Senator Plett: I didn’t hear the motion.

Senator Plett: In a democratic society, the government doesn’t have to adhere to democracy.

Senator Housakos: Not this one.

Senator Plett: 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Yussuff: You’re talking about how the Liberal government wants to increase penalties, and yet the Liberal government repealed — with Bill C-5 — minimum firearm sentences for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the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?

Senator Plett: 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?

Senator Plett: 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?

Senator Plett: That was on debate, Your Honour.

Senator Plett: I would like to hear the motion.

Senator Plett: No, it was not.

Senator Plett: Your Honour, I won’t belabour this, but I want to correct the record. This is indeed a government bill. This is a bill that has been introduced by the government and you, Senator Dalphond, are the sponsor of a bill that has been brought here by the government. So let’s not muddy the waters. This is a government bill — a report — that you didn’t appreciate, nor did the government leader. So, for the record, Your Honour, this is a government bill.

Senator Plett: The made-up Special Rapporteur’s statement defying the will of the House was clearly written before the votes were cast, just as his report was sent to translation before he even met with Erin O’Toole on who CSIS says was a target of Beijing’s interference. His statement yesterday said, “. . . my mandate comes from the government.” Exactly — that is what I’ve been saying all along, leader. That’s what we’ve been saying. He is not independent. He is an old Trudeau family friend and a member of the Trudeau Foundation. He was hired to help out the Prime Minister and his government in a made-up job. The Privy Council Office handles his media requests. He is not independent.

Leader, the very first words of the cover-up issued by the Special Rapporteur last week were this: “Our democracy is built on trust.” If the rapporteur and the Prime Minister can so easily dismiss the result of a democratic vote by elected members of the House of Commons, why should Canadians trust the Trudeau government about Beijing’s interference or, indeed, about anything else?

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m not sure what Senator Dalphond said, but I’m assuming that it’s okay to ask him a question.

Senator Dalphond, yesterday, when we voted on the report stage of the bill, both you as the sponsor of the bill and, indeed, the government really opposed the motion. You may have said, “on division,” but “on division” means you don’t agree. Can we expect that you will be voting against the bill or on division a little bit later on?

You maybe didn’t get everything you wanted, but you got a bill that you wanted. I find it strange that the sponsor and, indeed, the government would vote on division on their own bill. Would you care to explain your rationale for that?

Senator Dalphond: I will certainly, as I said, call for the vote tonight, I will remain silent and the bill will be adopted on division.

Senator Plett: Well, I find it very strange that a sponsor would want to vote or that the government, on their own bill, passes it on division. I won’t put a question into that, but simply that I find it extremely strange that the government would oppose their own bill.

Senator Dalphond: It’s not a question. It’s a comment. I won’t reply to it, but will add another comment.

This is not a typical government bill. This is a bill that has been proposed by the judiciary to set forward a new process. This has been after due consultations for more than four years with stakeholders, with judges and with chief justices everywhere. Then the Department of Justice was approached to draft a bill that would reflect the consensus.

As I explained in my speech — and I think you missed that part perhaps because you were engaged in another conversation — the origin of that bill, how it came to us and what our role was in front of such a special bill.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question today is again for the Liberal government leader in the Senate.

Leader, you seem to take so much exception to the questions of the official opposition, as if we don’t have the right to do our job. You question our integrity. You question our professionalism when we ask you questions. I ask these questions on behalf of the people of Winnipeg, on behalf of the people of my province of Manitoba and, indeed, on behalf of all Canadians as the leader of our Conservative caucus. I, leader, am doing my job. I do it to the best of my ability, and you question our right to ask you questions.

Leader, in doing your job, you often speak to us about the importance of deferring to the will of the other place. They, after all, have voted and sent something over.

Yesterday, leader, a clear majority of the members of the House of Commons voted to remove the Prime Minister’s made‑up Special Rapporteur. Only Liberal MPs voted to keep him. Yet, moments after the vote was taken, the Special Rapporteur issued a statement defying the result. He said he’s not going anywhere.

Leader, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to tell senators to accept the will of the House when your government refuses to do so?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I’m wondering whether the senator would take a question.

Senator Dalphond: I was expecting I would have a question from you and one from Senator Batters.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder if the senator would take a couple of questions.