Hon. Rodger Cuzner, of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Hassan Yussuff.

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

Senator Gold: I don’t know how to answer that. I like a good slogan. If I hear one once or twice, it’s cute and will land. After a while, it becomes like last year’s hits that seem to fade and become tiresome.

The fact is that this government is pursuing the policies that it deems to be in the best interests of Canadians.

Senator Gold: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Senator Boisvenu, I thank you for bringing this proposal forward for our consideration. We’re talking here about a provision that, in the original version of Bill C-48, sought to better protect victims of domestic violence. It was supported by all the members in the other place, by the Native Women’s Association of Canada and by every provincial and territorial government. What’s more, the Attorney General of British Columbia, Niki Sharma, said that she would write to the Minister of Justice to urge him to keep this part of Bill C-48.

Senator Boisvenu, can you confirm that your amendment uses the exact wording of the initial version of the bill?

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 Batters: I have a brief follow-up because at one point, Senator Boisvenu, your answer was translated as applying to people who had a pardon. It is not a pardon that we’re dealing with here, right? It is a discharge where someone has been found guilty but received a discharge from the judge as their sanction.

[Translation]

Senator Martin: The Liberal government has failed to live up to its promise to fund a Canada Mental Health Transfer despite the growing scale of the mental health crisis, the government’s expansion of medical assistance in dying and the widespread use of dangerous, highly addictive drugs.

Should Canadians expect that the Canada Mental Health Transfer will be included in this fall fiscal update? If it’s not there, what should Canadians make of that omission?

Senator Gold: No, it is not a fact, and I think that question applied to me is very inappropriate. That is not what I’m doing here. I’m answering the questions, regardless of their tone and regardless of their motivation, to the best of my ability, and I’ll continue to do so.

Senator Batters: Will Senator Clement take a question?

Senator Clement: Yes.

Senator Batters: Thank you. Senator Clement, wasn’t it the case that for this bill generally, we didn’t hear any data, period? I think you probably have to concede that the government didn’t have any data to justify the provisions here, nor was there any on this particular element.

Senator Clement: Absolutely.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Would you be so good as to convey this question with a request that we get an answer prior to the start of the second meeting of states parties for this very important treaty?

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 McPhedran: Thank you very much.

Senator Martin: Yes. This is a complex situation, and I am learning so much by being at committee and by looking through Hansard of the other house and understanding what happened.

For me, I’m just looking at the intent of the bill, the spirit of the bill — reconciliation — and the importance of including the range of voices and groups that are in Canada, but I almost feel like it’s next to impossible because there are only 13 seats.

In terms of the guaranteed seats, I know of CAP from the work that Senator Brazeau did, the work that our government previously did and that it is an organization. Their website is quite extensive. There is the Daniels decision that recognized them.

I am just thinking about inclusivity and respecting a national group such as CAP. Other groups’ opinions about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, what they have or have not done with them — all of those complex factors — are not something I am looking at. I am looking at the testimony we heard, what happened in the House and the spirit of this bill. I’m urging honourable senators to consider what I’ve said and vote accordingly.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senator named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.

Senator Gold: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Gladly.

Senator Simons: As I have said, we have bail laws in this country that allow Crown prosecutors to demand that the judge not grant bail. We have judges and justices of the peace who have the power to deny bail. I’m not opposing that.

What I am saying is that we need to be careful that we use the reverse onus provisions — which are truly extraordinary — in the most extraordinary of cases.

If we want to deal with the issues that you outline, it’s pretty difficult to convict people for crimes that they have never been accused of. If we want to provide more resources for women’s shelters across the country, by all means, let us do so. If we want to provide more legal advice and legal aid, and more funding for family legal aid programs so that women who are seeking separation from partners and who are seeking protection from domestic violence can receive that, then absolutely.

I could sit here and list 20 public policy strategies that would help to reduce domestic violence in ways that would be far more effectual than this.