Senator Clement: Yes.

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 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 Clement: Thank you for those comments, Senator Batters. Of course, I agree with you. All of us around that committee table were troubled by the fact that there wasn’t sufficient data to justify this bill or prove it would work.

My efforts regarding making amendments to this bill revolved around compromise and trying to find a way to make this better — or less bad — for the people who end up in prisons and Indigenous women in particular.

Senator Clement: This debate is similar to the one I took part in on Bill C-5, which I voted against. I’ve since been on a journey, and the two amendments I proposed were adopted in committee. If those amendments are included, in particular the one requiring judges to explain that they have considered the issue of Indigenous and Black overrepresentation, I would be able to vote in favour of this bill. That is why I proposed amendments. It’s my job as a senator to improve these laws.

This has been a personal journey for me, and that is why I proposed the amendments. I want to try and improve the situation.

Senator Clement: Senator Boniface, I completely understand that question. I personally struggle with that. Obviously, I’m a Black lawyer. I am very concerned by the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous people in prison. At the same time, every time I turn on the news, every time I come into the Senate and there is a speech — often given by you — recognizing the life and death of yet another police officer, it’s a struggle. But I have to come back to data. I have to come back to evidence, which we need to make legislation that is not just reactive and will actually be effective in making communities safer.

For this bill, we just didn’t hear the evidence, the data, to support that this change would make things better for our communities, for police officers, for women — Indigenous women and women who are victims of violence. We just didn’t hear it.

I completely understand what you’re saying. It’s a constant struggle. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, or LCJC, is the hardest committee to sit on, but we should be data-driven and evidence-driven, and we didn’t see it here. I didn’t see it here.

Senator Clement: Thank you for your question. I repeat: It really comes down to the fact that there is no evidence that this type of bill will be effective in protecting people. I didn’t think there was enough evidence to prove that this legislation would work the way it is supposed to work. I am repeating myself, but I’m telling you that I didn’t hear any such evidence. The evidence I heard is that Indigenous people are overrepresented in prisons. We heard that during the debates on Bill C-5 and again this time. I would say that I saw far more evidence on one side than the other. To me, there is consistency in all this.

The issue of Indigenous women is really very pertinent, because they sometimes suffer violence that is truly remarkable and difficult. They find themselves in situations where they are the ones convicted following a dispute. This situation primarily affects Indigenous women, and we heard evidence to that effect. I think it’s a matter of evidence. I understand your point of view and your work with victims. I too represented victims in my career as a lawyer. However, in this case, I have to be guided by the evidence presented in committee. Personally, I didn’t see any. I saw a continuum of laws designed to respond to a difficult situation in communities, but these laws are ineffective, and we don’t have the evidence to show that they could be effective.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I’d like to raise two points in response to Senator Boisvenu’s amendment.

First, we heard from many witnesses at that committee that there was an absolute lack of data to support that this change was actually going to be helpful and make communities feel safer. In fact, we heard the opposite — that this reverse onus does not work and actually creates inequities that are absolutely unacceptable for racialized, marginalized communities.

Second, the discharge piece affects Indigenous women and women who are caught in a cycle of violence and then charged along with their spouses. We call that dual charging. Often they will then be discharged.

Those are the people who will be affected by this reverse onus. I proposed that amendment, which passed at committee, to remove the discharge piece because this is where we see the overrepresentation of Indigenous women in prison.

In August, I went to visit Grand Valley Institution for Women. I had never been inside a prison before. I know the statistics; I’ve heard the statistics. We heard them when we were having the debates around Bill C-5. But when you sit in that prison in a town hall gathering, you actually see the overrepresentation. You see that more than 50% of the women sitting there in front of you are Indigenous and realize that those statistics have real and true meaning.

My point is that we did not hear any data from the witnesses to support that this reverse onus would be helpful, but it could create more overrepresentation of Indigenous women in particular. Thank you.