Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, the only thing this tax does is punish working-class Canadians. It has created divisions in our country. Pausing the tax for one group while quadrupling it for another is completely unfair.

Senator Gold, just admit it — Justin Trudeau isn’t making decisions to benefit Canadians. He’s making decisions to try to save his sinking political ship. Also, just admit that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for Canadian taxpayers and only Pierre Poilievre and a majority Conservative government will keep the heat on for all Canadians.

Senator Boyer: If you’re taking this information from the website and you didn’t directly say, “Where do those members come from,” then you don’t know that answer, do you?

Senator Forest: It is all about representation. If I understand correctly, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which is a very good organization that does a lot of work to promote the cause of Indigenous people, is not necessarily an elected organization.

What your amendment is proposing is to formally reserve a seat on the council for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Why that organization and not some other national organization? Would it not be appropriate for us to instead set out criteria for selecting an organization? People may or may not be members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. If I were an Indigenous person who was not a member of that organization, I might not feel as though it could speak on my behalf.

I have a problem with arbitrarily granting this organization a seat on the council.

[English]

Senator Gold: I’ll certainly convey the question. Absolutely.

Senator McCallum: Okay. I’ll ask a question.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like you, Senator Gold, I believe that the issue of medical assistance in dying is a delicate and difficult one. There are currently some serious doubts about the legislation’s implementation.

Shouldn’t there be a pause on expanding medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition? There’s no consensus on the issue. Quebec has rejected the idea.

Why doesn’t the federal government apply the precautionary principle in this specific case in order to slow the momentum and prevent things from getting out of hand?

Senator Boyer: Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu.

Honourable senators, we would have to also compare the growth rates of Nova Scotia and British Columbia in terms of population and economic output, for example. We must note that there are many possible explanations for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, because the more factories there are, the more carbon emissions are produced.

Senator Boisvenu, you’re absolutely right in saying that the fight against climate change requires determination. We can’t look at the numbers in the abstract. We need to tackle the problem head-on, specifically by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what the carbon tax does, and it’s designed to change behaviours. Economists, including Nobel Prize winners, have said so. Everyone agrees that this is the best policy.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Martin: Yes, the new minister, Minister Anandasangaree, did appear. When I asked the question regarding CAP and we were talking about the inclusion or the exclusion, he was new to the file, so he didn’t specifically talk about the criteria. To me, it’s still unclear. I believe that CAP should be included.

Senator Clement: Thank you for those comments, Senator Batters. Of course, I agree with you. All of us around that committee table were troubled by the fact that there wasn’t sufficient data to justify this bill or prove it would work.

My efforts regarding making amendments to this bill revolved around compromise and trying to find a way to make this better — or less bad — for the people who end up in prisons and Indigenous women in particular.

Senator Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I think an important clarification needs to be made. We are studying a bill that deals with domestic violence involving a firearm. It does not address all cases of domestic violence, only those committed with a firearm.

Madam Senator, don’t you think that when a woman is assaulted, if the man, the assailant, has used a firearm, we’re looking at one of the most violent cases?

Senator Cotter: The research that was provided to me was the late 1600s. I think they have slightly deteriorated since then.

(On motion of Senator MacDonald, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-232, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month.

Senator Martin: I don’t agree that we should not include CAP. That’s why I’ve moved this amendment. As you said, there are the three rights-holding organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Métis National Council, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, which is different, but they are included and they are deserving. I feel the same way about CAP. We can agree to disagree, but I’m explaining why I believe that CAP shouldn’t have been removed and should have a guaranteed seat.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of a new senator.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received a certificate from the Registrar General of Canada showing that Rodger Cuzner has been summoned to the Senate.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: No, I think we’re ready to vote on the matter.

Senator Boisvenu: Would you be willing to answer a question or two?

Senator Gold: Thank you. As you would expect, the government supports this amendment because it returns the bill to the form that it was when it was passed in the other place with the support of all provinces and territorial governments, who have responsibility for the administration of justice and know something about public safety. I’d like your comments on two things we heard at committee, senator.

First, from the B.C. Attorney General, Niki Sharma. I quote from her testimony before the committee:

. . . I hear from vulnerable women in particular who are victims of repeat violent offenders when they are out on bail. . . . It is my view that there are times in the criminal justice system where it tips over to protecting the community, and this reverse onus is capturing that.

The second piece of testimony that I’d like your views on came from the Native Women’s Association of Canada in their brief to the committee, where they wrote, “Protecting them from their abusers between when charges are laid and a hearing is an important concern.”

There was testimony, as you know, to that effect, indicating that the second charge is often the tip of the iceberg and, indeed, the first charge may have been as well.

Are you not concerned that, with the best of intentions, removing this amendment actually does put vulnerable victims at risk?

Senator Clement: Thank you for your question. I repeat: It really comes down to the fact that there is no evidence that this type of bill will be effective in protecting people. I didn’t think there was enough evidence to prove that this legislation would work the way it is supposed to work. I am repeating myself, but I’m telling you that I didn’t hear any such evidence. The evidence I heard is that Indigenous people are overrepresented in prisons. We heard that during the debates on Bill C-5 and again this time. I would say that I saw far more evidence on one side than the other. To me, there is consistency in all this.

The issue of Indigenous women is really very pertinent, because they sometimes suffer violence that is truly remarkable and difficult. They find themselves in situations where they are the ones convicted following a dispute. This situation primarily affects Indigenous women, and we heard evidence to that effect. I think it’s a matter of evidence. I understand your point of view and your work with victims. I too represented victims in my career as a lawyer. However, in this case, I have to be guided by the evidence presented in committee. Personally, I didn’t see any. I saw a continuum of laws designed to respond to a difficult situation in communities, but these laws are ineffective, and we don’t have the evidence to show that they could be effective.