Hon. Denise Batters: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-9 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 12, on page 8,

(i) by adding the following after line 22:

(ii) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“graphs (a) to (e.1);”;

(b) on page 23, by adding the following after line 26:

(c) on page 25, by adding the following after line 32:

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I will be very brief. I will refer to a Supreme Court judgment, Valente v. The Queen, 1985 Supreme Court Reports 673. I understand the rationale behind the amendment is to make federal judges similar to provincial judges in connection with their suspension and the disciplinary process. The judgment says:

Section 11(d) cannot be construed and applied so as to accord provincial court judges the same constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and security of salary and pension as superior court judges for that construction would, in effect, amend the judicature provisions of the Constitution. The standard of judicial independence cannot be a standard of uniform provisions but rather must reflect what is common to the various approaches to the essential conditions of judicial independence in Canada.

I will not repeat what I said previously on security of financial independence, but, quite frankly, to use the case of provincial laws and to try to apply that to federal judges is certainly done, I guess, with a certain lack of understanding of the law.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: I asked, and they said “dispense.”

The Hon. the Speaker: That Bill C-9 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 12, on page 8,

(i) by adding the following after line 22:

(ii) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“graphs (a) to (e.1);”;

(b) on page 23, by adding the following after line 26:

(c) on page 25, by adding the following after line 32:

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Batters negatived on the following division:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the amendments from the House of Commons concerning Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 and 2:

(a)on page 1, add the following after line 16:

qu’il s’engage à adopter le principe de précaution, si bien qu’en cas de risques de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement;”;

(b)on page 2, add the following after line 36:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;”;

(c)on page 2, add the following after line 41:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing a risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances;”.

2.Clause 3, page 3:

(a)replace line 3, in the English version, with the following:

“not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective”;

(b)add the following after line 13:

3.Clause 4, page 3:

(a)add the following after line 28:

(b)add the following after line 28:

4.Clause 5, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, add the following after line 42:

(b)on page 4, replace line 9 with the following:

“intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;”;

(c)on page 4, replace lines 13 and 14 with the following:

5.Clause 5.1, pages 4 and 5:

(a)replace line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:

(b)on page 5, replace lines 8 and 9 with the following:

“registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.”.

6.Clause 10, pages 6 and 7:

(a)replace line 26 on page 6 to line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b)on page 7, replace lines 28 to 35 with the following:

7.Clause 10.1, pages 7 and 8: delete clause 10.1.

8.Clause 11.1, page 8: delete clause 11.1.

9.Clause 14, page 9:

(a)replace lines 9 to 15 with the following:

“81, add a substance to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 18 to 27 with the following:

10.Clause 15, page 10:

(a)replace line 23 with the following:

“conditions, test procedures and laboratory practices to be followed for replacing, reducing or re-”;

(b)replace lines 26 to 28 with the following:

“classification of a substance as a substance that poses the highest risk.”.

11.Clause 16.1, page 12: replace lines 3 to 21 with the following:

12.Clause 19, pages 15 and 16:

(a)on page 15, replace line 25 with the following:

“and publish a plan with timelines”;

(b)on page 15, replace line 29 with the following:

(c)on page 15, replace lines 37 to 41 with the following:

“the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.”;

(d)on page 16, delete lines 1 and 2;

(e)on page 16, replace line 16 with the following:

“paragraph 68(a), including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”;

(f)on page 16, add the following after line 30:

(g)renumber the subsections of section 73 and amend all references accordingly.

13.Clause 20, pages 17 and 18:

(a)on page 17, replace line 21 with the following:

(b)on page 17, replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:

“specified on the List, if

(c)on page 18, replace lines 1 to 4 with the following:

14.Clause 21, page 20: add the following after line 34:

15.Clause 22, page 21:

(a)replace line 26 with the following:

“amended and the reasons for the amendment in the Environmental Registry and in any other”;

(b)add the following after line 27:

16.Clause 29, page 24: replace line 37 with the following:

“respecting preventive or control actions, including actions that lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives for the environment or human health, in relation to a”.

17.Clause 39, page 31:

(a)replace lines 2 to 17 with the following:

“106, add a living organism to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

“tion 105(1), 105.1(1) or 112(1) is not being manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada the Minister may delete the living”.

18.New clause 39.01, page 31: add the following after line 34:

19. Clause 39.1, pages 31 and 32: replace line 35 on page 31 to line 15 on page 32 with the following:

20.Clause 44.1, page 35: replace lines 21 to 25 with the following:

21.Clause 50, page 39: replace lines 14 to 16 with the following:

22.Clause 53, pages 40 and 41:

(a)on page 40, replace line 1 with the following:

(b)on page 40, replace line 14 with the following:

(c)on page 40, replace line 27 with the following:

(d)on page 41, add the following after line 29:

23.Clause 55, pages 41 and 42:

(a)on page 41, replace line 32 with the following:

(b)on page 42, delete lines 15 to 35.

24.Clause 57, pages 43 and 44: replace line 14 on page 43 to line 4 on page 44 with the following:

25.Clause 67.1, page 51: delete clause 67.1.

26.Schedule 1, page 53: delete the reference to “section 68.1” in the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1”.

The Hon. the Speaker: The question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oh — may I dispense?

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion proposing that the Senate accept the other place’s message on Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

Before detailing the rationale behind the message, I would like to take a moment to thank our colleagues in the other place for their thorough study and consideration of the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Canadians, including representatives of Indigenous organizations, civil society, academia and industry associations, who participated as witnesses, submitted written briefs and followed the discussions — which at times were very complex — through the course of this parliamentary process. Your contributions have helped to strengthen and improve Bill S-5, and it supported us in our work as parliamentarians. Bill S-5 is better because of those contributions.

The launch of this debate brings us closer to enacting Bill S-5 into law. As you know, Bill S-5 was introduced in the Senate on February 9, 2022. Along with receiving 75 written briefs in its 20-plus-hour study, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources adopted 39 amendments aimed at improving and strengthening the legislation. This chamber then adopted it at third reading on June 22 of last year.

Since then, the bill has been further strengthened as a result of further debate, study and additional amendments in the other place. The other place received 30 written briefs and held 15 meetings, accepted 22 of the Senate’s amendments, while the remaining 17 amendments have been either clarified, further amended or reversed.

Colleagues, this is further confirmation of the respect for the work that this chamber has conducted in applying sober second thought to important legislative initiatives. As we consider Bill S-5 at this message stage, I will provide a brief overview of how it has changed since it was last debated in this chamber nearly one year ago.

[Translation]

Let’s begin with the right to a healthy environment. Last year, the Senate made several improvements to these provisions, many of which were accepted in the other place. For example, with Senator Galvez’s amendment, the Senate replaced the proposed approach, which would have “balanced” the right with other factors, with the more familiar approach of making the right “subject to reasonable limits” and requiring the implementation framework to specify those reasonable limits.

Similarly, by accepting another one of Senator Galvez’s amendments, the committee added the principle of intergenerational equity to the list of principles to be considered in the administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and ensured that the implementation framework would elaborate on mechanisms to protect this right.

I’m pleased to say that these additions have been included in the bill and that our colleagues in the other place made additional changes that strengthen this aspect of Bill S-5.

For instance, they defined the concept of a healthy environment as one that is clean, healthy and sustainable. The implementation framework will clarify what this means for this specific right, so that it is considered a priority in any decision making under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[English]

I will now turn to another important aspect of Bill S-5: the amendments made with respect to the vital work of advancing Indigenous reconciliation. As originally introduced, Bill S-5 confirmed the government’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On this point, I would like to recognize the interventions and motions by Senator McCallum to ensure the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples were appropriately recognized in this bill.

In this regard, the Senate committee accepted Senator McCallum’s amendments to add references in the preamble to “. . . free, prior and informed consent . . .” and the importance of “. . . Indigenous knowledge in the process of making decisions related to the protection of the environment and human health . . . .” These amendments were accepted by the other place and remain in the version of Bill S-5 that we are considering today.

Our committee, following an amendment proposed by Senator Arnot, also added a new obligation on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to table a report in Parliament every five years regarding the operation of CEPA — the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — in respect of the Indigenous peoples of Canada. Our colleagues in the other place adjusted this amendment to require a report every year, rather than every five years, and clarified the scope of the findings and recommendations that should be included in that report. In my view, this strengthens the work that was originally proposed in the Senate by requiring more frequent reporting and in clarifying its content.

Another key issue addressed in this bill is reducing reliance on animal testing, which is a priority for the government. However, as introduced, Bill S-5 then only included a high-level pledge to this effect. Believing that the government can do more, the Senate added substantive requirements throughout the bill to accelerate efforts to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animal testing. In particular, I wish to recognize the efforts of Senator Galvez and others to make sure emerging issues, like this one, are given priority and for reinforcing the need to move faster to eliminate animal testing. I am pleased to say many of these changes were accepted by the other place.

Moving now to the provisions respecting chemicals management, a major theme in Bill S-5 is the protection of vulnerable populations — that is, populations that may be more susceptible or more exposed to harmful chemicals. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard significant testimony in support of these amendments, but some also suggested that the related concept of a vulnerable environment should be recognized. I am pleased to see that the other place has maintained Senate amendments — ones put forward by Senator McCallum — which added this related concept to the bill.

This leads me to the specific issue of tailings ponds. Last year, the Senate committee adopted Senator McCallum’s proposal to add explicit references to tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing to the non-exhaustive list of information that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can compel. The Senate, as a whole, adopted this amendment at third reading. These amendments were initially undone by the committee in the other place on the basis that they were redundant, and such information could already be and, in fact, is already collected by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, recent events in Alberta underscored the importance of understanding the risks to the environment and human health from tailings ponds, and these important Senate amendments were restored during report stage in the other place.

While some may have misgivings about the decision made in the other place to reverse their own committee’s decision, the effect is that the other place has accepted an amendment that we in this chamber had already adopted.

[Translation]

The other place also agreed to the Senate amendments proposed by Senator Kutcher and Senator Galvez, which sought to clarify the processes and approaches to support the shift to safer chemicals.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, in addition to the 22 Senate amendments that were retained, some Senate amendments were also revised or changed in the other place.

For example, our colleagues in the other place felt that the Senate amendments to the provisions regarding pollution prevention plans duplicated powers that already existed under the act, which might cause confusion during the implementation of the plans. Those amendments might also cause technical problems.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that point by replacing those amendments with an approach that strengthens the provisions by making it possible for pollution prevention plans to prioritize the identification, development or use of safer or more sustainable alternatives to the substance or product in question.

The Hon. the Speaker: I believe that Senator Carignan makes a good point. It would be a good idea to slow down a bit.

The Hon. the Speaker: I believe that Senator Carignan makes a good point. It would be a good idea to slow down a bit.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Gold.

Honourable senators, it is now 6 p.m. and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair until 8 p.m., unless there is agreement that we not see the clock.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Gold.

Honourable senators, it is now 6 p.m. and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I’m required to leave the chair until 8 p.m., unless there is agreement that we not see the clock.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

Senator Plett: No.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with regard to this message, this is a message that in my humble opinion is a respectful message from the House, one that values and validates the important and good work that we did in this chamber to improve the bill.

In my remarks earlier this evening, I spoke to some of the amendments that were accepted that strengthened the commitment in the bill — for the first time in an environmental bill — to the right to a healthy environment. I spoke about how the amendments that we introduced that were accepted by the House advance further our important progress to advance reconciliation, how our Senate amendments strengthen the provisions of the bill to reduce our reliance upon animal testing and, of course, how the bill also very importantly modernizes the regime for managing both the risk assessment and the risk management of toxic chemicals, which has been at the heart of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, since its inception.

That now brings me to my closing remarks.

Colleagues, Bill S-5 has been strengthened by the rigorous study by both chambers and by the participation of Canadians in this legislative process. These proposed amendments to CEPA will provide Canadians with an environmental protection law that confronts 21st-century issues with 21st-century science and, I should add, 21st-century commitments to transparency, oversight and review.

The timing of two very important components of Bill S-5, the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment and the plan of chemicals management priorities, is dependent on the date of Royal Assent and must be completed within two years of that date.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage you all to agree to the message on Bill S-5 so that we can begin the important work of implementing it. 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. Hassan Yussuff: I woke up this morning, and I couldn’t remember where I left off yesterday. Then on my way over here, I did remember.

I’m sure my friend Senator Plett can’t wait for me to finish my speech.

Let me be clear, there is no obligation for victims to use this law. This was in the section read, in the yellow flag provisions in the legislation. They will be there to offer additional protection.

I would like to share a few more important statistics today. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicide and suicide. Handguns are the most commonly used firearm in homicide. Suicide by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearms deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. During this period, some 11,000 individuals took their lives.

Since 2010, we’ve seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada. Reducing the number of handguns and assault-style firearms in our community will result in reducing the number of victims of gun violence.

I hope we can get an agreement on one other important measure of this bill that I would like to talk about now, and that is what it will do to curb firearm smuggling and trafficking.

The smuggling of firearms into Canada remains an important threat to the safety of Canadians and directly impacts the firearms-related violence that has been felt in communities across the country. In 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, seized more than 1,100 firearms, more than double the number from 2020, including the seizure of 66 prohibited firearms at the Blue Water Bridge port of entry in Sarnia, Ontario, one of the largest single firearms seizures in the southern Ontario region in recent history.

More recently, the CBSA worked with partners to seize some 46 prohibited or restricted firearms at a highway stop in Cornwall, Ontario.

Bill C-21 will address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing the maximum criminal penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking from 10 years to 14 years, as well as by providing more tools to law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthen border security measures.

Increasing the maximum penalty for smuggling and trafficking offences will be a message to criminals and, just as importantly, to courts that Parliament unequivocally denounces these crimes.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, supported these measures when they appeared during the study of the bill at committee in the other place. They said:

With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

That brings me back to the recently introduced amendments to Bill C-21. They were adopted at committee stage in the other place, including a new prospective definition for characteristics of assault-type firearms and recognizing and respecting Aboriginal treaty rights of Indigenous people. These have been informed by discussions with stakeholders across the country. They include hunters and trappers, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, rural and northern residents, target shooters and others.

Honourable colleagues, it doesn’t matter where you go in this country, in every corner from coast to coast, you will find skilled, experienced hunters who are happy to chat with you for hours about how it is more than just a hobby for them, how it has been passed down through generations and how it forms a key part of their culture and way of life.

That’s why these latest amendments, I think, provide clarity and protections around responsible gun ownership.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder if the senator would take a couple of questions.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for sponsoring this bill.

I want to ask you about the last round of amendments that the government brought in. There were certainly advocates for stronger gun laws who felt that the government had watered down the legislation more than they expected and more than they were pleased to see. What is your response to those who feel that the bill, as it stands, is not strong enough?