Senator Richards: And it is done by urban Canadians who don’t understand what rural Canadians do, or who they are.

My rifles were used for hunting an age ago. Though I no longer hunt, they are my keepsakes from years gone by. However, they are in the crosshairs of a new and earnest regulation. It is a regulation that hopes to mitigate crime, but it refuses, in many cases, to direct its focus on those who would commit them.

I want to believe that Bill C-21 means well, but it is a bill that is arrogant in assumption, and concocted by many people who have never owned a weapon, have never used one, have never scouted for moose or deer, have never set up a moose stand in the rain or have never waited on a rut mark until dark. These are extremely important abilities and valuable knowledge for any rural Canadian — White, First Nation, French or English.

To depart from my speech for a minute, if you are a rural Canadian and live in the Maritimes, or anywhere in rural Canada, you probably know about running a river, which means that you take a canoe down the river in early spring for fiddleheads. Then, you head down with your rod and fish trout. You wait for the salmon to come in June, and then the grilse follow the salmon. Next, you fish for the big trout later in the summer. By then, you are scouting for moose and setting up your moose stand. Then, in November, when it becomes cool, you are hunting deer. This tradition has gone on for as long as I have been alive, and for centuries before that. This is a tradition that urban Canadians don’t understand regarding regulations for guns.

I refuse to say that their intentions are malicious, but perhaps they’re ill-conceived. Many who will be exploited by this law — those who will be scrutinized — have done nothing to deserve such scrutiny. I would agree that it’s fine if it were to stop the great majority of crime and murder, but I am not convinced that it will. More regulation will seem to do so — and that is what this law not only proposes, but also desires. It fits the pattern of Canadian oversight that is often both rigid and ineffective. More regulation is the new and treasured opioid of the masses.

Why are people writing to me about these laws? Why are they so angry about this bill? It is because they are being lectured, once again, by a government that assumes and presupposes a superior moral nature against certain members of its own citizenry, and acts with uppity condescension toward so many who have done no wrong, suspecting them — without evidence — of things they would not do, while being unable to stop those who will continue to do wrong despite the regulations they continuously and tiresomely propose.

This bill targets only those it feels comfortable in targeting.

Senator D. Patterson: Hear, hear.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I’m not prepared to accept that the government is “being secretive,” but I do accept the point that you’re making, namely that you are having difficulty following the money. That is an important point which I will certainly bring to the attention of the minister. It’s a valid point and I take that point.

Senator Carignan: If he read his mandate letter, can you confirm whether the Prime Minister plans to meet with Minister Mendicino between two days of surfing to dismiss him?

Senator Richards: It has been a long time since we’ve enjoyed the gratitude of a government for our truckers and common men, as well as gratitude for ordinary Canadians being extraordinarily generous and decent human beings. It has been a very long time. In fact, we are told that we are not allowed to see ourselves as such until we agree to the propositions in many bills before us — to correct who we are to fulfill a mandate set up by governmental people who are often far more gullible than ourselves about whom Canadians actually are.

This bill is actually cowardly in whom it points the finger at and blames, and it still will not solve the problem of violence. I wish it did, but this bill will not stop the gangs. The law, in its own blind way, actually proposes to recruit them.

This new law solicits others and promotes the idea of a red flag snitching program. We are asking for a community of little snitchers. The net will be cast so wide that among the guilty too many innocents will be caught in the web.

Sooner or later, no one will be immune. All of us will be suspect if we raise the ire of the wrong person. This is where the new bill fuses concern and propaganda in order to make gun owners culpable without trial, done in secret by unknown accusers. You had to have belonged to the inner circle of a high school glee club at one time to think this was a good idea.

The right person’s guns may be confiscated. But, over time, many innocents will be marked. Yet, nothing like this will stop the trade of illegal handguns, the smuggling in and out of certain reserves and the import of weapons through clandestine means by biker gangs and others. This is where the majority of illegal guns used in crimes are acquired.

Will grandfathering a rifle that I bought when I was a boy of 18 years old, because I can carry eight in the clip, stop someone from illicitly purchasing a semi-automatic handgun on some desperate night in Scarborough, Ontario?

This bill makes thousands guilty by association to a new broad illegality. Our government becomes offended when people decry it, but people have every right to see a glaring absurdity in its regulatory framework that no oversight will correct.

I’m not saying that there should be no laws regarding this; I am not, for one moment, saying that. However, I am saying that these clauses are, for the most part, ineffective. I wish they weren’t, but they are. They point out how the government feels about Canadians who they can assume are guilty without trial. There is a bullying trait here — make no mistake.

The two most violent acts in our country in the last three years were done by a venal psychopath obsessed with police cars, who did not have much to do with hunting, as well as another sick, violent man with a bloody knife on a Saskatchewan reserve.

Our government has used the horrendous murders in Nova Scotia and in Uvalde, Texas, as an asset to support their position. In both cases, the unfortunate missteps of the law ordered to protect us played their part as well.

Honourable senators, Canada is very different from the U.S.

An RCMP officer bravely gave her life when she was ambushed because no one gave her the information she needed. She managed to draw her weapon; she managed to fire back. She did the only thing that was left for her to do.

I also believe that a person has the right to a firearm for protection as much as anyone else. If one lives an hour from the nearest RCMP detachment, a gun in the hand is better than a police officer on the phone if someone is intent on harming you or your family. The very human right to self-protection has become vulnerable by laws given to us by people who have security guards and panic buttons.

I am not dismissing the violence in Canada; I grew up with it. I know there has been much damage by violent men. But so much about this law is sophomoric housekeeping, impotent against rage and hate.

I believe that Plato was right when he said that good people do not need laws — the bad will never ever recognize them.

I will end with this: There was a moment in Uvalde, which I saw — I didn’t want to see it, but I happened to turn the television on. I saw a little girl seated at her desk — a child’s desk — with her pencil in its pencil groove, and with her hands folded neatly and blood on her dress. She was trying to explain to the man about to shoot her that this was wrong, that she wanted to see her mom and that this was a bad thing to do. Her soul was generous and alive, but his damnable soul was dead. I will never forget her — ever — seated at her elementary child’s desk, with the blood of one of her classmates on her dress. The police were in the hall with their guns, totally impotent and frozen.

I believe there is not a man or a woman I know — with whom I have hunted and fished — who would not have given their life to protect that little girl. I am sure that the same goes for every man and woman in this chamber — those who support this bill, those who do not. It is true that they would have shot him dead because they would have had to do so. They would have had no other choice in the matter. Like that RCMP officer drawing her gun in Nova Scotia, there was no other way.

That is the difference between good and evil when it comes to guns, and, unfortunately, when it comes to the misdirection of Bill C-21. For these reasons, I will be voting against it.

Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Gold: I will certainly make inquiries. Thank you.

Senator Ringuette: The battle is not over.

I introduced my bill several times, but each time it died on the Order Paper when an election was called or Parliament was prorogued. I introduced it again in this Parliament. It is entitled Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), and it is currently at second reading.

When I saw Bill C-47, I thought that maybe I should withdraw my bill. However, after giving it some thought, I decided that I wouldn’t take any chances. I will leave it until it is a done deal, from beginning to end.

Whereas Bill C-47 sets the limit at 35%, my bill would tie the criminal interest rate to the Bank of Canada’s overnight rate plus 20%.

In Quebec, the interest rate limit is currently 35%, the lowest rate in Canada. That rate is similar to what is currently set out in Bill C-47.

I tied my rate to the overnight rate so that it could be adjusted based on the evolving economic situation. The past year has shown how relevant this proposal is, because the rate went from 0.25% in January 2022 to 4.75% last week. Let’s not forget that more hikes could be coming.

The rate proposed in my bill would therefore be 24.75% as of today, about 10 points lower than the rate in Bill C-47.

Based on what I heard from many Canadians and what I’ve learned from my own research over the years, instalment loans are being granted at unreasonable, even abusive, rates that can be as high as 39%, 45% and even 59.9%, just within the 60% limit. I have seen public services charge late fees of 42%.

One area where I wanted to see lower rates was credit card interest rates, but this rate will not affect that.

Most credit cards have interest rates below 20%, but there are some, especially store cards like Home Depot, whose interest rates are around 30%. I think these rates are too high, and I would like to see them come down, but my bill targets the very high rates charged by instalment loan providers and public services, such as Bell and Telus, as anyone who checks their bill can see.

I should also point out that the government has made progress in another area I’m concerned about, namely interchange fees. There have been bills about this. Processing fees in Canada are among the highest in the world. They drive prices up, and we all pay for that. The government recently announced agreements with Visa and Mastercard to reduce these fees to, on average, 0.95%, which is a considerable improvement over a few years ago, when the rates were at 3%.

This limit is not as low as that imposed elsewhere, for example in the European Union, which set a limit of 0.3% on transaction fees more than 10 years ago.

I therefore thank the government for continuing to keep its budgetary promises in this regard.

I would also like to point out that the budget indicates — and the Minister of Finance also said it — that there would be new consultations to determine whether the interest rate should be lowered further. I am very pleased about this, because I believe that the rate should be lower than 35% and perhaps equal to the overnight rate plus 20%. Imagine that.

I will be closely following these consultations, and I will continue to apply pressure to ensure the rate is lowered.

[English]

Consumer debt is a serious and growing problem in Canada. This problem is of particular concern with respect to inflation and the rising cost of living. According to TransUnion, consumer debt from all sources has increased by 5.6% year over year to a new high of $2.32 trillion. That’s the debt load that Canadians have.

Instalment loans are down 5.76%, but Canadians still hold an average of $20,846 in debt — and these are often at the highest rates of interest. It is worrying that debt continues to climb, and measures like this — to help Canadians deal with their debt load — will not do a lot to improve or perhaps reverse this trend.

This bill also addresses a related issue that I have been watching closely: In 2006, Parliament made a major mistake. We carved out a section of the Criminal Code as long as the provinces would make the regulation. Here is the regulation that they made: The criminal interest rate was amended to exclude short-term loans under $1,500, otherwise known as payday loans. I believe that this was a mistake, and this budget has taken steps to recognize this error. The bill grants the Governor-in-Council the power to set rates by regulations for these loans.

The current rates in the provinces are as high as $17 per $100; you might think that $17 per $100 isn’t that much. As stated in the budget, the government aims to set the limit at $14, in line with the lowest rate which is in Newfoundland right now. Colleagues, $14 in interest for every $100 in loans for a two-week period is an annualized rate of 365% in Newfoundland. With the exception of Quebec, all of the other provinces’ and territories’ rate is 395%. And then we ask the following: Why are Canadians in so much debt? This is highway robbery. I’m going to hold the government to account to ensure they keep their word, do the proper consultations, take that out of the provinces’ hands and bring it back under the Criminal Code, as it should have been.

I would say that the whole section, excluding payday loans, should be removed; I support this action being taken. I hope that future consultations lead the government to remove this, carve it out entirely from the Criminal Code and bring these loans under the same limit as the current 35% — hopefully it’s 20% in the future.

After years of pushing this issue, listening to Canadians and talking to stakeholders and government officials, it brings me joy — I am honest — to see that there’s finally hope, as well as some action being taken with the promise of further action in the fall to lower these rates. This will be a great benefit to the most financially vulnerable, who often find themselves in this position through no fault of their own. And these measures cost zero dollars for the federal government.

I continue to believe that an even lower rate is a reasonable goal, but I do appreciate the government taking this action in the budget. It is long overdue, and it will help Canadians in these uncertain economic times.

I support this action by the government, and, even though it is not what I would have preferred, it is a step in the right direction. That being said, I urge the government to keep an eye on this and be open to considering further changes, as this is an issue that affects the well-being of all Canadians, which also affects us all. Thank you, once again, for listening to my speech on criminal interest rates.

Senator Dupuis: Thank you, Senator Arnot. Could you clarify who owns the reserve lands on which the First Nation plans to set up its self-government?

[English]

Senator Mockler: We’re told the loop could go through northwestern New Brunswick. As a resident and senator from New Brunswick, I’m committed to working with all the stakeholders in the region, as well as with the Government of Quebec, on seeing this project through so that the northwest is given serious consideration as a main route. Indeed, this project worth several billion dollars will create good jobs in the region.

[English]

To the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the federal government seems to have finally discovered that the Atlantic Loop is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and North America. The Atlantic Loop will, without a doubt, phase out coal-fired generating plants in Atlantic Canada.

Leader, when will the federal government officially announce the Atlantic Loop project? Actions speak louder than words.

Senator McCallum: Dispossession of land was the most devastating action against First Nations.

In the key elements of bill, the Whitecap Dakota government would have jurisdiction over the following areas: core governance, lands and resources, regulations and programs. All of this has to do with land.

Under lands and resources, it says they would have jurisdiction over lands and natural resources management. We passed the Building a Green Prairie Economy Act before Christmas where, as the sponsor, you said the province has jurisdiction or owns the natural resources. Which one is it? Who will own the natural resources? Will it be the Whitecap Dakota government or the province?

Senator Cotter: Thank you. I didn’t hear the first part of the question, Senator McCallum. I will do my best to answer the part about land.

The land focus here is on-reserve land, which would be under the full control, in terms of resource development, of the Whitecap Dakota. There are issues that you are aware of. Whitecap Dakota feel that they received an infinitesimally small set-aside of land when the people of the nation came to Canada, and they have a land-claim agreement.

In Saskatchewan, many of those land-claim agreements have been addressed. The Treaty Land Entitlement framework agreement made significant amounts of money available to First Nations after the government shorted them on what they were entitled to a century or so ago.

I can’t say for sure that it will happen in this case, but it is not unusual for First Nations to be provided with financial resources in order to purchase land — that makes it become reserve land. If they buy land that includes subsurface resources, for example, they come to own those. That has happened across Saskatchewan and, I suspect, in some other provinces as well. I hope that’s helpful.

Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Gold, and thank you for your comments.

Last week, the minister referred to a detailed federal-provincial-territorial work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to — which will also be the basis for formal negotiations respecting the Canada disability benefit.

As you know, in the absence of the Senate amendment prohibiting private insurance clawbacks, if the government is to meet its commitment to ensuring zero clawbacks, it will need to negotiate with 13 different jurisdictions — not only about interactions between the Canada disability benefit and their numerous government benefit programs, but also about building prohibitions on clawbacks into provincial and territorial insurance legislation.

Will you provide us with a work plan and timeline for these federal-provincial-territorial negotiations on clawbacks, as well as the role that people with disabilities will play in that timeline and work plan?

Senator Arnot: My answer to that is that the Whitecap Dakota First Nation will have control over their membership. They will make the determination themselves and not be constrained by any of the rules under the Indian Act. It is up to them. They will have self-determination in their self-government agreement. That is my interpretation of what this means.

Senator Pate: Many people with disabilities and organizations have reached out to us with concerns that these negotiations will not be completed within the tight time frames established by the bill. I’m curious if there is any information you can provide around the schedule, including the schedule for negotiations with insurance companies.

Senator Shugart: I put so much effort into writing what I had hoped to say, but it seems like I have finished.

[Translation]

Technically, my comments are in response to the Speech from the Throne at a time in our country’s history that is full of both potential and peril.

It has certainly been interesting to transition from the executive branch to the legislative branch. It has also been somewhat difficult.

Canada is facing great challenges on many fronts: social justice, environmental crises and major economic and international security threats. To survive these realities, let alone thrive, we have to be at our best. The alternative is mediocrity. There is one area in which we need to be better: governance and politics.

[English]

Last week in this place, many honourable senators spoke about the risks to democracy in our country. Today, I would like to add what I hope might be a useful contribution to those observations. I am going to speak about the idea of restraint — an idea, a discipline, that has proven essential in our constitutional and institutional development.

Come with me to our past.

In 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision on a reference from the Government of Canada in relation to the proposed package of constitutional reforms. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had negotiated with provinces on the package, and, even with best efforts, the negotiations were deadlocked. His question to the court: Would it be permissible to proceed with changes to the Constitution, given the lack of consent from a large majority of provinces? The court’s answer: It would be legal to proceed, but not constitutional. Prime Minister Trudeau took that decision and reconvened the provinces, eventually clearing the way to the furthest-reaching reform of the Constitution in our history.

I have to note — with sadness, of course — that Quebec was not included in that consensus. I also note that the inclusion of the “notwithstanding” clause in the Charter, while anathema to Mr. Trudeau, was essential in reaching agreement on the Charter as a whole — providing, as it did, a resolution of the tension between legislative and judicial sovereignty.

Honourable senators, Mr. Trudeau acted with restraint.

In returning to the negotiating table and accepting the crucial demand of the key provinces, he made the Charter possible. Colleagues, I have to ask if either of the main party leaders today would practise that restraint; after all, Mr. Trudeau had in hand a ruling of constitutional legality from the court.

Now join me in the present.

Only last fall, the Government of Ontario was engaged in a dispute with the Canadian Union of Public Employees in the education sector. Legislation imposing a contract was passed in the legislature, along with invocation of the notwithstanding clause — pre-emptively guarding against constitutional challenge. Strike action followed, as did significant public outcry. The government undoubtedly felt it was within its rights; unions and others saw the action as an assault on workers and organized labour. The issue was resolved when Premier Ford repealed the legislation.

He had a legislative majority. And, while his use of the notwithstanding clause was, in my opinion, wrong, it is there in the Constitution. But, to his credit, Premier Ford acted with restraint.

Some have suggested, by the way, that resolving the “problem” of the “notwithstanding” clause lies in referring the matter to the Supreme Court for a judgment on when and how it should be used. But surely the Supreme Court itself has a direct interest in the matter and could not be the usual unbiased arbitrator. I strongly suspect that ultimately the use of the “notwithstanding” clause can only be resolved by the application of public vigilance and governmental restraint.

Colleagues, I invite you to anticipate the future with me.

In this Parliament, we have witnessed a sea change in the composition of the upper house. If the present government is re‑elected, we can expect further evolution of the Senate. The further we get from a party-based Senate, the more entrenched will be the idea of independence and freedom of action. Taken too far, we could find ourselves with many senators effectively setting themselves up as a de facto opposition to the government. We could be left with a frequent or perpetual standoff between the two chambers, as more and more independent senators claim a right to block legislation coming from the elected chamber.

Alternatively, notwithstanding the current attention being given to foreign interference, I am convinced that our democratic institutions and process are healthy enough to give us a different government. Should that be the case, some senators may feel it is their right and obligation to oppose any legislation from the other place if it reflects a philosophical perspective with which they disagree. Given the numbers that can be projected, this could be a recipe for legislative paralysis. To be blunt, either scenario creates the possibility that this institution could be at risk of acting undemocratically — ironically, by allowing tightly held principle to trump constitutional convention and deference to the will of the elected chamber.

In either situation, we have the seeds of constitutional crisis. An essential ingredient in avoiding or resolving such a crisis will be the practice of restraint. Our Constitution is black-letter law and convention — practices developed over decades and centuries, in which the instinct to exercise raw power is restrained for the common good. Absent restraint, the convention that the Senate’s duty is to scrutinize, amend and pass legislation — balanced against deference to the chamber that most directly reflects the will of the people — is incomplete.

Honourable senators, whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

Canada is a big, diverse country — geographically, socially, culturally, economically and philosophically. For each of us, for parties and for institutions, restraint may begin with acknowledging that our point of view — legitimate as it is — is not the only point of view.

We have benefited from restraint in this country, and, in these times, we need it again. May we all find it within ourselves to practise restraint.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Dupuis: Could I draw the attention of the committee to this question? Perhaps it could provide an answer to that question in its report on this study.

Senator Arnot: In my opinion, the Whitecap Dakota people will own those lands.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Yes, of course.

Senator Arnot: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that, Senator Gold. Could you request from the government the rates at which they proceeded against CERB recipients through the CRA, as well as the rates at which they proceeded against companies that received the CERB for wages — and how much of that are they clawing back from companies and employers as well?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all shocked and saddened to learn of the tragedy near Carberry, Manitoba, on June 15, which left 15 people dead and others injured.

Our thoughts are with their friends and families, as well as the community of Dauphin, Manitoba, as we express our condolences for those lost, and our hopes for a full recovery by the injured.

Honourable senators, please join me in rising for a minute of silence in memory of those who did not survive this tragic incident.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

[Translation]