Senator Pate: My understanding is that they are not talking about mandatory treatment. They are talking about offering treatment as an alternative to the mechanisms that are currently used.

In my experience working with men convicted of sex offences, almost inevitably they will choose those options when they are available. The challenge is they are rarely available. We tend to go to a more so-called “law and order” response.

With respect, I don’t think we need a revolution. But I do think we need to have an honest assessment of what is being offered with this bill, and to identify that there are significant gaps when we say we are going to use electronic monitoring, and hope that will stop this.

In my discussions with women’s groups about your bill and about this approach, it’s very clear that some are looking at it as one of the only options being offered, and I agree that is an indictment of all of us if that’s all that is being offered to them. I am not in any way questioning your support or your desire to see an end to violence against women. I think, though, we need to be honest about how best we can achieve that. It is clear that one of the downsides of this bill is it will look as though something is being done and it may stop one or two men, but is unlikely to stop many, if any.

[Translation]

Senator Pate: Perhaps you could point me to where, exactly, that provision is. I know you read out part of a decision, but that was regarding one mandatory minimum penalty saying the judges did not have to apply it. One of the challenges is there have now been at least 43 court decisions striking down mandatory minimum provisions. We now have a patchwork across the country of where the law applies, and where it doesn’t. In fact, there is no ruling that says judges do not have to not impose mandatory minimum penalties, hence the reason for Senator Jaffer’s bill. Would you not agree?

[Translation]