fullback with the Montreal Alouettes from 1972 to 1980, and as President and Chief Executive Officer of the same team from 1997 to 2001 and again since 2004. Working tirelessly to promote professional and amateur football, Mr. Smith also served as Commissioner of the Canadian Football League (CFL) prior to his first term as Alouettes’ President.

Outside of football, Mr. Smith has served on a number of civic charitable boards, including as Co-President of the 2001 Montreal Centraide Campaign and on the board of the Canadian Olympic Committee. He also has extensive experience in the business world, including positions with John Labatt, Ltd., and Ogilvie Mills, Ltd., before becoming CFL Commissioner. In addition he served as president and publisher of The Montreal Gazette in 2002 and 2003.

He has received numerous awards over the course of his careers, including the Commissioner’s Award for outstanding service and dedication in promoting and preserving the CFL (2001), the 1994 American Marketing Association-Toronto chapter Marketer of the Year (consumer products) and Sports Personality of the Year at the Quebec Sports Gala (1998). Mr. Smith was inducted into the Quebec Sports Hall of Fame on September 30, 2015 under the category of "Builder for Football".

Mr. Smith resides in Hudson, Quebec, with his wife Leesa. They have three children and two grandchildren.

David Richards

Canadian Senator Group
Province: New Brunswick

Appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio: Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Senator David Adams Richards is an acclaimed Canadian novelist, essayist, screenwriter and poet, whose commitment to the Miramichi River valley, his province, and the country is reflected in his body of work. His writings, through which he gives voices to the marginalized and helps to deepen the reader’s understanding of the human experience, have been translated into 12 languages, and are part of the curriculum of Canadian and U.S. universities.

Mr. Richards has been a writer-in-residence at several universities and colleges across Canada and has received honorary doctorates from three New Brunswick universities and the Atlantic School of Theology. He is one of only three writers to have won in both the fiction and non-fiction categories of the Governor General’s Literary Award. He was a co-winner of the 2000 Giller Prize for his novel Mercy Among the Children and has received numerous other prestigious awards, including the Canada-Australia Literary Prize, two Gemini Awards for scriptwriting, the Alden Nowlan Award for Excellence in the Arts, the Canadian Authors Association Award and the 2011 Matt Cohen Award for a distinguished lifetime of contribution to Canadian literature.

In 2007, he was awarded the regional Commonwealth Writers’ Prize award. He is a member of the Order of New Brunswick and the Order of Canada. The Writers’ Union of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University have established annual awards in Mr. Richards’ name.

Jane Cordy

Progressive Senate Group
Province: Nova Scotia

Appointed on the advice of Jean Chrétien in 2000

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
• Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
• Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Senator Cordy was appointed to the Senate by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien on June 9, 2000. She was born in Sydney, Nova Scotia and is a graduate of the Nova Scotia Teachers College and Mount St. Vincent University. She taught elementary school for 30 years in Nova Scotia, teaching in Sydney, New Glasgow and the Halifax Regional Municipality.

Senator Cordy has served as vice-chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission and was also the chair of the Board of Referees for employment insurance. She also served on the Board of Phoenix House for Youth and also served as a Board Member of Mount Saint Vincent University.

Senator Cordy is a past president of the Nova Scotia Women’s Liberal Commission. She also served on Prime Minister Chrétien’s task force on seniors.

Senator Cordy is a past chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and served as an international vice president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly representing North America on the executive. She is also a vice president of the Civil Dimensions of Security Committee in the Assembly. Senator Cordy continues to be involved with the NATO Parliamentary Association as well as the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association.

Senator Cordy has a particular interest in issues related to mental health, multiple sclerosis, seniors and aging, NATO and Gender Security, education and children. She was a member of the senate committee which published a report “Out of the Shadows at Last” a study of the issues relating to mental health, mental illness and addictions. She was also a member of the special senate committee on the implications of an aging society in Canada.

Senator Cordy lives in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia with her husband Bob. They have two adult children, Alison and Michelle, and four grandchildren.

Margaret Dawn Anderson

Progressive Senate Group
Province: Northwest Territories

Appointed on the advice of Justice Trudeau in 2018

Activities/Experience of Interest to the Portfolio:

• Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
• Former Director of Community Justice and Policing, NWT
• Former Assistant Director, Corrections Services, NWT

Ms. Anderson has a Bachelors of Child & Youth Care from University of Victoria. She has more than 20 years of experience as a public servant, working with communities and Indigenous peoples across the Northwest Territories. She served in various roles with the Government of Northwest Territories, Department of Justice. Notably, she was the Director of Community Justice and Policing, and Assistant Director, Corrections Services, where she implemented positive changes to the territorial justice system. She was involved in the feasibility study, development and implementation of the NWT Wellness Court Program, a therapeutic program that attempts to reduce recidivism by treating underlying issues like mental health, addictions, and cognitive challenges.

Ms. Anderson continues to pursue a MA in Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria. Prior to her appointment, and to prepare for the defense of the Community Governance component of her Masters studies, Ms. Anderson worked as a Policy Analyst with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation where she participated in Inuvialuit self-government negotiations with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Government of Canada.

Ms. Anderson’s dedication to her community and to improving the lives of others is best displayed through the development, implementation and facilitation of the Planning Action Responsibly Toward Non-violent Empowered Relationships (PARTNER) program, a northern-based program for low to medium risk domestic violence offenders that is a central component to the NWT Domestic Violence Options (DVTO) Court. She also was an active member of the Working Group for DVTO Court. In addition, Ms. Anderson also worked with restorative justice initiatives across the NWT and conducted a review of the N.W.T.’s community justice program through consultations, which resulted in a report with several recommendations to improve community-based programming.

Ms. Anderson is a two-time recipient of the territorial Premier’s Award for Excellence for her leadership and commitment to improving her community. She resides in Yellowknife, NT.

Pierre J. Dalphond

Progressive Senate Group
Province: Quebec

Appointed on the advice of Justice Trudeau in 2018

Activities/Interest: Protect minorities and defend the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Born in Joliette, Quebec, Senator Dalphond holds a law degree from the University of Montreal and a M. Phil. In Philosophy, Politics and Law from Oxford University, U.K.

He began his professional career in Ottawa (clerk to the Supreme Court of Canada, then legislative advisor to the Privy Council) before moving to Montreal to join a national firm, where he practised corporate and business law.

In 1995, he was appointed a Justice of the Quebec Superior Court. In 2002, he was elevated to the Quebec Court of Appeal. He wrote leading judgements on language rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, treaty rights, separation of powers, class action, sharing of parental responsibilities and abuse of judicial process.

Throughout his career, he has written numerous legal articles, taught in faculties, given talks in Canada and abroad and organized training programs for judges (notably China, Brazil and Rwanda). He has been regularly involved with various social, cultural and political organizations.

In recognition of Senator Dalphond’s contributions, he was made a graduate emeritus of the University of Montreal. He was also awarded the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and the Governor General’s Academic Medal and was made an honorary member for life of the Young Bar of Montreal.