The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). This bill enacts substantial changes and reforms to the Criminal Code and to the Firearms Act dealing with firearms. The Minister of Public Safety introduced this bill at first reading on May 30, 2022. The bill made its way here on May 18 of this year and was sent to our Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on June 21. Our committee held 12 meetings on Bill C-21 and heard 66 witnesses.

Led by our chair, Senator Dean, the process was thorough and extensive. We covered the issues well. Our committee reported back with no amendments, but with an extensive list of observations. I feel that our work is done — and that it was done well. This important bill takes its rationale from crime statistics as well as the increasing number of guns in this country. In his second reading speech introducing the bill on June 9, 2022, Minister Mendicino cited a 2022 Statistics Canada report which, in his words, shows:

Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. . . .

Others cite the rise in the number of guns itself as justification for the measures in the bill. For example, Senator Yussuff — in his sponsor speech here — noted an increase in the prevalence of handguns in Canada. Between 2010 and 2020, he noted, the number of handguns increased by 74% to 1 million handguns owned by approximately 275,000 individuals in this country.

There is a theory here about the increase in guns, and it goes as follows: The more guns we find in society, the more harms we find that involve guns, and that harm is found not just in gun crime, but in other harms such as suicide, misuse and accidents. As a corollary to this theory, reducing the number of guns will reduce these harms. Fewer guns mean fewer harms.

If we need proof of this theory, all we have to do is look south of the border to see the magnitude of killings and deaths attributable to the abundance of guns and the ideology of gun ownership run wild.

We in this country will never accept the gun dystopia which is the United States of America. Bill C-21 tackles the central issue of limiting the availability of guns in several ways. There is a handgun freeze: Bill C-21 would implement a national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns. This is not the handgun ban that some people were seeking, and none of the handguns owned by legal licence holders will be confiscated; however, over time, this freeze will limit the numbers of handguns in this country.

Then there is the problem of assault-style weapons. In 2020, by order-in-council, the government prohibited a list of approximately 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. This bill adds another measure to deal with the assault guns by prohibiting future assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market. Again, this approach does not go as far as some would like since it does not deal with the other makes and models currently held by Canadians. The government proposes to set up a council to identify these firearms, which might then be subject to a ban. So again, looking down the road, these measures should help to reduce the number of assault-style firearms in this country.

Then there are the so-called ghost guns: the firearms or firearm parts that can be manufactured, which have proliferated in recent years. Bill C-21 will create new offences aimed at the use of 3-D printing for the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms and will classify ghost guns and other illegally made firearms as prohibited.

These provisions relating to handguns, assault-style weapons and ghost guns, if all implemented, will limit the number of guns in this country going forward.

Two other parts of the bill are extremely important. Bill C-21 addresses intimate partner violence and gender-based violence by enacting red flag and expanded licence revocation laws. The new red flag law would enable anyone to apply to a court to remove firearms for up to 30 days from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. A longer-term prohibition of up to five years is possible if there continue to be reasonable grounds to believe that the individual poses a risk.

In addition, a firearms licence could be revoked from someone in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment, i.e., stalking, when a protection order has been issued against a licence holder or when a red flag order is issued.

There is much more in Bill C-21, but for me these are the key points.

Of course, this bill is very far from perfect, and I was surprised and very disappointed to see some of the serious missteps the government made along the way. We heard last week and in committee about the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous groups and others, such as chief firearms officers in the process of drafting the bill. We heard about unresolved issues, including those involving handgun shooting sports. Many of us recall the introduction of amendments in November 2022 involving a long list of assault-style firearms, which were to be prohibited. This resulted in a storm of protests from hunters and farmers who claimed that hunting guns were also on that list, and thus, the government ended up withdrawing this list that they had put forward in February of this year. This was a setback in the effort to limit assault-style weapons in this country.

Nevertheless, Bill C-21 is very worthy of our support. I’m very impressed that the bill has gained approval from such a wide range of experts, academics, health researchers, activists and law enforcement agencies. Here are some examples of the supporters: the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Coalition for Gun Control, Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Families of Dawson, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, PolySeSouvient, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and Women’s Shelters Canada. These are just some examples of the many stakeholders who support this bill.

For example, Dr. Wendy Cukier, speaking for the Coalition for Gun Control, which represents over 200 health, crime prevention, policing and women’s organizations, stated, “We are asking that you pass this legislation in its current form. . . .”

Dr. Najma Ahmed, Professor of Surgery and Trauma, University of Toronto, speaking for the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, stated, “Canada needs Bill C-21. It will save lives. . . .”

Nathalie Provost, spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, which represents survivors of the December 6 femicides at École Polytechnique, stated:

. . . today we urge you to pass Bill C-21 without amendments as quickly as possible. It is a good bill. It is not perfect and not complete, but it freezes handgun sales and helps protect women from domestic murders. It will save lives.

She also said, “. . . we feel that the bill must be passed for Canada to move forward. We value the bill very much . . .”

Also Dr. Natasha Saunders, Staff Physician, Hospital for Sick Children, speaking for the Canadian Paediatric Society, stated, “As an organization, we support the passage of Bill C-21 . . .”

Colleagues, I also want to note the endorsement of Bill C-21 among law enforcement officials. I must admit that I was surprised by this initially and expected more criticism from them, but Deputy Chief Bill Fordy, whom we’ve heard about before in earlier remarks, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, told our committee that:

The CACP supports Bill C-21 in principle and believes this law is introducing essential provisions to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

He also said:

. . . I think it is helpful rather than hurtful. I think the stronger language around prohibited firearms is helpful. I think the efforts to reduce domestic violence are helpful, and as the previous witness referenced, the fatality attached to some of those incidents.

He is the chief law enforcement witness that we had at committee. He represents the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

His sentiments were echoed by other law enforcement witnesses, including Fiona Wilson, Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department, who stressed that the bill is positive and gives the police additional tools in many areas.

However, on the other side, I think everyone in this chamber understands that well-organized groups have lobbied hard against it. Senator Coyle has mentioned some of the groups.

In my case, I’ve counted over 2,000 pieces of correspondence since we got the bill in May in the Senate. The vast majority of the correspondence is from groups opposed to this bill. Their presence on social media is huge.

How representative are these opposing views? It turns out these views are not very representative at all. I decided to commission a public opinion survey about key aspects of the bill. The national survey found that the vast majority of Canadians, in fact, support stricter gun control. There is no doubt about it — 73% of Canadians support “freezing the sale, purchase, transport and importation of handguns.” Meanwhile, 85% of Canadians support prohibiting new assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

Over 90% each support the red-flag provisions — that is, allowing firearms to be removed by court order from a firearm owner who may pose a danger to themselves or others. And 96% of Canadians support the ability to remove a firearms licence from someone in cases where there’s been domestic violence or criminal harassment.

A majority of Canadians across all regions, both genders — men too, but particularly women — and all age categories support all four of these measures. Colleagues, these are not the elites that we have heard about; these are the views of ordinary Canadians.

Let’s be very clear about it. Canadians are saying yes to stronger gun controls and yes to the key provisions of Bill C-21. Also, by approving Bill C-21, this country will take another important step away from the destructive gun culture and away from the ubiquitous gun violence of our neighbour to the south.

Colleagues, I will be voting for this bill. I hope you will too. Thank you very much.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Any advice on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 7-4(5)(c), the vote is deferred until 5:30 on the next sitting day.

[Translation]

Hon. Éric Forest moved second reading of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise this evening as sponsor of Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which is now at second reading.

[English]

It has been an honour to be asked to sponsor this bill in the Senate.

[Translation]

In her recent speech before the Standing Committee on Finance in the other place, the Deputy Prime Minister summed up why Bill C-56 is so important. In short, it would address two of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today, namely access to housing and the cost of living.

When it comes to housing, the challenge is clear. Canada simply doesn’t have enough housing, so we need to build more, and fast. In fact, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that Canada needs to build an additional 3.5 million housing units by 2030, on top of the current construction rate, to finally restore access to affordable housing and to rebalance the market for Canadians.

[English]

And while this problem seems simple, the solutions are not. Building the homes that Canada needs will clearly require a great national effort.

[Translation]

Federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments will need to work together, in partnership with home builders, business people, community housing providers, post-secondary institutions, and Indigenous organizations and governments, to achieve this goal.

The Government of Canada has gone the extra mile in its recent budgets and economic statements. Federal investments in housing are $9 billion higher than they were in 2013-14.

Since 2015, the federal government has more than doubled its average annual investment in housing, but it is clear that much remains to be done, as CMHC has indicated.

[English]

So let’s take a moment to consider in more detail what the measure in Bill C-56 will do.

First of all, they will remove the GST on the new purpose-built rental housing with the goal of helping get more homes built faster and creating more housing supply across the country.

[Translation]

The support available through this measure is as follows: a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000 would qualify for $25,000 in tax relief. It seems reasonable to assume that such significant support would give developers more options to move forward with projects.

In fact, the housing sector is already showing signs of this. For example, a Toronto real estate company has already announced plans to build 5,000 new rental units across the country thanks to this measure. To quote the Deputy Prime Minister:

This is about making the math work for builders, giving them an incentive to build more homes that would otherwise not move forward due to construction costs.

There is already proof that this measure will have a positive effect.

In announcing this measure, the government asked provinces that currently apply a provincial sales tax, or the provincial part of the HST, to rental housing to join it by matching the federal rebate on new rental housing units. To date, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador have announced their intention of offering similar tax relief. This kind of concerted effort will be essential for achieving the desired results and building more homes faster.

When we talk about speeding up construction, it is also important to mention that the support for new rental housing construction in Bill C-56 specifically seeks to speed up housing construction in the short term.

The GST rebate proposed in the bill would apply only to projects where construction starts between September 14, 2023, and the end of 2030 and is completed by 2036.

At the same time, this GST relief will be carefully targeted to protect Canadian renters from what is referred to as “renoviction,” the practice of evicting renters from their homes so that renovations can be done. The government has made it clear that the GST rebate would not apply to substantial renovations of buildings that are already occupied.

The housing measures in this bill also form the basis for some of the measures that the government recently announced in the 2023 Fall Economic Statement to support housing construction.

They include the proposal to expand eligibility for GST relief to include purpose-built, long-term rental housing co-ops, provided the required conditions are met. Using this measure to expand the relief provided in Bill C-56 would be fitting, and it is something that members of the Standing Committee on Finance have specifically called for.

Clearly, the government will not be able to provide this new support for co-op construction before Bill C-56 comes into force. It is apparent that these measures to support the construction of new rental housing are deliberately focused to avoid unintended consequences.

It is also clear that they underpin other measures to support housing construction, which are sorely needed given the current situation.

On another note, in order to make groceries more affordable for Canadians, we now need to consider how this bill would also help stabilize food prices for Canadians. We know that, although inflation has dropped to 3.1%, many Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable, are still feeling the pressure of rising food prices, so to help them, Bill C-56 includes measures designed to bring prices down by strengthening competition throughout the economy, particularly in the grocery sector.

Specifically, the bill would achieve this by amending the Competition Act to give the Competition Bureau the power to compel the production of information to conduct effective and comprehensive market studies, and to crack down on abuses by large, dominant chains. It would also abolish the efficiencies defence, which currently allows companies to use efficiency gains as an argument in favour of potentially anti-competitive mergers.

These changes would enable the bureau to take action against collaborative ventures that impede competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from setting up shop in the vicinity of their stores. Increased competition means lower prices and more choice for consumers.

While strengthening competition and cracking down on unfair and anti-competitive practices, this bill would help stabilize prices for Canadians. This initiative would supplement other measures taken by the federal government to support competition in the grocery sector.

These include getting Canada’s five largest grocery chains, which represent 76% of the grocery sector, to make commitments to stabilize prices for Canadians.

Another measure involves establishing a grocery task force to oversee the work of the big grocers so as to stabilize prices and investigate and control other practices in the grocery sector, like shrinkflation.

Again, the proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-56 are essential to move other more recent measures forward.

For example, the 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes additional amendments to the Competition Act in order to further modernize the review of mergers, particularly by giving the Competition Bureau the means to better detect and counter anti-competitive acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. It proposes to strengthen protections for consumers, workers and the environment, specifically by prohibiting misleading greenwashing claims and by placing greater emphasis on the impact on workers in competition analyses.

It proposes to empower the Commissioner of Competition to review a wider selection of collaborations and seek meaningful remedies to ensure that harmful conduct is not repeated. It proposes to broaden the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful.

In the 2023 Fall Economic Statement, the government also proposes to amend the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure that legal cost awards during case adjudication do not prohibit a robust defence of competition.

I believe that the changes proposed in Bill C-56 that seek to strengthen the Competition Tribunal constitute a solid foundation for progress on all these fronts. Taken together, these measures would enable Canada to align with best international practices to ensure that domestic markets encourage fairness, affordability and innovation.

[English]

Moreover, I will underscore that these are not just among the highest priorities of Canadians but they are among the most immediate. People are feeling pressure on this front right now, so the action to be taken to address them must be undertaken right now.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I hope that we keep that important factor in mind as we assess the merits of Bill C-56.

[English]

Thank you, honourable colleagues, for this opportunity to make my case today. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the yeas have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters has a question. Senator Dasko, will you take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Hon. Donna Dasko: Thank you, senator, for your question.

The poll cost $3,400. I did pay for it from my Senate budget. That has to be the best $3,400 I have ever spent. I can’t believe that you can actually consult Canadians for a fee of $3,400 on a bill like this. You can ask substantial questions. Whatever the result is, in any case, what a deal that was, that $3,400.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations, with amendments), presented in the Senate on December 12, 2023.

Senator Miville-Dechêne moved the adoption of the report, for Senator Galvez.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to briefly speak on the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that addresses Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.

The bill would expand the boundaries of seven national parks and one national park reserve, clarify offences in relation to the discharge of substances in a national park, establish a new national park and change the name of another park.

I wish to thank the members of the committee for their work in bringing this report forward.

In its study, the committee heard from 10 witnesses, including the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, representatives from concerned First Nations and Inuit communities, civil society organizations, an academic and a rancher.

After thoughtful consideration, the committee proposes three amendments to the bill. Two of the amendments make it mandatory, rather than a suggestion, for a park superintendent or, upon their failure to do so, the minister, to order a person to take reasonable measures to prevent, mitigate or remediate harm and to prevent or minimize danger in the park.

The third amendment limits the entry into leases of public lands by the minister in Akami-Uapishk^u-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve to existing cabins and tilts in order to preserve the existing traditional users’ rights while also protecting the ecological integrity of the park reserve.

Colleagues, Bill S-14 will contribute to our commitment to protect biodiversity and 30% of our land by 2030. The proposals were made by Parks Canada in consultation with all the concerned First Nations and Inuit communities, as well as other stakeholders.

The committee has done a careful review of the bill, and I encourage you to support the passage of this bill.

Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?