On the Order:

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Prosper: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Gold.

[Translation]

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Yesterday, due to the adjournment, I was stopped in the middle of my speech so, to remind colleagues, I was talking about guns.

I think most Canadians in this country would agree that guns that belong on the battlefield should not be in the hands of Canadians. There is an effort of the government to ensure that, in this bill, those guns will be addressed. This will provide clarity for owners and manufacturers, and prevent entry into the Canadian market of new models of these particularly dangerous firearms once Bill C-21 comes into force.

In addition to legislative measures, regulatory changes will require a Firearms Reference Table record for all firearms, not just prohibited and restricted firearms, before entering the market in Canada. That would help to ensure that no firearm enters the Canadian market unaccounted for or incorrectly classified.

I’d also like to point out that, as we address the decades-old issue of firearms classification, the government has committed to re-establishing the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to independently review the classification of existing firearms. As the government completes the measures against assault-style firearms, it is working to strengthen the regulation on large capacity magazines. That will require long gun magazines be permanently altered so they can never hold more than five rounds. The regulation will ban the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets.

Colleagues, these are some of the main measures of Bill C-21. I want to emphasis the measures in this bill are not to be viewed as the government’s sole strategy to combat gun violence in the country.

I would like to now speak to some of the other measures the government has and will undertake to combat firearms violence. I think it’s important to appreciate that this is just one element of an overall larger strategy to address gun violence.

Since 2016, the government has invested more than $1.3 billion in measures to address gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of gangs and criminals in our country. The government is supporting the development of new gun and gang violence prevention and intervention initiatives, which we have seen rolling out across the country over the past few years.

In fact, the government has committed $250 million to support the efforts of municipalities and Indigenous communities to build and deliver anti-gang programming. This is funding that builds on the almost $330 million provided to the provinces and territories under the 2018 Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence to combat gun and gang crimes.

I would also add that the government announced an extension and expansion of the program with $390 million over five years through the Gun and Gang Violence Action Fund. That funding goes to the provinces and territories for a variety of initiatives, including support for law enforcement and prevention programs.

In addition to providing funding to address the root causes of crime, the government knows that the cross-border smuggling of firearms also poses a threat to the safety and security of Canadians. Through Budget 2021, the government invested $656.1 million over five years for the Canada Border Services Agency to modernize our borders, including enhancing our ability to detect contraband and help protect the integrity of our border infrastructure. All of this is in addition to legislation.

Honourable senators, I would now like to take a few moments to discuss some of the issues raised in our committee’s study of the bill.

Our committee held nine meetings over the past two months, hearing from 66 witnesses, including the minister and his officials, Indigenous organizations and governments, academics, researchers, selected firearms officers, representatives from gun rights and gun-control advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies.

I think it is fair to say that, by and large, the gun groups do not support the legislation, while gun-control groups and many law enforcement agencies do.

I, like many witnesses who support this bill, know it is not a panacea and that there are many aspects of combatting and effectively reducing gun violence in the country. However, all the advocates for gun control agreed that this bill is an important part of reducing gun violence, and all supported the passage of the bill without amendments.

As Wendy Cukier, a co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control, has said:

No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and demands of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC), which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.

We have heard from Emma Cunliffe, former Director of Research and Policy at the Mass Casualty Commission, who said that Bill C-21 had many of the recommendations made by the Mass Casualty Commission’s report. We also heard from women’s groups who spoke to the importance of the “red flag” and “yellow flag” provisions to protect women and help address the epidemic we face in intimate partner violence in this country.

The National Association of Women and the Law was clear on the legislation. They said:

We support Bill C-21 and recommend its quick adoption. While weaker in its original form, the bill now contains stronger measures to protect women who are victims of family and intimate partner violence. . . .

We also heard from law enforcement representatives, including Fiona Wilson, Deputy Chief Constable at the Vancouver Police Department. Deputy Chief Constable Wilson said generally of the bill:

I think the bill strikes a good balance between respecting the rights of lawful gun owners and also giving police more tools to address violence associated with guns in this country.

More specifically on the “ghost gun” provisions, she said:

As I mentioned, there is a lot in this bill that is important with respect to ghost guns. Of course, we’re never going to be able to completely eliminate the ability of people to create privately manufactured firearms, but I think the provisions in this bill will go a long way to assist police with investigation avenues and tools that we can use to try and investigate these types of situations, and hold offenders accountable when we do come across them, either manufacturing ghost guns or in possession of them.

Senators, we heard some legitimate concerns about the bill in our study, and I want to address three of them, specifically, the issue of chief firearms officers in the North, firearms instructors for the Canadian Restricted Firearm Safety Course and Indigenous consultations.

Colleagues, several representatives from the North raised the issue that the chief firearms officers responsible for the North are not located in the North. The northern territories are the only jurisdiction where this is the case. Ensuring the chief firearms officers who have responsibility for the northern territories have a genuine understanding and appreciation of the North’s uniqueness by having them located in the North is not only a legitimate concern but also a minimum requirement of these officials. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this, because it is an important issue of fairness, equity and respect.

Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, during a November 6, 2023, appearance before our committee, explained it best when he said:

The distance is more than geographical; it is also cultural and practical. We must ask whether such officials can adequately assess and understand the unique circumstances and necessities of Inuit hunters. . . .

I was very pleased to have Minister LeBlanc address this issue head-on in his letter to the committee. As I mentioned earlier, we received it two days ago. The minister stated the following in his letter:

Chief Firearms Officers (CFO) and their teams have an important role to play in the safe and lawful use of firearms in each province and territory.

In that regard, I have heard the views expressed by Honourable Senators, as well as by witnesses, regarding the presence of CFOs in the territories, and the importance of place-based knowledge.

I am committed to addressing this issue and will work with the Premier of each of the territories to do so.

The minister shared with us his letter to one of the premiers, which stated:

Pending the outcome of appropriate consultation with your government, I would like to appoint a resident CFO in your territory. I would value the opportunity to understand your views to ensure the unique circumstances and needs of the Northwest Territories and its communities are met.

I believe, colleagues, the minister is committed, in good faith, to agree with the wishes of the North when it comes to the issue of chief firearms officers for the North that was raised in our study.

Another issue raised was the concern related to the effect the handgun freeze will have on firearms instructors who provide the Canadian Restricted Firearm Safety Course. It is a legitimate concern because we will need a reliable number of instructors in the future to put on these courses, whether that is to ensure sports shooters who want to participate in the Olympics or in the Paralympics handgun shooting events have the ability to get their restricted licence or to ensure individuals who want to become guards in the armoured car industry, or even CBSA guards, have the same ability.

The minister also addressed this concern in his letter to the committee by stating:

I have heard your concerns regarding firearms instructors, and ensuring that they are able to access the firearms they need to safely deliver training. As the operational model of firearms instructors vary across the country, I have tasked officials to work with relevant organizations to explore options to support the delivery of this important service. Firearm instructors are vital to keeping firearm owners and communities in Canada safe.

Finally, frustrations were expressed by a number of stakeholders, in particular Indigenous organizations and governments, with the lack of meaningful consultation when Bill C-21 was being developed, in particular, concerning the new technical definition of “prohibited firearm” related to assault-style weapons.

I want to remind colleagues that a new definition was not included in the original bill, and it was only added in clause-by-clause consideration at committee in the other place.

I believe strongly that the government has a duty to consult Indigenous people if the legislation will affect them. That is why the government included a non-derogation clause as an amendment to the bill in the other place.

The minister’s letter of two days ago also addressed this concern regarding the need for meaningful consultation in the creation of regulations for this bill. He stated:

While Bill C-21 will not abrogate or derogate from the rights of Indigenous Peoples as affirmed in the Constitution, the Government of Canada must meaningfully consult with Indigenous Peoples.

Should proposed regulations have the potential to adversely impact potential or established treaty rights, the Government of Canada must satisfy its duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate those rights.

Public Safety Canada will work collaboratively with the Indigenous partners throughout the development, management and review of regulations.

Honourable senators, in conclusion, this bill is supported by gun-control groups, women’s organizations and victims’ rights groups unequivocally. It is also supported by a large number of law enforcement agencies across the country, and it reflects, I think, many of the recommendations of the report of the Mass Casualty Commission.

I believe the freeze on handgun sales and transfer and a ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms are what the majority of Canadians want in this country. This has been reflected in many opinion polls over the years, including a recent poll commissioned by our colleague Senator Dasko that found high support for key measures of this bill. The poll found that 85% of Canadians support or somewhat support prohibiting new assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market. On the controversial issue of handguns, 73% of Canadians support or somewhat support the freezing of the sale, purchase, transport and importation of handguns.

Colleagues, the safety of our communities must be paramount, and any plan to combat gun violence must be comprehensive and well-considered. This is not about taking firearms away from responsible owners, hunters or sport shooters. This is about taking a common-sense, responsible approach to tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.

As I said at the start of my remarks, I view this bill through the lens of balancing the rights and safety of Canadians with the privilege of owning a gun to hunt, sport-shoot or collect. I believe — as did many of the witnesses who appeared, including the Deputy Chief Constable Wilson — that the bill does indeed strike a proper balance.

Senators, the tragic event 34 years ago started this country on a journey to ban assault-style weapons in our country and in our society. The bill before you is in part both honouring the memory of those 14 women and fighting for the legacy to complete that journey. It is also about fighting for a future that does not have to experience this tragedy ever again.

Catherine Bergeron, the sister of Geneviève Bergeron who died in the mass shooting, spoke to this last night at a tribute to victims of the Montreal massacre when she said the following:

It was a cold December night, a bit like tonight. And in the dusk of early winter, they left us. They left without wanting to. . . . And they left us a legacy that can be summed up in two words: Never again. Their loss can’t be in vain.

Senators, although those women died very tragically, we have it in our power to give them meaning by passing this bill. I urge you to support the bill before you without amendment and make that possible.

Thank you so much.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you for your breadth and depth in speaking today and for speaking from your heart to a bill that has not been easy.

I do have a question. I was happy to hear that the minister has managed and mitigated the Chief Firearms Office, or CFO, issue. We sat in committee, and we heard about that repeatedly, so I was happy to hear that. It did make me think about something else today, though. You mentioned in your speech that this is part of the solution. This bill is part of the solution. There are other pieces at play and other things we need to continue to work on as Canadians.

My question is this: Do you feel confident with this bill and the types of things that have been committed to being done with regulations and work once this bill is passed? Do you feel confident that those commitments and promises to really refine the work of the bill will happen in the way that we need?

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Senator Yussuff, there’s a significant concern being expressed, given that we have advances in digital technology, of guns being printed by 3-D measures and other such options, particularly in the underworld. To what extent has your bill studied that concern?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would the honourable senator take a question?

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Senator Yussuff, an observation was endorsed during committee with respect to family heirloom handguns and their transfer. It seemed that the committee understood that Bill C-21 would create additional rules in relation to those handguns and, with some exceptions, new registration certificates for handguns would not be issued. This will make it very difficult to hand those heirlooms down to family members.

I see the observation. Could you expand on what the observation encourages the government to do?

I was brought up in a home where my father had one of the finest antique gun collections in all of Canada. He had nothing from post-World War I. Some of his friends have contacted me asking what we will do about these heirlooms and their extensive value.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable colleagues, today I’m speaking to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. In my remarks, I will address one of the most obvious things that’s missing from the current version of Bill C-21, something that’s at the root of all the problems with this bill. This flaw is due to the fact that the government held almost no consultations while drafting this bill.

Why does that matter? For one thing, it matters because the government said it consulted pretty much everyone before drafting the bill. The minister said that these so-called consultation sessions were more like what I would call information sessions. For another, it matters because, knowing that there was zero consultation while Bill C-21 was being drafted, it’s fair to assume there will be zero consultation during the future regulatory process. I think we need to solve that problem with the bill before us.

I’d like to start with a reminder about what the government actually said on the subject of Bill C-21 consultations. As Senator Plett and others reminded us, when the minister appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on October 23, he said, quote:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

Colleagues, that’s exactly what the minister said during his testimony. However, when the senators on our National Security Committee started asking the witnesses whether they had been consulted when Bill C-21 was being developed — and I mean a true consultation, not an information session — here’s what they said.

Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta’s Chief Firearms Officer, said, “No consultation whatsoever.”

Robert Freberg said, “It was zero.”

On November 6, Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, said, “Minimal or none at best.”

Will David, Director of Legal Affairs at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said:

Put simply, there was none. The minister had reached out and offered, and we had reached out and requested, but that consultation never occurred. We’re still waiting.

Paul Irngaut, Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., had this to say, and I quote:

We understand that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization commonly known as ITK, had received a briefing of the most recent version of the bill shortly before it was tabled in May. However, neither ITK nor NTI has been fully consulted on the language and impacts of the bill.

Jessica Lazare, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawàke, said this:

We only had one meeting and that wasn’t necessarily an adequate consultation, so I wouldn’t consider it consultation whatsoever.

Sandra Honour, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Shooting Federation of Canada, said:

The Shooting Federation of Canada was not asked to participate in the committee that discussed Bill C-21, nor did we have letters answered to us after we wrote to the minister several times to request.

When we asked Marcell Wilson, Founder and President of the Toronto One By One Movement, whether anyone in his community had been consulted on the bill, he said, “I would have to say no, not one.”

Gilbert White, Chairperson of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Recreational Firearm Community, said, “The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was not consulted.”

When asked if his organization had been consulted, Doug Chiasson, Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada, said, “No, we were not.”

Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, said the following:

We had some conversation with the previous minister, Minister Mendicino, as well. I wouldn’t describe it as a deep consultation.

Didier Deramond, Director General of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, said this:

We had a discussion with the minister’s office and the minister, but it was more of a presentation than a consultation.

Witness after witness said the same thing. They were informed, but they were not consulted.

Honourable colleagues, given this mountain of testimony, how is it possible for a minister of the Crown to come before the committee and make the following claim:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

In terms of consultations, we’ve seen better.

Esteemed colleagues, I venture to ask, does the truth no longer have any meaning for this government? Has the roller-coaster ride this bill has been on left the government so confused that it thinks the words “consultation” and “information” are now synonyms? I encourage the government to buy a good dictionary with clear definitions of both words. Then it will see that no meaningful consultation on this bill has taken place.

The failure to consult with Indigenous organizations and communities is especially egregious considering the government’s crystal clear commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides for comprehensive consultations with Indigenous peoples on any matter that concerns them.

What does this track record of consultation, or more accurately, of information sessions, mean?

It means that we have a very serious problem with the implementation of this bill, and we need to fix it. The minister clearly said, when he appeared before our committee, that he intends to proceed through regulations from here on out.

The process of drafting regulations is generally even more closed than the process of drafting a bill. I speak from experience, since I worked in the senior ranks of the public service in Quebec for 34 years. After a bill passed, it would be given to the minister. Then it was the civil servants who adopted the regulations, often without consulting the people involved. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed serious concerns about the fact that they will continue to be ignored in the regulatory process that is under way, just as they were when the bill was drafted.

When Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, appeared before the Senate committee on November 6, he expressed his concern about the significant regulatory leeway provided by Bill C-21. He asked our committee to amend the bill to create an oversight mechanism that would ensure consultations are held to prevent any infringement on First Nations’ hunting and subsistence rights. Colleagues, as we saw, the unique circumstances of Indigenous peoples is a major concern for the Inuit witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee. All the witnesses expressed serious concerns about the current regulatory process.

My amendment proposes to address this issue as effectively and as positively as possible. It makes it mandatory for the government to hold consultations on any regulations that may affect one or more Indigenous groups’, communities’ or peoples’ rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. My amendment also requires the government to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of those Indigenous groups, communities and peoples and to prepare a report describing the consultations undertaken.

All my amendment does is make the government do what it already committed to doing under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a small but necessary measure. I am therefore asking you to at least send the government a very clear message by adopting this amendment.

In closing, honourable senators, I thank you in advance for supporting this amendment on which we will soon be voting. I would ask you to give a voice to the Indigenous groups, communities and peoples who testified that they were not consulted on Bill C-21.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will the honourable senator take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Sorry, Senator Yussuff, but the time for debate has expired.

[Translation]

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

That Bill C-21 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 51 by adding the following after line 28:

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

That Bill C-21 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 51 by adding the following after line 28:

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, let me check with the table officers because my clock here was not working. Yes, I’m sorry, a correction — he still has 10 minutes.

Senator Patterson, I believe you had a supplementary question.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Yussuff, you have told us, basically, “Trust the government.” They have an obligation to consult because of the reference to section 35 in the bill, so don’t worry. It’s going to happen. The minister said it was going to happen. We have also heard clear evidence that there was no consultation with the Inuit in the development of the bill.

Why should we trust the minister to consult on the development of regulations when there was no consultation on the all-important development of a bill that profoundly affects Inuit as hunters, as people who have to survive on the land and as people who have to defend themselves from predators such as polar bears that have killed Inuit in my region? Why should we trust the minister to consult on regulations when there was no consultation on a bill before the chamber today which profoundly affects Inuit?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, let me first thank my colleague and friend Senator Boisvenu for his intervention and his work on the committee in regard to Bill C-21.

You wouldn’t be surprised, colleagues, that I would ask you not to accept the amendment.

I like Indigenous people enormously. I’m glad to see my friends have new-found respect for Indigenous people.

The reality is that this amendment was tabled at the committee and it rejected the amendment, but I want to speak specifically in regard to the amendment. I think I included this in my speech earlier, but I will restate it for colleagues before we have an opportunity to vote on the amendment:

While Bill C-21 will not abrogate or derogate from the rights of Indigenous Peoples as affirmed in the Constitution, the Government of Canada must meaningfully consult with Indigenous Peoples.

Should proposed regulations have the potential to adversely impact potential or established treaty rights, the Government of Canada must satisfy its duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate those rights.

Public Safety Canada will work collaboratively with Indigenous partners throughout the development, management and review of regulations.

This is the assurance we have from the minister.

Section 35 is enshrined in the bill to give it meaning and ensure that if the government doesn’t do its job, somebody can go before the courts and take the government to task. The government recognized the importance of consulting, but it has also recognized the fact that Indigenous people have certain rights in this country that we must oblige ourselves to respect in that regard.

Colleagues, I can go on at length, but I spoke, I think, very well. We did, of course, convey this, as a committee, in the observation in regard to the bill, and the minister wrote to us to address this exact issue in the context of consultation going forward in regard to any regulation that might adversely impact Aboriginal people with respect to the implementation of this bill.

As we know, regulations within the Crown are always something that they do. They have an obligation to publish those regulations, get comments and respond to them, but I think section 35 obligated them to go even further than that, and that’s enshrined in the bill.

Honourable colleagues, I would ask you to reject the amendment because it was dismissed at committee.

Thank you, and let’s recognize what has also been enshrined in the legislation under Bill C-21.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Just one very short question, Senator Yussuff, if you would. One of your reasons for our not doing this here is that it was defeated at committee. That’s probably a reasonable argument.

How do you feel about Bill C-234, where we defeated amendments at committee and then you voted for them in this chamber?

The Hon. the Speaker: Yes, Senator Plett?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Yussuff, your time for debate has expired.