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 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]

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.