Senator Martin: I don’t see it as arbitrary. Only NWAC and CAP were included to have a guaranteed seat in the House. This is the history of the bill and what happened in the other place.

There are so many organizations. I’m not taking away from any of the others as to what they do and how important they are, but CAP is a national organization that has done a lot of work and it was accepted by the committee in the other place. That’s why I’m focusing on CAP and no other groups, which I could have. I don’t know how I would choose because there are so many that do such good work.

I think this will be the challenge for the council, even after we adopt this bill, namely, what will the makeup of the board be? I chose CAP specifically because of what happened in the other place.

Senator Martin: I can’t answer that question specifically, senator. As I said, I am basing it on the testimony that we heard and the information that I gathered. I was on their website, and I have met with their leadership. Like I said, they were included in the House. That’s why I brought it forward. That’s what I can say to your question.

Senator Martin: Yes.

Senator Boyer: Thank you. I am curious as to where the hundreds of thousands of members come from with CAP. My experience with CAP was when I first became a senator, I asked them to come and sit with me and talk to me about their membership. They did. The question that I had was, “Who are your members and where are they?” The answer I got was, “I don’t know.”

I’m curious to know where that 850,000 comes from because, as a Métis, they don’t represent me and they don’t represent any of my family or anybody I know.

Senator Martin: Yes, exactly. There are five national organizations. The government kept the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, but removed CAP, and it’s not clear what criteria they were using. That inconsistency was noted. As I said earlier, based on the testimony that we heard and the history of this bill, I believe that CAP should be included.

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?

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Senator McCallum: I’m not a regular member of the Indigenous Peoples Committee. I didn’t receive any mail. I did go out and ask those representing missing and murdered women. They said they come to our meetings, but they haven’t done anything. I have gone to Sixties Scoop; they don’t represent them. I have asked people in Manitoba, “What do you know about CAP?” and I have not heard anything.

Maybe other members received information, but I didn’t. I did talk with two of the administrators, and they’ve never provided information to me. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 9:30 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Senator Simons: As I have said, we have bail laws in this country that allow Crown prosecutors to demand that the judge not grant bail. We have judges and justices of the peace who have the power to deny bail. I’m not opposing that.

What I am saying is that we need to be careful that we use the reverse onus provisions — which are truly extraordinary — in the most extraordinary of cases.

If we want to deal with the issues that you outline, it’s pretty difficult to convict people for crimes that they have never been accused of. If we want to provide more resources for women’s shelters across the country, by all means, let us do so. If we want to provide more legal advice and legal aid, and more funding for family legal aid programs so that women who are seeking separation from partners and who are seeking protection from domestic violence can receive that, then absolutely.

I could sit here and list 20 public policy strategies that would help to reduce domestic violence in ways that would be far more effectual than this.

Senator Boisvenu: Coming from you? Of course.

Senator Gold: Thank you.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Gold. Let me take the first part of the question first.

Ms. Sharma used the phrase “repeat violent offenders.” A person who has one absolute discharge on their record could surely not be considered a repeat violent offender. My concern is precisely that: This broadens the net of who is captured in the reverse onus provision and expands it beyond repeat violent offenders who — we could all agree — are a far greater risk to society than a person who has one absolute discharge, for an example.

As to your second point, of course I am concerned about the horrific levels of family violence in this country, which is predominantly violence of men against women and which is disproportionately affecting the Indigenous population. That does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is necessary to construct a bail regime that provides security for women whose partners have been alleged to have abused them. That doesn’t mean the reverse onus, which is a brute cookie cutter of an instrument.

It would be far more beneficial, for example, for a man who’s been charged with spousal assault to be provided with a bail bed and some kind of supervised release. The problem comes about if people are released without conditions, if people are released with conditions that cannot possibly be met or if people are released to either the choice of homelessness or returning to the domestic situation where the violence occurred.

By all means, let us find ways to protect women in their homes from violent partners. I fail to see that reversing the onus for somebody who has had one absolute or conditional discharge gets us there.

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: I would like another five minutes, please.

Senator Batters: Senator Simons, in your speech, you primarily referred to absolute discharges. Would you concede that conditional discharges are also included in this same framework and so this would eliminate conditional discharges as well? The types of conditional discharges — as I’m sure you know well from the kinds of cases you reported on — can involve weapons and firearms prohibitions, probation and non‑contact orders for those types of interpersonal violence, which is very common and that can be, of course, more than one.

As well, a discharge involves a finding of guilt, and then a discharge is the type of sanction that the judge chooses for it. That is not the least bad of anything. They have been found guilty of the criminal offence, and this is simply the sanction that has been chosen.

Senator Simons: That is entirely correct, senator.

[English]

We have seen all over the country, most recently with the Mass Casualty Commission report, that all too often cases of domestic violence spill out into the larger community, whether that’s an assault on police officers or other first responders or assault on the community at large.

When I was a journalist, I long argued that family violence was a crime not just against the members of the family but also against the entire community. Indeed, I’m proud of the fact that, as a journalist, I fought hard to report on cases — murder-suicide cases — where oftentimes the names of both the offender and the victim were kept quiet by police because I argued that these were assaults against the entire community.

I absolutely support your effort, sir, to fight domestic violence. I stand in awe of some of the things you have fought for and accomplished as a senator.

I have worked for years as a journalist on these issues. But I think in the words of our late colleague Elaine McCoy of blessed memory, we are shooting at the wrong duck. If we want to keep families safe, there are far better ways to do it than to impose on people whose only brush with the criminal law is to have received an absolute discharge to treat them in the same way as the worst of perpetrators.

Let’s focus our energies on dealing with the people who are the greatest threat and not criminalize mostly Indigenous women who end up charged in sort of the tidal pool that comes in the wake of these incidents.

Senator Boisvenu: Yes, exactly. We’re not dealing with pardons. I may have used that word, but we’re talking about a discharge. This has nothing to do with pardons.

Senator Batters: I have a brief follow-up because at one point, Senator Boisvenu, your answer was translated as applying to people who had a pardon. It is not a pardon that we’re dealing with here, right? It is a discharge where someone has been found guilty but received a discharge from the judge as their sanction.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Senator Simons, you’ve said on a couple of occasions that you object if it’s the only brush with the law. There’s evidence both before the committee and more generally that very often intimate partner violence does not get reported. Complaints are withdrawn, and charges may or may not be laid.

How do you square your phrase with the fact that it is clear that women are often victims of violence for protracted periods of time before the law gets involved and that the risk increases once charges are laid?