Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I confess that my remarks may display a small amount of impatience, and I apologize in advance for that. I have a short speech, and I will come at it through the side door, I think. I hear some of you saying, “Oh, no, not again.”

I understand that there’s a rule in the Senate that senators are not allowed to use props. I want to respect that rule, but I hope that it does not extend to describing a prop that one would have used had one been allowed to use it.

The prop I would have liked to have brought to this topic is a sweatshirt that I own. I wish I had worn it today. On the sweatshirt is written a short, pithy sentence from the judgment of a famous English judge, Lord Denning. Your Honour, you and I and nearly everybody who has studied law has encountered Lord Denning.

The sentence to which I am referring, and which appears on my sweatshirt, is from an old English court case decided in 1954. The case was called Marsden v. Regan. Lord Denning began his judgment with the following sentence, which appears on my sweatshirt: “This case ought to have been simple, but the lawyers have made it complicated.”

Some of you are thinking that this could apply to a lot of things about lawyers, not just court cases.

In a small way, I think it applies to the present state of Bill S-236 and our current situation. To be blunt about it, this issue ought to have been simple but I fear we senators have made it complicated.

Here is my point: The Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee did a conscientious study of Bill S-236. The committee’s work was reported to the Senate. Subsequent to that, or during that process, new information came to light, as has been shared with us, regarding the financial implications of the bill that suggested it required further consideration. The committee agrees. Given that the bill has created some interest and concern in some constituencies, most notably in the circumstances of low-income Prince Edward Islanders, it seems incumbent upon us to send the bill back to the committee for further consideration — in light of all of the circumstances — to hear from appropriate witnesses and have the committee report back to the Senate in a timely fashion. I hope we will act in this way.

As I am trying to honour the sentiment of the prop that I was unable to wear today, that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the second reading of Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.

Senator Manning: Thank you, senator. I apologize; I haven’t had the opportunity. I’ve been bombarded with different statistics from everywhere and trying to fit it all into a 35-minute speech.

But I have spoken to people in Alberta, in many cases they are people from Newfoundland and Labrador who live in Alberta today, and there is no doubt in my mind that the concern with intimate partner violence is very real in Alberta, as it is in every province in our country.

Certainly, I hope that groups such as the one you mentioned will bring forward information to the committee. Hopefully, we will learn not only about the concerns and problems that are out there, but I’m also interested in finding solutions. Through their efforts, I hope we can bring that to committee and that some of these suggestions and recommendations will be formalized into our report.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Thank you, Senator Manning, for this important speech, and thank you most of all for lending your voice to women who have experienced violence, who have found the energy and courage to survive that violence and to help other women.

With respect to Bill S-249, I see in the English version that there is a definition of the term “intimate partner.” I think it’s a very important definition since it seeks to include both current and previous partners. It doesn’t only refer to partners who are currently in a relationship. This definition only exists in the English version of the bill. Could you explain why? It is on the Senate LEGISinfo website. Why not include this definition in the French version of the bill?

[English]

Senator Manning: Thank you, madam senator, for your question. With regard to the French version, I have to apologize; I’ll have to depend on someone else to explain the French version of my speech.

There has been as much concern raised with me over the past number of years with former spouses and former partners as there has been with present partners and present spouses. It will be incorporated into the discussions without a doubt. They took the podium from me, and my speech with it.

The fact is that I have heard from many people who are in relationships and concerned about someone coming back into their lives in cases, and they have a peace bond against them for whatever reason.

So there is no doubt in my mind that this will be incorporated into the discussions, because we need to look at the whole picture, including former spouses and partners, as well as ones that we are currently dealing with.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you so much, Senator Manning, for that important speech. I look forward to hearing more and seeing what happens in committee.

I wonder if you have had a chance to review the reports of the Family Violence Death Review Committee in Alberta and the many recommendations they made after studying many tragic cases in Alberta. They were looking for patterns across these cases and making recommendations for the prevention of family violence and deaths in particular. I’m wondering if you have had a chance to see those.