Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, last year in February, I spoke on the issue of neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, a group of 20 infectious diseases and conditions affecting 1.7 billion people in the world. That’s 1 out of every 5 people living on the planet today.

NTDs are diseases you may have heard of: leprosy, river blindness, dengue fever, parasitic stomach worms and so on. These are ancient diseases that affect the lives of people living in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities in the world, even here in Canada.

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global community has realized again not only the devastation that can be wrought on people’s lives by infectious diseases, but the need for strong health systems to deliver health care to all, leaving no one behind.

We have to step up the fight against NTDs. Not only is it the right thing to do, but also because it is through the control, elimination and eradication of neglected tropical diseases that we can make massive contributions to broader global health, such as universal health coverage and pandemic preparedness.

Investment in NTDs goes far beyond treating the diseases themselves. The presence of NTDs in a household can perpetuate a generational cycle of poverty. By addressing NTDs, we contribute to healthier communities with better outcomes for children, better economic outputs in households and reduction of lifelong disability and disfigurement.

It would be irresponsible to do everything we have done to help people survive COVID only to leave them vulnerable to these preventable and treatable diseases. Now is the right time to accelerate our work.

Climate change will have — and is having — both a direct and indirect impact on NTDs, such as increasing geographic locations of diseases such as dengue and by displacement of people into areas where NTDs persist.

As was said so often during COVID-19, no one is safe until everyone is safe. It is time for action — inaction is not an option.

A year ago this month, Canada endorsed the Kigali Declaration, committing to being a part of the global efforts to address NTDs. In addition to myself, Senator Boehm and Senator Ravalia have been encouraging our government to act more vigorously. We congratulate the government for taking this first step toward action. We also continue to encourage the government to do more, to commit the resources needed to help end the neglect of NTDs and to realize the right to health that people everywhere deserve. Thank you.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the concurrence of Bill S-5, which modernizes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA.

When I last spoke to you regarding this bill, it was during third reading here in the Senate this time last year. The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources had just reported it back with significant amendments that strengthened many aspects of the bill and, in some cases, introduced new elements into it. Similarly, our colleagues in the other place critically studied the bill and also strengthened it. The Senate and our colleagues in the other place have worked together to ensure the bill provides for a higher level of environmental and health protection for Canadians, especially those who are most at risk.

I am proud to support this bill and urge all senators to vote to adopt it, in the form passed by the other place, without delay. The government can then begin the important work of implementing it in collaboration with key partners, the public and stakeholders. I would like to address several areas which received significant attention during the Senate’s study of Bill S-5.

While discussion was not limited to these areas, it was evident that senators were concerned with the following: first, ensuring that the right to a healthy environment was meaningful; second, reducing reliance on animal testing; third, increasing openness and transparency; and last, but certainly not least, advancing Indigenous reconciliation.

The Senate also observed that for this bill to be operationally successful, the government needs to invest in building a more robust environmental research capacity in Canada so that the scientific work required to support the goals of the bill would be there to do that.

With regard to the right to a healthy environment, amendments adopted in the Senate replaced language around balancing the right with more familiar language of making the right “subject to any reasonable limits.” The implementation framework for the right must elaborate on these limits, as well as intergenerational equity and on the mechanisms needed to support the protection of that right.

Regarding the implementation framework — which, as you may recall, must be developed within two years of Royal Assent and set out how the right will be considered in the administration of the act — our colleagues in the other place made additional amendments, for example, to define the principle of intergenerational equity as meeting “the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and to specify that a healthy environment means an environment that is “clean, healthy and sustainable.”

These valuable additions build on the work of senators and provide a clear direction for the implementation framework to expand upon. Amendments in both places will help ensure the right is meaningful to decision making under CEPA and that it will be developed in a way that provides greater certainty.

Another area where the Senate focused its attention was on reducing reliance on animal testing. The Senate Energy Committee added several new provisions aimed at replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals in toxicity testing.

Our colleagues in the other place maintained the essence of these valuable amendments and made some minor adjustments to ensure these provisions can be implemented in a manner that reflects and accounts for the broader work under way across government on this important issue. For example, the plan of chemicals management priorities must include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals. Our colleagues in the other place made amendments to clarify that this strategy may apply more broadly than CEPA and include activities and initiatives under other federal laws, such as the Food and Drugs Act, for example.

Since I last spoke to this, the government reaffirmed its commitment to end cosmetics testing on animals in the 2023 federal budget through amendments to the Food and Drugs Act tabled in Bill C-47, so that is something that could feature in this strategy.

Colleagues, the amendments to the bill on this matter clarify that the government’s priority is to replace vertebrate animal testing altogether as soon as practicable and where scientifically justified alternative methods are available. In cases where the science is not yet advanced enough to fully replace vertebrate animal testing, we would reduce the number of animals being tested as well as refine our testing methods to minimize the pain and suffering of these animals.

I will turn now to the plan of chemicals management priorities, which, as you will recall, is a key amendment in Bill S-5 and aims to modernize Canada’s approach to chemicals management. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health must develop this plan in consultation with stakeholders within two years of Royal Assent. It will set out a multi-year integrated plan for chemicals risk assessments, risk management actions, supporting research and information gathering, among other activities and initiatives.

Regarding this plan, amendments were adopted here in this chamber to clarify the advantages of class-based approaches to assessing chemicals, namely as a means of avoiding cases of “regrettable substitutions,” that is, where one chemical is banned, only to be replaced with another chemical — just as harmful or potentially worse. Class-based assessment approaches help mitigate against this, and I understand the government has recently published a draft report and proposed risk management options for a class of over 4,700 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly referred to as PFAS.

Our colleagues in the other place made some additional amendments to the plan, importantly, to require that it include reporting timelines and that it be reviewed every eight years.

Another major theme that has been considered in both chambers relates to increasing openness and transparency in respect of environmental and health protection. I am pleased to see that changes have been adopted here and in the other place to help achieve this under CEPA. Working together, we have created a more open and transparent regime for the treatment of confidential business information under the act. Here in the Senate we removed an exception provided for in the bill that could have been used to stand down the requirement for persons to substantiate their claims for confidentiality under the act.

Additional amendments were tabled, but not ultimately adopted here in the Senate. However, our colleagues in the other place picked up on some of these and adopted amendments of their own. These require that claimants justify their confidentiality requests based on Access to Information Act criteria and that the minister review and validate a statistically representative sample of confidentiality requests submitted under the act and report annually on the results of this work. These are important changes.

Lastly, we heard significant concerns in the Senate regarding the continued hardships Indigenous peoples experience with pollution as well as the need to consider obligations related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and the government’s commitment to reconciliation. I am proud to say that amendments were adopted here and confirmed in the other place to add references to “free, prior and informed consent” within the context of UNDRIP to confirm the role of Indigenous knowledge in decision making and to require annual reporting on the operation and administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, in relation to Indigenous peoples and governments, which should incent a more holistic understanding of how reconciliation is advancing under all the programs enabled by CEPA.

Now, since I last addressed this chamber, there have been some unfortunate events at the Kearl oil sands mine in Alberta, which underscore the importance of amendments that were adopted by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources but were then undone during the committee stage in the other place. These amendments added explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing to the list of matters and activities in respect of which the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may collect and report information on. These changes would ensure that the minister could compel people to provide information regarding tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to announce that our colleagues in the other place had a sober second thought of their own on this important matter and voted to reinstate these amendments during report stage. As you will see, the version of the bill before you today will add these new paragraphs under subsection 46(1) of CEPA.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, important work will start once Bill S-5 receives Royal Assent to ensure it is fully implemented. This work will include, among other things, developing the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment under CEPA and developing a plan of chemicals management priorities in consultation with Canadians. Once this bill receives Royal Assent, the government will be in a position to advise partners, stakeholders and the public on how they can participate in these important processes.

However, more work needs to be done to ensure that Canada has the scientific research capacity needed to support these amendments to CEPA. Specifically, we need to substantially enhance our capacity for biomonitoring and toxicity assessment, including toxicogenomics. We need large, disaggregated and population-based longitudinal studies to determine health impacts of chemicals across the lifespan. We need well-functioning biobanks to be able to determine the cumulative effects of substances over time as well as large data sets and the complex analyses of them to allow for causal inferences to be drawn.

All these necessities for environmental research enhancement must be appropriately cited and managed properly, funded and created in collaboration with our academic and Indigenous communities. This work needs to begin as soon as the bill receives Royal Assent.

The discussions that have taken place throughout the parliamentary process have been instrumental and have resulted in a strengthened bill. I would like to thank senators and our colleagues in the other place for this valuable work. I am proud to support the bill, and urge senators to vote to pass it now so that it may receive Royal Assent without delay.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, specifically on an important topic that this bill may impact on but that has not been really addressed to date; that is, what the impact of this bill will be on suicide rates in Canada. My hope is that, by raising this issue, when the bill is referred to committee, the committee will seek input from expert witnesses on suicide prevention and gun control legislation.

Colleagues, before proceeding I would like to acknowledge that the material and the subject of my intervention can be very difficult for some people. It deals with life and death issues. It will touch on mental illness and self-harm. I would encourage any of our colleagues and anyone who is listening or watching this debate to know that if you are having difficulties or thoughts of self-harm, please seek help. Asking for help is a sign of strength, and there are many avenues for help and support.

The importance of suicide prevention is well known in this chamber. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will soon be tabling its report on the study of the effectiveness of the national Suicide Prevention Framework in decreasing rates of suicide in Canada. Numerous senators have spoken to the importance of suicide prevention during our debate on the motion for said study, as well as debates on recent legislation in which the topic of suicide prevention was raised.

I think we can safely say that our debates were very much in support of effective measures to reduce suicide rates in Canada. The most effective public health measure for suicide prevention is means restriction, such as better controls around gun availability.

Suicide disproportionately impacts men. About 75% of those who die by suicide in Canada are men, and suicide is three times as common in men compared to women. The statistics related to suicide and guns are disheartening. Many studies have noted that firearms play a significant role in completed suicides, especially in men.

The accessibility of lethal means such as guns during times of despair can swiftly transform impulsive thought into irreversible action.

In Canada, in the five years between 2016 and 2020, 2,777 men died from firearm suicide. Over that same period, 82 women died by similar means. That is a ratio of about 33 to 1 — 10 times greater than the overall male-to-female suicide ratio.

For additional context, when all fatal firearm injuries for that period are considered, about 70% were suicides — not homicides, colleagues, suicides. Of gun-related deaths in Canada, 70% are suicides.

A recent study in Ontario found that over two thirds of firearm-related deaths were suicides, mostly men and mostly in rural areas. On average, during that period in Canada, about 550 men died by gun-related suicide per year. Compare that to a rate of less than 50 deaths per year from testicular cancer. And merely owning a handgun is associated with much higher rates of suicide.

A recent study of about 26 million people followed for a period of 12 years noted:

Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn’t to kill themselves with a gun.

As policy-makers who are truly concerned about suicide prevention, we bear the responsibility of recognizing this relationship between firearm ownership and suicide and the need to take decisive action to address it. By acknowledging the connection between firearm ownership and suicide risk, we have the power to save lives and create a safer environment for all.

Today, I would like to empathize the need for your support of a bill that limits access to firearms. By so doing, we may be able to reduce impulsive acts of self-harm that have a high probability of resulting in death. Robust research consistently demonstrates that when individuals in crisis face restricted access to lethal means, the likelihood of suicide diminishes. One of the best public health strategies for suicide prevention in males is limiting access to guns.

It is important to acknowledge that many different concerns regarding this bill — other than suicide prevention — have been raised. We have seen some of the discussion between Senator Plett and Senator Yussuff addressing those important issues.

We must address those concerns and seek common ground. Balancing responsible firearms access and suicide prevention related to firearms can be an attainable goal — one that respects the rights of gun owners while prioritizing public safety and the preservation of lives.

Effective implementation requires collaboration, open dialogue and a willingness to find innovative solutions. We must draw upon the expertise of various stakeholders, including gun owners, mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies and advocacy organizations. Enacting well-informed firearms legislation that recognizes these complexities should be our goal.

We have an opportunity through our study of Bill C-21 to better understand how legislative interventions can be implemented to achieve the goal of means restricted suicide prevention as it applies to firearms in Canada.

Some studies of the impact of Bill C-51, Canada’s Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, have suggested that legislation may have had an impact in decreasing gun-related suicide. Other studies of the impact of that legislation and other bills — Bill C-17 in 1991 and Bill C-68 in 1995 — suggested more nuanced outcomes.

Realizing that not all legislation related to firearms restrictions is the same, I hope that the committee studying Bill C-21 considers how to encourage the government to conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of this bill on firearm suicide rates in males in Canada. We need to know that information. The committee could make a point of calling witnesses who can help us understand that and how that works in Canada.

Colleagues, as we critically study this legislation, we need to address the multitude of issues that it touches upon. Like you, I have been made aware of numerous concerns — reasonable and good concerns — about Bill C-21 raised by many Canadians. Although I have waded through countless emails and letters, I have not seen anyone raise this issue — that is, the relationship between male suicide rates and gun ownership in the Canadian context.

Thank you for allowing me to raise it here. I hope the committee will consider calling witnesses who can speak to this issue in more depth, and that we all keep this important association in mind as we ponder how we move this legislation forward. Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]