Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Why do we need the Commissioner of Official Languages to come up with a three-year plan? Is this government incapable of governing and making its own plans to address a disastrous report on official languages?

Senator Gold: Again, the short answer to your question is that the government is of the view, notwithstanding the motion, which is not binding on the government, that the best way forward remains that which is outlined in the Special Rapporteur’s report and the steps that are going to be taken.

With respect to your question — because there were a number of preambular statements — surely, Senator Housakos, you are not suggesting that the cultural institutions such as the one referred to yesterday by our colleague Senator Woo were in every corner illegal police stations simply because there are allegations that some activities within that large organization that has served the community for 50 years have been alleged to have been illegal, and that is what has been investigated.

It may very well be the case — though I have no information to this effect, because this is not information that the RCMP shares with the government during an ongoing investigation — that certain activities were indeed shut down and may have popped up again. We will not know until the investigations are done. Again, I think it is irresponsible, with all due respect, to categorize these as untruths or “mistruths” — whatever the term was, as Hansard will reveal — or lies, as your leader has just shared with the chamber. I think it is more accurate and responsible to await the results of the independent RCMP investigations into this very serious matter.

Senator Plett: No, it was not.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you for the question, Senator Dean. It’s hard to reflect on what happened in Hamilton, Ontario. I think as parents and families, we are all shocked. These were two young people, it seems, in their prime and trying to build their lives. Whatever happened, we’ll find out later in the courts. It is true, according to what has been reported so far, that the person who committed this terrible act had guns that he legally acquired and was licenced to carry. Again, in the context of gun violence, even good people do bad things.

The red-flag and yellow-flag provisions of this bill will hopefully aid in preventing some of those situations in the future. Should somebody suspect something of happening, they could bring it to the authorities and they could intervene either to confiscate the gun or take away the licence and put restrictions on that individual. That did not happen here, so we don’t have foresight into the future. We know in other places like the United States, where there are red- and yellow-flag laws, it would make a significant difference in preventing these types of situations from repeating themselves.

I’m hoping that if this bill does pass, it will aid people in the future with knowledge that there were issues in that home or with that landlord, and they could have brought it to the attention of the authorities to ensure something tragic wouldn’t happen. Now, nobody did that, but I think the government is committed so that, if the bill does pass, those provisions will get pronouncement so the public will better know how to use them in a more effective way.

In regard to sport shooters, it’s critical for us to recognize the important role they play in the Olympics and Paralympics in our country. For those who desire to continue to participate in that sport, I don’t think this bill will impact them in any way, shape or form. There are some requirements they must meet if they are legitimately involved in the sport and continue to practise and train going forward. The bill clearly recognizes that. It was improved in the other place as a result of the debate that took place and those who went before the committee.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Cardozo, for your question. Hindsight is 20/20. Again, in the context of the government initiating this bill and trying to get support in the other place from the opposition, they ended up getting support from three parties. Some amendments had the support of all parties in the other place, recognizing that, in order to get a piece of legislation over here, there were compromises made in regard to what the legislation currently reflects.

From a personal view, reading the bill and watching the issue being debated, I think they reached a balance in trying to bring forth a piece of legislation that Canadians have been demanding the government to act upon for quite some time. I think it reflects that. I’m sure when the committee hearings start, we will hear from those who think the bill has gone too far and from those who think it hasn’t gone far enough. We will get to evaluate that for ourselves as senators and make a judgment.

From my perspective as the sponsor of the bill, I believe the bill has struck a balance, and I am hoping that colleagues will see that, not only in the context of the debate here, but also what the witnesses will say when they come before committee.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m not sure what Senator Dalphond said, but I’m assuming that it’s okay to ask him a question.

Senator Dalphond, yesterday, when we voted on the report stage of the bill, both you as the sponsor of the bill and, indeed, the government really opposed the motion. You may have said, “on division,” but “on division” means you don’t agree. Can we expect that you will be voting against the bill or on division a little bit later on?

You maybe didn’t get everything you wanted, but you got a bill that you wanted. I find it strange that the sponsor and, indeed, the government would vote on division on their own bill. Would you care to explain your rationale for that?

Senator Dalphond: I will certainly, as I said, call for the vote tonight, I will remain silent and the bill will be adopted on division.

Senator Yussuff: Well, I don’t want to comment on what a front-line officer is saying from his perspective. I don’t know the context upon which he is reflecting on what he has said. I respect his opinion in that regard.

I think you and I would agree there are many illegal handguns coming into our country at many of our borders. It has been identified, and the government has allocated significant resources to help our front-line officers deal with that.

Regarding handguns in general and what the government wants to do, municipalities in general and urban areas have been calling for the government to take action on reducing the number of guns in their communities. I think this bill reflects that consensus to a large extent in large urban areas across the country. They want to see a reduction of guns in their communities. They recognize, yes, there are illegal guns, but sometimes legal guns end up causing harm, such as in domestic violence or causing harm to individuals in the context of those who are struggling with mental issues using their own handguns or other guns to inflict harm upon themselves.

There are some challenges that we have to recognize and deal with in the broader context of guns. In no way will sport shooters be impacted by this bill. It lays out provisions regarding how sport shooters can continue to do their craft. There is recognition of how they will be able to continue accessing their guns and using them to pursue their sport, of which provisions were enhanced in the other place before the bill came to the Senate.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I want to make one comment about sport shooters. Of course, I will be making my own speech on this in the next little while, if the government leader doesn’t decide to put closure on it before we get to it next week.

I do want to make a comment about sport shooters. In fact, allowing sport shooters to continue, as this bill — you’re right — does, is a little bit like saying you can play hockey, but we will start hockey at the NHL. Nobody below NHL level can play hockey. That’s what this does. We can still have the Olympic shooters, but we can’t have the amateurs training to come up. Now, you’re right, the bill addresses the fact that we want to deal with this, but it’s not dealing with it. This is, again, the government saying, “Trust us. We will deal with this.” But it’s not in the bill, Senator Yussuff.

Right now, the way the bill reads, you can go to the Olympics and be a sports shooter but you cannot practise going up to the Olympics. So how many people will we have in the Olympics if we cannot train them?

I have one final question, and I thank you for your indulgence, Senator Yussuff. But you do state — and you said it again:

. . . fundamentally, for me, this bill is about striking a fair balance between the right of Canadians to safe communities and the privilege of Canadians to own certain types or models of guns for hunting and sport shooting. Finding that balance is no easy task.

I do agree with you. Finding that balance is no easy task. But based on the criticism that this bill has received from all sides, I would say that the government has actually destroyed a balance that previously existed, Senator Yussuff.

The bill is opposed by most provinces. It is opposed by hunters and sports shooters, even though you say sports shooters will be able to continue. It has been opposed by police witnesses who have appeared on this bill and have said that it will do nothing to stop the illegal guns on the streets. The criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association has said that the red flag provisions in the bill simply duplicate powers that already exist to seize firearms from persons who may be a danger to themselves or others.

So, Senator Yussuff, what do you or what does the government actually believe it has accomplished in the face of all of this opposition?

Senator Yussuff: With pleasure, my friend.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m sure that Mr. Gerretsen will, again, tweet tomorrow that I am stalling this bill because I had the audacity to ask questions about this — as he said, before you introduced the bill, that I was already stalling it. I’m not sure what he will say now.

Senator Yussuff, you cited — a number of times — how many deaths there were from firearms, and so on and so forth. At no point did you tell us how many of these deaths were due to legal firearms — just with firearms. I don’t think there is a person in this chamber who disagrees with us clamping down on illegal firearms; I certainly don’t disagree. It’s not the legal firearms that are the problem — it’s the illegal firearms.

You talk about increasing the sentences from 10 to 14 years for smuggling. I want you to square this box for me, Senator Yussuff: You’re talking about how the Liberal government wants to increase penalties, and yet the Liberal government repealed — with Bill C-5 — minimum firearm sentences for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence and discharging a firearm recklessly.

If this is a government that is bent on stopping crimes with firearms, why would they repeal all of these minimum sentences? Why wouldn’t they, rather, try to increase those as opposed to repealing them — and stop going after legal firearm owners, and start going after illegal firearm owners?

Senator Yussuff: Furthermore, they reflect the important cultural perspective of Indigenous people across the country. The bill respects and recognizes the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for Indigenous communities. The government also recognizes the importance of consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

While the government has acted through a prospective technical definition to prevent assault-style firearms from entering into our communities, this bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of Indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution.

The government also continues to signal its commitment to continue working with Indigenous communities by engaging in an open dialogue regarding any unintended impact that the bill may have on Indigenous people. There will be further opportunities for engagement in the Indigenous communities across Canada if — and when — the bill passes in the Senate and the House.

The government has pledged it will continue to seek out the views and perspectives of various Indigenous groups, and they will, of course, be consulted during the regulatory process, as well as during the implementation phase of specific measures in the bill.

In conclusion, colleagues, the goal of this bill is to keep communities safe; none of us will disagree with that. As we know, no single program or initiative alone can end gun violence.

I know that gun control by itself will not solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, but it is an important piece of the puzzle that will make a significant difference. This is why I think that Bill C-21 is just one of the many government initiatives aimed at keeping our communities safe across this country. It seeks to cap the number of handguns in circulation by creating a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. It creates a new definition for assault-style firearms that only applies to newly designed and manufactured weapons after the bill becomes law.

It creates yellow flag laws and red flag laws to reduce firearm‑related family violence and self-harm. It raises the maximum sentence for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border from 10 years to 14 years, and it takes action against ghost guns that are becoming a serious problem in our country.

The bill doesn’t take one gun away from any legal gun owner in this country, whether they’re a handgun owner, a hunter or a sports shooter. I want to be perfectly clear that if you own a legal handgun, you can still keep it after this bill becomes law. If you own a legal long gun, this bill does not impact your firearm.

Colleagues, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I view this bill in terms of weighing the privileges against the rights in order to try to find a fair balance. Then, I weigh the restrictions to the privilege of owning a certain type of firearm against the rights of Canadians to a safe country free of gun violence. I feel confident that the bill gets the balance right.

Colleagues, I hope that after you give careful consideration to this bill, you will agree that it is both fair and balanced, and that you will support sending this bill to committee. Thank you.

Senator Plett: Well, I find it very strange that a sponsor would want to vote or that the government, on their own bill, passes it on division. I won’t put a question into that, but simply that I find it extremely strange that the government would oppose their own bill.

Senator Dalphond: It’s not a question. It’s a comment. I won’t reply to it, but will add another comment.

This is not a typical government bill. This is a bill that has been proposed by the judiciary to set forward a new process. This has been after due consultations for more than four years with stakeholders, with judges and with chief justices everywhere. Then the Department of Justice was approached to draft a bill that would reflect the consensus.

As I explained in my speech — and I think you missed that part perhaps because you were engaged in another conversation — the origin of that bill, how it came to us and what our role was in front of such a special bill.

Senator Plett: That was on debate, Your Honour.

Senator Batters: Did he say “no”?

Senator Dalphond: No.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today during this historic year for Canada and Korea as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of diplomatic relations.

Canada and Korea have a long-standing history of strong diplomatic ties and trading partnership. The strength of the trading partnership was built through the foundational efforts of companies like POSCO, formerly known as Pohang Iron and Steel Company, which is South Korea’s first steel-making company and the fifth largest in the world.

POSCO was founded on April 1, 1968. In the 1960s, self‑sufficiency in steel would become essential to economic development. The Government of the Republic of Korea made the decision to invest in the steel industry, and, under the leadership of Park Tae-joon, POSCO was established.

It was a small venture at first: Production began in 1972 with 39 employees. Today, as I said, it is the fifth-largest company in the world. POSCO operates two integrated steel mills in South Korea — one in Gwangyang, and its headquarters in Pohang. POSCO has also expanded to Canada, the United States and other countries around the world with a diverse range of innovative projects and investments in green technology and energy that go well beyond steel production.

I’m pleased to recognize in our chamber today the presence of Haneui Do, President of POSCO America; Chigyu Cha, President of POSCO Chemical Canada; and Kun Youp Kim, HR General Manager of POSCO America.

Canada, Korea and the United States continue to build upon their shared history and friendship — a history that was forged on the battlefields of the Korean War as the United States, Canada and other UN allied nations came to Korea’s aid. This year also marks the historic seventieth anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, and honours the service and sacrifice of all those who fought for freedom and democracy.

Honourable senators, please join me in commending POSCO for the leadership, expertise and contributions they made to South Korea’s economy and trade, as well as their partnerships in Canada, the United States and around the world. Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed reappointment of Heather Powell Lank to the position of Parliamentary Librarian.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Representatives of POSCO Chemical Canada and POSCO America. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Martin.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Chief Wilbert Marshall of the Potlotek First Nation of Nova Scotia. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Francis.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.