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.

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.

Senator, I’m sorry. The time allowed for debate has expired. Are you asking for a few more minutes?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Even with Minister LeBlanc’s recent efforts addressing deficiencies in Bill C-21 concerning Indigenous peoples and Northern Canada, my hopefulness remains tempered by the ongoing uncertainties about the sincere implementation of impactful measures to narrow the support gap for Indigenous peoples, the three territories and the disparities among provinces and territories. It is imperative for Canada to recognize Indigenous peoples as active collaborators in the legislative process, not just merely as its subjects.

According to ITK President Natan Obed:

The rights affirmed by the UNDRIP can only be implemented if they are interpreted as legal rights and implemented and enforced accordingly. Our human rights are not second-class rights and deserve the same protection as the rights of other Canadians.

Quyanainni. Mahsi’cho. Koana. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). This bill enacts substantial changes and reforms to the Criminal Code and to the Firearms Act dealing with firearms. The Minister of Public Safety introduced this bill at first reading on May 30, 2022. The bill made its way here on May 18 of this year and was sent to our Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on June 21. Our committee held 12 meetings on Bill C-21 and heard 66 witnesses.

Led by our chair, Senator Dean, the process was thorough and extensive. We covered the issues well. Our committee reported back with no amendments, but with an extensive list of observations. I feel that our work is done — and that it was done well. This important bill takes its rationale from crime statistics as well as the increasing number of guns in this country. In his second reading speech introducing the bill on June 9, 2022, Minister Mendicino cited a 2022 Statistics Canada report which, in his words, shows:

Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. . . .

Others cite the rise in the number of guns itself as justification for the measures in the bill. For example, Senator Yussuff — in his sponsor speech here — noted an increase in the prevalence of handguns in Canada. Between 2010 and 2020, he noted, the number of handguns increased by 74% to 1 million handguns owned by approximately 275,000 individuals in this country.

There is a theory here about the increase in guns, and it goes as follows: The more guns we find in society, the more harms we find that involve guns, and that harm is found not just in gun crime, but in other harms such as suicide, misuse and accidents. As a corollary to this theory, reducing the number of guns will reduce these harms. Fewer guns mean fewer harms.

If we need proof of this theory, all we have to do is look south of the border to see the magnitude of killings and deaths attributable to the abundance of guns and the ideology of gun ownership run wild.

We in this country will never accept the gun dystopia which is the United States of America. Bill C-21 tackles the central issue of limiting the availability of guns in several ways. There is a handgun freeze: Bill C-21 would implement a national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns. This is not the handgun ban that some people were seeking, and none of the handguns owned by legal licence holders will be confiscated; however, over time, this freeze will limit the numbers of handguns in this country.

Then there is the problem of assault-style weapons. In 2020, by order-in-council, the government prohibited a list of approximately 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. This bill adds another measure to deal with the assault guns by prohibiting future assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market. Again, this approach does not go as far as some would like since it does not deal with the other makes and models currently held by Canadians. The government proposes to set up a council to identify these firearms, which might then be subject to a ban. So again, looking down the road, these measures should help to reduce the number of assault-style firearms in this country.

Then there are the so-called ghost guns: the firearms or firearm parts that can be manufactured, which have proliferated in recent years. Bill C-21 will create new offences aimed at the use of 3-D printing for the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms and will classify ghost guns and other illegally made firearms as prohibited.

These provisions relating to handguns, assault-style weapons and ghost guns, if all implemented, will limit the number of guns in this country going forward.

Two other parts of the bill are extremely important. Bill C-21 addresses intimate partner violence and gender-based violence by enacting red flag and expanded licence revocation laws. The new red flag law would enable anyone to apply to a court to remove firearms for up to 30 days from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. A longer-term prohibition of up to five years is possible if there continue to be reasonable grounds to believe that the individual poses a risk.

In addition, a firearms licence could be revoked from someone in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment, i.e., stalking, when a protection order has been issued against a licence holder or when a red flag order is issued.

There is much more in Bill C-21, but for me these are the key points.

Of course, this bill is very far from perfect, and I was surprised and very disappointed to see some of the serious missteps the government made along the way. We heard last week and in committee about the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous groups and others, such as chief firearms officers in the process of drafting the bill. We heard about unresolved issues, including those involving handgun shooting sports. Many of us recall the introduction of amendments in November 2022 involving a long list of assault-style firearms, which were to be prohibited. This resulted in a storm of protests from hunters and farmers who claimed that hunting guns were also on that list, and thus, the government ended up withdrawing this list that they had put forward in February of this year. This was a setback in the effort to limit assault-style weapons in this country.

Nevertheless, Bill C-21 is very worthy of our support. I’m very impressed that the bill has gained approval from such a wide range of experts, academics, health researchers, activists and law enforcement agencies. Here are some examples of the supporters: the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Coalition for Gun Control, Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Families of Dawson, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, PolySeSouvient, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and Women’s Shelters Canada. These are just some examples of the many stakeholders who support this bill.

For example, Dr. Wendy Cukier, speaking for the Coalition for Gun Control, which represents over 200 health, crime prevention, policing and women’s organizations, stated, “We are asking that you pass this legislation in its current form. . . .”

Dr. Najma Ahmed, Professor of Surgery and Trauma, University of Toronto, speaking for the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, stated, “Canada needs Bill C-21. It will save lives. . . .”

Nathalie Provost, spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, which represents survivors of the December 6 femicides at École Polytechnique, stated:

. . . today we urge you to pass Bill C-21 without amendments as quickly as possible. It is a good bill. It is not perfect and not complete, but it freezes handgun sales and helps protect women from domestic murders. It will save lives.

She also said, “. . . we feel that the bill must be passed for Canada to move forward. We value the bill very much . . .”

Also Dr. Natasha Saunders, Staff Physician, Hospital for Sick Children, speaking for the Canadian Paediatric Society, stated, “As an organization, we support the passage of Bill C-21 . . .”

Colleagues, I also want to note the endorsement of Bill C-21 among law enforcement officials. I must admit that I was surprised by this initially and expected more criticism from them, but Deputy Chief Bill Fordy, whom we’ve heard about before in earlier remarks, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, told our committee that:

The CACP supports Bill C-21 in principle and believes this law is introducing essential provisions to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

He also said:

. . . I think it is helpful rather than hurtful. I think the stronger language around prohibited firearms is helpful. I think the efforts to reduce domestic violence are helpful, and as the previous witness referenced, the fatality attached to some of those incidents.

He is the chief law enforcement witness that we had at committee. He represents the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

His sentiments were echoed by other law enforcement witnesses, including Fiona Wilson, Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department, who stressed that the bill is positive and gives the police additional tools in many areas.

However, on the other side, I think everyone in this chamber understands that well-organized groups have lobbied hard against it. Senator Coyle has mentioned some of the groups.

In my case, I’ve counted over 2,000 pieces of correspondence since we got the bill in May in the Senate. The vast majority of the correspondence is from groups opposed to this bill. Their presence on social media is huge.

How representative are these opposing views? It turns out these views are not very representative at all. I decided to commission a public opinion survey about key aspects of the bill. The national survey found that the vast majority of Canadians, in fact, support stricter gun control. There is no doubt about it — 73% of Canadians support “freezing the sale, purchase, transport and importation of handguns.” Meanwhile, 85% of Canadians support prohibiting new assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

Over 90% each support the red-flag provisions — that is, allowing firearms to be removed by court order from a firearm owner who may pose a danger to themselves or others. And 96% of Canadians support the ability to remove a firearms licence from someone in cases where there’s been domestic violence or criminal harassment.

A majority of Canadians across all regions, both genders — men too, but particularly women — and all age categories support all four of these measures. Colleagues, these are not the elites that we have heard about; these are the views of ordinary Canadians.

Let’s be very clear about it. Canadians are saying yes to stronger gun controls and yes to the key provisions of Bill C-21. Also, by approving Bill C-21, this country will take another important step away from the destructive gun culture and away from the ubiquitous gun violence of our neighbour to the south.

Colleagues, I will be voting for this bill. I hope you will too. Thank you very much.

Senator Batters has a question. Senator Dasko, will you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. The poll that you spoke about, how much did that poll cost and did you pay for it out of your Senate budget?

Thank you, senator, for your question.

The poll cost $3,400. I did pay for it from my Senate budget. That has to be the best $3,400 I have ever spent. I can’t believe that you can actually consult Canadians for a fee of $3,400 on a bill like this. You can ask substantial questions. Whatever the result is, in any case, what a deal that was, that $3,400.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

I think the yeas have it.

I see two senators rising. Any advice on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 7-4(5)(c), the vote is deferred until 5:30 on the next sitting day.