Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, in April I asked Senator Gold a question about Canada’s emissions reduction targets and the fact that the NDP-Liberal government did not consult farmers on meeting those targets. Fertilizer Canada’s own research shows meeting these targets would devastate the entire sector, costing it $48 billion.

Leader, you were unable to say whether they were consulted or to what extent, but you did say that:

. . . I can assure this chamber that the government’s emissions targets are taken in the spirit and on the basis of advice and reflect Canada’s commitment to do its part to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change.

Leader, did the advice you referred to regarding meeting Canada’s emissions targets include advice from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, or did the government ignore them while preparing its targets just as it has ignored the farmers and Fertilizer Canada?

Senator Plett: Well, I trust that you will get me the answer that I asked for if you don’t have the answer today.

A report in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday cited confidential government documents on the emissions targets released in March. Those documents, including findings from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, showed the government’s targets of an 81-megatonne reduction in emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2030 was completely unrealistic, leader.

The documents showed the industry could only realistically reduce emissions by 43 megatonnes by 2030. Officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada said they would share documents with The Globe and Mail showing how the gap between 43 megatonnes and 81 megatonnes would be bridged. Then, of course, they reneged on that promise. This government constantly tells us it relies on science, but it ignores advice from its own experts.

Leader, can you tell us why the government ignored the more realistic figures on its emissions targets? Will you commit to tabling in this chamber the documents promised to The Globe and Mail on how a gap of 38 megatonnes would be bridged?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today is once again for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, as Statistics Canada reported recently, gun crime has gone up under this NDP-Liberal government, yet their response is to bring forward arbitrary bans, soft-on-crime legislation and a complicated buyback program that is still not operational. Meanwhile, illegal guns continue to pour into Canada across our border with the United States.

An answer to one of my written questions on the Order Paper revealed that between 2016 and 2020 the Canada Border Services Agency seized just 225 prima facie crime guns, or guns suspected or known to be destined for illicit use in Canada.

Leader, does this sound sufficient to you? Are you content with poor results on stopping smuggled guns, which are by far the main source of guns on the street? If your government genuinely wants to tackle gun crime, why are you, under Bill C-5, removing mandatory jail time for criminals who smuggle guns into our country?

Senator Plett: Of course, leader, there is no argument that this government is spending needless amounts — millions and millions of dollars — on what they are doing. That was not even mentioned in my question.

Let’s see if you can answer this question without the help of my friend Senator Lankin.

The Prime Minister likes to point to increasing jail time for illegal gun smugglers, from 10 years to 14 years through Bill C-5, as evidence that he is doing something on gun smuggling. A recent answer to a written question on the Order Paper states that for criminal cases between April 2019 and March 2020, where gun smuggling was the most serious offence:

Of the eight cases, two resulted in convictions and six resulted in stays of proceedings or charges being withdrawn. Of the two cases involving findings of guilt for an offence under section 103, one involved a period of imprisonment of greater than 24 months and one involved a period of probation between 2 and 3 years.

Leader, the Library of Parliament could not find a single instance in the past 20 years when even the current maximum of 10 years had ever been imposed by a court.

So, leader, how does raising the minimum to 14 years achieve anything? They are not even receiving the 10 that exists now. Where is the real action necessary to combat illegal gun smuggling across the border? When does it start, leader?