Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Patterson, and for giving me the opportunity to respond to the question in the chamber, as we did privately yesterday.

Indeed, the government has become aware of this issue and is very aware of this issue.

The first point I wish to make, colleagues, is that this drafting error has no immediate legal effect because the section that is involved does not come into effect until the second anniversary of the date of the act’s implementation following receiving Royal Assent. Keep that in mind as I provide the rest of my explanation.

The government is advised of this issue and is exploring other legislative pathways to correct this issue outside of Bill C-13, if required, such as a financial piece of legislation or a stand-alone bill. I repeat: This issue has no effect following Royal Assent of the bill. The government is exploring other ways to address it outside of Bill C-13, given the importance of passing the bill in a timely fashion.

Colleagues, this is not the first time this issue has arisen. As colleagues know or should know — those who have been in this chamber for more than a brief period — we had a similar issue arise with Bill C-12, which amended the Old Age Security Act. An issue arose at a late stage of the process. The government committed to rectifying this technical matter separately so that the bill could move forward in a timely fashion and receive Royal Assent. We delivered on that promise some weeks later through a separate legislative vehicle.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I can assure this chamber that, as it has done before, the Government of Canada will deliver on this commitment.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you, Senator Gold. I was glad you didn’t say that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act would be the fix. I don’t think that would be appropriate, nor would, frankly, burying it in a compendious omnibus budget bill that is incapable of amendment be the appropriate fix.

I wonder if you would agree, Senator Gold, that the most appropriate fix for this error might be direct and focused legislative action.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The attempts to use the combined force of the opposition parties in the Senate to make sensitive intelligence material public is irresponsible, and in that regard, the position of the Government of Canada has always been to work with the opposition parties in the hope that they would agree to a responsible process for the review of such documents such that parliamentarians can do their work without endangering not only the national security of Canada but the safety and security of those intelligence officers in the field that work on our behalf.

The Hon. the Speaker: Let the senator answer the question, please.

[English]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, almost a year ago, on June 22, 2022, I rose on debate in this chamber and spoke about Bill S-5 and changes that I strongly felt were necessary to not only make it a stronger bill but to ensure that it responded to the serious and legitimate concerns that stakeholders had raised to me and later in committee.

I presented amendments in committee that had been accepted by the committee, but, to my great frustration, were then defeated by the same committee when we had to unexpectedly redo an entire week’s worth of clause by clause because the previous virtual participation of a senator and member of our committee had been deemed out of order due to their being out of the country at the time.

It was aggravating enough to have had amendments passed in committee and then have to vote again days later and have those same amendments defeated after the government had more time to formulate rebuttals. But what added insult to injury is to receive the message back, which we’re debating today, and see that other amendments of mine were deleted on the other side and know that this bill isn’t as strong as it could be.

My amendments on genetically modified organisms in clause 39.1 of the bill were aimed at responding to very thoughtful and alarming concerns by Nature Canada and other witnesses who appeared before the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. They added transparency and opportunities for public input when the minister is considering allowing new genetically modified organisms to be bred and sold in Canada.

It was disappointing to see those amendments removed during committee in the other place and to be replaced, as we see in this message, with watered-down versions that do not provide a robust regulatory process that supports true consultation. I would add that my recommendations were supported by the Assembly of First Nations and the Atlantic Salmon Federation.

In this disappointing message, we see that notices are the only thing required and that the minister shall, “consult any interested persons before the expiry of the period for assessing that information.” That qualification of “interested persons” as opposed to my original wording of ensuring the public could participate meaningfully puts the onus on the public to stay abreast of regulatory developments as opposed to putting the onus on the government to make sure that they are doing more than just posting a notice on some government website most people won’t see or be able to find.

I am reminded again of Ms. Karen Wristen of the Living Oceans Society who told our committee that she had been taken by surprise that a new species of genetically modified Atlantic salmon had been introduced into Canadian waters in Prince Edward Island. As a lawyer working actively in the environmental non-government organization space, she was disconcerted — as was I — as she told the committee that she didn’t know about such a significant event. It makes me wonder how other potentially interested parties will be kept abreast of opportunities to participate and provide input to the minister.

In considering my response to the message, I made sure to follow up with Mr. Hugh Benevides and Mr. Mark Butler of Nature Canada to get their thoughts on the proceedings in the other place, as I believe our role as senators includes ensuring voices that are otherwise marginalized are heard during the legislative process. I understand from them that there were compromises offered to try and find a middle ground between the amendments we passed in our committee process and the amendments passed in the other place. It was their hope that all parties would appreciate the compromise, pass them as recommended and then have senators be satisfied once we received the message since these suggested amendments would have ensured an opportunity for at least some degree of public participation in the all-important work of risk assessments.

Instead, the offer of a compromise was rejected in the other place. There is now no guarantee that the CEPA — the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — ministers will determine that any persons are interested and therefore ought to be consulted. It’s entirely at the discretion of the minister, in a department that doesn’t seem to consider this issue of genetically modified organisms being introduced into Canada is at all important. There is neither a requirement as to the type or quality of the consultation or that any information will be brought to the consultation, nor do the amendments made in the other place allow the regulations to provide for the consideration of Indigenous knowledge or scientific information provided by other than the proponent — obviously very self-interested — or the government.

The compromise amendments to proposed section 108.1, on the other hand, would not depend on any determination by the ministers who might be interested. The opportunity to “. . . bring forward any relevant Indigenous knowledge and scientific information . . .” would not depend on such a determination as set out in subsection 108.1(1).

Instead, a proponent filing information indicating a wish to manufacture or import a new living organism under section 106 of the CEPA would trigger automatic publication of that fact in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act Registry, subsection 108.1(2), thus notifying Indigenous peoples and the public of the proposed new living organism. But no such thing happened in the case of the genetically engineered salmon, forcing members of the public to seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The proposed amendment to the regulation-enabling section 114 would simply allow the government, following its still-promised but yet-to-be-seen reform of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms), to include provisions in the regulations for how the regulator may receive “. . . any relevant Indigenous knowledge and scientific information . . .” so that it may be considered as part of the assessment.

Colleagues, as we’ve heard, this is the first time in decades that the CEPA is being substantively amended. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in the other place, after studying these issues carefully, recommended in 2017 that:

The Committee recommends that CEPA be amended to establish a more open, inclusive and transparent risk assessment process that better enables public participation in the evaluation of new living modified organisms.

Especially considering this clear recommendation from a thoughtful and thorough committee study in the other place, I felt it important that we take this opportunity in this chamber to address that recommendation rather than letting it join the many well-intentioned parliamentary reports that are sitting on a shelf somewhere gathering dust.

Honourable senators, I am speaking today because I’m incredibly disappointed in the convoluted journey this bill has taken throughout the legislative process. It is discomforting to me that we have lost the opportunity for full, meaningful public participation in a decision as important as the introduction of genetically modified organisms in Canada, including iconic species like Atlantic salmon. We have a real example here of the perils of this watered-down bill. That’s why I will be voting against this message. Thank you.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message on Bill S-5, Minister Guilbeault’s update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA. Bill S-5 will make changes to CEPA that are exciting and timely, with Canada following Quebec in recognizing citizens’ rights to a healthy environment. This message also accepts and even improves the Senate’s many amendments to minimize and, hopefully, eliminate the cruel practice of toxicity testing on animals. Thank you, Minister Guilbeault and Senator Gold, for this fantastic result that Canadians, the government, the Senate and the other place can jointly celebrate.

Colleagues, for context, CEPA is an important statute that has been used to ban plastic microbeads in toiletries, to prohibit asbestos and to prevent the use of dangerous chemicals in baby bottles. Last year, the government used CEPA to ban single-use plastics to address the plastic pollution that is filling our waterways and oceans and killing marine life like whales and sea turtles. This change is being fought in court by Dow, Imperial Oil, and other representatives of Big Plastic, along with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

However, let us focus on the positive with this Bill S-5 message, particularly the acceptance and enhancement of Senate amendments aiming to reduce and, hopefully, phase out animal toxicity testing.

As senators may recall, in Question Period on March 3 of last year, I asked Minister Guilbeault if the government was open to Senate amendments to strengthen Bill S-5 to support the government in fulfilling their election commitment to phase out chemical testing on animals by 2035. The minister’s answer was an enthusiastic yes, and shows that even ministerial Question Period can be helpful and useful.

Today, I also want to thank Senator Galvez, who has agreed to put forward some amendments that were drafted by my team with the support of associations involving animal rights. Thanks to the minister’s openness and Senator Galvez’s willingness to participate in the adventure, we have a bill which is now close to Rideau Hall that contains provisions about animal testing thanks to all of us and the efforts that were made.

This change is a big deal. As I said at second reading of Bill S-5, toxicity testing is the most harmful and painful use of animals in scientific research. Toxicity tests impacted approximately 90,000 animals in 2019 alone. Moreover, such tests fall into the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s Category E tests. What is a Category E test? This is the most severe category of harm that can be imposed on an animal. Category E tests cause death, severe pain and extreme distress and may include procedures such as inflicting burns or trauma on unsedated animals and forcing ingestion or topical application of deadly substances.

I was shocked to learn of the scale of this testing in Canada. I was also surprised to learn of the range of species involved in Category E testing. That includes guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and other small mammals, pigs, sheep, beavers, chickens, turkeys, hummingbirds and many species of marine and freshwater fish. With this message, we take a major step to a more compassionate and humane Canada, recognizing that these animals are our fellow creatures and sentient beings who deserve our respect.

With the openness of Minister Guilbeault and the assistance of Senator Galvez, we now have a promise fulfilled.

I would also like to thank and congratulate the organizations responsible for this milestone.

They are Animal Justice Canada, Humane Canada, the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, Humane Society International/Canada and the Canadian Society for Humane Science.

Camille Labchuk, a lawyer and the Executive Director of Animal Justice — a national animal law advocacy organization — has the following message for us, senators:

The amendments to Bill S-5 championed by senators improved upon the aspirational preamble originally included in the bill. Instead, we now have a bold and concrete path forward, aimed at getting animals out of painful toxicity tests for good. This will bring us more in line with other jurisdictions that are leading change for animals used in science, like the US and the EU.

Animal lovers across the country are grateful for the work of senators on this bill and many others. The Senate has been a true leader in driving change to Canada’s outdated animal protection laws, whether it be animals used in testing or cosmetics, whales and dolphins trapped in aquariums, sharks killed for their fins, or other wild animals in captivity.

In this tremendous achievement, I would like to single out for special recognition Kaitlyn Mitchell, a staff lawyer for Animal Justice. Her expertise was critical in developing our Senate amendments regarding animal toxicity testing. Wherever Ms. Mitchell is today, I say, “Thank you,” and please stand and take a bow. You have saved countless animals from meeting a horrific and painful end through your personal determination and legal skill.

I trust senators will join me in congratulating Ms. Mitchell and all of the organizations and individuals who played a role in this landmark accomplishment.

On a related and positive note, the government is taking action to end animal testing for cosmetics through measures in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. This fulfills the goal of former senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen’s bill on this subject in the Forty-second Parliament.

We are seeing progress for animal welfare on many fronts in Canada, with several major government election commitments on this subject also awaiting further fulfillment. This progress is something to celebrate in this time of crisis for the environment and our fellow creatures, whom the Honourable Murray Sinclair has taught us to consider as “all our relations” as we pursue reconciliation with nature.

Therefore, I trust colleagues will join me in concurring with this excellent and well-received message from the other place.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the House of Commons regarding Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

As all of you are well aware and, I am sure, appreciate, my speaking time today is unlimited, so in order to ensure senators are under no illusions about precisely what we will be voting on, I thought I would begin my remarks by reading the entire message that the Speaker read to us the other day, unless somebody suggests I dispense. I might be convinced to do that.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

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. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-21.

This legislation has been the subject of intense debate, both in Parliament and in the media. I want to share — on the record — my thoughts on the bill, and discuss some concerns that likely represent the views of many people who watched this debate unfold.

By speaking to this bill, I appreciate that I’m wading into one of the most controversial and divisive topics that we can discuss as legislators: firearm laws in Canada. I won’t spend much time debating the merits of owning firearms, nor will I spend a lot of time sharing my views about the various social and political factors often found at the heart of this debate.

My goal is simply to speak on the components of Bill C-21 that I think could use some work, and touch upon the shortcomings that I believe hindered the bill’s legislative process.

I will start by acknowledging what I believe Bill C-21 does right. I appreciate that the bill acknowledges many of the new realities in the fight against smuggled and illegal weapons. Firearms have changed a lot since they were first invented. The guns that were used by soldiers, hunters and farmers in the 1800s bear little resemblance to the firearms we use today.

Today’s firearms are far more powerful and are manufactured differently. In fact, firearms manufacturing has changed dramatically, with 3-D printers helping to lead the charge. We are all familiar with 3-D printers and the impressive output they can turn out. Unfortunately, the use of these printers in the manufacture of firearms, or components for firearms, and the subsequent rise of ghost guns has become a significant cause for concern, particularly in large urban centres. I’m pleased that Bill C-21 is taking steps to address this issue, and I was inspired to learn that all parties in the other place share this particular concern.

On a similar note, the introduction of red-flag and yellow-flag laws is a sensible approach that I believe will help remove firearms from situations where violence may occur. Not all senators will agree on this legislation, but one thing we all agree on is that we need to protect the public, particularly vulnerable populations, from the threat of violence.

I believe red- and yellow-flag laws are a positive step in the right direction. Senator Yussuff already spoke about red-flag and yellow-flag laws in his sponsor speech. I won’t dwell on the point other than to note that empowering the justice system to proactively take steps to protect victims from gun violence makes sense, and I think the introduction of these laws will help us move closer to the desired results. Of course, we must ensure that the rights of all citizens are respected and that these laws are used carefully and always aim to protect the public from the threat of violence by illegal gun owners, violence-prone individuals, and especially gangs and generally gun owners or prospective gun owners exhibiting traits of instability verging on doing harm to themselves or others.

Now I will speak to some of my concerns with the bill. I believe Bill C-21 is well intended, but its legislative process has been the subject of much controversy. Massive amendments were introduced and then they were withdrawn. Gun owners and Indigenous leaders expressed significant concerns. Sadly, the debate became poisoned in the public sphere, particularly in rural Canada. I’ll try to keep my remarks concise and free of rhetoric. Ultimately, I believe this bill is somewhat flawed and has the potential to cause challenges for law-abiding gun owners.

Targeting criminal behaviour should be our focus, and I’m particularly concerned about those who smuggle guns into Canada. No matter one’s opinion on this specific bill, we should all agree that illegal firearms coming across the border are a problem. I believe we need stronger gun laws on smuggling, with criminal sentences that can serve as a deterrent. We need to invest in stronger border patrols to stop the flow of illegal handguns. As we know, Bill C-21 proposes to increase the maximum penalty from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment for certain firearms-related offences, including smuggling and trafficking.

To my mind, that’s a good start, but I wonder if a four-year increase in the maximum sentence will be enough of a deterrent for those who are already smuggling guns into Canada. Is this increase in the maximum sentence — and I underscore that’s maximum, not minimum — enough of a deterrent to this behaviour and make a noticeable dent in the number of guns that smugglers bring into Canada? Frankly, I’m not convinced. Yet, as I understand it, the 14-year maximum sentence is the last stop before you get a life sentence. Perhaps it should be 14 years with no chance of parole without participating in a substantial rehabilitation program that results in a substantial turnaround and evaluation of being unlikely to reoffend.

Over the last couple of years, senators have debated the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-5, which was passed last year by Parliament, removed mandatory minimum penalties for many criminal offences, but it did not remove minimum penalties for all firearms-related offences, such as the mandatory minimum punishments for certain offences where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used. Since then, further debate has risen over the impact of removing mandatory minimum penalties and its subsequent effect on crime. Should we reimpose mandatory minimum penalties for all gun crimes? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m not convinced that extending the maximum sentence for gun trafficking by a few years will help solve the problems we’re facing without an effective rehabilitation program that is audited for its implementation, execution and success rate.

The government has acknowledged that no one program or public initiative will solve the problem of gun violence by itself. To me, that’s both an accurate and reasonable argument. We won’t solve gun violence simply by banning automatic weapons or handguns. Some may argue that bans are a critical component of solving the issue, but I believe that bans alone will not solve the problem. We must address the socio-economic factors that lead to gun violence the same way we must address the mental health issues that, if left unaddressed, are likely to lead a person to violence.

We must also crack down on gangs. Gangs have been at the epicentre of gun violence in Canada for decades. The level of violence has ebbed and flowed throughout the years, but we’ve never quite managed to eliminate gangs despite the very best efforts of law enforcement, governments and society at large. We need to “double down.” Gang violence needs to be tackled with determination; otherwise we will continue to have to deal with the same issues plaguing our communities.

I’m pleased that the Minister of Public Safety announced in May that the federal government will spend $390 million over five years to help provinces crack down on gang violence. That’s a good start, but we need to be consistent on this issue over a long period if we want to make true progress.

I also want to touch on how Bill C-21 impacts Indigenous peoples. As with any bill we consider in this chamber, the rights of Indigenous nations and individuals must be respected. That means consulting with Indigenous peoples and ensuring their rights are respected. This is a sacred obligation, and one that I take very seriously.

We saw the controversy that arose a few months ago when the federal government introduced amendments to the bill at committee stage in the other place, and Indigenous organizations spoke out. I appreciate that Bill C-21 includes a provision which clarifies that nothing in the legislation abrogates or derogates from the rights of Indigenous peoples, but I believe the government should have done a much better job of conducting advance consultations with Indigenous leaders. The Assembly of First Nations even voted to publicly oppose the bill when the government introduced controversial amendments, and the Assembly of First Nations also expressed their concern that long guns traditionally used by their people were being targeted. I’m satisfied that the government withdrew those controversial amendments, but effective advance consultation earlier in the process would likely have been beneficial for all involved — they may have even discovered some alternative solutions that could have led to breakthrough policies.

I do want to share that I was struck by Senator Kutcher’s speech and his comments on the connection between firearms and suicide. It’s no secret that firearms are often used as the instrument of choice when a person chooses to end their life. That’s a sad reality we must contend with. Senator Kutcher noted in his speech that a recent study found that both men and women who own handguns were more likely to die of self-inflicted gunshots. Is Bill C-21 the answer to reducing incidents of gun‑related suicide in Canada? I cannot definitively answer that question, but I echo Senator Kutcher’s call to study this issue.

There is another concern I’d like to address. To the best of my knowledge, the federal government does not have a dedicated, anonymous phone line or online tip system that the public can use to confidentially report illegal gun ownership or to report gun owners exhibiting concerning behaviour. Of course, there are services such as Crime Stoppers that can be used, but a dedicated system for gun crimes or potential gun crimes would be helpful in this era of mass shootings. We have dedicated anonymous tip lines for reporting drunk driving, so why can’t we do the same for gun crimes? For me, this deserves consideration, and I wish a similar system could have been considered in the formulation of Bill C-21.

Colleagues, Bill C-21 has been the subject of much debate, not just here in Parliament but in the media and in the homes of gun owners and non-gun owners alike. That’s healthy, and a hallmark of our democracy. Unfortunately, the narrative surrounding this bill, and others like it, has, at times, led to deviation from the norms of a grounded democracy.

No matter their opinion, people feel strongly about firearms, and I understand why. I hope that, by providing some measured concerns with this bill, senators will be able to appreciate the challenges and possible alternatives for consideration with this legislation, and I hope I have provided some food for thought in that regard.

Firearms will always be controversial. We should debate the merits of gun laws in a fair, open and honest manner, with respect for dialogue in our democracy, no matter our individual positions or beliefs on this issue. I look forward to more debate to come. Thank you. Hiy kitatamihin.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

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).

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

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

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

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.