Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that question and suggestion. I would agree. Certainly, the findings coming out of numerous inquests into the deaths of women, particularly Indigenous women, but also the Mass Casualty Commission, really point to the need to do more of that work and understand how countercharging and the vilification of the victim has actually backfired, particularly when it comes to those who are intersectionally disadvantaged, whether it’s by race, gender, identity or poverty.

While there have been great strides made in awareness about these issues — I have certainly met individual police officers and I know of excellent police policies, they are not always followed. It’s often more unusual to see — and I think I have spoken about those previously in this chamber — when really exceptional work has been done by police officers. It shouldn’t have to be the exception, and I think that’s one of the areas that we need to examine. This kind of approach doesn’t come close to addressing the overarching issues that contribute to those situations.

Senator Gold: First of all, I don’t have the complete list, and I’m sorry about that. I was told that discussions and consultations were held not only with the national organizations that I mentioned but also with many others. Once again, I would invite you to ask the ministers and officials that question when they appear before the committee.

Senator Gold: Again, the Department of Justice only has the information that it is able to cobble together from information that is provided or available from the provinces. I am not going to pretend that it is properly comprehensive.

However, we will be studying this bill at committee. The minister will be there, as will the officials, and we’ll have the opportunity, through the study of this bill, for these questions to be answered in a more comprehensive way than I can provide to you now.

Again, it’s also important, colleagues, to remember that in order for this bill to satisfy the test that the Supreme Court has set out and the exigencies of the Charter, the focus has to be choosing and targeting, in the context of a reverse-onus provision, things that are narrowly drafted and that are deemed necessary to promote the objectives of the bail system. Those objectives are to protect public safety, make sure that offenders appear and to promote and protect public confidence. In that regard, the government is satisfied that it has targeted the kinds of offences appropriately and consistently with our basic principles of justice.

Senator Plett: Of course, there are many Conservatives who would be able to fulfill all those criteria that you just mentioned.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about us personally being upset for not being included. This is about Prime Minister’s Trudeau disregard, complete lack of regard, for democratic representation and balance for a committee that deals with issues of national security and intelligence matters. NSICOP is tasked to review issues that Canadians are, with good reason, increasingly worried about. At a time when Canadians need reassurance, the Prime Minister chooses to disregard the convention of cross-party cooperation and has seemingly chosen to appoint only supporters of his government and him personally at NSICOP.

Senator Gold, why is Prime Minister Trudeau going to such great lengths to exclude the opposition in the Senate? Why is the government so afraid of having an opposition party at the table?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Brett Boniface, Senator Boniface’s son; as well as Grayson and Hudson, her grandsons.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Pate, for Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

Senator Gold: Senator Housakos, you have asked the question many times, as some of your colleagues have, and I am taken to task if I go on too long to explain the merits and virtues of the carbon tax, as you call it, and then when I simply answer in an economical fashion within the time limits that leaders think appropriate, I’m chastised for not giving answers.

I have now taken up about 30 seconds to tell you that no, the government has no plans to eliminate the price on carbon.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t have concrete examples to provide. I do know that the government is committed to working with its allies and, indeed, beyond its allies, with those countries that have expressed an interest — as I said on another occasion, in their own self-interest — in reducing carbon emissions so that their resources and the world’s resources will not be further degraded.

In that regard, the fight against climate change is part of the international suite of priorities that Canada continues to prosecute with its counterparts on the world stage.

[Translation]

Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, we also know that international cooperation on climate is of paramount importance. In fact, without more, better and sustained global collaboration on climate, we’re at serious risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree Paris Agreement target.

Senator Gold, in today’s ever-more-fractured geopolitical world, could you tell us if and how Canada plans to be more proactive on climate diplomacy?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question, senator. The social determinants of crime, the overrepresentation not only of Indigenous and marginalized people but also of poor people, those who don’t have access to the resources that others do, is a real problem, a tragic problem and something that we should be ashamed of.

This government, provincial governments and territories are doing what they can to provide better resources, whether it’s social services or the like, but the work will never be complete. So you’re right to point out the despair that many experience when they find themselves in the system and it goes from bad to worse.

This bill is a very targeted measure to deal with people charged with offences and under what additional circumstances they might have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a judge that they don’t pose a risk to the public at large, to their partner or to their community.

It builds upon a recognition in the law of many years that there are circumstances where it is totally appropriate, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, to at least require the person to demonstrate their willingness and ability to abide by the rules and comply with their conditions.

It makes more public the criteria that judges apply when they have to make the decision whether to release somebody back into the community when they are facing trial for an offence. It is important to remember that we are dealing here with only the circumstances where there are charges of very serious violent offences, whether it’s with a firearm or with bear spray or knives, or of violence and repeat violence against intimate partners and so on.

This bill does not attempt to tackle the real problems that you raised that are with us, sadly and tragically, but it is a step in the right direction to mitigate the risk of violence to individuals and to communities. In that regard — if you’ll allow me to use a cliché — we can’t let the better be the enemy of the good here.

This is an important step. It does not address any of the important issues that you raise. That’s for other bills and other measures from all levels of government.

Senator Housakos: Will your government commit to getting rid of that carbon tax?

Senator Gold: It is simply not the case that the Prime Minister is appointing “supporters” of him. He has named three eminent, qualified senators who are not identified with any political party. NSICOP has members of the Conservative Party and all opposition parties in the chamber. It is a well-rounded, diverse and extremely competent body that has served Canadians well.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Obviously, a critical question is what the impact of this bill is or what it might have been. I’m not going to hide behind speculation; the bill was not in place.

However, I will bring to the Senate’s attention, as I mentioned only in passing, that we don’t have proper data. There are a number of reasons for this. Not all bail decisions are actually recorded, and even those that are recorded are not necessarily gathered, aggregated or analyzed at the provincial level. Some of these decisions are made at the justice of the peace level, and there is simply no record of them, nor is there a system yet in place for gathering all the data — incomplete though it surely is at this point — and analyzing it.

It is hoped that through this bill and through, indeed, the commitment of the provinces and territories to do their part in their areas of jurisdiction, that we will start to have better, more comprehensive data and that we, as parliamentarians — whether it’s in five years, during the parliamentary review, or whether we choose to pursue that study in the interim through committees — will be able to answer those questions with greater certainty.

It’s important to understand as well, though, that these reverse‑onus provisions are situated in the context of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system as protected, guaranteed and reflected in the Charter of Rights. This means that judges still have discretion to grant or deny bail, or to impose the conditions they see fit in the interests of public safety, whether they are dealing with a reverse-onus provision or not.

These are believed, by the Government of Canada and all the provinces and territories, to be helpful steps forward to strengthen the bail system and protect Canadian communities to a greater degree. Their impact awaits analysis and will require a serious commitment to data collection and analysis in that regard.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. It’s a fair question. I am not in a position to explain the delays in getting the information that you’re seeking; however, once again, I will do my best to try to facilitate the discharge of that information.

Senator Downe: Well, colleagues, the members of Parliament have dropped the ball. Their job is not to prance around during Question Period looking for clips. Their job is to review legislation. That’s our responsibility as well. I will remind some of the newer senators here that when I first came to the Senate, we had a very similar situation of the New Veterans Charter. It went through the House of Commons in two minutes and came to the Senate, and the Senate failed to do the job. It passed in a total of five hours. Most of that time — four hours and 50-some minutes — was in the Senate. Years later, we found out from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that those changes cost veterans, who were injured in service to the country — and their families — millions of dollars in lost benefits because the Senate and the House of Commons did not do their jobs.

We’re back in a very similar circumstance. The onus is now on the Senate — the much-criticized Senate — to do the work that the House of Commons has not done. I know that colleagues on the committee and the whole institution will do that. I hear you, Senator Gold, and this is my question: Can you tell us that we’ll have the time necessary to do that work so Canadians are not short-changed by this legislation — as they were by previous rushed legislation from not only the House of Commons but the Senate?

Senator Carignan: I do not see how a two-month passport will improve security.

One of the characteristics of this new passport is that it no longer contains the historic and iconic images of Canada. We no longer see the Vimy monument, the Chateau Frontenac, or our national hero, Terry Fox. We are now known as the country of snowflakes and little squirrels. Clearly, the use of new materials for the passport is a failure and we suspect that the work was botched and the appropriate testing was not done. Leader, why do Canadians have to spend a fortune on consultants, simply because the Trudeau government insisted on erasing pages of our history, not to mention a cost overrun of nearly 100%?

Senator Gold: Thank you. You are raising important issues.

As you would expect, the government is very aware of the concerns that were expressed, not only by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but also the Elizabeth Fry Society and John Howard Society. It is clear that one important consideration in this was to ensure that the measures in this bill — the changes or, in some cases, tweaking in this bill — were done in the most narrow and focused way not only to satisfy the Charter, fundamental though it is, but also to minimize knock-on or collateral effects.

The concern about overrepresentation of Indigenous, marginalized and racialized people is a real one this government has taken very seriously, as evidenced by many of the measures that it has already introduced, including ones concerning minimum mandatory sentences and the like. It was also at the heart of the discussions that were had with many of the stakeholders as this bill was developed.

The Senate is not rushing this through. The decision was made in the other place, and not at the initiative of the government, to pass it all in one stage. When the motion was put on the table, for their reasons, all members of the House of Commons — all parties, unanimously — supported this. I think it was in recognition, by the way, that this is something of importance to communities, territories, provinces and those responsible for administering the justice system.

We, in the Senate, are going to do our job. As many of you will know by now, this bill will be sent to the Legal Committee, which will draft its work plan and conduct itself as it sees fit. I have every confidence in the committee and in this chamber to give it the proper attention it deserves, to hear from the witnesses both for and against and to do our job. All I ask is that senators keep an open mind and please follow the workings of the committee, if you see fit, so that when it does come out of committee and we have our third-reading debate, it is as informed as possible.

But it is important to the 13 provinces and territories, the stakeholders and the communities that we do our work properly and diligently, because this is a matter of public safety and public importance.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let me see if I can coax a little more information out of you anyway. Maybe, maybe not. This man is a Canadian citizen, a graduate of the Université de Montréal and the University of Ottawa. He married a Quebecer. He has a 4-year-old daughter. I understand the need for discretion, but my request today is simple. Can you assure us that the government will not ignore this case, that it will not be forgotten?