Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Gold. Let me take the first part of the question first.

Ms. Sharma used the phrase “repeat violent offenders.” A person who has one absolute discharge on their record could surely not be considered a repeat violent offender. My concern is precisely that: This broadens the net of who is captured in the reverse onus provision and expands it beyond repeat violent offenders who — we could all agree — are a far greater risk to society than a person who has one absolute discharge, for an example.

As to your second point, of course I am concerned about the horrific levels of family violence in this country, which is predominantly violence of men against women and which is disproportionately affecting the Indigenous population. That does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is necessary to construct a bail regime that provides security for women whose partners have been alleged to have abused them. That doesn’t mean the reverse onus, which is a brute cookie cutter of an instrument.

It would be far more beneficial, for example, for a man who’s been charged with spousal assault to be provided with a bail bed and some kind of supervised release. The problem comes about if people are released without conditions, if people are released with conditions that cannot possibly be met or if people are released to either the choice of homelessness or returning to the domestic situation where the violence occurred.

By all means, let us find ways to protect women in their homes from violent partners. I fail to see that reversing the onus for somebody who has had one absolute or conditional discharge gets us there.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

As I said, we received a request from the senator, and we acceded to the request. I don’t know exactly what the senator will say, but I think we all look forward to hearing his remarks.

Senator Gold: The process that the government has undergone is deeply rooted in the needs, interests and input of veterans and their families. Although the government appreciates the work that the jury did in evaluating, the design that was chosen after this long process is one that the veterans of the mission and their families felt best represented the bravery, sacrifices and losses of those who served in Afghanistan.

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: I’m not in a position to advise as to what may or may not be in the fall economic update, but when that becomes public, I think Canadians will know exactly what the government is intending to do.

Senator Gold: Thank you.

Senator Gold: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Gold: Your concern for the presence of Hamas on our streets is laudable. The question, though, borders on the obscene.

The fact remains it is up to the police, not the government of Canada, to enforce the criminal laws against hate speech, incitement to violence. I live across the street from the Israeli consulate. I’m very aware of the activities of those who are supporting Hamas, and I look forward to the strict application of the Canadian law in all that it entails.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, the only thing this tax does is punish working-class Canadians. It has created divisions in our country. Pausing the tax for one group while quadrupling it for another is completely unfair.

Senator Gold, just admit it — Justin Trudeau isn’t making decisions to benefit Canadians. He’s making decisions to try to save his sinking political ship. Also, just admit that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost for Canadian taxpayers and only Pierre Poilievre and a majority Conservative government will keep the heat on for all Canadians.

Senator Gold: I’ll certainly convey the question. Absolutely.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Housakos. Senator Gold, your reply.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Housakos. Senator Gold, your reply.

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

Yes, it is correct. We had a request from a senator who is not able to speak to an issue and is not able, necessarily, to speak later today, and we have acceded to that request.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is very aware of the situation Afghan refugees are facing in Pakistan and continues to monitor it closely.

I’ve been advised that the government is in dialogue with the Government of Pakistan to ensure safe and expedited passage of Canada-bound Afghan refugees. While the government has already met its target of resettling at least 40,000 Afghan refugees to Canada, which is a significant achievement, the government will continue to do everything it can to bring Afghans here and to safety.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for these important questions, senator. There is indeed a significant infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Canada. Infrastructure investments are a key element of the government’s commitment to foster the growth of safe, healthy and prosperous Indigenous communities and to support the participation in our economy of Indigenous communities and their businesses.

Let me note that since April 2016 and as of June 30, 2023, $9.92 billion in targeted funds has been invested towards 9,457 projects that will benefit Indigenous communities. I have been assured that Indigenous Services Canada will continue to work directly with First Nations, First Nations organizations and other federal organizations to identify what further measures and investments may be required to close this infrastructure gap by 2030.

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for Senator Gold.

On October 24, Senator Dennis Patterson asked you a question about whether the government was seeking an extension to the Supreme Court of Canada’s deadline on Bill S-12. You replied saying that we should respect the deadline. Two days later, you informed the Senate that a three-month extension was granted.

We know extensions don’t happen overnight. Senator Gold, when did the Attorney General of Canada first give notice and apply to the Supreme Court for an extension? When were you informed? Finally, were you happy with the process?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, the government has pledged to close the infrastructure gap in Indigenous communities by 2030. However, the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee has warned in its June 2022 report that at the current pace of investments, this target will not be met when it comes to housing.

Can you please elaborate on how the Department of Indigenous Services Canada measures the existing gap, and when we will see the promised estimate of First Nations’ infrastructure needs? Will this estimate be included as part of the investment package in the upcoming Fall Economic Statement?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Let’s be clear about what the Supreme Court did and did not do. First of all, child luring and all sexual crimes are appalling and intolerable. They deserve to be punished accordingly. Those who read the decision and know how the Supreme Court addresses this know the decision was rendered on the basis of hypothetical potential case issues and not necessarily the facts of the case. In fact, the Supreme Court increased the prison sentence for the perpetrator in this case, which is an unmistakable message from the Supreme Court that these offences must be punished severely. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes:

 . . . that sentences for these crimes must account for the far‑reaching and ongoing damage sexual violence causes to children, families and society at large . . . .

I have no knowledge to suggest that the government would invoke the notwithstanding clause in this regard.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is to Senator Gold, and it relates to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I like that smile.

As you know, Canada — rather resolutely — ignores this treaty, the third of three dealing with nuclear proliferation. Beginning in just a couple of weeks, on November 27 in New York at the United Nations, there will be the second meeting of states parties to the treaty. At the first meeting last June in Vienna, no one from Canada was there even to observe — except for me, at my own expense. And now we have the second meeting of the states parties. We have country members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, sending observers, but so far, not a peep from Canada.

Senator Gold, could you please tell us if Canada is actually going to pay any attention and send observers to the second meeting of the states parties?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, the decision by the members in the House of Commons to vote for or against the Conservative motion was a decision that those members took. I have no knowledge of promises that were made — indeed, if any were made.

The fact is that members of Parliament, whatever their political party, have the right to express themselves. They have the right to form groups. They have the right to make collective decisions. Past governments have not been averse to making arrangements with and seeking the support of members of different political parties, even those in the Bloc, if my memory serves me correctly.