I woke up this morning, and I couldn’t remember where I left off yesterday. Then on my way over here, I did remember.

I’m sure my friend Senator Plett can’t wait for me to finish my speech.

Let me be clear, there is no obligation for victims to use this law. This was in the section read, in the yellow flag provisions in the legislation. They will be there to offer additional protection.

I would like to share a few more important statistics today. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicide and suicide. Handguns are the most commonly used firearm in homicide. Suicide by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearms deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. During this period, some 11,000 individuals took their lives.

Since 2010, we’ve seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada. Reducing the number of handguns and assault-style firearms in our community will result in reducing the number of victims of gun violence.

I hope we can get an agreement on one other important measure of this bill that I would like to talk about now, and that is what it will do to curb firearm smuggling and trafficking.

The smuggling of firearms into Canada remains an important threat to the safety of Canadians and directly impacts the firearms-related violence that has been felt in communities across the country. In 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, seized more than 1,100 firearms, more than double the number from 2020, including the seizure of 66 prohibited firearms at the Blue Water Bridge port of entry in Sarnia, Ontario, one of the largest single firearms seizures in the southern Ontario region in recent history.

More recently, the CBSA worked with partners to seize some 46 prohibited or restricted firearms at a highway stop in Cornwall, Ontario.

Bill C-21 will address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing the maximum criminal penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking from 10 years to 14 years, as well as by providing more tools to law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthen border security measures.

Increasing the maximum penalty for smuggling and trafficking offences will be a message to criminals and, just as importantly, to courts that Parliament unequivocally denounces these crimes.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, supported these measures when they appeared during the study of the bill at committee in the other place. They said:

With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

That brings me back to the recently introduced amendments to Bill C-21. They were adopted at committee stage in the other place, including a new prospective definition for characteristics of assault-type firearms and recognizing and respecting Aboriginal treaty rights of Indigenous people. These have been informed by discussions with stakeholders across the country. They include hunters and trappers, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, rural and northern residents, target shooters and others.

Honourable colleagues, it doesn’t matter where you go in this country, in every corner from coast to coast, you will find skilled, experienced hunters who are happy to chat with you for hours about how it is more than just a hobby for them, how it has been passed down through generations and how it forms a key part of their culture and way of life.

That’s why these latest amendments, I think, provide clarity and protections around responsible gun ownership.

Furthermore, they reflect the important cultural perspective of Indigenous people across the country. The bill respects and recognizes the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for Indigenous communities. The government also recognizes the importance of consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

While the government has acted through a prospective technical definition to prevent assault-style firearms from entering into our communities, this bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of Indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution.

The government also continues to signal its commitment to continue working with Indigenous communities by engaging in an open dialogue regarding any unintended impact that the bill may have on Indigenous people. There will be further opportunities for engagement in the Indigenous communities across Canada if — and when — the bill passes in the Senate and the House.

The government has pledged it will continue to seek out the views and perspectives of various Indigenous groups, and they will, of course, be consulted during the regulatory process, as well as during the implementation phase of specific measures in the bill.

In conclusion, colleagues, the goal of this bill is to keep communities safe; none of us will disagree with that. As we know, no single program or initiative alone can end gun violence.

I know that gun control by itself will not solve all of the problems associated with gun violence, but it is an important piece of the puzzle that will make a significant difference. This is why I think that Bill C-21 is just one of the many government initiatives aimed at keeping our communities safe across this country. It seeks to cap the number of handguns in circulation by creating a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. It creates a new definition for assault-style firearms that only applies to newly designed and manufactured weapons after the bill becomes law.

It creates yellow flag laws and red flag laws to reduce firearm‑related family violence and self-harm. It raises the maximum sentence for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border from 10 years to 14 years, and it takes action against ghost guns that are becoming a serious problem in our country.

The bill doesn’t take one gun away from any legal gun owner in this country, whether they’re a handgun owner, a hunter or a sports shooter. I want to be perfectly clear that if you own a legal handgun, you can still keep it after this bill becomes law. If you own a legal long gun, this bill does not impact your firearm.

Colleagues, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I view this bill in terms of weighing the privileges against the rights in order to try to find a fair balance. Then, I weigh the restrictions to the privilege of owning a certain type of firearm against the rights of Canadians to a safe country free of gun violence. I feel confident that the bill gets the balance right.

Colleagues, I hope that after you give careful consideration to this bill, you will agree that it is both fair and balanced, and that you will support sending this bill to committee. Thank you.

I wonder if the senator would take a couple of questions.

With pleasure, my friend.

Thank you. I’m sure that Mr. Gerretsen will, again, tweet tomorrow that I am stalling this bill because I had the audacity to ask questions about this — as he said, before you introduced the bill, that I was already stalling it. I’m not sure what he will say now.

Senator Yussuff, you cited — a number of times — how many deaths there were from firearms, and so on and so forth. At no point did you tell us how many of these deaths were due to legal firearms — just with firearms. I don’t think there is a person in this chamber who disagrees with us clamping down on illegal firearms; I certainly don’t disagree. It’s not the legal firearms that are the problem — it’s the illegal firearms.

You talk about increasing the sentences from 10 to 14 years for smuggling. I want you to square this box for me, Senator Yussuff: You’re talking about how the Liberal government wants to increase penalties, and yet the Liberal government repealed — with Bill C-5 — minimum firearm sentences for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence and discharging a firearm recklessly.

If this is a government that is bent on stopping crimes with firearms, why would they repeal all of these minimum sentences? Why wouldn’t they, rather, try to increase those as opposed to repealing them — and stop going after legal firearm owners, and start going after illegal firearm owners?

First, thank you for your question, Senator Plett.

As you know, the courts have ruled in regard to minimum sentences. The government reflected that in regard to its action. But, in regard to the current average sentence for smuggling and convictions, on average those who are convicted serve eight years of their sentence. As you know, and as I said in my speech, the government has signalled, again, that it will increase the sentence for those smuggling guns into our country.

There are many things that the government is doing to deal with firearm infractions at the community level — including how we can prevent young people from adopting habits where they associate with individuals who might persuade them into gun crime. The government has dedicated a lot of resources to ensure that we can achieve that. They’re working in many border communities to stop smuggling, as well as raising awareness and support for police officers on the front lines to ensure that we don’t have illegal guns in our country.

I think those efforts need to continue as long as necessary because criminals who want to smuggle illegal firearms into our country will continue to do so. We have to find ways to combat that, and work to strengthen legislation. This bill offers us some direction to ensure those things can happen, but, at the same time, it is about supporting our front-line officers who are doing their best at the border, and other areas, to ensure they can catch these people, and ultimately put them in the legal system, so that we can try them and ensure they serve sentences for the behaviour that they are involved in.

I would like to ask a couple of more questions, unless somebody else wants to speak. I have a few questions, but I will yield to others if they also do.

Senator Yussuff, in your remarks, you said:

There has been a growing increase in the prevalence of handguns in Canada. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of handguns increased by 74% to 1 million handguns owned by approximately 275,000 individuals in our country.

Research shows that the availability of firearms in developed countries and the incidence of firearm crimes, violence and misuse are correlated.

Senator Yussuff, there is no such correlation between legal handgun purchases in Canada and crime on Canadian streets.

When it comes to handguns, I certainly support us giving our law enforcement all of the tools; you and I agree on that issue. However, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw said, “They’re not domestically sourced. They are internationally sourced. Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.”

How is going after our legal sport shooters supposed to reduce the crime on Toronto streets?

Well, I don’t want to comment on what a front-line officer is saying from his perspective. I don’t know the context upon which he is reflecting on what he has said. I respect his opinion in that regard.

I think you and I would agree there are many illegal handguns coming into our country at many of our borders. It has been identified, and the government has allocated significant resources to help our front-line officers deal with that.

Regarding handguns in general and what the government wants to do, municipalities in general and urban areas have been calling for the government to take action on reducing the number of guns in their communities. I think this bill reflects that consensus to a large extent in large urban areas across the country. They want to see a reduction of guns in their communities. They recognize, yes, there are illegal guns, but sometimes legal guns end up causing harm, such as in domestic violence or causing harm to individuals in the context of those who are struggling with mental issues using their own handguns or other guns to inflict harm upon themselves.

There are some challenges that we have to recognize and deal with in the broader context of guns. In no way will sport shooters be impacted by this bill. It lays out provisions regarding how sport shooters can continue to do their craft. There is recognition of how they will be able to continue accessing their guns and using them to pursue their sport, of which provisions were enhanced in the other place before the bill came to the Senate.

Senator Yussuff, I, too, would be concerned if sport shooters were impacted negatively by legislation of this sort. But if I have my initial reading of the legislation correct, sport shooters who are part of sporting federations would be unaffected in the sense that they would be exempted from the requirements in this legislation with respect to handguns and other guns if they were in a program of training and exercises that led towards regional, national or international competitions. I’m just checking on that.

Secondly, I know a number of us were alarmed last weekend to learn of a tragic shooting in Ontario — I believe it was in Hamilton — in which a Canadian landlord gunned down two of his tenants as they fled from the rental home after a dispute over property. Police said that witnesses saw a young couple, both in their mid-20s, fleeing from their Hamilton, Ontario home. Following the killings, the gunman barricaded himself in the apartment and there was more tragedy involved because the gunman himself ended up dying in an altercation with police.

The point here is that we learned from reading about this that the killer was a gun owner, and several handguns and rifles were found in the home. Furthermore, they were registered to that user. In addition to the first question, would you have any comment on the second one?

Thank you for the question, Senator Dean. It’s hard to reflect on what happened in Hamilton, Ontario. I think as parents and families, we are all shocked. These were two young people, it seems, in their prime and trying to build their lives. Whatever happened, we’ll find out later in the courts. It is true, according to what has been reported so far, that the person who committed this terrible act had guns that he legally acquired and was licenced to carry. Again, in the context of gun violence, even good people do bad things.

The red-flag and yellow-flag provisions of this bill will hopefully aid in preventing some of those situations in the future. Should somebody suspect something of happening, they could bring it to the authorities and they could intervene either to confiscate the gun or take away the licence and put restrictions on that individual. That did not happen here, so we don’t have foresight into the future. We know in other places like the United States, where there are red- and yellow-flag laws, it would make a significant difference in preventing these types of situations from repeating themselves.

I’m hoping that if this bill does pass, it will aid people in the future with knowledge that there were issues in that home or with that landlord, and they could have brought it to the attention of the authorities to ensure something tragic wouldn’t happen. Now, nobody did that, but I think the government is committed so that, if the bill does pass, those provisions will get pronouncement so the public will better know how to use them in a more effective way.

In regard to sport shooters, it’s critical for us to recognize the important role they play in the Olympics and Paralympics in our country. For those who desire to continue to participate in that sport, I don’t think this bill will impact them in any way, shape or form. There are some requirements they must meet if they are legitimately involved in the sport and continue to practise and train going forward. The bill clearly recognizes that. It was improved in the other place as a result of the debate that took place and those who went before the committee.

Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for sponsoring this bill.

I want to ask you about the last round of amendments that the government brought in. There were certainly advocates for stronger gun laws who felt that the government had watered down the legislation more than they expected and more than they were pleased to see. What is your response to those who feel that the bill, as it stands, is not strong enough?

Thank you, Senator Cardozo, for your question. Hindsight is 20/20. Again, in the context of the government initiating this bill and trying to get support in the other place from the opposition, they ended up getting support from three parties. Some amendments had the support of all parties in the other place, recognizing that, in order to get a piece of legislation over here, there were compromises made in regard to what the legislation currently reflects.

From a personal view, reading the bill and watching the issue being debated, I think they reached a balance in trying to bring forth a piece of legislation that Canadians have been demanding the government to act upon for quite some time. I think it reflects that. I’m sure when the committee hearings start, we will hear from those who think the bill has gone too far and from those who think it hasn’t gone far enough. We will get to evaluate that for ourselves as senators and make a judgment.

From my perspective as the sponsor of the bill, I believe the bill has struck a balance, and I am hoping that colleagues will see that, not only in the context of the debate here, but also what the witnesses will say when they come before committee.

Thank you. I want to make one comment about sport shooters. Of course, I will be making my own speech on this in the next little while, if the government leader doesn’t decide to put closure on it before we get to it next week.

I do want to make a comment about sport shooters. In fact, allowing sport shooters to continue, as this bill — you’re right — does, is a little bit like saying you can play hockey, but we will start hockey at the NHL. Nobody below NHL level can play hockey. That’s what this does. We can still have the Olympic shooters, but we can’t have the amateurs training to come up. Now, you’re right, the bill addresses the fact that we want to deal with this, but it’s not dealing with it. This is, again, the government saying, “Trust us. We will deal with this.” But it’s not in the bill, Senator Yussuff.

Right now, the way the bill reads, you can go to the Olympics and be a sports shooter but you cannot practise going up to the Olympics. So how many people will we have in the Olympics if we cannot train them?

I have one final question, and I thank you for your indulgence, Senator Yussuff. But you do state — and you said it again:

. . . fundamentally, for me, this bill is about striking a fair balance between the right of Canadians to safe communities and the privilege of Canadians to own certain types or models of guns for hunting and sport shooting. Finding that balance is no easy task.

I do agree with you. Finding that balance is no easy task. But based on the criticism that this bill has received from all sides, I would say that the government has actually destroyed a balance that previously existed, Senator Yussuff.

The bill is opposed by most provinces. It is opposed by hunters and sports shooters, even though you say sports shooters will be able to continue. It has been opposed by police witnesses who have appeared on this bill and have said that it will do nothing to stop the illegal guns on the streets. The criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association has said that the red flag provisions in the bill simply duplicate powers that already exist to seize firearms from persons who may be a danger to themselves or others.

So, Senator Yussuff, what do you or what does the government actually believe it has accomplished in the face of all of this opposition?

Well, again, thank you for your question and, of course, your comments.

The reality, of course, is I think we probably won’t agree that this bill has achieved balance because you have a perspective, and I respect that. And, equally, I hope that you will respect mine — that there were many witnesses who came before the committee, including the chiefs of police who spoke to provisions in the bill that will interdict guns at the border. They support those measures. They are not against them. I understand that, yes, some of the witnesses do not like certain provisions in the bill and have spoken out against that. But I think that it would be wrong to suggest that there is not support for this bill, for many aspects of it, from the witnesses who came before the committee in the other place to talk about the provisions in the bill.

I do believe in the context of debate around guns in our country, as it is in the other place that we have witnessed, there is always going to be some polarization. But I think that as honourable senators in this place we recognize the importance of trying to find a balance and do the right thing. I think this bill achieves that. It may not be perfect from certain perspectives, but I believe that if it is passed and it should become law, it will make a significant difference in making our country and communities a safer place for all of us.

There will always be those who disagree, who think there should be no restriction on them owning guns in this country. The reality is, I do believe, there have to be some restrictions.

I was fortunate to go to the RCMP gun vault at the beginning of my tenure to understand some of the complexity in the work that they are doing. I came away from there frightened, not because of what they were doing — when they showed me the guns that they had interdicted across the country that I was privy to look at, I was literally scared out of my pants because I could not understand why anyone would want to have any one of those weapons. These were not toys. These were machines that were created to kill human beings in a massive way. They brought them into our country, and they were interdicted. I know there are many in our country today.

My point, senator, is that we will get this bill to committee. I am sure that there are things you and I will disagree on and there are things we will agree on. We recognize we have to do something to improve the safety of Canadians in this country in a variety of ways. Interdicting guns coming in across our borders is one of those. But also trying to deal with gun violence that is happening in our country is another. Trying to ensure that young people do not get into the gun culture in our country is something we can also work at.

As you know, the government has invested a significant amount of resources right across this country, working on the front lines. I think it is wrong for you to say the majority of provinces are against the bill. I know some provinces are against the bill. I live here in Ontario and I certainly know my province has not spoken out against this bill, because there is a recognition in Ontario that we have to do something about gun violence in this country.

Thank you so much for your question. I look forward, of course, to this bill going to committee, and I look forward to you speaking on the bill next week at second reading.