SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Senate Volume 153, Issue 79

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 15, 2022 02:00PM

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise tonight to speak to Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. I stand in strong support of Senator Ravalia’s bill and am personally grateful for his initiative.

Immediately prior to my appointment to the Senate, I was a director and incoming chair of the Kids Brain Health Network, which supported the mobilization of research related to autism, FASD and cerebral palsy. It was in this capacity that I first began to learn about the shocking realities associated with FASD and the isolation, risks, pain and trauma that it visits on so many children and their families.

My remarks today are focused primarily on four points: First, FASD is an equal opportunity problem, the consequences of which are made so much worse because of judgment and shame. Second, the current cost of inaction across the lifetime of a child born with FASD far exceeds every other intervention alternative. Third, early diagnosis and intervention are essential to reducing the lifetime costs. However, the vast majority of current evidence-based approaches and tools are unavailable to most families. Fourth, remote delivery options hold important promise and the opportunity for Canada to lead globally as we work to address the needs of children, families, educators and so many others affected by FASD. They are substantial indeed.

To my first point, FASD is an equal opportunity problem. In Canada, approximately 70% of women of child-bearing age drink, and 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. We know from various epidemiological studies that about 30% of pregnancies are alcohol-exposed to some degree, and most often during the first trimester, before the woman even knows she’s pregnant.

A recent University of California San Francisco study found that one third of women discover they are pregnant at six weeks or later. This rises to almost two thirds of younger women, and marginalized women are even more likely to discover pregnancy past seven weeks.

Simply, in committee, I think it will be important to understand the degree to which judgment and shame actually discourage versus encourage willingness to access early diagnosis and treatment for FASD in those places where it is actually even available.

Now to my second point, which is the high cost of inaction. There have been a few attempts to calculate the cost of FASD to the Canadian economy. A Centre for Addiction and Mental Health — CAMH — researcher, using a population prevalence of 1%, found that the direct annual costs of FASD in Canada are approximately $1.8 billion per year. However, again, epidemiological studies have demonstrated that the actual prevalence of FASD in Canada is closer to 4%, so the annual costs are therefore very likely closer to $6 billion or $7 billion per year.

However, these costs are not concentrated in the health care system, as I initially expected they would be when I first started to learn about FASD. The tragic irony is that, by far, the largest costs associated with FASD in Canada are incurred by the justice system. Youth with FASD are 19 times more likely to end up in prison than those without FASD. The total estimated cost of FASD to our criminal justice system is almost $4 billion per year. Think about it: We spend almost $4 billion per year on criminal justice interventions involving those suffering from FASD, and we spend it because of the brain injury that they acquired while still in the womb, and it was not diagnosed and interventions were not available.

When Bill S-253 is studied in committee, I hope time is invested in trying to identify the costs of inaction for families, schools and for these children, and all the costs that are incurred in our social service, health care, justice and correctional systems.

Finally, and most importantly, please consider the opportunity costs resulting from lives that cannot and will not be lived as a result of our inaction.

Now to my third point — early diagnosis and intervention. Current Canadian guidelines recommend either making a diagnosis or providing an “at risk” designation for infants as young as six months. However, the reality is that most diagnostic clinics will not even see a child who is younger than six years of age, and those children who happen to be referred for an assessment typically sit on wait-lists for over two years because of inadequate diagnostic capacity.

Children younger than six years benefit most from interventions that have been demonstrated to mitigate the long‑term consequences of prenatal alcohol exposure, yet, today, we are systematically closing this window of opportunity to virtually every child and every family.

Early identification enables early intervention. The Kids Brain Health Network championed and co-funded techniques that enabled FASD-diagnosed kids to be provided with effective supports at an early age so they could reach their full potential and achieve a far superior quality of life. A much brighter, safer and less-expensive future sits before these children and families if we choose to pursue it.

I hope that time will also be spent in committee to identify and find the ways to overcome the systemic barriers that are preventing effective and cost-efficient diagnostic and treatment approaches from becoming the standard of care across and throughout Canada.

Systemic barriers exist due to biases, limited resources and limited access to technology and connectivity, and they especially include the siloing that results from the fact that FASD is not the responsibility of any body or any group, either within or between levels of government. FASD is everyone else’s responsibility, so it’s no one’s responsibility.

Fourth, I want to speak about the importance of harnessing remote delivery support for educators, parents and kids. Various remote support systems and services already exist. The Strongest Families Institute is one example. Based in Nova Scotia, they deliver service remotely in Nova Scotia, and in several other provinces and territories. Services like this train paraprofessionals to provide remote programming coaching to families, helping them to deal with issues such as inattention, impulsivity, non-compliance and aggression at home or at school — issues that are very common with children with neurodevelopmental disabilities like Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, or FASD.

As an entrepreneur who led a company that delivered an effective, cost-efficient and evidence-based reading intervention, as an entrepreneur commercializing university-based research and as a volunteer with the Kids Brain Health Network, I have seen far too much life-improving knowledge never applied in practice. You have heard me say countless times that Canada has a phenomenal research engine, but we have yet to build the reliable transmission that will convert that research excellence into opportunities, jobs and prosperity.

In the case of neurodevelopmental disabilities, this means that kids, families and communities are suffering unnecessarily, and society is paying a much higher cost. Kids, parents and families desperately need cost-efficient access to effective, evidence‑based diagnostic and intervention tools across and throughout Canada.

As I conclude, I hope the committee in its review will be sensitive to the need that we do not unintentionally pit one underfunded, underserved disability group against another in a fight for all-too-scarce resources. As I say this, I’m thinking of Bill S-203, an act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, which passed third reading here in the spring and has now been introduced in the other place. It is a wonderful bill, but there is justifiably pent-up resentment about the limited attention and resources available to address the overwhelming needs of these families. This resentment is exacerbated when one disability is addressed in a way that actively excludes those dealing with other disabilities.

As a consequence, when Bill S-253 is considered at committee, I hope that opportunities might be identified to help build a more inclusive, pan-disability response for children and parents struggling with the effects of neurodevelopmental disabilities. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Coyle, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of finding solutions to transition Canada’s society, economy and resource use in pursuit of a fair, prosperous, sustainable and peaceful net-zero emissions future for our country and the planet.

1396 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, we have much on the go. Today, as we begin to see the lights, the trees and the magic of the holiday season, we celebrate National Child Day and we push hard over the next very busy four weeks, I would first like to take one more opportunity to remember.

On November 4, 2022, here in the chamber, a week of remembrance began with a wonderful ceremony. The Speaker hosts and honours so many veterans in a special ceremony, and it is an honour that we are invited and are able to attend. How special it is that every senator has the privilege of sending a wreath to their community of choice. Like all of you, I give this careful thought each and every year.

Every year we learn more from the stories of Canadians — some stories are over a hundred years old; some stories are very recent. Last week, Mr. Peter Mansbridge — a name that may be very familiar to you — on his podcast “The Bridge,” slowed his usual work down and highlighted different stories throughout the week. Perhaps the most profound episode was on November 10, 2022, entitled, “Your Turn On Remembering,” which turned the focus to stories written and submitted by Canadians.

This year I learned about 20 Royal Canadian Air Force pilots from Saskatchewan in 1946, following World War II. I’m sure my Saskatchewan senator colleagues know this tragic story well.

The community was Estevan, Saskatchewan. Imagine: The war is over. You are home. Canada has leased planes from the United States, and now it is time to return them. Each plane was returned. The last plane, a C-47 cargo plane, was returned to North Dakota. Twenty pilots and one ground crew member were on their flight back home and crashed near the Estevan airport. They survived the war, trained pilots and were tragically killed shortly after the war. There is a beautiful memorial to remind us all of these brave men who died doing their work.

This year, Remembrance Day found me in the United States. I wanted to learn a little more about their veteran community, so I visited with some young men and women who have returned home from tours in the last five years or so. I learned about a not-for-profit program called Home Base. It provides programs to veterans and their families at no cost to treat PTSD, traumatic brain injury, anxiety and depression, while addressing wellness and social isolation. It reminded me of the volunteer services we have here in Canada and the hard work they do assisting those who return home, such as the Veterans Transition Network, Wounded Warriors Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion. We thank them for all they do for our returning soldiers.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

469 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, introduced in the House of Commons on November 4, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

2.in addition, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-32;

3.the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 5, 2022, and be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting;

4.the aforementioned committees be authorized to meet for the purposes of their study of the subject matter of all or particular elements of Bill C-32, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto; and

5.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to take any report tabled under point three into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-32.

[Translation]

282 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the Fall Economic Statement 2022, tabled in the House of Commons on November 3, 2022, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on November 15, 2022.

70 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, your government’s inaction on the issue of interference in Canada by the Communist government in China is putting Canadian democracy increasingly at risk.

According to reports by Global News, the Prime Minister was warned by Canadian intelligence officials in January of this year that China has been targeting Canada with a vast campaign of foreign interference. This included funding a clandestine network of at least 11 federal candidates who ran in the 2019 election and conducting research into Canadian MPs who were critical of China’s human rights abuses against the Uighur population in Xinjiang.

Leader, my question is simple: Why is your government not responding forcefully to the Communist regime’s interference in our democracy?

127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government recognizes that investing in research and supporting Canadian researchers is pivotal and vital to address the health issues facing Canadians, and the pandemic through which we are living has reminded us of the importance of having access to solid research evidence.

I note that Budget 2018 provided $354.7 million over five years and $90.1 million per year ongoing for the CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to increase its support for fundamental research. The government as well continues to invest in research that’s important to the health of Canadians. Budget 2022 announced $20 million to study long-term effects of COVID infections and wider impacts on health and health care systems, and $20 million as well to increase our knowledge of dementia and brain health that we funded over five years through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Budget 2022 additionally committed to funding important research areas including long-term impacts of COVID-19, to name a few. With these continued investments, the government demonstrates its commitment to supporting a vibrant, equitable and diverse research community to help address the health challenges of today and tomorrow.

205 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Over the last years, as I’ve mentioned, the government has made historical investments toward research. I won’t repeat the figures that I gave before, but in Budget 2018 alone, the government committed nearly $4 billion over five years to support the next generation of Canadian researchers. It’s clearly an important priority for the government.

The government remains committed to strengthening Canadian researchers with resources and strengthened infrastructure and research networks.

[Translation]

81 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have been collaborating for some time to advance and ensure respect for shared immigration priorities. The 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord defines the bilateral relationship between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Quebec, which is guided by the principle that immigration must help preserve Quebec’s demographic weight within Canada as well as its distinct identity. The agreement has provided Quebec with a lot of money, and that funding has gone up in recent years. Funding is not tied to the total number of new immigrants to Quebec in a given year. The amount of funding never goes down, and the amount established in one year becomes the baseline for the following year.

The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with the Government of Quebec to achieve the goal of bringing in as many immigrants as necessary to help our businesses thrive and ensure the vitality of French in Canada.

167 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I am told that following broad consultations in 2019, the decision was made to stop issuing real return bonds because of the very low demand for this product. The decision to cancel the real return bond program will also allow the government to maintain liquidity within core funding sectors at a time when the government’s financial needs are declining. I would be pleased to ask the government for further details and to inform this chamber should you wish me to do so.

96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government understands that food insecurity for all Canadians, especially those such as students who have less access to family and other resources, is a real preoccupation. It’s on the rise. As you point out, those turning to food banks are examples of this. Thank goodness for those food banks and the generous volunteers and organizations that support them.

The fact is that the government recognizes this problem and is very preoccupied with it. The Government of Canada has made serious investments through targeted social programs and income supplements, like the Canada Child Benefit, to reduce poverty and food insecurity. Generally, other measures are contained in the Fall Economic Statement 2022, which will be before us when the bill arrives, to assist students in that regard, and the government will continue to do what it can to help those facing challenges such as food insecurity and other issues tied to the rising cost of living.

169 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, I continue with the matter of Communist Chinese interference in our affairs.

Yesterday, leader, we learned that the RCMP arrested Hydro‑Québec employee Yuesheng Wang and charged him with espionage. In a statement, authorities said that Mr. Wang obtained trade secrets to benefit the People’s Republic of China to the detriment of Canada’s economic interests.

Senator Gold, the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, has interfered in our electoral processes. They have set up police stations to intimidate Chinese-Canadians and they have infiltrated our industries.

What, Senator Gold, is it going to take for your government to recognize the real threat posed by this totalitarian regime and finally take the steps needed to protect our national interests?

128 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, but, again, the assumptions, with respect, are not ones that I can subscribe to. Canada is taking steps, and indeed, the example you just cited with regard to the ex-employee of Hydro-Québec is a perfect example.

Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are working hard and taking significant steps, and in that regard, of course, you’ll understand I cannot comment on the particular case. It is simply not the case that Canada is neither taking action nor taking this seriously.

96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator, thank you for raising this issue. It’s a concern to all of us, parents, grandparents and citizens alike. You’re right; it’s not just money, even though the federal government has made enormous investments in health recently, as I’ve outlined on other occasions.

You mentioned the recent meetings of the federal health ministers. It was the first meeting since 2018. It did not result in the progress that the government planned or hoped for. Since the beginning of the year, the federal, provincial and territorial officials worked collaboratively to prepare concrete action plans to advance the use of health data and digital health for Canadians and to support health workers.

Regrettably, instead of allowing health ministers to do their work and engage in a constructive and meaningful collaboration and conversation about the future of health care in this country, the premiers forced them to speak only of money and not the means of improving the system. This is not a plan.

The Government of Canada calls on the premiers to allow their health ministers to do the work with Canada’s Minister of Health to ensure that the long-term survival of Canada’s universal and publicly funded health care system survives and flourishes.

216 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Moodie: The crisis in pediatric health care, Senator Gold, is not limited to the hospital but to the drugstore, where Canadian parents have struggled to find basic medications for their children for a number of weeks now. For added context, a recent article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal argued that Canada has very little pharmaceutical security — that is, the ability to ensure our supply of drugs is not disrupted by supply chains.

Senator Gold, the government announced yesterday that it has secured a shipment of drugs in severe shortage right now. This is obviously welcome. Is there a plan coming to ensure Canadians can be confident that they will have access to basic pharmaceuticals when they or their loved ones need it?

124 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is to Senator Gold. While we applaud what Canada has done and is doing to support Ukraine in Russia’s illegal, genocidal war against the Ukrainian people, what more is the government prepared to do to bring the architects of the war to justice and to signal to their allies and business associates that international isolation awaits them should they continue to support Putin’s war? While Canada has sanctioned some individuals, why are we standing by while Alexei Mordashov, one of the richest Russian warmongers, evades Canadian sanctions despite being sanctioned by the U.S. and the EU?

104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the third reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

That Bill C-5 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 14, on page 3, by replacing lines 19 to 21 with the following:

91 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Boisvenu’s amendment to Bill C-5. Senator Boisvenu’s amendment would remove conditional sentences from Bill C-5 for a list of offences, including those related to domestic, family and sexual violence. This would mean that offenders convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, assault with a weapon, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking and causing bodily harm by criminal negligence could not receive a conditional sentence.

There are crimes that most reasonable people would agree are so grievous that society demands some form of reparation both to victims and to society. Generally, for more serious crimes, we have accepted that is generally sought through time spent in custody and through denial of one’s freedom to circulate within a community. Usually, the types of crimes Senator Boisvenu has listed in his amendment should warrant this, particularly because vulnerable victims are involved.

In reality, those sentenced to prison in Canada almost never serve their entire terms of incarceration. In almost all cases, prisoners are released after serving two thirds of their sentences. Quite frequently, their term may be reduced further to only one third of their original sentence. Most Canadians wouldn’t find that even close to acceptable.

Prisoner rehabilitation is certainly an important goal for the safety of society. But we can work to promote that goal while simultaneously ensuring greater truth in sentencing. In some of these cases, prison may be a place where offenders access programming to help them deal with their violence and abuse issues. And an offender’s removal for a custodial sentence may give the victim in a domestic abuse situation time to secure the supports she needs to establish her own safety and that of her family. In the event of a non-custodial sentence, such as the conditional sentences the Liberal government proposes with Bill C-5, these offenders may be returned to the very communities and, in some cases, the very homes where they abused their victims.

Last week, in its ruling on the R. v. Sharma case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of current limitations on the use of conditional sentences imposed by Parliament in 2012 during the Harper government. The case concerned Ms. Sharma, a 20-year-old Indigenous woman, who was found at the airport transporting a suitcase full of heroin for her boyfriend. Ms. Sharma had a troubled background of significant hardship, intergenerational trauma and sexual assault, and was a young, single parent with few supports. Ms. Sharma appealed her sentence for importing drugs, challenging the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions limiting conditional sentences from being applied for certain offences, contending that they are over broad, arbitrary and discriminatory to Indigenous offenders.

The Supreme Court majority held that a conditional sentence was unavailable to Ms. Sharma and dismissed her challenges under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. They ruled that Ms. Sharma’s personal circumstances did not make her crime any less serious. While a judge must — and, in this case, did — take an offender’s circumstances into account, it does not mean that an Indigenous offender cannot be given a sentence of incarceration. And, writing for the majority, Justices Brown and Rowe stated:

The impugned provisions do not limit Ms. Sharma’s s. 15(1) rights. While the crisis of Indigenous incarceration is undeniable, Ms. Sharma did not demonstrate that the impugned provisions created or contributed to a disproportionate impact on Indigenous offenders, relative to non-Indigenous offenders, as she must show at the first step of the s. 15(1) analysis.

Nor do the impugned provisions limit Ms. Sharma’s s. 7 rights. Their purpose is to enhance consistency in the conditional sentencing regime by making imprisonment the typical punishment for certain serious offences and categories of offences. And that is what they do. Maximum sentences are a reasonable proxy for the seriousness of an offence and, accordingly, the provisions do not deprive individuals of their liberty in circumstances that bear no connection to their objective.

When Minister of Justice Lametti proposed Bill C-5 to our Senate Legal Committee, he raised the example of “. . . an Indigenous mother who was caught in very low-level trafficking in order to put bread on the table” as the type of person this legislation was meant to target with conditional sentences. Clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada found in the Sharma ruling that, although personal circumstances should be taken into consideration, a sentence still must fit the severity of the crime and that the limitations Parliament placed on the application of conditional sentences in 2012 is constitutional.

With Bill C-5, this activist Trudeau government is further chipping away at Canadians’ confidence in the justice system. Half of Canadians surveyed earlier this year indicated they were not confident in the fairness of our justice system. Senator Boisvenu’s amendment aims to correct this problem.

One statistic that stood out to me, being from Saskatchewan, is that intimate partner violence is experienced by rural women at the rate of 75% higher than that of urban women. In fact, my home province of Saskatchewan has the highest rate of family violence in Canada, so this is an issue of paramount importance to me and to my region.

Legislation like Bill C-5, which would have repealed mandatory minimum penalties on a number of significant crimes, and allow for conditional sentences in others, will devalue the justice system further in the eyes of victims of crime and the Canadian public.

At the Senate Legal Committee, we heard testimony to this effect from Jennifer Dunn, Executive Director of the London Abused Women’s Centre. She told us:

It is already hard enough for a woman to come forward, and when she does, it takes years to get to the point of a conviction, if there ends up being one at all. This makes women feel as if the justice system isn’t taking them seriously. Just today, I was told by a woman we serve that if we have less protection in sentencing, we are less likely to report offences and this would be a real setback for us.

Crimes involving violence against women are already some of the most under-reported in our country. Statistics Canada estimates that more than 80% of violence against girls and women at the hands of an intimate partner, spouse or relative goes unreported. Only 6 out of every 100 sexual assault cases are reported to police. The last thing these victims need is to fear that the perpetrator of violence against them may receive a conditional sentence so that they will be back in the community where they live or work.

Jennifer Dunn told us about the chilling effect conditional sentences can have on victims of crime:

Conditional sentences for some offences can undermine the seriousness of the crimes. Women report to us that they believe this makes them feel as if they must watch their backs in the community when conditional sentences are imposed. We need to remember that sometimes victims and offenders are from the same communities as each other.

At our centre, there was a situation with a woman where the perpetrator was ordered to stay off her property, among many other conditions, of course. The perpetrator decided, though, to bring a lawn chair to a neighbouring yard and sit in that yard, facing her house and there was nothing that she could do about it.

Victims of crime should not have to endure this kind of intimidation or the threat that a perpetrator will turn up unexpectedly in the home community that a victim expects to be their safe space.

Honourable senators, if this Trudeau government passes Bill C-5 without Senator Boisvenu’s amendment, they will make conditional sentences available to: criminals convicted of abduction of a person under 14 years of age, those who benefit from human trafficking and those who sexually assault someone — and potentially serve those sentences at home? Show me where the justice is in that. Because, believe me, the survivors of these crimes don’t see the justice in this either. How can we expect them to report crimes against them when they happen again?

Victims of domestic violence already face barriers to justice in the courtroom. Bill C-5 could make that problem worse. University of British Columbia law professor Isabel Grant has written about the justice system’s lack of regard for female victims of abuse and related crimes and sentencing. She wrote this about female victims of criminal harassment:

The power of judicial discourses can also act to silence women who encounter the law. This is especially true of those women who do not comply with the construction of the “responsible victim.”

Female victims of crime know all too well that a court placing conditions on an offender is no guarantee of that perpetrator’s adherence to the rules. Because of the under-reporting of intimate partner violence it’s hard to know precisely, but the women’s shelter Interval House estimates that recidivism of domestic abuse falls somewhere between 39% and 66%. On its website, Interval House notes that abusers are often sentenced to lighter sentencing, carrying lighter penalties — similar, we could expect, to those the Trudeau government has listed in Bill C-5 as eligible for a conditional sentence.

Even if an offender is deemed low or no risk to the community and released on a conditional sentence with orders not to contact a victim, we know orders can be, and often are, breached.

Earlier this month in this chamber, Senator Fabian Manning — my friend and seatmate — gave an impassioned speech on his bill, Bill S-249, advocating for a national framework for the prevention of intimate partner violence in Canada. He presented us with many staggering statistics about the magnitude of domestic violence and the frequency with which it occurs. Senator Manning shared that 3 in 10 women who suffer intimate partner violence endure it — in some form — at least once a month, if not more often. One in five who suffers sexual abuse by their partners say it happens to them monthly or more frequently than monthly.

Domestic violence is a crime that repeats, and it is a crime that escalates. Often violence escalates through what might seem like less severe behaviour, which might fall on the lighter end of the criminal spectrum — the very offences that might receive a conditional sentence under Bill C-5 — for example, unlawful presence in a dwelling house or criminal harassment.

One such example is criminal harassment, which is a highly gendered crime. The Department of Justice estimates that females account for 76% of all victims in criminal harassment cases, while men account for 78% of the accused perpetrators. Stalking is a crime that can have devastating and profound psychological effects on its victims, and it is also often a precursor to repeated and increased violence. One study found that 76% of femicide and 85% of attempted femicide respondents had reported at least one episode of stalking within 12 months of the violent incident — more than had reported physical assault during that same period.

Domestic violence victims are often highly vulnerable once they have broken free from a relationship: 26% of all women who were murdered by a spouse had left the relationship, and 60% of all dating violence occurs after a relationship has ended. For the Trudeau government to institute conditional sentencing for these serious crimes against the person is dangerous. For these offenders to be returned to the communities where their victims live is unconscionable.

The government argues that removing mandatory minimums and increasing conditional sentences under Bill C-5 will address the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous Canadians in the prison system. Two of the only witnesses we heard from at committee who presented actual data, University of Ottawa criminology professor Cheryl Webster and researcher Dawn North, testified that the provisions of Bill C-5 will barely touch Indigenous overrepresentation in incarceration. Further, Ms. North stated that Indigenous offenders tend to have higher breach rates when granted conditional sentences. The increase is further troubling for the Indigenous women and girls who may be victims of abuse by their partners. Among Indigenous women, 6 in 10 have experienced physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives, and Indigenous women are 61% more likely to suffer from intimate partner violence than non-Indigenous women. For Indigenous women who are a sexual minority, the number is a shocking 83%.

Increased access to conditional sentences by offenders is not an advantage for victims of crime, especially Indigenous women and girls. As Jennifer Dunn repeated at committee:

I said in the House of Commons, and I’ll say it again, we need to view this bill through the lens of male violence against women. There needs to be a focus on women, specifically marginalized women, how they will be impacted by this bill and not get the justice they deserve.

It’s not just Indigenous victims who are vulnerable under Bill C-5. The statistics for other marginalized groups are shocking as well. An estimated 83% of disabled women will be assaulted at some point in their lives. Two thirds of sexual minority women have experienced intimate partner violence. Immigrant and refugee women and girls are especially vulnerable to the effects of intimate partner and family violence given language barriers, social isolation, a lack of resources, concern for their children and precarious immigration or deportation scenarios.

Honourable senators, the statistics on domestic abuse in this country are heartbreaking, but we need to act, not just talk about it. It is not enough for us to tweet supportive messages a couple of times a year or give a short speech here on an inquiry about domestic violence.

Colleagues, our opportunity to protect women and children living in these dangerous and very vulnerable situations is right here and right now. Your vote on this amendment is what can actually make a difference. Don’t let these abusers back into their communities so they can hurt or perhaps kill these women. Please take a stand, vote yes to this important amendment and help us protect victims of domestic abuse.

[Translation]

2384 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Boisvenu’s amendment, which I believe to be a carefully considered, thoughtful approach to proposed changes that have yet to be fully explained or justified.

At the outset, I want to commend Senator Boisvenu for his continued dedication to the pursuit of justice, both inside and outside of this chamber. When it comes to the protection of victims of crime, Senator Boisvenu has always ensured that nothing falls through the cracks. Canadians are truly better for his passion, tenacity and insight.

Colleagues, Bill C-5 proposes to end a significant number of mandatory minimum penalties for serious offences. The merits of mandatory minimums and the role of Parliament in establishing sentencing parameters has been debated at length. While I personally believe it is not only appropriate but indeed responsible for Parliament to set out mandatory minimum penalties on offences that impact public safety, I recognize that others do not share that perspective and view such stipulations as an infringement on judicial discretion. On this, I believe reasonable people can disagree. However, Senator Boisvenu’s amendment focuses on a problem that has been identified by those most affected and most in tune with the experience of survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Bill C-5 proposes to allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces a term of less than two years of imprisonment. The offences eligible under this bill include sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, assault with a weapon and more. Women’s groups and victim advocacy groups — those who have real-world experience dealing with the ramifications of violent offenders post-release — have highlighted a glaring oversight with this proposal: Bill C-5 in its current form will allow for instances in which violent offenders serve their sentences from home, in the same community as their victims. They can be right across the street, as was said, sitting in a lawn chair.

As this is a new proposal, we do not have any data on compliance with conditional sentence orders for these particular violent offences. However, Senator Boisvenu provided data indicating a 44% failure-to-comply rate with existing conditional sentences. We also have data that demonstrates a stark increase in crimes against the person — specifically family violence, criminal harassment, sexual assault and human trafficking. The Senate’s Legal Committee heard testimony about the experience of survivors of abuse when their abuser has been released on parole. The committee heard stories of intimidation, a lack of compliance and a general feeling of a lack of safety among abuse victims, which would only be exacerbated by this expansion.

Colleagues, while we all support the objective of rehabilitation, we also know that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. There is nothing in a conditional sentence that would protect women from a future violent attack.

I raised this issue with Justice Minister Lametti when he appeared before this chamber for ministerial Question Period. Unfortunately, as with most of his answers, this one provided no explanation and gave skeptics of this proposal no comfort. In my question, I highlighted the testimony of Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women’s Centre from her appearance at the House of Commons Justice Committee, when she said:

Women and girls are five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault, and sexual assault is a violent crime on the rise in Canada. With conditional sentencing, many women will be stuck in the community with the offender, which places them at even higher risk.

I asked the minister, given the rising statistics, what message it sends to victims of sexual assault to extend leniency to sexual offenders through this measure. He answered by saying, “It will always be the case that serious crimes will attract serious penalties . . . .”

We all know that this is, in fact, not the case, even under the current law. We can all point to examples of heinous crimes receiving shockingly low sentences that resulted in public outrage. However, given the minister’s answer, I must ask: What could possibly constitute a non-serious sexual assault? Nobody has provided an answer for that — not the minister, not the officials, and not the sponsor of this bill.

Senator Simons did try to draw a distinction between rape and what she considered to be a less serious type of sexual assault. However, there is a reason the offence of sexual assault is broad and encompasses a range of behaviours, and that is because, as the Supreme Court outlines, sexual assault violates “the sexual integrity of the victim.”

This is serious, colleagues. Regardless of whether people in this chamber find that to be a laughing matter, sexual assault, in all its forms, has the potential to cause serious, lasting trauma for victims, and our laws need to continue to condemn sexual assault in all its forms.

Colleagues, we must ask ourselves: What specific problem is this conditional sentence expansion seeking to fix? Some have cited the overincarceration of Indigenous peoples as a justification for this measure. However, on that point, the committee heard no specific evidence that expanding conditional sentencing measures would have an impact on the Indigenous incarceration rate. In fact, University of Ottawa criminology professor Dr. Cheryl Webster and PhD graduate Dawn North testified on this specific misconception. While they wholeheartedly support the stated goal of prison reduction for Indigenous peoples, they cautioned that the data and multiple subsequent evaluations, in fact, demonstrate that the expansion of conditional sentence eligibility as a prison alternative has no meaningful impact on incarceration rates of Indigenous peoples.

Ms. North stated that there is “. . . little reason to believe that the sanction will now contribute to significant prison reduction, especially for Indigenous peoples.”

In particular, Ms. North described the data in great detail:

The research does suggest that even when conditional sentences were broadly available, Indigenous populations or offenders didn’t proportionately benefit from them. There were instances when they were benefiting, but it wasn’t in the same proportion as other offenders. There’s also data suggesting Indigenous offenders tend to have higher breach rates even when they are granted conditional sentences. This becomes, of course, a problem for overall incarceration rates when they’re imprisoned upon breach.

Colleagues, if the reduction of Indigenous incarceration rates is the rationale for this expansion, it is not rooted in evidence and, according to researchers, could actually have the opposite effect when breach rates are considered.

Not to mention, the data is clear that Indigenous women are at an increased risk of experiencing domestic and sexual violence. In fact, colleagues, more than 4 in 10, or 43%, of Indigenous women have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. How could it possibly benefit an Indigenous survivor of abuse to have their abuser serve their sentence in the same community — across the street?

In my follow-up question to Minister Lametti, I asked what impact he believed this would have on a victim’s likelihood to come forward, given that sexual assault is estimated to be the most under-reported crime in Canada. The minister refused to answer the question. Instead, he used the opportunity to tout his government’s record on helping victims of crime. Quite a rich retort from the minister who refused to appoint a Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime for 361 days, meaning that a year’s worth of legislation impacting victims did not undergo this critical review. In fact, it would have served us well to have such a review on this legislation as we consider its impact on victims.

While the minister did not have the answer, those who work with victims of sexual violence know exactly what is at stake. When Jennifer Dunn was asked about this during the Senate Legal Committee, she indicated that she heard from a victim in her centre’s care that very day that she testified — the victim stated, unequivocally, that less protection in sentencing means fewer women coming forward, which would be a real setback for the fight against sexual assault.

Senator Boisvenu, in bringing forward this amendment, has carefully selected the offences that are most highly correlated with domestic and family violence — offences for which a house arrest in the community would pose the greatest risk to victims.

Some senators in the Legal Committee noted that criminal defence lawyers want this bill passed as quickly as possible, specifically the conditional sentence expansion — “imperfect as it may be,” they said — because it would benefit their current clients.

Colleagues, I submit that this is not a consideration we need to concern ourselves with. It is not our job to make sure that defence counsel can ensure a better result for their clients. I recognize the important role that the defence plays in a fair and just trial. However, I have a hard time believing that many in this chamber are rushing to pass imperfect legislation that would benefit the Crown in ensuring a harsher sentence for the offender.

Rather than worry about which side of the courtroom this legislation helps, let’s, instead, listen to victims who have the experience to understand the real-world impact of this expansion.

One abuse victim in the care of the London Abused Women’s Centre said that:

. . . it seems as if we are focused on the men that have created the problem and are not listening to the women who are on the other side as victims.

Colleagues, the proposal to expand conditional sentence eligibility to perpetrators of violent offences is misguided. There is no data to suggest that it will impact the overincarceration of Indigenous peoples. Yet, it will certainly have an impact on the safety of abuse survivors — a category in which Indigenous women are tragically overrepresented as well.

Please consider, colleagues, what is at stake for all victims of sexual assault. Let’s concern ourselves with the victims — not the perpetrators — of sexual violence and all other violent crimes against people. Let’s listen to what victims are asking of us, and support this very thoughtful amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

1707 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/15/22 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I want to begin by thanking the Honourable Senator Boisvenu for his amendment, which clearly stems from his deep concern for the well-being of victims of crime, particularly victims of gender-based violence. However, the government opposes this amendment because it would limit judicial discretion in sentencing when the whole point of Bill C-5 is to broaden that discretion.

In committee, most of the witnesses were in favour of giving judges more flexibility to take into account the particular circumstances of the individual and the offence. In fact, many wanted this bill to go even further in that direction.

[English]

We absolutely agree that serious criminal behaviour should be met with serious sanctions. Under Bill C-5, the offences listed in this amendment will continue to result in a prison sentence almost all of the time. The bill simply gives judges the discretion to issue conditional sentences for these offences in what are likely to be rare and exceptional cases.

Judicial discretion is especially important where the description of the offence can cover a broad range of circumstances and degrees of culpability. For example, this amendment seeks to prohibit conditional sentences for the offences of “being unlawfully in a dwelling-house” and “causing bodily harm by criminal negligence.”

There could be, and I’m sure there will be, many instances where someone who commits one of these offences deserves — and will receive — a harsh sentence. But there could also be cases where it would be appropriate for the judge to have some flexibility. Indeed, when she spoke to this amendment, Senator Simons gave multiple examples of these types of scenarios.

The Criminal Code, as Senator Dalphond masterfully outlined, only allows conditional sentence orders for sentences of less than two years when the individual is not a public safety risk or, indeed, a risk to the victim. Now, one might be tempted to argue that we should jail everyone who commits any of these offences, just in case, because it is possible a judge’s assessment of whether someone poses a threat could be wrong.

But, colleagues, overincarceration comes with its own risks to public safety.

[Translation]

When we unnecessarily separate people from their loved ones, their jobs and their social support network, when we interrupt their education, send them far away from their normal environment and place their children in foster care, it can contribute to creating unstable homes and communities, which increases the risk of recidivism and the likelihood that the next generation will also end up in conflict with the law.

Honourable senators, in the long term, our communities are safer when dangerous people go to prison and when those who can safely remain in their communities are not needlessly imprisoned. It is therefore in the interest of public safety that the government opposes this amendment. I encourage all senators to do the same. Thank you for your attention.

[English]

494 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border