Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable colleagues, today I’m speaking to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. In my remarks, I will address one of the most obvious things that’s missing from the current version of Bill C-21, something that’s at the root of all the problems with this bill. This flaw is due to the fact that the government held almost no consultations while drafting this bill.

Why does that matter? For one thing, it matters because the government said it consulted pretty much everyone before drafting the bill. The minister said that these so-called consultation sessions were more like what I would call information sessions. For another, it matters because, knowing that there was zero consultation while Bill C-21 was being drafted, it’s fair to assume there will be zero consultation during the future regulatory process. I think we need to solve that problem with the bill before us.

I’d like to start with a reminder about what the government actually said on the subject of Bill C-21 consultations. As Senator Plett and others reminded us, when the minister appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on October 23, he said, quote:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

Colleagues, that’s exactly what the minister said during his testimony. However, when the senators on our National Security Committee started asking the witnesses whether they had been consulted when Bill C-21 was being developed — and I mean a true consultation, not an information session — here’s what they said.

Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta’s Chief Firearms Officer, said, “No consultation whatsoever.”

Robert Freberg said, “It was zero.”

On November 6, Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, said, “Minimal or none at best.”

Will David, Director of Legal Affairs at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said:

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.

Paul Irngaut, Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., had this to say, and I quote:

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.

Jessica Lazare, Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawàke, said this:

We only had one meeting and that wasn’t necessarily an adequate consultation, so I wouldn’t consider it consultation whatsoever.

Sandra Honour, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Shooting Federation of Canada, said:

The Shooting Federation of Canada was not asked to participate in the committee that discussed Bill C-21, nor did we have letters answered to us after we wrote to the minister several times to request.

When we asked Marcell Wilson, Founder and President of the Toronto One By One Movement, whether anyone in his community had been consulted on the bill, he said, “I would have to say no, not one.”

Gilbert White, Chairperson of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Recreational Firearm Community, said, “The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was not consulted.”

When asked if his organization had been consulted, Doug Chiasson, Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada, said, “No, we were not.”

Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, said the following:

We had some conversation with the previous minister, Minister Mendicino, as well. I wouldn’t describe it as a deep consultation.

Didier Deramond, Director General of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, said this:

We had a discussion with the minister’s office and the minister, but it was more of a presentation than a consultation.

Witness after witness said the same thing. They were informed, but they were not consulted.

Honourable colleagues, given this mountain of testimony, how is it possible for a minister of the Crown to come before the committee and make the following claim:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

In terms of consultations, we’ve seen better.

Esteemed colleagues, I venture to ask, does the truth no longer have any meaning for this government? Has the roller-coaster ride this bill has been on left the government so confused that it thinks the words “consultation” and “information” are now synonyms? I encourage the government to buy a good dictionary with clear definitions of both words. Then it will see that no meaningful consultation on this bill has taken place.

The failure to consult with Indigenous organizations and communities is especially egregious considering the government’s crystal clear commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides for comprehensive consultations with Indigenous peoples on any matter that concerns them.

What does this track record of consultation, or more accurately, of information sessions, mean?

It means that we have a very serious problem with the implementation of this bill, and we need to fix it. The minister clearly said, when he appeared before our committee, that he intends to proceed through regulations from here on out.

The process of drafting regulations is generally even more closed than the process of drafting a bill. I speak from experience, since I worked in the senior ranks of the public service in Quebec for 34 years. After a bill passed, it would be given to the minister. Then it was the civil servants who adopted the regulations, often without consulting the people involved. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed serious concerns about the fact that they will continue to be ignored in the regulatory process that is under way, just as they were when the bill was drafted.

When Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, appeared before the Senate committee on November 6, he expressed his concern about the significant regulatory leeway provided by Bill C-21. He asked our committee to amend the bill to create an oversight mechanism that would ensure consultations are held to prevent any infringement on First Nations’ hunting and subsistence rights. Colleagues, as we saw, the unique circumstances of Indigenous peoples is a major concern for the Inuit witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee. All the witnesses expressed serious concerns about the current regulatory process.

My amendment proposes to address this issue as effectively and as positively as possible. It makes it mandatory for the government to hold consultations on any regulations that may affect one or more Indigenous groups’, communities’ or peoples’ rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. My amendment also requires the government to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of those Indigenous groups, communities and peoples and to prepare a report describing the consultations undertaken.

All my amendment does is make the government do what it already committed to doing under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a small but necessary measure. I am therefore asking you to at least send the government a very clear message by adopting this amendment.

In closing, honourable senators, I thank you in advance for supporting this amendment on which we will soon be voting. I would ask you to give a voice to the Indigenous groups, communities and peoples who testified that they were not consulted on Bill C-21.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-21 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 51 by adding the following after line 28:

Thank you.