The Hon. the Speaker: That’s correct.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the time for debate has expired.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, this debate is far deeper than just the motion of the time allocation. Senator Ataullahjan, you are absolutely right. We come here to debate ideas, at times controversial ideas, and that’s the role of parliament in a democracy. We are not just here to hear each other’s points of view; we have to particularly hear the point of view of the minority. That’s the role of this chamber. It is the constitutional role of this chamber. It’s the role of parliament.

It is only natural, colleagues, and it is not new to this government. Of course, the Trudeau government has taken it to new heights, but governments of all ilks and all colours look at Parliament as an obstacle, as a problem in their hurry to get to the finish line of their agenda. It doesn’t matter if they are Liberals or Conservatives. I always say that prime ministers have a use for Parliament when they are in opposition. When they become prime minister, it seems to take a back seat. That goes to the principle that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is when the House of Commons and the Senate kick in. In those moments, it is incumbent on us to hold the government to account and to reel them in.

The House of Commons has a particular role in our democracy because they are the elected chamber. They are the chamber of confidence. But even this chamber of sober second thought had a significant role to play in reeling back governments that got carried away with themselves. They played that role of sober second thought. Many were hopeful that this new independent Senate would take it a step further, but it is unfortunate that independence, to this government, seems to have been extricating the authority of senators in this chamber from Parliament.

I remind people, as much as we’ve gone through this Trudeau experiment of an independent Senate, the truth of the matter is that until we change the Constitution, Canada is still a bicameral British parliamentary Westminster-based system. We have two chambers in our Parliament. The roles are a little bit different. They are nuanced. Everybody keeps talking about the Salisbury Convention, which is great. One day, probably, when I’m back on the other side of government, I will refer to the Salisbury Convention as well. But I remind the senators who have only been here for a few years, beyond the Salisbury Convention, to read section 18 of the Constitution, which defines our role when we are summoned here.

Section 18 of the Constitution of Canada makes it clear that both the House of Commons and the Senate are modelled after the House of Commons of Westminster. Each parliamentarian in the Parliament of Canada, in both the House of Commons and the Senate, have the same rights and privileges under section 18 of the Constitution as the chamber of the House of Commons in Westminster. Ultimately, that means you have the obligation to hold the government to account, you have the obligation to be a voice for the regions, the constituents, the stakeholders of the country and the regions you represent.

The truth of the matter is that over the last eight years — and this was intentional — the once important role of senators, all of you — and we might have the debate, and some of you say you are not as Liberal as we say, and I say you are not as independent as you proclaim. One thing there is no doubt about is that all of you are very accomplished, competent people from various walks of life in various regions of the country who have big things to offer this Parliament. For the last eight years, you’ve been denied that fundamental right in section 18 of the Constitution by this government and this Prime Minister when he refuses to allow you to be the voice of your region, using your skill set and your experience in the national governing cabinet.

Senator Harder, you asked a legitimate question — why there were so few amendments in the last four Parliaments. It’s because each and every one of the senators who were appointed to this chamber, the most important role we had was not sitting in national caucus; it was not sitting here. For me, the most important role I had was sitting on ministerial advisory committees, Senator Harder. Because I sat on various committees in the Senate, I had an opportunity to engage in debate here, but the floor, when we were in government, was dominated by the Liberal opposition. That’s how it should be.

Where we as government members of the Senate had our say was at the ministerial advisory tables when legislation was being crafted. That’s when our opinions were being asked for and being voiced, even before the legislation got to the national caucus. When it got to national caucus, let me tell you, all of my colleagues here were not shy to speak out to the interests of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and often Quebec whenever the government wouldn’t listen.

There is a lot of expertise in this place that would save this current government a lot of grief if many of you had a voice at those ministerial tables when legislation is being crafted. Many of you would be able to save them from a lot of embarrassment. Many of your opinions would be worth gold for this government if once a week you were allowed to express some of those opinions at national caucus.

Once upon a time, there were government leaders in this place who sat in the cabinet, some even as ministers at various cabinet levels. Senator Gold, based on the questions we ask on a daily basis and self-admittedly, we get the impression that you are not consulted that often. They could benefit from much of your wisdom, Senator Gold.

The exception I take is the amount of contempt that I have seen from this Prime Minister and this government toward this institution and toward the senators they have appointed. They are always spending a lot of time trying to convince you how legislation has to pass quickly because it is imperative. We have tons of examples where it is not COVID aid money, it is not bills and legislation or votes of confidence, when we have to get money out the door because the government agenda has the imperative. You are right, they are the ultimate house on questions of confidence. But bills like Bill C-21, Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 — it is nice to name leaders from Indigenous communities in this place and the Prime Minister to take credit for it, but when Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 were being debated in this place, the Broadcasting Act, and I heard Indigenous groups saying that they weren’t consulted in the other place, it is important that we stand up and push back. We need to say to the government, “Wait a month; wait six months. We need to hear from other people as well.”

The truth is that Senator Klyne stood up at that time and made sure that some of those groups were heard at committee, so credit to him. There are many senators here who are open-minded and push back against the government, but this is one of those times as well. The government wants to move forward with draconian measures, like the time allocation tool. It is a legitimate government tool, but the government wants to use it when they want to claim they don’t have government members in this chamber. It is an affront to the Rules of this institution.

Again, the government will find a way to get rulings and to beat around the Rules and say, “We have the majority; it doesn’t matter.” That’s the worst thing you can say amongst yourselves or in your various groups — to say that because you have the majority, you will ram it through. The moment we curtail debate and we don’t allow the minority voices to be heard, then we fall into a great deal of traps and risks. We should not allow that to happen.

The Salisbury Convention is fantastic. We use it to say that we are not an elected body, like the House of Lords, so we should never challenge the government because they are elected. But the Salisbury Convention should also apply when the elected house overwhelmingly sends a bill to this place and says the country is in favour of it democratically, like Bill C-234. The Salisbury Convention can’t only be something you invoke when it suits the government’s interests to say, “This is in our agenda, and we want it to pass.”

The House of Commons is the ultimate expression of democracy in this Parliament, in this country. We as an unelected body ignore them and we turn our back against it and we say, “The government wants this.”

Well, Parliament trumps government. The executive branch in this country gets its mandate from the elected house. Our job is to be an added value to hold the government to account. Nothing more, nothing less, and to be a voice for regions and voices that don’t necessarily get heard in the other house.

Colleagues, we have to be consistent, and it demands a lot of courage. At the end of the day, you all get your independence from one thing: the fact that you’re summoned here by a Prime Minister of Canada and your nomination can never be revoked.

So you can have ministers calling you, you can have the Prime Minister’s Office calling you, you can have the government leader/representative saying this is important, if it doesn’t get done by Christmas, it is going to fall apart. There will be no more sun in the sky. There is going to be all sorts of cajoling and pressure put on each and every one of you by the Prime Minister that appointed you. That was the case since day one.

That’s how politics work. The Prime Minister that brought me here, and the Prime Minister that brought Percy Downe here — which was a lovely Liberal prime minister — would put pressure on him. But you know what? We are here now, and they’re no longer here. The prime minister who brought you here, he will be gone eventually. But your independence starts today. I, too, am against this.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 10:04. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

Leave having been given to revert to Presenting or Tabling of Reports from Committees:

The Hon. the Speaker: Any advice on the bell?

An Hon. Senator: An hour.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps I am rising on debate because I don’t think there is any more time for questions.

Listen, Senator Housakos. I heard you, and I couldn’t help but rise because I think you’re living on a planet that doesn’t exist. You have this idea that you’ve been completely muzzled and that you can’t speak. We worked on bills like Bill C-11, which took six months of study. Do you feel like we prevented you from bringing in all of the witnesses that you wanted, for weeks on end?

I am thinking of Bill C-18. I have been here for five years. The idea that the opposition is being prevented from doing its job is completely absurd to me. That is simply not the case. You referred to the House of Lords, to our British system. In England, there is a House of Lords with cross-benchers. They do exist. Such independence is not a joke.

Every day, you say that we are Liberal senators, that we don’t have any freedom and that we are kowtowing. That is absolutely shameful. I can’t take it any more. We are people with minds of our own. I certainly don’t consider myself to be under the heel of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Have you seen the number of amendments that we’re trying to get adopted? It’s nothing like it was in your day. You’re just making up a story. You’re making yourselves out to be victims. You’re saying that there is no more democracy.

Listen, we have debates here. That happens. I honestly don’t know where you got this idea about us. I can’t take it any more. It’s not true. We’re not puppets. That’s not true.

There. I think I’ve said enough.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

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

Hon. David Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21. I thank our colleague the Honourable Senator Yussuff for sponsoring this legislation in his usual comprehensive and professional fashion. I also want to thank Senator Dean for chairing and overseeing the hard work of the committee, and I thank both of them for encouraging thorough debate in this chamber on this bill.

I’m going to address four issues: First, the failure of the federal government in their fiduciary duty; second, the failure to consult with key stakeholders affected by this legislation; third, what I believe is a fundamental flaw, that being the bill does not create a legislative authority and discretion for chief firearms officers in Canada to manage firearms in their jurisdiction; and fourth, a lack of policies and programs to ensure the goals of the act are successful.

Before I begin, I ask you to consider the nature of the rhetoric — the psychology, if you will — used in debates about this issue.

First, let us consider the just-one-life argument: an argument that we must pass this bill even if it saves just one life. As a former human rights commissioner and a former provincial court judge, I can tell you that the just-one-life argument does not hold in this country. It is not true in our hospitals, where life-and-death decisions are made. It is not true on our country’s highways, where speed limits minimize risk but do not eliminate it. It is not true in hockey rinks, where injury, disability and even death are established by actuaries. I’m not saying that hospitals, highways and hockey rinks are similar to the concerns about illegal use of handguns or firearms. Unequivocally, every life matters equally.

We must, however, dispense with false dilemma or false dichotomy arguments — logical fallacies that present two opposing options as the only possibilities when, in fact, more options exist. We must also ignore the mantra of, “You’re either with us or against us,” a fallacy which oversimplifies issues and ignores the possibility of neutral or alternative positions, which makes it easier to sway opinion by presenting an either/or choice that is actually misleading.

Colleagues, I know that we all well understand the importance of persuasive discourse in the chamber. Today, however, we must dispense with false narratives that suggest Bill C-21 in its current form will effectively prevent deaths, harms and crimes caused by firearms and that there is no real choice but to pass Bill C-21 in its current form. We have to dispense with the false narrative that this bill is what victims and victims’ families want and need. It is, alas, the only thing on offer — take it or leave it.

As a provincial court judge, I presided over many gun crime offences, and I can tell you that neither victims nor families want to be in a courtroom. They want the crime to have never taken place; they want to have never lost a loved one. Victims’ groups and advocates are quite rightly deeply invested in firearms legislation. They quite rightly want and deserve change, including assurances of safety and security in their homes, schools, communities, mosques, synagogues and other places or worship. However, it is not a sign of respect to victims of violence to rubber-stamp flawed legislation or legislation that will have limited outcomes. We need intentional, well-designed programs and policies that address the root causes of firearms violence and work in concert with solid legislation to save many lives.

Bill C-21 as drafted will require our courtrooms to determine the impact of this legislation’s ability not to save lives but to pass judgment on those who violate or may have violated the law. Experience tells us that courtrooms offer lagging indicators and statistics, not measures of lives saved.

Unequivocally, Canada needs legislation and measures to prevent firearms tragedies, horrifying acts like those which occurred in Portapique and in the northern community of La Loche, Saskatchewan, like the shootings and murders at the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre and the gender-based and misogynistic shootings and murders that took place at École Polytechnique. These tragedies tear at the hearts of Canadians and what it means to be a citizen in our democracy. We need legislation that protects the public good of public safety.

It has been argued that Bill C-21 is proactive legislation that will reduce crime by reducing guns, and that will make Canada a safer place. Is that true? Is it accurate?

I answer this question with these remarks. I reiterate the words of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police as stated in the other place:

. . . the real issue, which is illegal firearms and illegal handguns obtained from the United States that have led to the disturbing current trend in gun violence that is largely related to gangs, street gangs and more sophisticated organized crime groups.

The City of Regina Chief of Police Evan Bray also said that “. . . restricting lawful handgun ownership will not meaningfully address the real issue . . .”

I reflect on the pages of observations generated through the witness testimony before the Senate standing committee. There was disappointment with the consultation process from Indigenous groups, farmers, hunters, trappers, ranchers, sport shooters and collectors. It also disappointed researchers and even victims’ group advocates.

Bill C-21 does not speak effectively to the needed policies and programs that respond to domestic violence, intimate partner violence and suicide. Canada needs sufficient psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors and staff to ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens who are struggling with mental health issues. Canada needs public education about the fundamental civic responsibility to respect and preserve the safety and security of all citizens equally — education that quashes white nationalism and other domestic threats. Unfortunately, Canada also needs more shelters for women and children escaping domestic violence, including our 2SLGBTQI+ citizens, as well as removing firearms from such violence through effective gun ownership background checks.

Colleagues, Canada is a very diverse country. We all know that what is required in urban Canada is not necessarily required in rural Canada. Chief firearms officers have a significant role to play in bridging that divide between rural and urban. Chief firearms officers are the people tasked with implementing much of the on-the-ground aspects of this legislation, and here is a key point in what I believe is missing in this legislation.

The chief firearms officers of each province and territory should have the legislative authority, discretion and tools to customize the implementation of this bill in their respective jurisdictions. They understand how to engage with municipalities, both rural and urban.

Just two weeks ago, in the province of Saskatchewan, the government signed a memorandum of understanding with Métis Nation-Saskatchewan to promote firearms safety through education. The Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan, Robert Freberg, and the Chief Firearms Officer of Alberta, Dr. Teri Bryant, have demonstrated their effectiveness in creating necessary change through dialogue, stakeholder engagement and public education. They operate models of excellence, yet they were shut out of providing any input whatsoever into the legislation, despite trying desperately.

To be specific, I believe the Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan is operating a professional, positive, pragmatic and proactive approach for all of Canada to emulate.

Let us be clear — firearms safety is directly related to enforcement, and firearms enforcement is directly related to the investment of financial resources and to meaningful consultation with those affected by legislation. We have heard little to date about how the funding will work to meet the cost of implementing and enforcing this legislation. Without additional funding, chronically underfunded municipal and provincial police forces will not be successful in implementation without receiving specific, dedicated new funds.

The Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP F Division in Saskatchewan, Rhonda Blackmore, is short $20 million required to maintain just existing services in that province. There is an additional problem of recruitment facing all police forces in Canada.

I’ve already spoken about how Bill C-21 is contrary to treaty and Indigenous rights. I will only elaborate to say that the courts have cautioned the federal government against using the court system to solve problems.

In the 1997 Delgamuukw decision, the Supreme Court of Canada specifically told the Government of Canada to work with First Nations proactively and in good faith. I recall Chief Justice Lamer’s admonition. I will paraphrase here. He said, “Don’t keep coming back to the courts for a solution. The courts don’t have the tools you need to find the solution.” The issues require political solutions, which can only be found in a political forum — in other words, consultation, constructive dialogue and a problem-solving ethos.

On this bill, consultation did not occur with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. If meaningful consultation did not occur, how can we assess the merits of this bill, let alone support it? My fundamental concern is that the Senate will be anointing the tyranny of the majority over the minority if it passes this legislation. This place, in this instance, right now, is the last bastion of protection for the rights of Indigenous people. I ask this question: If not now, when? If not you, senators, who?

Rights without respect, without enforcement and without implementation are, in fact, meaningless. With this vote, take the opportunity to demonstrate that the Senate has the utmost respect for our Canadian Constitution when others apparently do not.

One of the fundamental roles of the Senate is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Please live up to the expectation of your duty. The only effective way to compel the cabinet is to reject this legislation. You have the power to use that tool now.

The current government has less than three years left in its mandate. It is enough time to cure these flaws and to create the legislation that Canada really needs. Legislation is needed that is generated in compliance with the Constitution and necessarily incorporates all the advice, information and tools that are available.

We have heard the government’s explanations but not its reasons for ignoring its responsibility. Why? Because there is no valid justification and no valid excuse for breaching the Constitution in the manner that has been demonstrated in the creation of this legislation. The most effective way to ensure the government responds to these omissions and breaches of the Constitution is to defeat this bill.

Colleagues, in order for Canada’s model of federalism to operate, the principles of collaboration, cooperation and compromise are required. We need statesmanship from the leaders of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. If any one of these governments creates impediments to a constructive relationship, the result will impede the safety of Canadian citizens.

As it stands, this bill, first, is not founded on meaningful consultation with legitimate rights holders, including treaty rights, Indigenous rights and human rights. Second, it is not founded on meaningful consultation with those who have a legitimate workplace safety issue. Third, it is not founded on meaningful consultation with those who will enforce the legislation in each province and territory, especially chief firearms officers. Fourth, it is not based on the ability to target the guns that create gun crimes — the illegal guns that cross Canada’s border. Fifth, it is not based on awareness and education measures that establish what it is that Canadians want, which is crime reduction and personal safety. Sixth, it does not address adequate funding to allow enforcement that will be effective.

Do I believe that Bill C-21 can be fixed? Yes. Do I believe that Bill C-21 needs to be fixed? Yes. Do I believe that as a chamber of sober second thought, it is our responsibility to resolve the incongruity between what is being offered and what is needed? Yes.

If Bill C-21’s fundamental flaws were fixed, I would be its champion. However, Canada does not need or benefit from legislation that is based on placating and soothing promises that it is the best that we can do; that if you pass this bill, it will make things better; and on promises of programs and policies that do not yet exist.

Colleagues, let us not abdicate our responsibility on this issue. I support legislation that enables public safety, but I cannot support this particular legislation. I will vote against Bill C-21, and I invite you to do the same. Thank you.

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the third reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Dawn Anderson: Honourable senators, I rise in the Senate today to speak to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). I want to acknowledge that today, I speak from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.

Colleagues, I believe we share a common understanding of the urgency to tackle Canada’s escalating problem of illicit firearms in circulation, especially concerning instances of intimate partner violence involving these dangerous weapons. My remarks today stem from the specific ramifications of certain clauses within Bill C-21 rather than from a critique of the bill’s overarching purpose.

As an Inuk woman, I intimately understand the impact of federal legislation on our communities. Whether it aims to undermine our Indigenous identity or carries well-meaning intentions, legislation often poses risks to the North and Indigenous peoples when crafted without due consideration for our unique circumstances. It comes as no surprise that these concerns are evident within the fabric of Bill C-21.

Three primary concerns stemming from this bill encompass, first, the critical role of the chief firearms officer and their primary residence outside the territory that they represent; second, a lack of meaningful consultation; and third, the “red flag” provisions.

In 1972, Chief Dan George said:

Let no one forget it. We are a people with special rights guaranteed to us by promises and treaties. We do not beg for these rights, nor do we thank you. We do not thank you for them because we paid for them, and the price we paid was exorbitant. We paid for them with our culture, our dignity and self-respect. We paid until we became a beaten race, poverty-stricken and conquered.

It is ironic that my initial plea is not about seeking special treatment but, rather, advocating for equality, aiming to grant the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut the same rights as all 10 Canadian provinces. Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework rightly highlights the long-standing disparity faced by Arctic and northern residents, particularly Indigenous communities, in accessing services, opportunities and living standards comparable to other Canadians.

Bill C-21 serves as a stark example of this disparity. Notably, the chief firearms officers, or CFOs, for the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are located in Surrey, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; and Winnipeg, Manitoba, respectively. This arrangement starkly contrasts with the provincial set-up, where each CFO operates within their respective province. This discrepancy emphasizes the fact that all three territorial CFOs are situated in the southern regions, amplifying the ongoing lack of equitable access and representation for Arctic and northern communities, especially Indigenous peoples.

According to testimony from Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, on November 6, 2023, before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs:

Clause 70.3’s provisions, allowing for a conditional licence, is not guaranteed but rather subject to the discretion of the CFO. This is not an equitable measure, particularly when considering the geographical and logistical barriers Inuit face when accessing CFOs. The officer responsible for Nunavut, for example, is located in Winnipeg. The distance is more than geographical; it is also cultural and practical. We must ask whether such officials can adequately assess and understand the unique circumstances and necessities of Inuit hunters. . . .

My attempt to propose an amendment in committee — requiring chief firearms officers to reside and operate within their designated territory — unfortunately failed. As legislators responsible for sober second thought, it seems crucial that we address the persisting inequalities and disparities within Canada.

Why is it that while the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are subject to the same legislation as the rest of Canada, they lack commensurate access to services and support provided to the 10 provinces? I note that, subsequently, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic LeBlanc has written a letter to all three territorial premiers regarding the potential appointment of resident CFOs in each territory. While this is promising, I believe that there is a moral and legal obligation that must be addressed by the immediate placement of CFOs in all three territories. Anything less than this corrective action is unacceptable and represents a failure of Canada’s duties.

Second, I emphasize, once more, the continual lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples, echoing an alarming and recurrent pattern evident in prior legislation. This repetition persists ad nauseam, despite the existence of section 35 of the Constitution; the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; the Calls to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and Canada’s persistent commitment to reconciliation, including the affirmation of meaningful consultation.

I note that the Northwest Territories Indigenous population is 49.6%; Nunavut is 85.9%; and the Yukon is 22.3%. The lack of consultation is particularly concerning as the right of Indigenous people to hunt is asserted and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution and in historic and modern treaties as well as land claim agreements. A 1974 journal article entitled “Inuit Hunting Rights in the Northwest Territories” states:

The Inuit culture and identity are based upon an intimate relationship with the lands and waters they have traditionally occupied and used. Hunting for food and clothing is part of their traditional and continuing culture. Their lands and waters are an integral part of their total being. Few Canadians realize that many Inuit are experiencing within a single lifetime a tremendous cultural transformation from that of a food gathering tribal community to an industrial society. . . .

Therefore, the preservation of Inuit hunting rights has the effect of enhancing their cultural identity in a rapidly changing society. The present economic benefits of hunting will be increasingly incidental to the cultural aspects, rooted in thousands of years as a hunting people. The protection of Inuit hunting rights can be viewed as a mechanism to preserve Inuit culture, without cost to the rest of Canadian society.

This statement is just as true 49 years later, where subsistence hunting is central not only to our identity but also to our survival. Hunting and, thus, guns remain central to our ability to address food insecurity and the high cost of living. Guns are also a necessity to ensure our safety from predatory animals in and outside of our communities.

According to witness testimony from Mr. Paul Irngaut, the Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., on November 8, 2023:

There has not been sufficient consultation on the bill. We understand that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization commonly known as ITK, had received a briefing of the most recent version of the bill shortly before it was tabled in May. However, neither ITK nor NTI has been fully consulted on the language and impacts of the bill.

Additionally, I will reiterate the viewpoint expressed by my colleague Senator Don Plett in the chamber. On November 6, 2023 — on Bill C-21 — during witness testimony in relation to consultation, Mr. David, Director of Legal Affairs at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, stated:

Put simply, there was none. The minister had reached out and offered, and we had reached out and requested, but that consultation never occurred. We’re still waiting.

I share that sentiment. I’m still waiting — waiting for Canada to honour and hold their commitments to Indigenous peoples. Despite my role as a senator, and despite the numerous opportunities and privileges afforded to me as a parliamentarian, I am constantly reminded that I am an Inuk woman in a place whose history has deeply influenced and moulded not just myself but also my family, community and generations of Inuit in immeasurable, harmful and profound ways.

Parliamentarians should be deeply concerned when Canada consistently passes legislation without meaningful consultation, despite the presence of crucial frameworks like UNDRIP, section 35 of the Constitution and the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, alongside Canada’s explicit commitment to reconciliation. This ongoing disregard for meaningful consultation undermines the integrity of the legislative process, and contradicts Canada’s pledges to uphold Indigenous rights, respect Indigenous sovereignty and engage in a genuine reconciliation process. Such actions perpetuate systemic inequalities, erode trust and disregard the voices and rights of Indigenous peoples, hindering the nation’s progress toward genuine reconciliation and equitable governance.

This brings me to the new “red flag” provisions that would allow any person to make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order that would allow for the search and seizure of firearms with or without a warrant.

According to Mr. Thurley, a firearms researcher and policy specialist:

The ill-considered red flag proposals are also problematic. Under Canada’s existing licensing system, police and judges already have the power to remove guns and revoke licences from those who pose a threat. The new provisions have no requirements to consider Indigenous hunting rights, for the complainant to have any relationship to the accused or for the accused to be heard in court. Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system and are also the most reliant on firearms for subsistence. We will undermine the built-in safeguards of the existing red flag law. Where people hunt to feed families, this has real consequences.

Mr. Thurley also highlighted a critical concern: the anonymity of complaints and sealed court records could potentially render the system susceptible to false, trivial or vexatious complaints against prominent figures, including law enforcement officers and military personnel. For Indigenous Canadians — already overrepresented in the justice system — navigating this process to reclaim firearms unjustly confiscated could prove exceptionally challenging.

According to ITK President Natan Obed:

The red flag system is another example of a balanced measure that creates a mechanism that could disrupt Inuit families disproportionately. Inuit often live in multi-generational homes. Thus, the seizure of firearms could have unintended repercussions on entire families, not just the individuals targeted by the provisions of the bill. The confidential nature of the application process and the prospect that the target of the application or their household wouldn’t even know about the application could also lead to actions being taken without adequate notice or understanding of a family’s circumstances. On the other hand, the limited access to justice faced by Inuit also means the applications themselves would likely be hampered simply by the fact that Inuit may not be able to apply in the first instance.

In the Northwest Territories, 21 out of the 33 communities are accessible only by fly-in, and in Nunavut, all 25 communities are solely accessible via air travel. The remoteness and lack of infrastructure in these regions result in significant portions of the territories relying on fly-in courts, where judges, lawyers, Crown counsel, Legal Aid and court staff operate. These fly-in court sessions occur every two to three months but are susceptible to postponements or cancellations due to adverse weather or unforeseen circumstances.

For Indigenous peoples in these territories, accessibility remains restricted, not only due to the reliance on fly-in courts but also because the majority of lawyers are accessed through Legal Aid.

In regard to the red flag provisions, Mr. Will David stated:

I suppose the system itself presumes that there are police to enforce it, yes. It also presumes that there are effective provincial courts available in all communities at all times. There’s a real challenge there in terms of whether or not someone seeking an order has access to the means to be able to do it. From the perspective of trying to prevent violence, the red flag system itself may not be entirely helpful within all communities within Inuit Nunangat. On top of that, it allows for one to apply for an ex parte order, so you could have police, where the red flag system is available, showing up unannounced to seize firearms from people who are not aware that those police are . . . showing up to seize those firearms.

The entire system itself seems set up to work well in areas where there’s a lot of legal and enforcement infrastructure. The problem here is that we don’t perceive that there is adequate infrastructure to actually make the provisions effective, either for community safety or for the delicate balance that the legislation seeks to strike between, essentially, section 35 rights holders and harvesters and then victims or potential victims of domestic violence.

For these reasons, the implications of the red flag provisions pose some very real logistical challenges to the three territories, especially in light of the lack of meaningful consultations and the fact that no amendments were adopted despite the testimony of witnesses heard within the Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.