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 Martin: I can’t speak for CAP, but as I said in my speech, I’m aware — based on testimony that we heard at committee as well as from looking at their website — that they have 11 provincial and territorial affiliates, and have done extensive work for over 50 years. I stand by what I included in my statement today, but in terms of speaking for them in regard to your specific questions, I don’t have the answers to them.

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 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.

Senator Simons: That’s very true, Senator Batters. And I would put it to you that the judge has every right to deny that person bail. If somebody has received an absolute discharge or — you’re right — a conditional discharge, which suggests that there were more conditions attached and, perhaps, graver fact circumstances, I’m not advocating that those people should automatically get bail. The prosecutor still has the power to argue against bail. The judge still has the power to deny bail.

What I’m saying is that if you flip the tables and demand a reverse onus, you should save that for the most egregious of circumstances. But if we expand the reverse onus provision, we could accidentally capture people for whom this law was never intended. Under no circumstances would I say somebody who had committed a violent offence with a firearm should be automatically granted bail because, perhaps, they had a conditional discharge. What I am saying is that you have to save that reverse onus provision for only the very particular circumstances where it is most needed and where it best fits.

Senator Martin: I don’t know that.

Senator Martin: Yes. This is a complex situation, and I am learning so much by being at committee and by looking through Hansard of the other house and understanding what happened.

For me, I’m just looking at the intent of the bill, the spirit of the bill — reconciliation — and the importance of including the range of voices and groups that are in Canada, but I almost feel like it’s next to impossible because there are only 13 seats.

In terms of the guaranteed seats, I know of CAP from the work that Senator Brazeau did, the work that our government previously did and that it is an organization. Their website is quite extensive. There is the Daniels decision that recognized them.

I am just thinking about inclusivity and respecting a national group such as CAP. Other groups’ opinions about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, what they have or have not done with them — all of those complex factors — are not something I am looking at. I am looking at the testimony we heard, what happened in the House and the spirit of this bill. I’m urging honourable senators to consider what I’ve said and vote accordingly.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: As I said, this is a government budget that was handed down in March. The senator has had all kinds of time to speak since March. Clearly, there is no hurry. He has all kinds of time to speak going down. He just doesn’t have time to speak today ahead of the 5:30 vote on Bill C-234.

Does that play into why the senator needs to speak to an inquiry today? Does he want to delve into Bill C-234?

Senator Gold: Your concern for the presence of Hamas on our streets is laudable. The question, though, borders on the obscene.

The fact remains it is up to the police, not the government of Canada, to enforce the criminal laws against hate speech, incitement to violence. I live across the street from the Israeli consulate. I’m very aware of the activities of those who are supporting Hamas, and I look forward to the strict application of the Canadian law in all that it entails.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As you know, the joint committee has been reconvened specifically to study this important issue. The government is awaiting the report before deciding what to do about the recommendations it will contain.

[English]