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 Boisvenu: Coming from you? Of course.

Senator Boisvenu: I would like another five minutes, please.

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 Boisvenu: Yes, it is the same wording, and I will add an explanation, because it’s a rather complex subject. It’s important to understand that a man — because in 90% of cases, it’s men who abuse women — who has received a pardon and then goes on to assault another spouse, when he appears before a judge, if this section doesn’t exist, the onus will be on the Crown to prove that this is a violent repeat offender who shouldn’t be released.

If we take away that privilege, any repeat offender who is brought to justice will be treated equally. Whether an offender has been pardoned or not, if he assaults another intimate partner, the onus will not be on the Crown but on the accused to prove that they aren’t violent.

What this says is that the offender had a privilege, but if he has breached his obligations, he is treated the same as a violent man who appears before the court after having reoffended.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Clement, you’re a lawyer. You must know that the Criminal Code already provides for the reversal of the burden of proof in some cases. The Parole Board of Canada also applies a reverse onus when dealing with repeat offenders.

I’m trying to make the connection between taking a privilege away from someone who was granted a discharge and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons. Should your logic not apply to the bill as a whole? Even if we adopt your amendment to the bill, will it really reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons when this affects just one in every 1,000 men who are granted a discharge?

What is the connection between your argument that there are too many Indigenous people in prisons and discharges? Instead, you should be encouraging all senators to vote against the bill. There’s no connection between the granting of a discharge and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons, unless you can show otherwise.

Senator Boisvenu: I take it, then, that there’s no connection between discharges and overcrowding. However, you’re saying that there is a connection between the reverse onus for offenders from all walks of life and overcrowding. Will you be voting against the bill?

Senator Boisvenu: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Boisvenu: No, I think we’re ready to vote on the matter.

Senator Boisvenu: Would you be willing to answer a question or two?

Senator Boisvenu: Senator, the carbon tax appears to be practically sacred within Justin Trudeau’s government. However, when you look at the numbers with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, British Columbia, the province with the highest carbon tax, increased its emissions by 4% from 2008 to 2019. Meanwhile, Nova Scotia, the province with the lowest carbon tax, reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 36% over the same period.

Can you explain the logic in that?

Senator Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I think an important clarification needs to be made. We are studying a bill that deals with domestic violence involving a firearm. It does not address all cases of domestic violence, only those committed with a firearm.

Madam Senator, don’t you think that when a woman is assaulted, if the man, the assailant, has used a firearm, we’re looking at one of the most violent cases?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Would Senator Dalphond take a question?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today to propose an amendment to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), introduced in the House of Commons on May 16 by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The amendment I’m proposing today reintroduces the reverse onus for repeat offenders previously discharged for domestic violence offences.

Doing so sends a clear message to victims and to the public, specifically, that our legal system recognizes the seriousness of recidivism in cases of domestic violence and is taking all necessary steps to prevent future tragedies that could result in further victimization.

This amendment deals with cases of individuals who have already been discharged for similar acts of domestic violence. Bill C-48 originally provided for the application of this reverse onus principle, a measure I strongly support. However, this vital component was removed from the bill through an amendment brought forward by Senator Clement at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

As you know, domestic violence is endemic in Canada. If we want to better protect victims, encourage them to report their abusers and reduce recidivism, we need to adopt a tougher, more rigorous approach to abusers.

Bill S-205, which was passed before the end of the last session, is similar to the amendment I’m proposing today. My bill received support from all the provinces consulted, victim support groups, Indigenous communities, police services and therapists who treat these violent men.

Further to that point, I’d like to reiterate my appreciation for your support in passing this important bill. Once again, thank you.

As I mentioned in my speech at second reading of Bill S-205, in 2018, 148 women were murdered in Canada, and in 2022, 184 women were murdered by their spouses or ex-spouses, men who didn’t accept that these women had chosen to free themselves from a prison of violence and silence. The vast majority of these murderers had a violent past and, in several cases, a violent past with several of their partners.

I therefore hope that my bill, Bill S-205, which passed second reading in the other place, will be passed before I leave my seat in this chamber. In combination with Bill C-233, which we passed earlier this year, this bill, if it is passed, will finally provide Canadian women with a secure legislative framework to protect them and their children when they report their abuser.

Senators, it is important to reinstate in Bill C-48 the important measure regarding the reversal of the burden of proof and to remind people of why this measure is essential for victims.

When an individual is accused of a domestic violence-related crime, the fact that he was previously discharged shouldn’t alleviate his responsibility in a later case. In fact, a previous discharge should be seen as a warning to be taken into account in future rulings, particularly if new accusations are made.

In that respect, let’s not forget the tragic death of Christine St-Onge, who was murdered by her partner, Pierre Bergeron, who was previously discharged in a case of intimate partner violence against another woman. This case clearly illustrates the need for more vigilance. Prior discharges can hide repetitive behaviours and leave future partners vulnerable and defenceless.

By excluding this measure from Bill C-48, we are running the risk of sending the wrong message, that despite a history of violence, an individual could be granted a type of clemency if he reoffends. That isn’t the message we want to send to current victims, who are caught in a vicious circle of domestic violence. Justice must above all protect the potential victims and consider recidivism not a mere coincidence, but a potential indicator of a repetitive, aggressive and dangerous behavioural pattern.

To strengthen my argument, I want to note that the decision to grant a discharge is never taken lightly. A judge evaluates several factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending. If a new offence is committed, that may indicate a poor initial assessment of the risk of reoffending or a change in the accused’s behaviour. In either case, the future partners are at risk and it is vital to review the way these offenders are treated in future.

Bill C-48 will soon be passed, despite the fact that I think it is imperfect. It should have encompassed all forms of domestic violence, not just gun-related violence. A large proportion of women murdered in this country are killed with knives or by strangulation. Bill C-48 represents another step forward in protecting women who are victims of domestic violence. I would also remind senators that in rural areas, one woman in three is murdered with a firearm, while in urban areas, the ratio is only one woman in six. Clearly, many more women are murdered with knives than with guns. The danger for these victims isn’t the presence of a weapon nearby, but the attacker’s background.

However, I’m pleased that Bill C-48 has retained one of the elements of Bill S-205, which you all voted in favour of, namely maintaining the reverse onus against an assailant who reoffends despite having obtained a conditional or absolute discharge. These abusers reoffend and will always reoffend if they don’t receive a court order to undergo therapy.

Meanwhile, what we need to hope for now is that the provinces develop programs to support violent men in their therapy and in learning to control their often deadly anger. I also hope that, as a result, the federal government will answer the provinces’ call for funding to support organizations that help violent men, as it does with shelters for victims of domestic violence.

To come back to my argument about the granting of a discharge, historically, it was considered a great privilege if the justice system granted a discharge to an accused who was found guilty of a criminal offence. When the justice system grants a person such a privilege, it must not be taken lightly. When the justice system takes such action, it puts all of its trust in the accused and his future behaviour.

A discharge doesn’t erase the crime that was committed in the eyes of the victims, which is why they are often so frustrated. Abusers have an obligation to ensure that their behaviour toward women is exemplary, particularly in the case of domestic and sexual violence.

When someone commits a crime of the same nature as the one for which he was privileged enough to be granted a discharge, he is betraying not only his commitment but also the promise he made to society and to the justice system, which granted him their trust. In my opinion, a broken promise and lost trust must have consequences.

Colleagues, know that I understand and respect the concerns raised by some witnesses who suggested that this measure might unfairly target the survivors of domestic violence. However, after careful consideration and an analysis of the challenges, I’m convinced that keeping this provision in the bill is not only necessary, but it is also essential for the protection of potential victims of violence for four reasons.

First, it is important to make a clear distinction between the victims and the perpetrators of violence. Our goal is to prevent recidivism in those who, having already benefited from a discharge, end up facing justice again for similar reasons. It is imperative to understand that this provision targets repeat offenders specifically.

Second, prevention and victim protection are at the heart of this measure. By reversing the onus, we are putting in place an essential precautionary mechanism for preventing repeated abuse. This extra barrier requires repeat offenders to actively prove that their release doesn’t represent a risk to the victim. It is a crucial step for other potential victims.

Third, this measure acts as a significant deterrent. It shows that our justice system takes past domestic violence seriously and is prepared to take concrete action to deter future offences. It sends a clear signal that recidivism will not be tolerated and that personal responsibility is a key component of our justice system.

Fourth, maintaining this provision will help strengthen the integrity and credibility of our justice system. It demonstrates that past discharges are not a free pass for future offences. Our system must remain vigilant and respond to the risk of reoffending. Public confidence in our justice system is at stake, as is the victims’ absolute trust in justice — a trust they are too often deprived of.

Honourable senators, this is why it’s so important to be consistent with the decision you made a few months ago when you passed Bill S-205, which included this section, that is, the decision to ensure consequences for a repeat offender who assaults a spouse or a ex-spouse again, even after obtaining a prior discharge. In my view, reoffending must revoke any privilege the accused had received and for which he has breached his obligation not to assault anyone again, otherwise the notion of discharge will also lose all meaning.

We must ensure that offenders meet their obligations in relation to a discharge and that we emphasize the importance of a discharge when it is granted, otherwise the confidence of victims and the public will be lost, both when a discharge is granted and when it’s not respected.

For all of these reasons, I urge you, honourable senators, to think carefully about the impact of removing this provision. Failing to recognize the seriousness of recidivism in the context of domestic violence can undermine both protection for victims and the fundamental responsibility that our justice system has of ensuring that victims are protected. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of our society and to ensure that justice is done fairly, effectively and responsibly.

Honourable senators, as legislators, it is our duty to guarantee the safety and protection of all citizens. Reinstating this measure in Bill C-48 isn’t simply a matter of legal procedure; it is an act of responsibility toward those who are vulnerable and whose voices are often not heard in our justice system.

I therefore urge you with all of the conviction and urgency this cause demands to support my amendment to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens and bring them justice. Thank you.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-48, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 1 (as amended by the decision of the Senate on October 26, 2023), on page 2, by replacing lines 28 and 29 with the following:

Thank you.