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.

Senator Clement: Senator Boniface, I completely understand that question. I personally struggle with that. Obviously, I’m a Black lawyer. I am very concerned by the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people in prison. At the same time, every time I turn on the news, every time I come into the Senate and there is a speech — often given by you — recognizing the life and death of yet another police officer, it’s a struggle. But I have to come back to data. I have to come back to evidence, which we need to make legislation that is not just reactive and will actually be effective in making communities safer.

For this bill, we just didn’t hear the evidence, the data, to support that this change would make things better for our communities, for police officers, for women — Indigenous women and women who are victims of violence. We just didn’t hear it.

I completely understand what you’re saying. It’s a constant struggle. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or LCJC, is the hardest committee to sit on, but we should be data-driven and evidence-driven, and we didn’t see it here. I didn’t see it here.

Senator Tannas: Thank you.

Senator Gold: The process that the government has undergone is deeply rooted in the needs, interests and input of veterans and their families. Although the government appreciates the work that the jury did in evaluating, the design that was chosen after this long process is one that the veterans of the mission and their families felt best represented the bravery, sacrifices and losses of those who served in Afghanistan.

Senator Klyne: Senator Gold, I appreciate that you’ve highlighted some of the importance of this. The federal underfunding of Indigenous housing has negatively affected many generations in many ways. Failure to fulfill treaty rights and failure to keep promises only lead to Indigenous nations unnecessarily having to beg and litigate.

Given the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee’s projections, is the government planning on increasing investments, implementing additional programs aimed at providing on-reserve housing in order to deliver on this promise to Indigenous communities?

Senator Coyle: Thank you. You are quite the orator. I always appreciate hearing from you. It always makes sense when it comes from you; I’m saying that sincerely. I know that we sat next to each other at that committee, and struggled back and forth, and shared a lot of ups and downs.

I appreciated that in committee, you did not try to remove the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC — which would be one move to make it a more even playing field. I’m glad we didn’t do that at committee, and would not promote that.

You spoke just now about respect. It’s respect that I’m concerned about as well. I have a fear that if this body, this chamber, imposes a decision, which includes the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP — which, in my opinion, has misrepresented itself, and is not on the same level as those three national Indigenous organizations that represent people who have Indigenous rights here in Canada — we would be showing disrespect to those three national rights-representing organizations.

Do you share a concern about us reintroducing CAP as a member of the board of this very important national council for reconciliation, as well as what that might do to how those three organizations would feel regarding how we respect them?

Senator McCallum: I worked extensively with organizations, even before I became a senator. I have worked with the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, with the National Association of Friendship Centres and other groups, and they have been great allies and advocates. I have asked groups of women in the past week — healing groups — if CAP has advocated for them, and each group said no. I have never worked with CAP in the 30 years that I have worked with Indigenous people.

Can you tell me why you say that because NWAC is there, CAP should be there, when NWAC has done such great work? Thank you.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator, the carbon tax appears to be practically sacred within Justin Trudeau’s government. However, when you look at the numbers with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, British Columbia, the province with the highest carbon tax, increased its emissions by 4% from 2008 to 2019. Meanwhile, Nova Scotia, the province with the lowest carbon tax, reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 36% over the same period.

Can you explain the logic in that?

Senator Simons: Could I ask for time to just answer that one question? I think, then, that is probably good.

Senator Martin: I see the organizations as being distinct and different. CAP, on its own merit, has done extensive work over the past 50 years. Based on the testimony that was heard, the fact that both CAP and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, were included in the other place but the government removed one and not the other, the criteria for that is not clear to us. Based on what happened, the history of this bill, the work that CAP has done over the past 50 years and on their merit, that’s what I believe. I’m not talking about removing anyone else but adding a guaranteed seat to a national organization that has been in existence for decades.

[Translation]

Senator Cotter: I certainly would.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Cotter and Senator Coyle, for your excellent speeches.

Just for my and others’ benefit in the chamber, could you just repeat when the first dikes were built in the Chignecto Isthmus so that we clearly hear that date?

Senator Clement: This debate is similar to the one I took part in on Bill C-5, which I voted against. I’ve since been on a journey, and the two amendments I proposed were adopted in committee. If those amendments are included, in particular the one requiring judges to explain that they have considered the issue of Indigenous and Black overrepresentation, I would be able to vote in favour of this bill. That is why I proposed amendments. It’s my job as a senator to improve these laws.

This has been a personal journey for me, and that is why I proposed the amendments. I want to try and improve the situation.

Senator Dupuis: When the minister appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I told him that it seemed like he was covering two completely different things in this bill. The very structure of the bill was intended to respond to crimes during which police officers die. There were consultations with the premiers, interventions and a consensus on this part of the bill. Then a clause having to do with intimate partner violence suddenly appeared in the bill. I asked him whether that issue had been raised during the consultation. He told me that they had taken something from a bill introduced by a senator and included it in this bill.

When the officials came back to the committee, I asked them the same question and asked whether there had been a consultation on this part of the bill that has nothing to do with the crux of the bill, since it is on the issue of intimate partner violence. The officials told us that they could not say because the minister’s office had dealt with that.

Do you recall hearing that?

Senator Housakos: The Trudeau government’s inaction always speaks volumes. The fact is that Hamas is a designated terrorist organization in Canada — isn’t it, Senator Gold? — yet, we have Hamas operatives in this country waving terrorist flags on our streets without fear of reprisal from authorities. So even if we did list the IRGC in actual terms, it’s not like anyone in this government is prepared to do anything about it; isn’t that true, Senator Gold? If it is not true, explain to me where I’m wrong. Are you okay with having Hamas operate on campuses, recruiting —