Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, I noticed that you mentioned pepper spray in the context of mandatory minimum sentences in your speech again, just like in your second-reading speech. After that speech, I asked you how many people in the last five years in Canada were convicted of that pepper spray offence who received the mandatory minimum sentence. I speculated, given the discretion of police prosecutors and courts, that the number would be next to zero. You replied that you didn’t know. I asked why you put it in your speech as an example if you didn’t know. You repeated that you didn’t know and said that I could ask officials at committee.

So I did. The Department of Justice Canada officials couldn’t give me an answer, either that day or via their written response later.

Again, I contend that the number of people who are convicted of a pepper spray offence that attracts a mandatory minimum sentence would be next to zero. Senator Gold, why do you continue to use that pepper spray mandatory minimum sentence example when you have nothing to back it up after weeks?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I think in my third-reading speech, in which I referred to testimony, we had evidence before us that it would, in fact — though it doesn’t go all the way to eliminating all mandatory minimums — address a significant number — half of the cases — for which mandatory minimums were actually imposed.

We also heard testimony, to which I also referred, that this would have a significant impact on the overrepresentation of Indigenous women, Black people and other marginalized groups, who are caught up in the system.

Therefore, although it doesn’t go as far as many witnesses would want — and as far as you and many senators, perhaps, would want — it will make a real and tangible difference. In that regard, again — not to repeat the third-reading speech — this is a positive step forward, which you and many other witnesses acknowledged. It will make a real difference and will be a step toward addressing this overrepresentation.

I was at pains to mention, toward the end of my speech, that much more needs to be done to address the underlying causes. Much more needs to be done to provide the resources to communities to take full advantage of the repeal of these mandatory minimums and the creation of possibilities for diversion and for better integration and helping to rehabilitate those who don’t pose a risk to public safety. This will make a real difference. That’s what we heard at committee, and that’s why I support this bill.

Hon. Kim Pate: Senator Gold, so many of us support the objectives of Bill C-5 to repeal mandatory minimums and decrease the overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black people and members of other marginalized communities in prisons.

Just this week, the Office of the Correctional Investigator released their 2021-22 report, confirming that Indigenous women continue to be the fastest-growing federal prison population and that they are now 50% of federal prison populations, two out of three of those classified as maximum security and 76% of those in structured intervention units, the supposed replacement for solitary confinement. Of the incarcerated Indigenous women, 86.2% are assessed as high-risk and high-need. The majority are incarcerated for violent offences and serve long sentences, largely as a result of their responses to violence first perpetrated against them.

The incarceration of Indigenous women most often results in their children being apprehended by the state, as you have indicated, which further contributes to cycles of institutionalization for Indigenous children, families and communities.

Could you please explain how this bill in its current form will not implicitly defeat its own objective by continuing exponential increases in incarceration of Black, Indigenous and racialized or otherwise marginalized people, especially Indigenous mothers?