Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator MacDonald, thank you for your speech. I don’t know if you realize how closely what you have recounted mirrors what has happened to First Nations throughout Canadian history. You said that this is a cautionary tale about expropriation without consultation and about massive expropriation of land. This has happened to different people. I want senators to remember that we experienced historical colonialism and colonization. I want senators to remember that what we fight for is true and that we would like our issues to be recognized.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Gold, I was invited to attend a brunch with the police association and the premiers on bail reform this summer, and I raised a concern at that time. One of the panellists gave an example of an offender who had stolen a bottle of liquor and, 10 years later, he is a hardened criminal is what she said. Because of the way the system is set up, at that time, we were told that 70% of the people in the provincial jails were Indigenous and the majority had not even been to court.

Indigenous relationship with police administration, police officers and the justice system is already precarious. How will racial profiling and racism be addressed? If they are not, there will be a continuous flow of new criminals, and no law will be able to handle the load, even if additional resources are given. An example I’ll use is 80% of the Indigenous prisoners who are in the pen were children who were apprehended. So we need to look at reducing the flow of child apprehension so we don’t have that flow going in, because we’re not going to change the penitentiary system. How will this be addressed?

One comment that came up was people were so upset in there that they said, “Throw them in jail and throw away the key,” which caused me great concern. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Would Senator Cotter take a question?

Senator Cotter: I certainly would.

Senator McCallum: You are aware, then, that all of Saskatchewan is covered by treaty. It is all unceded territory, so why is it under provincial jurisdiction?

Senator Cotter: All of the territory is covered by treaty, but most of the lands that are not reserves could be described as traditional territories. You are asking a question that is about provincial jurisdiction, but the view taken — as a result of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement in the 1930s — was to transfer what Ottawa asserted it owned as federal lands into provincial lands.

The land that is governed by reserves is governed by First Nations. The lands that are traditional territories are subject to a more contentious set of authorities.

Senator McCallum: Dispossession of land was the most devastating action against First Nations.

In the key elements of bill, the Whitecap Dakota government would have jurisdiction over the following areas: core governance, lands and resources, regulations and programs. All of this has to do with land.

Under lands and resources, it says they would have jurisdiction over lands and natural resources management. We passed the Building a Green Prairie Economy Act before Christmas where, as the sponsor, you said the province has jurisdiction or owns the natural resources. Which one is it? Who will own the natural resources? Will it be the Whitecap Dakota government or the province?

Senator Cotter: Thank you. I didn’t hear the first part of the question, Senator McCallum. I will do my best to answer the part about land.

The land focus here is on-reserve land, which would be under the full control, in terms of resource development, of the Whitecap Dakota. There are issues that you are aware of. Whitecap Dakota feel that they received an infinitesimally small set-aside of land when the people of the nation came to Canada, and they have a land-claim agreement.

In Saskatchewan, many of those land-claim agreements have been addressed. The Treaty Land Entitlement framework agreement made significant amounts of money available to First Nations after the government shorted them on what they were entitled to a century or so ago.

I can’t say for sure that it will happen in this case, but it is not unusual for First Nations to be provided with financial resources in order to purchase land — that makes it become reserve land. If they buy land that includes subsurface resources, for example, they come to own those. That has happened across Saskatchewan and, I suspect, in some other provinces as well. I hope that’s helpful.

Senator McCallum: What are the consequences of not acting? I can’t wrap my head around the conversation that we’re having here. It seems to me that women are still being put at risk, and they’re still the ones who are going to bear the burden. What are the consequences?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Plett, you made remarks like, “No one will be convicted,” “entirely ineffective,” and “sinks to a new low.”

I am very concerned about this bill and have a right to feel very concerned. Do you feel there will continue to be violence against women once the bill is passed? My specific concern is violence against Indigenous women, considering there has been no progress toward resolving the issues connected to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

What I want to ask all of the Senate tonight is: Don’t we matter as women? It boggles my mind that the patriarchy is deciding this issue, but it is violence against women we are looking at. I am so very concerned about it. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self‑induced extreme intoxication).

As is true with many in this chamber and many in the general public, I, as a First Nations woman, have substantial concern and misgivings about the haste with which we are dealing with this legislation. I do not know if there are those in this chamber who can honestly say that the Senate has done due diligence on Bill C-28. I, for one, cannot make that assertion.

It is a very unusual and dangerous practice that we are engaging in, both here and in the other place. I understand that a House of Commons committee has been tasked with studying the subject matter of this bill in the fall. I also note Minister Lametti’s support for the Senate to undertake a similar committee study following a question by Senator Carignan during Committee of the Whole. However, I find it highly concerning that Parliament has agreed to do this process backwards. Studying the contents of a bill and thereby understanding the perspectives of the experts in this field only after that bill has become law is ill-advised.

One can argue that it treads dangerously close to impacting our collective privilege in fulfilling our senatorial duties. How can we vote competently on legislation if we have not been given the chance to adequately study and consider its merits and shortcomings?

This is especially true for me, colleagues, as a non-affiliated senator. Senator Plett, in his remarks on Motion 53, referenced it as not being time allocation as it had unanimity in its support. At no point was I consulted, informed or approached about the process around this bill or any other such legislative matters.

I can only assume the same was true for my non-affiliated colleagues. This long-standing subjugation of the unaffiliated has removed my voice and opinion from larger decisions of the Senate, including Bill C-28. I take exception to that.

Colleagues, I would like to state that I support the concept of this bill; I do not support the practice. Self-induced extreme intoxication should never be accepted as a viable defence for heinous and criminal acts. It is a loophole that needs to be closed. The closing of this loophole is intended, of course, to ensure guilty parties do not elude punishment on what constitutes a technicality. It is also, of equal importance, intended as a protection for the victims, who are largely women, from the criminal acts that tend to flow from self-induced extreme intoxication.

Honourable senators, given the extremely short time frame between the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on this matter and the introduction of this legislation in the House being a little over a month, it should come as no surprise that the issue of inadequate consultation has been a big one. I note that the issue of inadequate consultation is also not a new one.

As it pertains to Bill C-28, this issue has been raised by one of the groups that had actually been consulted, the National Association of Women in the Law, or NAWL. They contest that they, as well as many other interested stakeholders, have faced a lack of meaningful consultation. They also rightly state that the Senate, through the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, would greatly benefit from hearing from medical experts, women’s groups and Crown prosecutors whose job it is to prosecute on behalf of victims.

When questioned on this shortcoming by Senator White during Committee of the Whole, Minister Lametti responded by saying:

We did the consultations we could do in the time that we had from the date of the Supreme Court decision. We reached out.

You must admit, honourable senators, that this is a less‑than‑confidence‑inspiring response.

Honourable senators, beyond the issue of consultation, it has been raised that there are serious concerns that Bill C-28 represents a flawed piece of legislation. This concern, at its core, is that Bill C-28 will not accomplish what it seeks to. This is due to the fact that the burden of proof, which regrettably falls on the Crown and the victim, is a threshold that is nearly impossible to meet.

The National Association of Women in the Law registered a very valid concern around the stringent requirements for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the loss of control after the consumption of intoxicants was reasonably foreseeable, as well as the foreseeability of harm. In their words, through their June 21 press release, NAWL indicates:

Indeed, NAWL is concerned that this reform will prove impossible for the prosecution to implement. And that in the end, the heavy burden of men’s extremely intoxicated violence will fall predominantly on the women they harm. This is because the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person could have foreseen that the accused’s consumption of a given intoxicant could cause loss of voluntary control, even though reasonable people may not actually know the effects of the intoxicants they are consuming, particularly with respect to quantities and combinations of intoxicants. Further, the Crown must now also prove that the reasonable person could have foreseen that the consumption of the intoxicants could lead them to become violent and harm others, even though there appears to be little scientific evidence to support the claim that any particular drug makes violence more likely.

As some of you will know, this concern has also been echoed to senators’ offices by the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters, known as ACWS, an organization that supports over 50 shelters across the province of Alberta for women, children and seniors facing domestic abuse. In their words, they are working “. . . to end domestic violence through culture-shifting violence prevention programs, collective data and research, and front-line training.”

Colleagues, our Senate committee would have done well to learn from groups like NAWL and ACWS and Indigenous organizations, due to their expertise and boots-on-the-ground work.

If such organizations register concern with the process and content of this legislation, we would be wise to heed their words.

As Minister Lametti stated before the Senate:

You may have been aware of the reaction to the Supreme Court decision. It was pretty much universal across Canada. . . .“You need to act quickly.”

Honourable senators, it is a fine line that exists between acting quickly and acting negligently. I am worried that we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line when it comes to Bill C-28. We have heard senators during Committee of the Whole make remarks to the minister by saying such things as, “The law would be entirely ineffective due to the burden placed on prosecutors,” and:

. . . what I worry about here is that the proposal . . . will miss the mark and almost nobody will be able to be convicted under this provision.

Honourable senators, I believe this bill is yet another form of violence against women, and particularly Indigenous women. And do I trust the government? Do Indigenous women trust the government? I would say no. Why would we place our trust in such an institution?

Let us ensure we do the right thing for Canadians and not the convenient thing for parliamentarians as we prepare to vote on Bill C-28. Thank you. Kinanâskomitin.

Senator McCallum: Senator Pate, my question is around the violence that occurs in the communities. Stemming that violence has many origins and they require different interventions, and some of those interventions go beyond legislation. They cannot be legislated. Those are societal responses. The communities need to play a part in what is happening in their communities. For that reason, I arranged a meeting with Senator Boisvenu and Indigenous groups in Winnipeg that are addressing this violence, and they are working hand in hand with Senator Boisvenu now.

I think that, like you said, it is not a stand-alone. I have seen this happen time and time again with legislation and there was no community involvement. The work that’s being done by the communities in Winnipeg is successful, and they are willing to work with Senator Boisvenu. Wouldn’t it be good for this to go to committee so that people can hear about what is happening at the community level?

Senator McCallum: When they talk to Senator Boisvenu and myself about the programs they have, they work with the men who have committed the violence. They have a very high success rate. They also work individually with women. They work with youth. And there is so much potential.

One of the reasons we met with her was to look at what resources were needed. I think that if we do more work like this, working with the community, with the legislation that we’re working with, that there is much more success, our legislation will have fewer gaps, and that we will see if these interventions will work. They are willing to go through this and work with the system. So I think it’s a great step ahead.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Yes, I do.