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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would you take a question, Senator Deacon?

Senator C. Deacon: Yes, thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on the bell?

Hon. Denise Batters: It is very short. I’m a member of the Legal Committee, Senator Deacon, and despite the Trudeau government including this part dealing with the Elections Act in their budget implementation act, were you aware that neither the Chief Electoral Officer nor the Privacy Commissioner were consulted at all by the Trudeau government despite their including this in their budget implementation act? Were you aware of that?

An Hon. Senator: Now.

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

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, if Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is adopted at second reading:

1.it stand referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry;

2.the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and

3.the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to take into account, during its consideration of the bill, any public documents and public evidence received by the committee authorized to study the subject matter of the bill, as well as any report from that committee to the Senate on the subject matter of the bill.

Hon. Senators: Question.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, a former adviser to President Obama, David Plouffe, pulled back the curtain on how politicians sometimes play politics. He called it the “stray voltage” effect. He explained:

“People pay attention to and engage with controversy.” So . . . as a politician, you commit to a side . . . regardless of whether you’ve ever thought about it — then you support or oppose vehemently!

That is exactly what has become of gun control legislation, Bill C-21. Those who live a more rural life, love to hunt or sport shoot and those who live in urban centres where crime is high — two very different world views.

As Robert Freberg, Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan, says, the bill will essentially criminalize thousands of Canadians despite the fact that it is the legal firearms owners that support training, licensing and registration, despite all of the things they have done to stay in compliance and promote education programs and despite following the “see something, say something” principle. The legal gun owners are now the ones being targeted by legislation.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt you.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock, and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we resume unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock. Is it agreed to not see the clock?

The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, as I was saying, Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence — the illegal drug trade, drug addiction, illegal smuggling, gang violence. Again, I will quote the words of Saskatchewan’s Chief Firearms Officer, who says:

If you . . . look at the firearms they have seized and used in crime . . . they aren’t finding these assault style firearms. They aren’t being used. It’s a great optic, they look scary, but every firearm can look scary . . . it’s really the end use.

When we look at the American news . . . they have no regulations, they have no vetting, they have no education programs, they have no safe storage requirements, those firearms aren’t registered. It’s an entirely different paradigm.

The government often uses the U.S. events and their lack of rules to make a case for Canadian law, to shore up their own base, to look tough on crime for urban voters.

But these moves sometimes backfire. The plan to freeze handgun sales in fact triggered a buying frenzy. And many handguns have gone underground, family-owned handguns, because it’s so complicated to transfer to a son or a daughter. Of course, in the end, it will shutter hundreds of small businesses across this country that employ thousands of people selling legal guns to sane, non-criminal buyers.

This bill could also set a precedent for further bans and confiscations that the government may deem necessary for, in their words, “greater good, safety, and well-being of citizens.” It is a bit of a slippery slope.

This legislation, sadly, has little to do with saving innocent lives. The bill puts hunters, collectors and sports shooters in the crosshairs, but not the criminals.

And let’s not forget that an important but always forgotten effect of this bill might actually have to do with the cost of living. Many Canadians could use a gun to go hunting. As the cost of putting food on the table skyrockets, a deer or a moose in the deep-freeze can make a real difference. And killing the coyote that’s killing your cattle saves money and also puts food on the table.

But such practical thinking is just not part of the mindset here in the halls of Parliament. Let’s hope that we can ensure that we look at all aspects of this bill, the potential collateral damage for businesses and hunters, including Indigenous hunters with the traditional and treaty right to do so.

Consider the impact on families. Treat addictions that lead to crime. Enforce the full measure of the law on those who commit crimes with guns. Don’t defund the police or underfund the firearms officers. Support their good work and support legal gun ownership. And throw the book at the bad guys.

The House of Commons had a duty and a responsibility to create a better piece of legislation, and it failed. So it now falls to us. Let’s actually try to make sure Bill C-21 does something to make the country safer. Let’s also make sure that our laws respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

June 13, 2023

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13^th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Tuesday, June 13, 2023:

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 (Bill S-5, Chapter 12, 2023)

[English]

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. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-21, which makes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

The bill proposes changes to Canada’s firearms laws designed to better protect communities from gun violence, with particular emphasis on addressing gender-based violence, combatting smuggling and cracking down on ghost guns, which are untraceable firearms often built illegally on 3-D printers.

Also, crucially, the bill formalizes the national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns, enacted last year.

I’m supportive of these measures and look forward to seeing Bill C-21 progress through the remaining stages of the legislative process, but my reason for speaking today is to discuss the role of firearms in Indigenous communities and to share some thoughts that I hope will be useful to senators as our debate and study of the legislation continue.

For many Indigenous families, mine included, hunting is central to our history, culture, livelihoods and sustenance. Indigenous harvesting rights are treaty rights and were enshrined in Canada’s Constitution in 1982. Any law affecting firearms must preserve these rights. Moreover, the right to hunt and trap is deeply connected to Indigenous food security, connection to culture, rites of passage and identity formation.

With permission from my husband and my son, I want to share one of my family stories that illustrates this. My husband, his brothers, my brother, my father and other extended family members gather for a week every fall at a family hunting camp. My youngest son, Gabe, has attended the camp since he was a small boy. He has learned so many life lessons at hunting camp, including bush skills, survival on the land, tracking, his sacred relationship with animals he harvests and gun safety.

One day he went out with his dad and my father. They had smudged earlier that morning, and as the smudge passed under the guns and over the ammo, he prayed that he would become a hunter that day. His prayers were answered when he was the first to spot a deer on the cutline, and it stayed long enough for him to convince his dad that it was his time. He did exactly as he was taught. He got out of the truck slowly and with purpose. He aimed. He took a deep breath. He aimed again, and when he was completely sure that he could make the perfect shot, he fired.

When the deer fell, he walked to the animal with tears in his eyes. He put tobacco down and he thanked the deer for giving its life so that his family could eat. His dad showed him how to make the other offerings and to ensure the cleanliness of the food he was bringing home. In this moment, with humility and gratitude, he understood the complexity of our sacred right to hunt.

Allen called me, and I was in tears. We knew Gabe had entered the next stage of his life, that this was an important rite of passage in his journey.

When they arrived home, Gabe helped his dad prepare, package and freeze the meat. The next day, we hosted a feast with four elders. Gabe helped me make the deer stew, and he offered all the rest of the meat to the elders at our kitchen table — the elders who gave him teachings about becoming a man; his responsibility to his family, his community and the animals he would harvest; and his sacred relationship with the land. A few years later, when he brought his first moose back to hunting camp, he was presented with tobacco and given his first eagle feather. He had proven that he could survive in the bush, and that he was able to feed his family.

It is with so much pride that I can say all three of our sons are capable, traditional hunters, and I will never, ever go hungry. Indeed, colleagues, hunting, fishing and trapping are activities that forge stronger community bonds, provide a vehicle for the transmission of sacred teachings and foster a sense of responsibility to our community and natural world. As the late Dr. Harold Cardinal told my husband, Allen’s formidable bush skills were transferable — and one of the reasons he was a successful CEO.

Senators, my family has a variety of guns, large and small, that are specific to the animal that will be harvested. There are also family guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. My dad has gifted my grandfather’s guns to our sons as an acknowledgment of their hard work at camp, and the fact that they are such amazing traditional hunters. Every single one of these guns is legal and is stored safely.

Allen, my husband, was the co-producer of two videos about Indigenous peoples’ hunting rights and acquiring a Possession and Acquisition Licence, or PAL. Alberta Fish and Wildlife and the RCMP were partners in these video productions in an effort to build relationships between police, conservation officers and Indigenous hunters. Every Canadian — Indigenous and non‑Indigenous — who wants to purchase a firearm must apply for a PAL. There are also long-standing provisions within the licensing process that help Indigenous people acquire their PAL and, therefore, ensure that Indigenous hunting rights are preserved.

At the same time, Indigenous communities have frequently been impacted by firearms violence — often for reasons stemming from intergenerational and historic trauma. Like other Canadians, Indigenous people want and deserve to be protected from threats to community safety, such as gender-based violence and gang violence, and to have measures in place to reduce the risk of suicide.

Senators, my husband has been crystal clear: If ever one of his guns were to become prohibited, he would decommission or surrender it because the right to hunt — a sacred right given to us by the Creator, not by the government — is not tied to the use of a particular firearm, and the right to live in a safe community is also sacred.

Senators, the truth is that Bill C-21 would not change the classification of a single firearm. Last fall, the government proposed amendments during committee study in the other place that would have made some classification changes. At the time, some Indigenous communities and organizations felt that they hadn’t been sufficiently consulted on the amendments. I’m glad that the government took a pause at that point, and spent several months having conversations with Indigenous organizations and rights holders, including the Assembly of First Nations; the Métis National Council; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; the Manitoba Métis Federation; Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., which represents several First Nations on Treaty 6 territory in Alberta; the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak; the Métis Nation British Columbia; the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, which deals with the harvesting rights in northern Quebec; the Native Council of Prince Edward Island; the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick; and the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association.

From what I have heard about these discussions, several key themes emerged: First, many Indigenous people and organizations agree with the principle that certain firearms are too dangerous and not appropriate for civilian use. Second, the preservation of harvesting rights, and of the firearms used to exercise these rights, is a top priority for Indigenous communities. Third, it is important for many Indigenous people to be able to pass their firearms down from one generation to the next. Finally, it was repeatedly emphasized that Indigenous organizations and rights holders want to work with the government on matters related to regulation of firearms. Early and ongoing consultation can help maximize buy-in among members of Indigenous communities, maximize the effectiveness of the laws and minimize misinformation about what a particular law or amendment does.

The result of the extensive consultations was that the amendment introduced last fall was withdrawn. Other amendments, such as the amendments focused on combating the spread of ghost guns, were reintroduced and adopted. In its current form, Bill C-21 would enshrine the handgun freeze that has been in effect for a year; maintain the prohibition of approximately 1,500 assault-style rifles that was enacted in 2020; and establish a technical definition of assault-style firearms to be applied going forward in order to prevent newly designed or manufactured assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

For hunters, the bottom line is if there is a long gun that you are using for hunting today, you will still be able to use it when Bill C-21 passes. For all Canadians, including Indigenous people, the bill will help protect us from gun violence and make our communities safer.

Colleagues, let’s send Bill C-21 to committee and study it as soon as possible. Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise here today at second reading to speak to Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). The bill’s goal, as elaborated by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Diane Bellemare, is to set up an employment insurance council within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which would create a social dialogue on matters related to Employment Insurance, or EI.

As you may know, colleagues, our social safety net when a Canadian is without employment has been in place since 1940. At first, it was called the unemployment insurance — or the UIC, as we used to call it in my area, thanks to a popular 1755 song — to finally becoming Employment Insurance in 1990.

From 1940 to today — 2023 — the overhaul of the program has been limited. Instead of doing a modernization of the program, successive governments introduced numerous pilot projects to help the labour market find workers and, at the same time, help Canadians find jobs.

For example, right now, we have another pilot project to help Canadians who work in seasonal jobs survive through the “black hole.” I have talked about this issue before. The “black hole” is a period in the year where seasonal workers have no insurable hours left, but their seasonal jobs have not begun yet. Again, the reaction to help people right away has always been a pilot project, which is a short-term solution. Yet, all the while, seasonal workers are still waiting on a medium- to long-term solution.

I am certain that they are not the only ones who need a better safety net when the jobs are just not there. The labour market has evolved tremendously since 1990 with the internet. Since the 2000s, telecommunications have changed how we live and how we work. New technology has been good for some in the economy, but it has been disruptive to workers. Even just in recent months, the emergence of artificial intelligence could prove to be another major disruption in the labour market. Who knows where the artificial intelligence could be in two to five years.

All of that to show, colleagues, that the job market has evolved tremendously in the last decade, but our EI system hasn’t left the 20th century. It remains outdated, and it has become a patchwork solution that needs dire modernization.

We just need to look at the recent COVID pandemic in 2020: the program is very rigid and not as easily adaptable to sudden situations. Now that we are post-pandemic, we need to address how we protect and help unemployed Canadians.

That brings me now to Senator Bellemare’s bill. The idea of having a social dialogue within the Employment Insurance Commission sounds like a good idea. What we want is for decisions to be made based on what employers and employees need. Swing the pendulum too much on one side, and it hurts the economy. If we swing too much on the other side, it hurts the worker. It is a difficult balance.

For me, prior to being a senator, I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick for my riding from 1999 until my appointment in 2010. My experience with Employment Insurance and social support is based on meeting with constituents in a desperate situation who have nowhere else to turn. How many times have I cried with my constituents who needed money to buy food, to pay heating, to pay for their kids’ clothing, and the list goes on.

That is where I stand: with the workers who need help to support their families. The bill before us proposes a social dialogue between the most representative employers’ organizations and the most representative labour organizations. If there is to be a proper social dialogue for EI, there must be due diligence to ensure that nobody is forgotten. My concern would be that the social dialogue focuses on where there are more workers in the bigger industries and, on the other hand, on representatives of the bigger employers. It is important that people who are not necessarily in the main industries as well as those in the areas of the country where there are fewer people also have a voice. I am concerned there will be a concentration of the dialogue where there are the most workers and bigger employers.

As well, it might be important to factor in the regional aspect of our country. I’m pretty sure when I say “the black hole,” not all Canadians would think of the four-week hole for seasonal workers of not having an income, just like I am not familiar with an issue that could be in the Prairies or Western Canada. We need to make sure that every region has a voice. The fact remains that we live in a geographically wide country, with a diverse economy true to each region. Each region’s labour market will be distinct from the other.

Finally, I would caution on having too much bureaucracy. The Employment Insurance ecosystem is wide. I understand the council would be within the commission — but as long as it does not centralize the focus and the consultation within one structure. Sometimes one thing sounds good in theory until it is applied to reality, which is where my experience as a member of the legislative assembly comes into play. I have held hands with people going through the EI system. Even though it was a federal issue, and I was a provincial legislator, I was solely involved just to help out when the time was there in any way that I could.

Hearing directly from the people who are not represented by big unions and who do not work in a big industry, they cannot be left behind. It must be inclusive so that all voices are heard.

At the end of the day, honourable senators, our EI system needs a major overhaul. Employment Insurance is part of our social safety net for Canadians, by Canadians. Future governments need to take better care of it. It needs to be bold and bring about an overhaul instead of pilot projects. We have seen too many times the EI program not answering the needs of Canadian workers in a fast-evolving economy. I trust that the committee will do a great study of the bill because, now more than ever, our Employment Insurance system needs to be modernized.

While we wait for the government to present its plan to improve the EI system, I thank and congratulate Senator Bellemare for her initiative. Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Éric Forest: First of all, congratulations on your speech, which is crucial for regions where industry relies heavily on seasonal work, such as fisheries and agriculture.

With regard to the spring gap, we are repeatedly being told that consultations are ongoing and that employment insurance is going to be reformed.

Don’t you think that the danger we’re currently facing — given the scarcity of resources and the fact that we’re competing for skilled labour — is that regions like yours and mine, where workers are tied to seasonal industries, will be taken over by other, more permanent industrial sectors? Don’t you think it is urgent to stop holding consultations and reform employment insurance to take these realities into account?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: I wonder if the senator would take a question.