Senator Batters: He admitted it yesterday.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, I noticed that you mentioned pepper spray in the context of mandatory minimum sentences in your speech again, just like in your second-reading speech. After that speech, I asked you how many people in the last five years in Canada were convicted of that pepper spray offence who received the mandatory minimum sentence. I speculated, given the discretion of police prosecutors and courts, that the number would be next to zero. You replied that you didn’t know. I asked why you put it in your speech as an example if you didn’t know. You repeated that you didn’t know and said that I could ask officials at committee.

So I did. The Department of Justice Canada officials couldn’t give me an answer, either that day or via their written response later.

Again, I contend that the number of people who are convicted of a pepper spray offence that attracts a mandatory minimum sentence would be next to zero. Senator Gold, why do you continue to use that pepper spray mandatory minimum sentence example when you have nothing to back it up after weeks?

Senator Batters: Senator Simons, what you referred to would probably be indecent exposure. For many of these offences, if it’s not appropriate to charge with the more serious offence, as some of these are listed here, the police, the prosecutors and the courts would deal with them on the appropriate sort of charging basis.

In regard to the other offence that you referred to earlier — being unlawfully in a dwelling-house — maybe you would recall that sort of offence can often be used when an ex-spouse is stalking and potentially going to harm their spouse. There have been very significant cases that deal with that.

I think Senator Boisvenu has actually tried to make sure that the type of charges that he’s dealt with here are the ones that are the most serious — potentially dealing with domestic violence. Wouldn’t you agree that is the sort of thing that we should be worried about, especially when dealing with conditional sentencing, where we could have those offenders back in the community to hurt those people?

Senator Batters: Minister Oda also repaid her infamous $16 orange juice bill. I am curious, Senator Gold: Was a complimentary breakfast included in that $7,300-per-night price tag for Prime Minister Trudeau’s luxury River Suite? If not, how much are Canadian taxpayers on the hook for that orange juice?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, in 2012, former cabinet minister Bev Oda was hounded by opposition parties for a London hotel stay. Her room cost $665 per night. Fast forward, and Prime Minister Trudeau just dinged Canadian taxpayers more than 10 times that amount: $7,300 per night for his opulent 900‑square-foot suite in London.

Last week, you tried to “LaurentianSplain” this PM’s outrageous expense with, “When’s the last time you tried to rent a good hotel room in London?” Yikes. Minister Oda reimbursed her hotel costs. When will this silver spoon Prime Minister reimburse his?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Simons, you started to go through the list of some of the offences. The first one you listed was criminal negligence. You didn’t mention that it is causing bodily harm by criminal negligence.

Then you said you didn’t want to go through them all because that would take too long, potentially, but you skipped over sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. Don’t you think those are the ones where there may be fewer examples of situations where it would be appropriate to have conditional sentences — where those particular offenders would be back in the same communities as the people that they victimized?