Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. I will certainly make the government aware.

We are all aware of the burden that the pandemic imposed — not only on the hospitality industry but on many businesses. I will repeat that the automatic tax will raise the tax on a can of beer by less than one fifth of one cent. I would hope that responsible bar and restaurant owners will not pass on a disproportionate amount of that increase to their customers.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of November 17, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023; and

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I note that this item is currently on day 15, and I therefore move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ravalia, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Yvonne Boyer moved second reading of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).

She said: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Boyer, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, November is Family Violence Prevention Month in New Brunswick, so for me, it’s an important month to speak to Bill C-233, sponsored by our colleague Senator Dalphond. Recently, he spoke so passionately about the need for this important legislation. I also spoke not long ago on Inquiry No. 10, where I outlined some of the major issues faced by women who are victims of intimate partner violence in rural Ontario.

In New Brunswick, the Silent Witness Project honours women who were murdered by their intimate partners. Currently, the travelling exhibit includes 50 life-sized red silhouettes of these women and their stories. These stories are compiled by their loved ones on engraved metal plates, which are secured to the chest of each silhouette. Sometimes family members may put a scarf or a personal item around the silhouette’s neck.

One of the Silent Witnesses that touched me deeply is Monique Breau’s story from Moncton, New Brunswick. On December 19, 2005, at the age of 36, she was shot by her estranged common-law partner whom she hadn’t spoken to in nine months. He entered her home and fatally shot her and then turned the gun on himself. Monique was a nursing mom. When she was shot, she had her three-month-old baby in her arms. Monique’s two-and-a-half-year-old child was in a bedroom nearby. When the police arrived, it was a grim scene, and it was just before Christmas. Monique was a physiotherapist at our Moncton Hospital, and everyone was saddened and shocked by what happened. She was described as an honest, generous and fun-loving person. She was an outdoor enthusiast and loved painting, gardening and volunteering. No one knew the danger she was in, and now her two children are orphans as a result of this horrifying act.

I believe this story emphasizes the dangers of violent partners, especially as women are at the highest risk after separation. It also highlights that the victims of violence are not just women but their children as well, whose homes are so often destroyed. Monique’s two children didn’t just witness violence; they experienced it and will live with the consequences forever. Any act of intimate partner violence is an act of violence against the whole family, especially children. Reforms such as those proposed under Bill C-233 can help prevent and contain violence, but much more is needed. If I can make an analogy about domestic violence, ending intimate partner violence is like building a house. We need a foundation. We need the walls, the rooms and the roof. We need all the pieces put together to form a complete house. A national framework to end gender-based violence is imperative.

Here are a few important statistics: Between 2014 and 2020, there were 576 victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada, 80% of whom were women; 43% of women have experienced psychological abuse in their lifetime at the hands of an intimate partner; 23% have experienced physical violence; 12% have experienced sexual violence; and 30% of women who experienced intimate partner violence reported experiencing it repeatedly.

The psychological abuse often comes in the form of coercive control, an insidious and difficult-to-detect type of violence in which an intimate partner engages in a pattern of behaviours intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate their victim, thereby stripping away their freedom and their sense of self. Coercive control leads to a tightening grip on the victim and asserts the power of the abuser over every aspect of the victim’s life. Coercive control is a significant predictor of violence and murder.

In the 2022 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Towards a Violence-Free Canada: Addressing and Eliminating Intimate Partner and Family Violence, the committee noted the importance of recognizing coercive control in all areas of Canadian law. I note that in 2019, the update to the Divorce Act enacted through Bill C-78 took a step in the right direction by outlining how courts should consider patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in a relationship with a family member in their assessment of the impact of family violence. This does not criminalize coercive control per se, though some bills such as Bill C-202, currently at second reading in the other place, do.

Bill C-233, on the other hand, seeks to further entrench the concept of coercive control in the justice system not by criminalizing it but rather by providing for training opportunities and seminars for judges. Though I believe coercive control should be criminalized, my views are informed by the committee’s observation that some witnesses expressed concern with the ability of the justice system to manage such a new offence, particularly if the system is not even nuanced enough to understand physical violence, let alone such an insidious act of violence like coercive control. I therefore believe that the training prescribed by Bill C-233 would provide the foundation for greater reforms.

Pamela Cross, Legal Director of Luke’s Place, observed that jurisdictions that combined the criminalization of coercive control with dedicated training programs were more successful than those jurisdictions that did not. In this light, by equipping judges with the most up-to-date and in-depth knowledge on the effects of coercive control, I believe we will be laying the foundation for greater access to justice for victims. I think the impact of such training would be immediate. It would dispel unfounded beliefs held by some judges that violence against a mother should not be considered a risk to the child.

In fact, the portion of Bill C-233 that compels training for judges is called “Keira’s Law” in reference to Keira Kagan. In her testimony to the House of Commons Status of Women Committee, Keira’s mother described her experience in the court system after she escaped from her abusive partner. A dozen different judges dismissed her experience of coercive control and abuse, and one even stated that the abuse she suffered was not relevant to parenting and her partner would therefore be granted unsupervised access to their daughter Keira. Sadly, Keira was later killed by her angry and dangerous father in an apparent murder-suicide. This happened in 2020, so it is clear that the attitudes that informed the decisions of the judges in this sad case persist in our courts.

Dr. Peter Jaffe, a leading expert on family violence, lends additional weight to Keira’s story. His research demonstrates that many misconceptions persist in the criminal justice system around intimate partner violence — in particular the view that as long as children are not abused directly, they are not harmed by exposure to domestic violence. Dr. Jaffe’s research has shown that children’s exposure to domestic violence consistently leads to negative outcomes ranging from trauma, flashbacks, nightmares, depression, regression to earlier stages of development and compromised academic and social development. Keep in mind that this is the damage done when the child is not abused directly, so the harm done can be multiplied exponentially. What is clear is that when our courts ignore the broader impacts of domestic violence, they are failing to protect the children. Abusers cannot be good parents. Dr. Jaffe stresses the need for training so that every actor in the judicial system understands the complete picture of intimate partner violence.

In New Brunswick, I think we are ahead of things because, for many years, we’ve recognized this. We knew this link between harm to children and witnessing their parents’ abuse needed to be recognized and treated. Dr. Jaffe’s research helped us find suitable training and education for mothers to help their children. We did this for many years, and it was certainly a big step forward.

I believe training for judges aligns well with recommendation 29 of the Ontario coroner’s inquest into the deaths of the three women in rural Ontario. It calls on the province to provide professional education and training for justice system personnel on intimate partner violence-related issues. It follows up with an invaluable list of training subjects, including indicators of coercive control and other risk factors of violence and possibly death. Though provincial in focus, the inquest’s recommendations are equally applicable nationally, and I have heard them repeated often in other jurisdictions over the years.

I would like to move to the second part of the bill, which would require a justice to consider whether it is desirable to include that an accused charged with an offence against an intimate partner be made to wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of the bail order. To be clear, Bill C-233 only contemplates the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of a bail order, a sensitive time where the victim has already endured violence but during which the alleged abuser may be released pending a trial. Research has shown that victims are at highest risk in the first several months after a separation, a period of time that is reflected in this legislation. As I mentioned previously, Monique Breau was murdered by her estranged partner only nine months after the relationship ended. Though this only covers a specific step in the legal process, it is an important one. Moreover, implementing Bill C-233 would not preclude taking additional steps through other legislation and, certainly, through a comprehensive national prevention strategy on gender-based violence.

Senator Dalphond provided a number of examples of jurisdictions that have implemented electronic monitoring as part of their strategy to protect victims of intimate partner violence. For example, Spain’s model stands out as a particularly interesting one, as it has been active since 2009 and therefore is a tremendous source of data.

It is important to understand that the use of electronic monitoring in Spain is part of a suite of reforms which includes specialized courts that deal with intimate partner violence — a truly whole-of-government approach to dealing with the issue, the collective impact of which was a 25% reduction in the number of femicides since 2004.

As a part of a wider tool kit, electronic monitoring, where available — and combined with effective and immediate police response — increases the well-being and sense of security of victims and increases compliance with treatment orders.

It must be noted, however, that electronic monitoring is not without issues. It may not be appropriate in every circumstance.

Pamela Cross, in her testimony in the other place, raised concerns with equitable access to justice. Offenders are expected to bear the cost of installation and monitoring, often done by private corporations, which can cost up to $600 a month. For a family that has already been impacted by violence, this additional financial burden seems unfair and even completely inaccessible for folks without the means.

The possibility exists, therefore, that justice may look differently depending on your socio-economic circumstances. This is also true for anyone living in rural areas, where access to cellular data may be spotty. For the women who were murdered in Renfrew County, the use of electronic monitoring may not even have been applicable. This is why it is crucial to consider social context in these circumstances, and I am pleased to see that social context is included in the training being recommended in Bill C-233.

Colleagues, intimate partner violence is a complex issue. Despite its brevity, Bill C-233 raises deep concerns and questions about what we are doing to end violence. When we have knowledge, as the bill seeks to do for judges, we are better able to make clear-eyed decisions on what works and what doesn’t. Bill C-233 moves things forward in a positive direction and, on the whole, I’m supportive of it.

Thank you to Senator Dalphond for being the sponsor and for sharing so much information with my office. I look forward to the possibility of studying it further at committee, along with other important measures being proposed by my colleagues to deal with intimate partner violence. Let’s keep working on this until every woman, girl and child is safe in Canada. Let’s do whatever it takes. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(Debate concluded.)

(At 3:52 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Senator Marshall: Thank you for that answer, Senator Gold, but the spending plans of the government — most of them have been approved, and we’re nearing the end of the approval processes. Therefore, when we do get those documents, it’s going to be after the fact and they’re not going to be much use to us.

But just continuing with the government’s lack of transparency and accountability, the government has provided a number of debt management strategies over the past two years, telling us what they are planning to do with regard to the government’s borrowing program. However, we have not received any actual reports, such as the Debt Management Report. We are still waiting for that from last year. When are we going to get that report? We have all these spending plans to approve, but we’re not receiving the government’s accountability documents that we need in order to complete our studies.

Hon. Pat Duncan: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, in June of this year, George Rae, Director of Policy Analysis Initiative at Employment and Social Development Canada, told senators at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission reviews the boundaries for EI economic regions at least once every five years. He said the last one was concluded in 2021. Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission, also said the review is complete. The next review will start next year in 2023.

My question is: What did the review recommend about Prince Edward Island’s two zones, and when, if at all, is the minister intending to share these recommendations with parliamentarians and, more importantly, with Canadians? They do not appear to have been made public.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I don’t know, and I will have to make inquiries. I know that this is a bill that we in the Senate sent — at least a bill dealing with the P.E.I. situation — to committee, and I’m hopeful that the answers may be elicited and provided there, but, in any event, I will make inquiries.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, what I did for the weekend made me proud and privileged to be a Canadian. On Friday, I went to a citizenship ceremony in Saskatoon. It was probably the largest ever in Saskatchewan. Three hundred and six people took the oath to become new Canadians. Overseen by citizen judge Suzanne Carrière, an outstanding citizenship judge, it was an uplifting, emotional experience. I am grateful to be a Canadian.

Then, on Sunday, my brother and I — and I know Senator Smith is waiting for this part — went to the Grey Cup football game in Regina. I had bought tickets to the game back in August when it looked like my beloved Saskatchewan Rough Riders would be playing in the game. Alas, that did not happen by a mile.

The game was between the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the Toronto Argonauts. It was an outstanding event, and my congratulations go out to the Canadian Football League, or CFL, my friend Scott Banda, who is the chair of the board of the CFL, Commissioner Ambrosie and particularly the good citizens of Regina who delivered another outstanding Grey Cup celebratory event — an uplifting Canadian event. In my view, the Grey Cup and the two national curling championships, the Brier and the Scotties, are the most quintessentially Canadian sporting events we have in this country.

Now to the game. There is a convention in many regions of the country that we only cheer for Toronto teams when there is no one else to cheer for. On the other hand, there is a law in Saskatchewan — it is part of The Saskatchewan First Act that you might have heard about. It’s clause 13 of that act. Clause 13 is a particular number in the hearts of Saskatchewanians, as Senator Smith will know. Clause 13 is written in the act in invisible ink. Only Saskatchewanians can read it. I can read it. Here is what it says: “Saskatchewan Rough Riders first in our hearts. Winnipeg Blue Bombers last in our hearts.” Nevertheless, I was cheering for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers during the game. I may have some explaining to do back home.

The game was a fascinating one with perhaps the most dramatic finish in the history of the Grey Cup. Toronto won by one point. Congratulations to the Toronto Argonauts as Grey Cup champions for 2022.

With respect to Winnipeg, though, they are an outstanding football team harkening back to the dynasties — some will remember this as sports fans — of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the 1960s when people like Kenny Ploen, Leo Lewis and Ernie Pitts were stars, and they were coached by Bud Grant, perhaps the most outstanding football coach in professional football history.

It is quite possible that the Winnipeg loss in this Grey Cup is merely a modest interruption in what may well be for modern day Winnipeg Blue Bombers the building of another — the word I want to say next is dynasty, but I can’t quite bring myself to say it.

Congratulations to all. Grey Cup 2022 was an outstanding Canadian event. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, my question is about the conflict between Minister Duclos and the provinces over health transfers. Health is a provincial responsibility, which is what makes this impasse so frustrating. This is not shared jurisdiction.

The nub of the problem seems to be the federal government’s desire to attach certain conditions to the transfers so that everyone works toward building “a world-class health data system.” We already have the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a not-for-profit organization whose board of directors includes a Health Canada deputy minister, an official from Statistics Canada and officials from the provincial health care systems.

Why is the government trying to reinvent the wheel and add another layer of bureaucracy rather than speedily transferring its fair share to the provinces?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I’ll answer briefly, but it raises some complex issues. Life would be very simple if every time the provinces asked for more money, no matter how it was used, the federal government said yes. That’s not how responsible government works.

Unfortunately, discussions between Minister Duclos and his counterparts were unsuccessful because of the premiers’ influence over their health ministers. They insisted that the money should be transferred without conditions and that they wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister as soon as possible. This is not how the Government of Canada should respond on an issue as important as health care funding.

With respect to your question, I think it’s appropriate for the federal government to ask the provincial and territorial governments to share their data in order to give Canadians, no matter where they live, access to the most appropriate health care system possible for a developed country.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree with you on the issue of sharing data. However, we already have the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which involves the provinces and the federal government. I understand what the government wants to create, according to the expert advisory group that it established, and I will quote what this new organization is supposed to be so that you can properly understand my question:

Implementation . . . would be advised by a competency-based Health Information Stewardship Council (Council) and facilitated by one or more representative Learning Health System Table(s) (LHS Table(s)), accountable to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health. . . .

The LHS Table(s) would work with the Council to establish integrated roadmaps to implement the learning health system and secure investment . . . .

Senator Gold, my question is simple. Why does the government prefer to create a new organization that it describes with such administrative gibberish rather than using an existing organization that has a clear and functional mandate?

Hon. Brian Francis: Senator Gold, according to a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who testified last week at the Indigenous Peoples Committee, the significant increase in funding allocated to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, and Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, from 2015 to 2023 has not resulted in a commensurate increase in their ability to meet their own performance indicators. In addition, while targets are often amended, changed or not met at all, the compensation of deputy ministers and other executive-level staff responsible for day-to-day operations is not affected.

Senator Gold, could you please provide us with a detailed explanation of how current performance indicators are set and measured by both departments? Also, what are the contributors, consequences and solutions for the continuous failure to meet performance indicators?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

Like other taxes and benefits, senator, the alcohol excise duty rate is automatically adjusted each year to account for inflation. The government is of the view that this is the right approach, and that it provides certainty to this sector while ensuring that our tax system is fair for all Canadians.

My understanding is that the increase to which you refer is less than one fifth of one cent per can of beer, and there were specific measures implemented to take into consideration the needs of craft brewers. The government is committed to continuing to work to make life more affordable for Canadians — while working to promote healthy competition, thereby building the economy of the future.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Good afternoon, honourable senators.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu.]

Greetings, all.

Colleagues, I rise before you today with a great deal of love and emotion, and a tremendous amount of pride. As you can see, you have before you strong women, gentle warriors.

[English]

These are women who walked thousands and thousands of miles to advocate, stood against the odds and never gave up — ever. These women never gave up on raising awareness and ensuring that a national inquiry into, and justice for, missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls would come to life. On top of that, I had the utmost privilege to be advised by them during the national inquiry. I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are awesome, you are amazing — all of you.

Among these wonderful women, of course, is a special friend Denise Pictou-Maloney, the daughter of Anna Mae Pictou‑Aquash, a prominent American Indian Movement activist who was brutally killed in 1976. Denise and her family have fought hard to obtain justice for her mother. Today, there is a film crew following Denise on her journey. The story of her mother will be immortalized and broadcast, which also means that her mother’s legacy will live and the truth will win.

[Translation]

Colleagues, these women are some of the architects of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It is the history of all these women, the history of too many women who have lost a loved one.

[English]

I want to say thank you to the National Family and Survivors Circle for your advocacy on behalf of my daughter and all young girls across this country.

[Translation]

When I question the government about implementing calls to justice, the importance of having an ombudsman, a follow-up and accountability mechanism, a tribunal, my voice is the voice of thousands of women who deserve for their safety to remain a priority.

[English]

A year ago today I was sworn in as a senator — you are my gift today. Thank you very much.

Senator Plett: The utter lack of respect the government has for Canadians is shameful. To accuse the opposition of not having the proper questions — questions that you do not like, Senator Gold — is also reflective of that. You may not like our questions, Senator Gold, but you are obliged to answer them honestly.

Leader, even in the face of growing evidence that suggests that your plan is not working, your government continues to double down on its soft-on-crime approach that leaves Canadians vulnerable. We saw that last week, Senator Gold.

The Prime Minister continues to proudly proclaim that he took action on gun violence, but he didn’t. What he did was take action against people who aren’t hurting anyone, and never will. That same Prime Minister has also reduced penalties for dangerous people who use illegally acquired guns in the commission of gang-related crimes. These are facts, Senator Gold.

When will your government stop making it easier to be a criminal in Canada and start working to keep victims and Canadians safe?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My next question, Senator Gold, relates to an answer I received to an Order Paper question I posed some time ago related to the operational ability of the used fighter planes that the government purchased from Australia in 2018. The answer indicated that out of 18 used aircraft purchased, only 6 are operational. There are no opposition points to be made here. Each aircraft apparently requires a month of extensive inspections and modifications prior to being made operational.

All of this means that the used aircraft we have bought will not be in full operational service until at least the middle of next year, assuming that even that deadline can be met.

Leader, how does your government justify the fact that it argued that these aircraft were supposed to fill a gap and yet here we are, Senator Gold, four years later with only six operational aircraft from that purchase?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I will certainly have to look into the details of the specific aircraft that require additional maintenance. I am sure that all senators would agree that, until those airplanes are properly reviewed and properly maintained, they should not fly. I will certainly make inquiries and report back when I can.