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?

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, specifically on an important topic that this bill may impact on but that has not been really addressed to date; that is, what the impact of this bill will be on suicide rates in Canada. My hope is that, by raising this issue, when the bill is referred to committee, the committee will seek input from expert witnesses on suicide prevention and gun control legislation.

Colleagues, before proceeding I would like to acknowledge that the material and the subject of my intervention can be very difficult for some people. It deals with life and death issues. It will touch on mental illness and self-harm. I would encourage any of our colleagues and anyone who is listening or watching this debate to know that if you are having difficulties or thoughts of self-harm, please seek help. Asking for help is a sign of strength, and there are many avenues for help and support.

The importance of suicide prevention is well known in this chamber. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will soon be tabling its report on the study of the effectiveness of the national Suicide Prevention Framework in decreasing rates of suicide in Canada. Numerous senators have spoken to the importance of suicide prevention during our debate on the motion for said study, as well as debates on recent legislation in which the topic of suicide prevention was raised.

I think we can safely say that our debates were very much in support of effective measures to reduce suicide rates in Canada. The most effective public health measure for suicide prevention is means restriction, such as better controls around gun availability.

Suicide disproportionately impacts men. About 75% of those who die by suicide in Canada are men, and suicide is three times as common in men compared to women. The statistics related to suicide and guns are disheartening. Many studies have noted that firearms play a significant role in completed suicides, especially in men.

The accessibility of lethal means such as guns during times of despair can swiftly transform impulsive thought into irreversible action.

In Canada, in the five years between 2016 and 2020, 2,777 men died from firearm suicide. Over that same period, 82 women died by similar means. That is a ratio of about 33 to 1 — 10 times greater than the overall male-to-female suicide ratio.

For additional context, when all fatal firearm injuries for that period are considered, about 70% were suicides — not homicides, colleagues, suicides. Of gun-related deaths in Canada, 70% are suicides.

A recent study in Ontario found that over two thirds of firearm-related deaths were suicides, mostly men and mostly in rural areas. On average, during that period in Canada, about 550 men died by gun-related suicide per year. Compare that to a rate of less than 50 deaths per year from testicular cancer. And merely owning a handgun is associated with much higher rates of suicide.

A recent study of about 26 million people followed for a period of 12 years noted:

Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn’t to kill themselves with a gun.

As policy-makers who are truly concerned about suicide prevention, we bear the responsibility of recognizing this relationship between firearm ownership and suicide and the need to take decisive action to address it. By acknowledging the connection between firearm ownership and suicide risk, we have the power to save lives and create a safer environment for all.

Today, I would like to empathize the need for your support of a bill that limits access to firearms. By so doing, we may be able to reduce impulsive acts of self-harm that have a high probability of resulting in death. Robust research consistently demonstrates that when individuals in crisis face restricted access to lethal means, the likelihood of suicide diminishes. One of the best public health strategies for suicide prevention in males is limiting access to guns.

It is important to acknowledge that many different concerns regarding this bill — other than suicide prevention — have been raised. We have seen some of the discussion between Senator Plett and Senator Yussuff addressing those important issues.

We must address those concerns and seek common ground. Balancing responsible firearms access and suicide prevention related to firearms can be an attainable goal — one that respects the rights of gun owners while prioritizing public safety and the preservation of lives.

Effective implementation requires collaboration, open dialogue and a willingness to find innovative solutions. We must draw upon the expertise of various stakeholders, including gun owners, mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies and advocacy organizations. Enacting well-informed firearms legislation that recognizes these complexities should be our goal.

We have an opportunity through our study of Bill C-21 to better understand how legislative interventions can be implemented to achieve the goal of means restricted suicide prevention as it applies to firearms in Canada.

Some studies of the impact of Bill C-51, Canada’s Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, have suggested that legislation may have had an impact in decreasing gun-related suicide. Other studies of the impact of that legislation and other bills — Bill C-17 in 1991 and Bill C-68 in 1995 — suggested more nuanced outcomes.

Realizing that not all legislation related to firearms restrictions is the same, I hope that the committee studying Bill C-21 considers how to encourage the government to conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of this bill on firearm suicide rates in males in Canada. We need to know that information. The committee could make a point of calling witnesses who can help us understand that and how that works in Canada.

Colleagues, as we critically study this legislation, we need to address the multitude of issues that it touches upon. Like you, I have been made aware of numerous concerns — reasonable and good concerns — about Bill C-21 raised by many Canadians. Although I have waded through countless emails and letters, I have not seen anyone raise this issue — that is, the relationship between male suicide rates and gun ownership in the Canadian context.

Thank you for allowing me to raise it here. I hope the committee will consider calling witnesses who can speak to this issue in more depth, and that we all keep this important association in mind as we ponder how we move this legislation forward. Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate, and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my team.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, introduced by my friend and colleague the Honourable Mobina Jaffer.

I want to begin by stating that I will be supporting this bill. As a country, we must judge ourselves by how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

As Senator Jaffer mentioned in her speech, in 2017, I had the opportunity to introduce an amendment to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, to ensure equitable access to citizenship for individuals under the age of 18. Today, I remain proud to have played a small role in advancing the rights of non‑citizen children, including those in care.

That being said, I knew then — and I know now — how much more work is needed. I commend Senator Jaffer for introducing this legislation, and I commit to working with her to secure its passage.

This bill aims to amend both the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to support some of most vulnerable members in our society — non-citizens involved in the child welfare system.

In essence, this bill ensures that young people can obtain citizenship while in care. Failure to obtain this status before transitioning into adulthood can significantly impact the outcomes of this population, including limiting their access to federally or provincially funded health services, post-secondary educational opportunities and employment prospects. It can also jeopardize their ability to stay in Canada.

If passed, this bill would help fill some of the current gaps found at the intersection of the child welfare system, which is a provincial responsibility, and the citizenship and immigration system, which is a federal responsibility. It is time for both sides to work together for the benefit of non-citizen children.

There are multiple reasons why children in care might not have citizenship. Some might have arrived in the country with parents or relatives, while others did so on their own as unaccompanied minors. They might have lived here for years, or they might have only just arrived. Some might be permanent residents but lack documentation or be parents who are facing deportation due to the rejection of a refugee claim. Others might be in the process of applying for compassionate consideration or be victims of human trafficking.

In all circumstances, these young people have come into the care of the state because they are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. Once a child is placed in the care of the state, it is our responsibility to support their long-term safety and well-being. No one should be left in limbo without the full rights and protection that citizenship entails.

As it stands, non-citizen children and youth are protected while in the care of the child welfare system, but what happens once they transition into adulthood and become involved with the criminal justice system?

Youth who leave care without citizenship and receive a criminal conviction in an adult court risk being deported. As many such youth have lived in Canada for most of their lives, they have no family, friends or connections in their country of origin. They might, in fact, no longer be familiar with their birth language or culture. Could you imagine being forced to leave everything you know and everyone you love, and having to adapt and live in a country that is no longer yours?

Let us not forget that some of these individuals will have fled political unrest, civil war or political oppression. As a result of these or other traumatic experiences, this population might grapple with mental health issues and traumas.

Why is Canada leaving these vulnerable young people at risk of deportation and other adverse outcomes in adulthood? This population is in dire need of long-term protection and support. Many of these young people have been raised in Canada and feel a strong sense of belonging and attachment. They cannot imagine living anywhere else.

Over the years, many stories have been shared with me of young people stunned to find out that they were not legal citizens. I have also met many who, as a result of the previous amendment, have been able to become citizens. How many more lives could we change with this bill?

Senators, citizenship is more than just about being able to vote, accessing consular services or having legal rights. It is about belonging, and feeling secure and protected in the land that you consider home. I believe that these young people are every bit as Canadian as you and me.

I believe this bill will provide a pathway to citizenship for these vulnerable young people as they transition out of care and grant them the same rights and opportunities that their peers in the general population enjoy. I believe we have a legal and moral obligation to support these children and youth who are living among us and who are in need of our care. That is why I support this bill.

Colleagues, now you know why I’m a friendly critic. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024;

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 31, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos, and I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, it be re-adjourned in Senator Housakos’s name for the balance of his time.

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

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.)

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: So ordered. On debate, Senator Omidvar.

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