Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As the Minister of Finance reported, and as many economists have affirmed, this government’s position, as reflected in the Fall Economic Statement, is a balanced and responsible one. Yes, there is some targeted increased funding to help Canadians, students and others, get through this difficult time, which is still affecting them — indeed us all — because of the rising cost of living.

At the same time, the government has set clear targets and has exercised considerable restraint in spending so as to not run counter to the policy that the Bank of Canada has implemented and is implementing to fight inflation. This is a responsible, balanced approach, and it is serving Canadians well.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples entitled Voices of Truth and Reconciliation: Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders 2022 and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Francis, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

Senator Quinn: Senator, I applaud the initiative you are taking here, but we now have a warning on alcohol products regarding potential defects during pregnancies. You have listed many things that you would see on the bottle, but the main message, as I take it, is the correlation between alcohol consumption and the potential to promote cancer within a person.

Is there a way to consolidate it and bring it down, as is indicated on cigarette packaging? As I understand it, it says “Smoking can cause cancer.”

What I hear is a lengthy description to go on a label. Would it not be better to consolidate and get that main message through?

Senator Brazeau: Thank you, senator, for the question. As I said, the crux of the bill is not to suggest, but, because of the science and research, to say that even drinking minimally can cause cancer. It is that simple.

Obviously, this bill needs to get to committee so we can have the real experts debating, discussing and recommending what should be done in terms of the actual labelling, but the message is drinking alcohol causes cancers.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.

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

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Annual Session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, held in Birmingham, United Kingdom, from July 2 to 6, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, potato farmers in Prince Edward Island are still reeling from the impacts of the export ban on P.E.I. potatoes, which forced them to destroy some 250 million pounds of potatoes and is estimated to have cost the industry more than $50 million. While shipments to our southern neighbour have resumed as of April, farmers in P.E.I. are concerned that the damage is done, with the loss of long-term customers in the United States. Andrew Smith, a farmer in Newton, is quoted in a recent CTV article saying:

We lost that business and it’s gone, and I would expect it’s gone to an American grower who doesn’t have to deal with protectionism at the border.

As it currently stands, there is still a ban on seed potatoes, which comprises roughly 10% of the Island’s annual output, pending the outcome of a more thorough review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that could take years to complete, Senator Gold.

Leader, I think our farmers have been patient enough. When will you finally give the farmers in Prince Edward Island an immediate plan with actionable steps to ensure the restoration of full market access?

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, it is clear that your government’s policies are directly working against farmers on various fronts. As if the import ban wasn’t enough to worry about, they also have to deal with inflated costs brought on by this government’s failed economic policies. P.E.I. has stated that this year’s potato crop was the most expensive crop on record due to the rising costs of fertilizer and diesel fuel. In many cases, producers find their fertilizer bills have more than doubled, and it goes without saying that if costs for farmers are rising, it will surely be felt by Canadians at the grocery store. It already is.

Senator Gold, is your government prepared to acknowledge that its policies are driving up costs at the farm gate? Or does the Prime Minister insist on continuing to ignore what farmers across the country are telling him?

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, during this fiscal year, we have approved the Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates (A) and the Budget Implementation Act. We are now studying Supplementary Estimates (B) and the 2022 Fall Economic Statement. But the government has still not released the Departmental Results Reports for last year. That was eight months ago. This was the subject of much discussion at the Finance Committee this morning. My question is: When will the government table the Departmental Results Reports, where are they and what is the problem?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator.

The Departmental Results Reports are a useful tool, as you quite pointed out. The last ones were tabled in February, and they informed the scrutiny of the Main Estimates in March. As the senator would know, there is actually no legal deadline for the tabling of the Departmental Results Reports, but — as I believe I reported in response to an earlier question of yours not so many weeks ago — I understand that the government is still tracking to table the next departmental results this fall, and we still have a bit of fall left in us.

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. I will certainly make the government aware.

We are all aware of the burden that the pandemic imposed — not only on the hospitality industry but on many businesses. I will repeat that the automatic tax will raise the tax on a can of beer by less than one fifth of one cent. I would hope that responsible bar and restaurant owners will not pass on a disproportionate amount of that increase to their customers.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of November 17, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023; and

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

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I note that this item is currently on day 15, and I therefore move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ravalia, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Yvonne Boyer moved second reading of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).

She said: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Boyer, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, November is Family Violence Prevention Month in New Brunswick, so for me, it’s an important month to speak to Bill C-233, sponsored by our colleague Senator Dalphond. Recently, he spoke so passionately about the need for this important legislation. I also spoke not long ago on Inquiry No. 10, where I outlined some of the major issues faced by women who are victims of intimate partner violence in rural Ontario.

In New Brunswick, the Silent Witness Project honours women who were murdered by their intimate partners. Currently, the travelling exhibit includes 50 life-sized red silhouettes of these women and their stories. These stories are compiled by their loved ones on engraved metal plates, which are secured to the chest of each silhouette. Sometimes family members may put a scarf or a personal item around the silhouette’s neck.

One of the Silent Witnesses that touched me deeply is Monique Breau’s story from Moncton, New Brunswick. On December 19, 2005, at the age of 36, she was shot by her estranged common-law partner whom she hadn’t spoken to in nine months. He entered her home and fatally shot her and then turned the gun on himself. Monique was a nursing mom. When she was shot, she had her three-month-old baby in her arms. Monique’s two-and-a-half-year-old child was in a bedroom nearby. When the police arrived, it was a grim scene, and it was just before Christmas. Monique was a physiotherapist at our Moncton Hospital, and everyone was saddened and shocked by what happened. She was described as an honest, generous and fun-loving person. She was an outdoor enthusiast and loved painting, gardening and volunteering. No one knew the danger she was in, and now her two children are orphans as a result of this horrifying act.

I believe this story emphasizes the dangers of violent partners, especially as women are at the highest risk after separation. It also highlights that the victims of violence are not just women but their children as well, whose homes are so often destroyed. Monique’s two children didn’t just witness violence; they experienced it and will live with the consequences forever. Any act of intimate partner violence is an act of violence against the whole family, especially children. Reforms such as those proposed under Bill C-233 can help prevent and contain violence, but much more is needed. If I can make an analogy about domestic violence, ending intimate partner violence is like building a house. We need a foundation. We need the walls, the rooms and the roof. We need all the pieces put together to form a complete house. A national framework to end gender-based violence is imperative.

Here are a few important statistics: Between 2014 and 2020, there were 576 victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada, 80% of whom were women; 43% of women have experienced psychological abuse in their lifetime at the hands of an intimate partner; 23% have experienced physical violence; 12% have experienced sexual violence; and 30% of women who experienced intimate partner violence reported experiencing it repeatedly.

The psychological abuse often comes in the form of coercive control, an insidious and difficult-to-detect type of violence in which an intimate partner engages in a pattern of behaviours intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate their victim, thereby stripping away their freedom and their sense of self. Coercive control leads to a tightening grip on the victim and asserts the power of the abuser over every aspect of the victim’s life. Coercive control is a significant predictor of violence and murder.

In the 2022 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Towards a Violence-Free Canada: Addressing and Eliminating Intimate Partner and Family Violence, the committee noted the importance of recognizing coercive control in all areas of Canadian law. I note that in 2019, the update to the Divorce Act enacted through Bill C-78 took a step in the right direction by outlining how courts should consider patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in a relationship with a family member in their assessment of the impact of family violence. This does not criminalize coercive control per se, though some bills such as Bill C-202, currently at second reading in the other place, do.

Bill C-233, on the other hand, seeks to further entrench the concept of coercive control in the justice system not by criminalizing it but rather by providing for training opportunities and seminars for judges. Though I believe coercive control should be criminalized, my views are informed by the committee’s observation that some witnesses expressed concern with the ability of the justice system to manage such a new offence, particularly if the system is not even nuanced enough to understand physical violence, let alone such an insidious act of violence like coercive control. I therefore believe that the training prescribed by Bill C-233 would provide the foundation for greater reforms.

Pamela Cross, Legal Director of Luke’s Place, observed that jurisdictions that combined the criminalization of coercive control with dedicated training programs were more successful than those jurisdictions that did not. In this light, by equipping judges with the most up-to-date and in-depth knowledge on the effects of coercive control, I believe we will be laying the foundation for greater access to justice for victims. I think the impact of such training would be immediate. It would dispel unfounded beliefs held by some judges that violence against a mother should not be considered a risk to the child.

In fact, the portion of Bill C-233 that compels training for judges is called “Keira’s Law” in reference to Keira Kagan. In her testimony to the House of Commons Status of Women Committee, Keira’s mother described her experience in the court system after she escaped from her abusive partner. A dozen different judges dismissed her experience of coercive control and abuse, and one even stated that the abuse she suffered was not relevant to parenting and her partner would therefore be granted unsupervised access to their daughter Keira. Sadly, Keira was later killed by her angry and dangerous father in an apparent murder-suicide. This happened in 2020, so it is clear that the attitudes that informed the decisions of the judges in this sad case persist in our courts.

Dr. Peter Jaffe, a leading expert on family violence, lends additional weight to Keira’s story. His research demonstrates that many misconceptions persist in the criminal justice system around intimate partner violence — in particular the view that as long as children are not abused directly, they are not harmed by exposure to domestic violence. Dr. Jaffe’s research has shown that children’s exposure to domestic violence consistently leads to negative outcomes ranging from trauma, flashbacks, nightmares, depression, regression to earlier stages of development and compromised academic and social development. Keep in mind that this is the damage done when the child is not abused directly, so the harm done can be multiplied exponentially. What is clear is that when our courts ignore the broader impacts of domestic violence, they are failing to protect the children. Abusers cannot be good parents. Dr. Jaffe stresses the need for training so that every actor in the judicial system understands the complete picture of intimate partner violence.

In New Brunswick, I think we are ahead of things because, for many years, we’ve recognized this. We knew this link between harm to children and witnessing their parents’ abuse needed to be recognized and treated. Dr. Jaffe’s research helped us find suitable training and education for mothers to help their children. We did this for many years, and it was certainly a big step forward.

I believe training for judges aligns well with recommendation 29 of the Ontario coroner’s inquest into the deaths of the three women in rural Ontario. It calls on the province to provide professional education and training for justice system personnel on intimate partner violence-related issues. It follows up with an invaluable list of training subjects, including indicators of coercive control and other risk factors of violence and possibly death. Though provincial in focus, the inquest’s recommendations are equally applicable nationally, and I have heard them repeated often in other jurisdictions over the years.

I would like to move to the second part of the bill, which would require a justice to consider whether it is desirable to include that an accused charged with an offence against an intimate partner be made to wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of the bail order. To be clear, Bill C-233 only contemplates the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of a bail order, a sensitive time where the victim has already endured violence but during which the alleged abuser may be released pending a trial. Research has shown that victims are at highest risk in the first several months after a separation, a period of time that is reflected in this legislation. As I mentioned previously, Monique Breau was murdered by her estranged partner only nine months after the relationship ended. Though this only covers a specific step in the legal process, it is an important one. Moreover, implementing Bill C-233 would not preclude taking additional steps through other legislation and, certainly, through a comprehensive national prevention strategy on gender-based violence.

Senator Dalphond provided a number of examples of jurisdictions that have implemented electronic monitoring as part of their strategy to protect victims of intimate partner violence. For example, Spain’s model stands out as a particularly interesting one, as it has been active since 2009 and therefore is a tremendous source of data.

It is important to understand that the use of electronic monitoring in Spain is part of a suite of reforms which includes specialized courts that deal with intimate partner violence — a truly whole-of-government approach to dealing with the issue, the collective impact of which was a 25% reduction in the number of femicides since 2004.

As a part of a wider tool kit, electronic monitoring, where available — and combined with effective and immediate police response — increases the well-being and sense of security of victims and increases compliance with treatment orders.

It must be noted, however, that electronic monitoring is not without issues. It may not be appropriate in every circumstance.

Pamela Cross, in her testimony in the other place, raised concerns with equitable access to justice. Offenders are expected to bear the cost of installation and monitoring, often done by private corporations, which can cost up to $600 a month. For a family that has already been impacted by violence, this additional financial burden seems unfair and even completely inaccessible for folks without the means.

The possibility exists, therefore, that justice may look differently depending on your socio-economic circumstances. This is also true for anyone living in rural areas, where access to cellular data may be spotty. For the women who were murdered in Renfrew County, the use of electronic monitoring may not even have been applicable. This is why it is crucial to consider social context in these circumstances, and I am pleased to see that social context is included in the training being recommended in Bill C-233.

Colleagues, intimate partner violence is a complex issue. Despite its brevity, Bill C-233 raises deep concerns and questions about what we are doing to end violence. When we have knowledge, as the bill seeks to do for judges, we are better able to make clear-eyed decisions on what works and what doesn’t. Bill C-233 moves things forward in a positive direction and, on the whole, I’m supportive of it.

Thank you to Senator Dalphond for being the sponsor and for sharing so much information with my office. I look forward to the possibility of studying it further at committee, along with other important measures being proposed by my colleagues to deal with intimate partner violence. Let’s keep working on this until every woman, girl and child is safe in Canada. Let’s do whatever it takes. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(Debate concluded.)

(At 3:52 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Senator Marshall: Thank you for that answer, Senator Gold, but the spending plans of the government — most of them have been approved, and we’re nearing the end of the approval processes. Therefore, when we do get those documents, it’s going to be after the fact and they’re not going to be much use to us.

But just continuing with the government’s lack of transparency and accountability, the government has provided a number of debt management strategies over the past two years, telling us what they are planning to do with regard to the government’s borrowing program. However, we have not received any actual reports, such as the Debt Management Report. We are still waiting for that from last year. When are we going to get that report? We have all these spending plans to approve, but we’re not receiving the government’s accountability documents that we need in order to complete our studies.

Hon. Pat Duncan: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, in June of this year, George Rae, Director of Policy Analysis Initiative at Employment and Social Development Canada, told senators at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission reviews the boundaries for EI economic regions at least once every five years. He said the last one was concluded in 2021. Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission, also said the review is complete. The next review will start next year in 2023.

My question is: What did the review recommend about Prince Edward Island’s two zones, and when, if at all, is the minister intending to share these recommendations with parliamentarians and, more importantly, with Canadians? They do not appear to have been made public.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I don’t know, and I will have to make inquiries. I know that this is a bill that we in the Senate sent — at least a bill dealing with the P.E.I. situation — to committee, and I’m hopeful that the answers may be elicited and provided there, but, in any event, I will make inquiries.