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 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?

Senator Boisvenu: That is absolutely true. We are referring here to repeat offenders. Put yourself in the shoes of a victim who found out that her abuser, for all sorts of reasons, is travelling to the United States. Justice granted him a full discharge. The victim is under the impression that the individual didn’t receive a sentence for the assault he committed. The victim feels frustrated.

It remains a privilege that this individual receives, and it is a unique privilege. This privilege is conditional on one thing: He must not reoffend.

This individual who would abuse another spouse and end up before the same judge might tell him that he’s not a repeat offender since he was granted a discharge.

In my opinion, the discharge is a privilege that requires an obligation not to reoffend. If you reoffend, that privilege is revoked. This will apply mostly in the case of men who are repeat violent offenders. We’re talking about repeat offenders who are a risk to women, not only abused women, but all women.

[English]

Senator Batters: Will Senator Clement take a question?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Senator Batters: Thank you. Senator Clement, wasn’t it the case that for this bill generally, we didn’t hear any data, period? I think you probably have to concede that the government didn’t have any data to justify the provisions here, nor was there any on this particular element.

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]

The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there was a senator without waiting to be introduced:

The following honourable senator was introduced; presented His Majesty’s writ of summons; took the solemn affirmation, which was administered by the Clerk of the Senate; and was seated:

Hon. Rodger Cuzner, of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Hassan Yussuff.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senator named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.