Hon. Rodger Cuzner, of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Hassan Yussuff.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senator named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

As I said, we received a request from the senator, and we acceded to the request. I don’t know exactly what the senator will say, but I think we all look forward to hearing his remarks.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, on behalf of the Government Representative Office, or GRO, I would like to welcome Rodger Cuzner as the newest member of the Red Chamber. Senator Cuzner is an experienced parliamentarian and most recently a diplomat representing Canada as our Consul General in Boston.

As a proud son of Nova Scotia, Senator Cuzner has worked tirelessly with industry and business in promoting the tourism sector in his province. He’s also an avid hockey fan and former coach of Team Nova Scotia at the Canada Games.

Now, without putting too much pressure on Senator Cuzner, colleagues, let me point out to you that Senator Cuzner was twice voted “most collegial member of Parliament” by his colleagues. I hope that his good nature is contagious and rubs off on all of us as we approach the busy and somewhat hectic season.

Senator Cuzner, I know that your experience as a parliamentarian and advocate for your region is a welcome addition to the Senate of Canada. Welcome.

Senator Plett: You might be tired of us saying he’s not worth the cost. We’re tired of you saying nothing.

The Prime Minister always seeks to divide Canadians, and his MPs are happy to follow his lead. When one of his MPs gave the Conservative caucus the middle finger during the vote in the House yesterday, he wasn’t just insulting fellow parliamentarians. That MP was revealing exactly what Trudeau and his government think of Canadians. Isn’t that a fact, leader? Are you doing the same?

Senator Boniface: Thank you very much. I know you share the same concerns I do. I want a bill that’s effective, but I look at events such as the ones that just took place in Sault Ste. Marie as an example. Again, there is a second victim, a third victim, now a fourth victim and a fifth victim. I’m not saying that case had anything to do with bail, but the violence that is in perpetrators does not just impact one person. I guess I’m surprised that the committee didn’t hear some evidence regarding repeat offenders.

Senator Gold: No, it is not a fact, and I think that question applied to me is very inappropriate. That is not what I’m doing here. I’m answering the questions, regardless of their tone and regardless of their motivation, to the best of my ability, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator Gold: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Senator Boisvenu, I thank you for bringing this proposal forward for our consideration. We’re talking here about a provision that, in the original version of Bill C-48, sought to better protect victims of domestic violence. It was supported by all the members in the other place, by the Native Women’s Association of Canada and by every provincial and territorial government. What’s more, the Attorney General of British Columbia, Niki Sharma, said that she would write to the Minister of Justice to urge him to keep this part of Bill C-48.

Senator Boisvenu, can you confirm that your amendment uses the exact wording of the initial version of the bill?

Senator Boisvenu: Yes, it is the same wording, and I will add an explanation, because it’s a rather complex subject. It’s important to understand that a man — because in 90% of cases, it’s men who abuse women — who has received a pardon and then goes on to assault another spouse, when he appears before a judge, if this section doesn’t exist, the onus will be on the Crown to prove that this is a violent repeat offender who shouldn’t be released.

If we take away that privilege, any repeat offender who is brought to justice will be treated equally. Whether an offender has been pardoned or not, if he assaults another intimate partner, the onus will not be on the Crown but on the accused to prove that they aren’t violent.

What this says is that the offender had a privilege, but if he has breached his obligations, he is treated the same as a violent man who appears before the court after having reoffended.

[English]

Senator Clement: We didn’t hear much evidence at all. We heard the government saying they’re making efforts and will start trying to collect data. We know that in provinces like B.C., they’re trying to make more investments in data collection, community building and community supports, but I can’t say that I heard evidence regarding that.

We did hear Michael Spratt, who is a defence attorney, talk about the dual charging and the fact that the discharge piece was particularly egregious for Indigenous women. We did hear Michael Spratt around that, but in regard to what you’re speaking to, I don’t feel that I heard sufficient evidence to justify saying this bill will actually make us feel safer.

The point of my two amendments is really to try to make it less bad, if I can say that again.

[Translation]

Senator Clement: Yes, of course.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Clement, you’re a lawyer. You must know that the Criminal Code already provides for the reversal of the burden of proof in some cases. The Parole Board of Canada also applies a reverse onus when dealing with repeat offenders.

I’m trying to make the connection between taking a privilege away from someone who was granted a discharge and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons. Should your logic not apply to the bill as a whole? Even if we adopt your amendment to the bill, will it really reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons when this affects just one in every 1,000 men who are granted a discharge?

What is the connection between your argument that there are too many Indigenous people in prisons and discharges? Instead, you should be encouraging all senators to vote against the bill. There’s no connection between the granting of a discharge and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons, unless you can show otherwise.

Senator Boisvenu: I take it, then, that there’s no connection between discharges and overcrowding. However, you’re saying that there is a connection between the reverse onus for offenders from all walks of life and overcrowding. Will you be voting against the bill?

Senator Clement: Absolutely.

Senator Clement: Thank you for that question. Yes, I remember that. It was a surprising answer. It seems to support my argument that there really was a lack of solid evidence, consultation and information to justify the introduction of this bill.

Getting back to your point about the provinces, we know that they fully supported this bill. At the same time, we know that the provinces will have to make investments. We can’t simply bring in a bill without investing in our communities. We’ve heard that British Columbia plans to make investments, but other provinces may not. This debate could lead to inconsistencies.

Senator Simons: Yes.

Senator Boisvenu: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Gold: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Simons: I will.