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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Deacon, you are out of time to answer the question. Are you requesting leave to answer this question?

Senator C. Deacon: Five more minutes, if the chamber is so agreeable. I do not think that I will need it all.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Would Senator Deacon answer a question?

Senator C. Deacon: Absolutely. Thank you.

Hon. Clément Gignac: Colleagues, today, I would like to speak to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

I want to begin by making it clear that I do not intend to make any amendments to this bill and by saying that I will keep my remarks brief, because I am in favour the initiatives set out in the bill. You are therefore no doubt wondering why I am rising. The reason is that I want to speak out in this chamber, loud and clear, against the very little time that was allocated to studying this bill.

It’s nothing personal against the Government Representative in the Senate or the chair of the National Finance Committee, the Honourable Senator Mockler. On the contrary, as a member of the steering committee, Senator Mockler informed me on Monday at noon that we would have a hard time analyzing and passing this bill before we rise for the holidays, unless we were to take exceptional measures, such as holding a meeting in Committee of the Whole. According to my research, this was the first time in 10 years that the Senate has resolved into Committee of the Whole to debate an economic bill.

Honourable senators, I must admit that I was not familiar with that exceptional procedure. Like my two colleagues from the Canadian Senators Group, I was left wanting more, since each of us were allotted only three and a half minutes to ask questions of the two ministers with responsibilities in the economic sector.

Allow me to publicly thank the leader of the Canadian Senators Group for insisting earlier this week that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance hold a special session immediately after the Committee of the Whole to hear a few witnesses on this bill.

Hats off to our clerk, Mireille Aubé, and her two analysts, who, with less than 24 hours’ notice, managed to secure the attendance of four witnesses at our committee yesterday afternoon.

Honourable senators, this bill passed first reading in the other place on September 21 and was received here in the Senate on Monday evening of this week. Allow me to point out that the finance committee of the other place was able to devote over eight hours of its time to this bill and heard from nine witnesses. At first glance, you will probably find that reassuring.

However, you should know that the Canadian Bar Association wasn’t able to testify, but it did submit a brief, which I have here. It is 30 pages long and contains 19 recommendations.

Moreover, during the clause-by-clause consideration in the other place’s committee, four amendments were presented and adopted. To me, that’s clear proof that this bill, the first reform of the Competition Act in 35 years, undoubtedly deserved a much more sober second look here.

Honourable Senators, you can no doubt sense a little anger, or at least a little intellectual frustration, in this speech I’m giving as a senator and member of this upper chamber, which is known as the place of sober second thought.

This week, I didn’t feel as though we were part of a bicameral system of Parliament with two chambers. Instead, I felt like I was sitting in the basement of the lower chamber, being treated like a second-class parliamentarian. It’s as if someone had forgotten that we are senators, no doubt of different political persuasions, but all with one common denominator: the desire to do the right thing in a transparent way for the good of Canadians.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the steering committee of National Finance, who agreed to raise the tone a little in the commentary presented last night. Usually, at National Finance, we use gentle, polite and courteous words. This time, we raised our voices a little, pointing out that we found it contemptuous that the committee had so little time to analyze the bill.

Honourable senators, I will close with that. Unfortunately, I think I’ve caught Senator Carignan’s nasty sore throat, so I will end here and probably won’t be able to answer your questions. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Gold, please ask your question.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I do have a question. Can I ask you, colleague, to reconsider?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, never in my 12 years as a senator have I felt so belittled, insulted and victimized by such a total lack of respect for my office and the job we all do here.

Yesterday, we held a committee meeting for a few hours and heard from six witnesses who provided very little information — and that is all the time we got to study a bill that I would describe as half-baked.

Some will say that this bill is important for Canadians, and I agree.

Why then did this government drag its feet for so long? Why did we only get this bill on December 13, just hours before we rise for the holidays? Just because the government is saying that this is urgent does not mean that we should shirk our responsibilities as senators, including the responsibility to rigorously examine legislation, amend it if necessary and, most importantly, properly represent the interests of Canadians in our respective regions.

I want to draw a comparison with Bill C-21. For a month, the committee met three times a week and heard from two, three, or even four groups of witnesses per meeting. Then, it just so happened that all of the amendments that we proposed to better protect our fellow citizens, even the most useful ones, were defeated in committee and in this chamber.

I’m going to take this a step further. This government does not have a very good track record when it comes to the quality of its legislation. I’m not the one saying that. That’s something the Supreme Court pointed out with the bill on medical assistance in dying. The Senate amendments to that legislation would have saved Canadians time and money.

The Senate is called the upper chamber. I fear that this haste to obey the government’s political commands lowers us to a dangerous degree when that same government prevents us from being diligent about the work we were appointed to do. I’ve often heard us called a chamber of reflection. Not a lot of reflection happened with Bill C-56, which we spent less than 90 minutes on.

People call the Senate the chamber of sober second thought. I can tell you we didn’t think about this one for very long. People also say that the Senate is an independent chamber. Let me just say that this use of the word forces me to reconsider its meaning. I sincerely believe that a number of my colleagues should do likewise.

The past three weeks in Parliament haven’t been easy. For all these reasons, I won’t vote in favour of Bill C-56, but I won’t vote against it either. I will abstain. I will do better than that, actually. I’m going to take a coffee break so that I don’t have to witness what I don’t want to endorse.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, against that backdrop, I’m going to start my speech on Bill C-56, but I will go back to Part 1 of the bill and talk about the substance of the bill.

This bill has two parts: Part 1 and 2. I’m going to talk about both parts separately. They are distinct but not unrelated because both parts are intended to address affordability issues that are being experienced by Canadians. I’m going to address each part separately.

The first part amends the Excise Tax Act in order to implement a temporary enhancement to the GST. It’s called the “GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing.” Effectively, Part 1 of Bill C-56 enhances the GST rental rebate by increasing the rebate from 36% to 100% and removing the existing GST rental rebate phase-out thresholds for new rental housing projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences.

Government officials have said that because the bill is very short with very scanty information, the details will be provided in regulations at a later date. However, they did provide the following information, and although it’s not in the legislation or regulations, it was provided.

First of all, the rental rebate is directed at buildings with at least four private apartment units or residences with at least 10 private rooms. Of the residential units in the buildings, 90% have to be designated for long-term rental. The GST rental rebate will not apply to luxury condominiums or rental units to be converted afterwards into short-term vacation rentals, and the GST rental rebate also applies to substantial renovations that would transform an existing building into new rental units.

While these conditions have been relayed by government officials, regulations have yet to be authorized and gazetted. We just had the discussion about how little time was spent at the National Finance Committee on this. This is information we had to find by researching; it didn’t come from officials directly.

Bill C-56 indicates that the rental rebate program will run to 2035; that’s 12 years. Specifically, the GST rental rebate will apply to projects that begin on or after September 14 of this year, which is when the measure was first announced, until December 31, 2030, but the projects must be completed by the end of 2035.

The fall fiscal update indicates that the estimated cost of this program will be $4.5 billion over the next six years, beginning with $5 million this year and increasing to about $1.5 billion in 2028-29, which is the sixth year of the program. But there have been no further estimates provided for the following seven years of the program, which would run from 2029-30 through to 2036.

Bill C-56 indicates that the program will continue to December 31, 2035, so the estimated cost for those seven years is not disclosed. In fact, it’s not even mentioned anywhere.

At a recent meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Ms. Lisa Williams, Senior Vice-President of Housing Programs at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, told us that Canada will need to build 5.8 million homes by 2030 to reach affordability. She emphasized that this would be an additional 3.5 million homes on top of what the country is already expected to produce. However, Mr. Bob Dugan, Chief Economist at the CMHC, told us that the corporation had not had time to estimate the specific impact that the GST rental rebate program will have on the building of new rental units. In other words, the government has no estimate on the number of housing units to be built with the $4.5 billion.

Minister Freeland told us yesterday at the Committee of the Whole that one of Canada’s top housing experts has estimated that 200,000 to 300,000 homes will be built with the $4.5 billion. However, it is notable that the minister is quoting an estimate provided by an individual outside the government. It is not the government’s estimate, because the government has not yet estimated or assessed the impact of this housing program.

At the November 23 meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Minister of Housing Sean Fraser said that there was not a specific housing strategy outlined in the Fall Economic Statement, which is amazing, because this program is $4.5 billion, and there are already billions of dollars going into housing by the CMHC and other government departments, yet there’s no housing strategy.

He further said:

We’re working on developing a comprehensive plan that will have a suite of federal measures designed to address the national housing crisis. . . .

Honourable senators, the rental property rebate program is estimated to cost $4.5 billion over the next six years, and, as I’ve already indicated, there’s been no assessment as to the impact this will have on the housing supply, including the number of homes to be constructed.

In addition, the program is to continue for 7 additional years after the initial 6 years — for 13 years in total — with no cost estimates provided by the government for the second round of 7 years.

In addition, the regulations governing the details of the rental property rebate program have yet to be released. How can private sector partners be expected to step up and participate in a program for which the program details are not yet available?

Before I speak to Part 2 of the bill, I just want to summarize the issues with the GST rental rebate program, from my perspective, which I feel has not been addressed.

First of all, there’s been no impact assessment of the GST rental rebate program, which would indicate how the program will impact housing, nor is there an estimate of the number of units to be constructed. Only a partial cost of the program has been estimated. It’s the first 6 years of the 13-year program, and it’s $4.5 billion. There’s no estimate on the costs of the program in the following seven years.

The government has no housing plan, despite spending billions of dollars on housing initiatives. Regulations required to define the details of this program have yet to be released.

Finally, the government has yet to indicate whether housing initiatives — which commenced prior to the announcement of the program, but otherwise meet program requirements — would qualify for the GST rental rebate.

I’m going to move on now to Part 2 of the bill, and Senator Deacon went through that part of the bill fairly thoroughly, so I may not repeat some of the items that he covered. Part 2 is going to amend the Competition Act. I feel very comfortable reviewing the first part of the bill, because finance is my background. When delving into the Competition Act, I’ve had some experience, being on the Banking Committee, but the Competition Act is not what I call my cup of tea; I find it very complex.

Part 2 — the second part of Bill C-56 — is going to amend the Competition Act, and it proposes a number of amendments. There were already some amendments included last year in the budget. I know there’s going to be more coming. Amendments to the Competition Act have been under consideration by the government for some time.

Last November, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry launched a consultation on the future of Canada’s competition policy, which was seen as a major step in the government’s efforts to modernize the Competition Act. The public consultation period concluded on March 31 of this year, and there was significant interest in the consultation.

The government indicated they had received over 130 submissions from identified stakeholders, as well as more than 400 responses from members of the general public. Submissions raised, as Senator Deacon said, over 100 potential reform proposals, and stakeholders included academic experts, law practitioners, labour unions, consumer groups, businesses and their associations and so on.

Included on the government’s website is a 48-page summary of what the government heard during the consultation period, so it’s evident that there is significant interest in the government’s competition policy.

The amendments to the Competition Act included in Bill C-56 appear to be another group of amendments that were anticipated. We received some in the budget bill, and some here now, and I think there are some more in Bill C-59, so we’re receiving it in stages. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see an overall picture.

Honourable senators, we’re all familiar with the challenges faced by business investment in Canada. Numerous studies have been carried out, including a study last year by the Senate Banking Committee. A group of senators, under the leadership of Senator Harder, issued the prosperity report, and we looked at that issue when we were preparing the prosperity report.

The Competition Policy Council of the C.D. Howe Institute released a report last month on Canada’s Competition Act. In that report, the majority of members on the council supported the 2018 view of the Competition Bureau that competition enforcement:

 . . . must strike the right balance between taking steps to prevent behaviour that truly harms competition and over-enforcement that chills innovation and dynamic competition. . . .

In other words, there’s pressure on the government to get it right.

Last month, the Finance Committee in the other place held several meetings to discuss Bill C-56. I knew that we were going to receive the bill, so I was listening to what they were saying. That committee had the opportunity to hear from numerous witnesses, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. Their meeting actually lasted two hours. They heard from numerous government officials, as well as witnesses from outside the government.

That committee over in the other place had the opportunity to study the bill at length, discuss it, debate it and suggest amendments, and there was a lot of debate. There were pages and pages of debates that I read. In fact, there were several amendments to the bill made in the other place. They had amendments in the other place.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, we received the benefit of a one-hour Committee of the Whole and one panel of witnesses at a National Finance Committee meeting, which was quickly arranged at the last minute. We did not have the time or the opportunity to study the bill in detail, nor to discuss it as the members did in the other place. I felt like we had become a rubber stamp.

Members of our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance discussed this matter in detail yesterday while in camera, and we have provided an observation to our report on this bill. Specifically, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, in its report on Bill C-56, states the following:

Your committee supports the measures included in Bill C-56 regarding the enhancement to the goods and services tax rebate for new residential rental property and modifications to the Competition Act. However, it is contemptuous that your committee was afforded a very limited time to conduct its study of the bill. As a result, it was prevented from thoroughly studying the bill and properly performing its duties.

I’m going to move briefly into some of the amendments. Senator Deacon went through a number of them, but I want to mention a couple of the proposed amendments that are in Bill C-56.

According to the government’s website, the Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency which protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the Competition Bureau administers and enforces the Competition Act.

Clause 3 of the bill, prior to its amendment in the other place, proposed to amend section 10 of the Competition Act by adding a new section. This clause would have allowed the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to direct the Commissioner of Competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market or industry if it’s in the public interest.

That original clause in Bill C-56 was amended in the other place, and another subclause was added to also allow the Commissioner of Competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market or industry. However, there was concern expressed by some members of our National Finance Committee — including myself, but not solely myself — that the clause permitting the minister to direct the Commissioner of Competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market or industry would impair the independence of the Commissioner of Competition.

Clause 3 also requires the minister and the commissioner to consult with each other on the feasibility and the cost of the inquiry, as well as the process for the preparation and publication of, and the public commentary on, the terms of reference, but there is a risk that the independence of the Competition Bureau and the Commissioner of Competition may be impaired.

There are also clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the bill that will amend several sections of the existing Competition Act to include proposed section 10.1. It’s important to recognize that these amendments extend the commissioner’s investigative and enforcement powers, along with the increase in the minister’s participation in the Competition Bureau. I even wonder if maybe the Competition Bureau should just become a division of the department, since it seems like it’s being drawn closer to the department.

Many stakeholders who were consulted on the future of Canada’s competition policy felt that an act allowing anti-competitive transactions undermines the central purpose of the competition policy. Section 92 of the Competition Act is against anti-competitive mergers if they have generated or are likely to generate efficiencies great enough to offset the effects of harm to competition and if such an order would impede the likelihood of those efficiencies. That section of the Competition Act was repealed.

One of the recurring complaints that we hear at the Senate standing committees when studying government bills is the inadequacy of consultations with stakeholders, and Bill C-56 is no exception. Between November 17 of last year and March 31 of this year, the government undertook public consultations with stakeholders and citizens on the future of Canada’s competition policy. On September 20, the government released a summary of the consultations on its website. Unfortunately, Bill C-56 received first reading the following day, on September 21. There were no consultations or discussions with stakeholders on the proposed amendments that would affect them. This is not consultation.

This issue was raised by several senators who attended the briefing by government officials on Bill C-56 on Tuesday. It was also raised by Matthew Holmes, Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Relations with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, at our Finance Committee meeting yesterday.

Mr. Holmes said that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was supportive of the need to enhance competition in Canada. However, he said that the chamber is:

. . . very concerned by the manner in which changes have been repeatedly introduced as parts of omnibus implementation bills, ways and means motions, or peppered throughout other legislation, such as Bill C-56, without . . . real consultation with the Canadian business community or academic experts in a very particular area of the law.

He said it is almost absurd to be speaking about a handful of changes in Bill C-56 when other changes are being proposed in Bill C-59, which is currently before the House of Commons. Intentionally or not, he said, this approach lacks transparency and obscures the actual plan for the future of competition law in Canada. He said that approach ultimately makes it more difficult, more expensive and riskier for business.

Regarding the market study powers now in the bill, Mr. Holmes said that the Chamber of Commerce would like to see due process and guidelines furthered and developed for the industry so that there is a clear sense of due process in how these market studies would be conducted.

The representative for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce further said that many members of the chamber in many sectors are silent on this because they feel that it is being politicized:

They feel that there is a whole group of sectors that are routinely brought before parliamentarians and admonished. . . . It’s an environment that can become quite toxic towards businesses, and our concern is that we don’t know how this information may be used, shared or provided in a public way in the future.

As there are new powers for market studies, the compelling information and release of that information, we do not know how that information will be monitored, by whom and under what parameters. What are the rules? What are the standards for the access to proprietary information that may be misused by other competitors in the future?

In summary, with respect to the amendments of the Competition Act, including Part 2 of the bill, the consultation process was not adequate.

In addition, the Senate, and specifically the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which Bill C-56 was referred, was not given sufficient time to properly study the bill and assess the implications of the proposed amendments. With respect to Part 1 of the bill, the government is implementing the GST rental rebate program estimated to cost $4.5 billion without an adequate plan. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance held up a copy of the Fall Economic Statement and said it was the government’s housing plan. Honourable senators, the Fall Economic Statement is not a housing plan.

At a recent meeting of the Senate Banking Committee, the minister responsible for housing, in a response to a question from the chair of the committee on the housing crisis, clearly said, “. . . there was not a specific strategy outlined in the Fall Economic Statement . . . .”

He further said:

We’re working on developing a comprehensive plan that will have a suite of federal measures designed to address the national housing crisis. . . .

For a program that costs $4.5 billion, there is no plan.

In conclusion, although I have many concerns about this bill, I cannot vote against a bill intended to help Canadians during a deepening affordability crisis, and so I will support it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak about Bill S-15, a bill that aims to protect elephants and great apes from captivity that is not in the best interests of their welfare or is not for the purpose of a scientific research or conservation program.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of the government in putting this bill forward. This bill is a step toward fulfilling one of their campaign promises to protect animals in captivity, which also appears in the mandate letter of the Minister of Environment. I would also like to thank former Senator Sinclair and Senator Klyne for their leadership in bringing this same issue forward through the Jane Goodall act.

My speech will touch on principles of Bill S-15 that aim to protect elephants and great apes from the harms of captivity and seek to end the import and export of living elephants and great apes into and out of Canada, except by permit issued by the minister.

This legislation would, for example, prevent the future occurrence of a situation similar to the heartbreaking unnatural life lived by Lucy, a 47-year-old Asian elephant that has been held in captivity at the Edmonton Valley Zoo from the age of 2. Lucy, who has lived most of her life in captivity, is ailing and has been deemed medically unfit for travel and therefore cannot be relocated to an elephant sanctuary in the United States. Lucy will remain in Edmonton, where she is forced to endure harsh winter weather and sub-zero temperatures.

More and more Canadians are of the view that wild animals should have the right to a wild life and should not be held in captivity unless there is a direct benefit to them or to the conservation of their species. Bill S-15 will contribute to ensuring elephants and great apes are free to live a wild life.

However, we should also provide protection to other animals, including big cats, bears, wolves, seals and reptiles. In fact, we should consider increased protection for the 800 wild species for which there is abundant scientific evidence that they suffer greatly in captivity because their natural movements and behaviour are severely restricted. Keeping these animals in captivity is cruel and inhuman and is often exploitative and dangerous. There should be only exceptional circumstances for keeping any wild animal in captivity — when it serves the animal’s best interests or for research that has conservation benefits. We have a duty and an opportunity to raise the bar to protect the dignity of wild animals and to set an example for our peers in other countries.

Wildlife protection policy should recognize that global wildlife trade contributes to biodiversity loss and mass extinction and poses a risk to our health, as it contributes to the risk of zoonotic diseases. It should also address Canadian biodiversity crisis through transformative changes given that, for example, the exotic pet trade regrettably remains a significant and growing incentive for animal imports in Canada and that the nature of this practice requires close human contact with wild animals, posing a potential risk from a disease perspective. I hope during committee study these and other issues will be brought up by expert witnesses.

Last year, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference held in Montreal, COP15, culminated with a historic agreement intended to “. . . guide global action on nature through to 2030 . . . .” and call on us to ensure that “. . . 30 per cent of the planet and 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems . . . .” were placed under protection by 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, GBF, provides tangible actions to stop and reverse nature loss in order to “. . . address biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems and protect Indigenous rights.”

The four overarching global goals of the framework include:

. . . halting human-induced extinction of threatened species and reducing the rate of extinction of all species tenfold by 2050; sustainable use and management of biodiversity to ensure that nature’s contributions to people are valued, maintained and enhanced; fair sharing of the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources, and digital sequence information on genetic resources; and that adequate means of implementing the GBF be accessible to all Parties, particularly Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

Human activity is responsible for a dangerous decline in nature and there are one million plant and animal species threatened with extinction, many within the next decades.

Perspectives of our relations with nature and wildlife are changing for good. Since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have known this, but now science is giving them reason. We must recognize that all living creatures are interconnected — each organism, species and ecosystem is an integral part of a network whose strength is only as strong as the weakest link. Humans depend on nature, not the other way around. A new approach based on ecocentrism is taking force. This approach “. . . places intrinsic value on all living organisms and their natural environment, regardless of their perceived usefulness or importance to human beings.”

Last week in Dubai at COP28, there was a long-overdue recognition of the important role Indigenous peoples have in the development of effective, nature-based solutions and in implementing climate solutions. Indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge are invaluable in preserving biodiversity and ecosystem health. Like Indigenous peoples, we must take a holistic approach instead of considering species in isolation.

[Translation]

In addition, at the end of COP28, the parties adopted a decision that echoed the content of item 13 in the preamble to the Paris Agreement, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and of safeguarding biodiversity, known by some cultures as Mother Earth. The preamble also notes the importance sometimes placed on the concept of climate justice in climate change actions. According to the International Observatory on Nature’s Rights, this is a step forward: For the first time, provisions on the non-market approaches promoted by the Paris Agreement mention Mother Earth.

This progress is the result of the leadership shown by the Bolivian delegation and of a proposed statement recognizing the importance of strengthening Mother Earth rights and Mother Earth approaches when developing and implementing non-market approaches.

[English]

During the 2021 federal election campaign, the government made a commitment to Canadians to “Work with partners to curb illegal wildlife trade and end elephant and rhinoceros tusk trade in Canada.” I applaud the Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s recent announcement of:

. . . a stricter approach to trade for Canada that will further limit the ability to transport all elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn across Canadian borders.

This includes a prohibition on the import and export of raw elephant ivory and raw rhinoceros horns, with few exceptions, and a prohibition on the importation of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn hunting trophies. However, curbing the illegal wildlife trade of other species, including big cats, is equally important.

Another important issue that should be studied in committee is how to raise the standards of zoos and evaluate if society still finds them acceptable in their current forms of operation. Among other things, the establishment of transparent legal and science-based standards for zoos that would ensure animals, such as tigers, lions and many species of monkeys that remain in captivity, are no longer housed in undersized, flimsy cages and would ensure that big cats and other exotic wild animals are not held without a permit by people who lack the expertise, training and facilities necessary to provide a safe and healthy life to the wild animals under their care.

Maybe you heard the news that on November 30, a kangaroo escaped from its handlers east of Toronto during transportation to Quebec. The kangaroo, who was found and caught by police, roamed freely for more than three days. Fortunately, the kangaroo was seemingly unharmed, and there were no reported injuries to people.

Colleagues, there are gaps in captive wildlife law and regulation, and it is therefore no surprise that wild animals escape roadside zoos. This is why advocacy groups, such as World Animal Protection Canada, are calling for stricter regulations to protect both captive wildlife — by ensuring zoos meet the highest standard of animal welfare — and public health and safety.

The committee could consider the need to take animal welfare and public health and safety even further. As an under-regulated and unsustainable sector, there continues to be a need for more rules to fight against the trade of wild animals. Undoubtedly, the legal trade of wildlife only fuels illegal trade, and we need efficient regulations to improve the data collection and monitoring system that exists in Canada, which prioritizes zoonotic detection and monitoring in wild animals used for food. We must do more to reduce animal suffering and to reduce the risks of illness and the loss of biodiversity.

Colleagues, the new Senate is fulfilling its duty of sober second thought and proposing integrated, holistic, rigorous and coherent legislation with vision. Our legislative bills aim to solve important problems in Canadian society. In this new Senate, we pride ourselves on well-thought-out, comprehensive, high-quality bills. In some cases, some ideas put forward in Senate public bills are picked up by the government in part. However, the ideas need to be picked up in full.

The Jane Goodall Act, which also aims to protect animals, appears superior to Bill S-15 because it is more comprehensive. Let’s send Bill S-15 to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for a rigorous study so it can become an impactful bill that protects more wild animals and moves us much closer to the 30x30 goal by protecting biodiversity while also protecting human health. Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gignac, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, for the second reading of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan:

That Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the third time.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.