On the Order:

The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, each accompanied by one official, respecting the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable Pierrette Ringuette in the chair.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the order of December 12, 2023, I leave the chair for the Senate to resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. The Honourable Senator Ringuette will chair the committee.

On the Order:

The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, each accompanied by one official, respecting the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable Pierrette Ringuette in the chair.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin:

That Bill C-21 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended ——

Shall I dispense, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator Gold has found in his tool box the tool that Senator Furey left with him — the ability to use the power of the government majority to shut down debate.

Don’t let the form of Senator Gold’s motion fool you. Chapter 7 of our Rules talks about a motion to allocate time, but what we are talking about in reality is shutting down debate. Let me quote from a few good old Liberals in the good old days. Let me quote Senator Jim Cowan, Leader of the Opposition in December 2012. He said:

Some honourable senators opposite, and certainly the . . . government, try to say that this is a process issue, not important to Canadians, and of course, the motion before us sounds dry and technical — time allocation. Who could be interested in that?

Let me tell you who is interested. It’s the senators who wanted to add their voice to this debate and who wanted to improve the bill, the thousands of Indigenous people who were never consulted about this bill, the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners who were and are constantly being targeted by this government, the millions of Canadians who feel cheated by this move of the government to shut down debate on a bad bill.

As I said, the term used in the Rules of the Senate is “time allocation.” Since I’ve been here a few years, I am trying to remember the synonyms that were used over the years by our Liberal colleagues who were then in opposition. It might help the Trudeau-appointed senators who were not here at that time to understand what time allocation really is. I think that using the words of these old Liberal senators, some of whom are still here, could convince the new Liberal senators, disguised as independents, that Senator Gold’s motion is bad.

What Senator Gold and the Trudeau government want to do has been described as an effort to do time allocation, do time limitation, invoke closure, curtail debate, limit debate to a maximum degree possible, cut off debate, shut down debate in Parliament, ram Bill C-21 through and cut off debate, run shortcuts around due process, avoid careful scrutiny, silence our voices on the most critical issues facing Canadians, and slam through its agenda without listening to either Parliament or to Canadians.

What Senator Gold is doing has been called undemocratic; a guillotine imposed by the government on this chamber; using power to secure more power; the muzzling of Parliament; the muzzling of Parliament and, through that, of the Canadian people; an abuse of Parliament; and denying Parliament its right — our duty — to seriously examine what is proposed to be the law of the land.

With Senator Gold’s motion, we have been told that Parliament is being emasculated and our examination of important government legislation has been radically truncated.

This is what Liberal senators said about time allocation about 10 years ago. Let me quote, again, Senator Cowan when he spoke about the words “time allocation”:

They are words used to stop debate, to kill it outright, to prevent each one of us from asking questions about the very important and complicated bill before us, to stop us from looking too closely at this government’s plans for our country.

To look closely is, of course, our job. It is what Canadians expect us to do, what we are paid to do, what we were summoned here to do. . . .

The use of time allocation by a Leader of the Government who is neither the leader nor a member of the government caucus was a departing gift to the government from former Speaker Furey.

You all know that I have — and I have always had — great respect for our former Speaker. However, one thing I will remember is the level of creativity and novelty that he could bring in his April 25 decision. There are those who apply rules and those who rewrite rules.

The Liberal Party of Canada is the governing party. Senator Gold is not a member of the Liberal Party. He admitted that this is so. No matter the facts, we are told to imagine that Senator Gold is the leader of a theoretical governing party —

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of December 12, 2023, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated at third reading stage of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 150, which proposes to allocate an additional six hours to the debate on Bill C-21.

This bill seeks to better protect Canadian communities from gun violence in all its forms, including gangs, domestic violence, mass shootings and suicide. It is, without exaggeration, a matter of life and death, and we have a duty to deal with this bill without delay, while studying it thoroughly.

[English]

Bill C-21 is vital legislation that aims to better protect Canadian communities from gun violence in all its forms. It was a key electoral platform committed by this government. It has been a government priority throughout this mandate, and it has been thoroughly studied in both chambers of Parliament. As such, I am now moving this motion seeking agreement on a road map to get Bill C-21 to the finish line at long last.

Applying time allocation to an item of government business is not a decision I take lightly. This is only the second time that the Government Representative Office has done so, and it is not our preferred way of dealing with legislation. However, on occasion, it is the appropriate way, and I will explain why I believe that this is such an instance.

Bill C-21 was introduced in May 2022, over a year and a half ago. It was extensively studied by members of Parliament with numerous amendments proposed — some withdrawn, some defeated, some adopted — and the bill was ultimately passed by the other place in May of this year with support from over 200 members of Parliament representing four different parties.

We received the bill in our chamber on May 18. Over the course of three weeks in June, eight senators spoke on debate before we referred the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. That committee studied Bill C-21 for 33 hours over 12 meetings this fall. It heard from more than 60 witnesses and received 34 written briefs. It reported the bill back to the chamber last week unamended, although with extensive observations. We’ve now been debating it at third reading for several days.

[Translation]

All that to say that this bill has undergone a meaningful review. I’d like to thank the many senators who took part, especially the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. After a year of study in the other place, six months of study in the Senate, and more than two years since an election campaign in which one of the government’s main commitments was to ensure better gun control, it’s high time to proceed with the final stages of the process.

This is all the more true in light of the years, even decades, of hard work put in by victims of gun violence and activists, who have never stopped calling for tangible measures to better protect our communities.

[English]

Colleagues, we just marked December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On that day in 1989, 14 women were murdered at École Polytechnique in Montreal; another 10 women and 4 men were injured. In the 34 years since, the survivors of that shooting, along with friends and family members of the victims, have been calling for legislation like Bill C-21, and during that time, they’ve been joined by people whose lives have been turned upside down by far too many shootings in places all across this country. They have been joined as well by survivors of intimate partner violence and those who work with and advocate for them. They’ve been joined by medical professionals, from emergency room doctors to pediatricians to those who specialize in suicide prevention. They have been joined by mayors and police chiefs who work every day to address the scourge of gang violence in their communities. And they’ve been joined by people vulnerable to — as Professor Pam Palmater described at committee — the link between hate groups and gun violence.

They were joined this fall by Brian Sweeney whose daughter Angela was murdered in Sault Ste. Marie. Mr. Sweeney took the stage at the December 6 commemoration in Montreal last week as one of the newest members of the community of victims, advocates and survivors that no one wants to be part of. No one wants to be part of that community.

From the podium, he said he travelled to Montreal “. . . to support the other victims here that have been suffering for a lot longer than myself.” In a letter to senators about Bill C-21, he wrote:

Implementing these measures is urgent. The bill is the result of years of advocacy from victims and women’s groups, and women have died while the bill has been debated.

Colleagues I would not be moving this motion for time allocation if we were at the start of the process, but at this point, the Senate has conducted a thorough and conscientious review. We have analyzed the bill from all angles. We are very well aware of all the arguments for and against. So, after a lengthy parliamentary process and after decades of hard work by advocates, it is time to agree on a road map that gets us to a final vote.

Pursuant to rule 7-2, I have spoken with the Leader of the Opposition, but we’ve not reached an agreement to allocate time for the remainder of the debate. Accordingly, I urge and encourage honourable senators to support this motion to allocate an additional six hours for the third reading debate of Bill C-21. Thank you for your kind attention.

An Hon. Senator: He is when it is convenient.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is, therefore, suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated at third reading stage of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is 6 p.m. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8 p.m. when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I left off by saying I had given you several quotes from ghosts of the Liberal Senate past. Now I want to give you a quote from a senator who ended his career here with the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG. In 2012, Senator Dawson said:

Parliamentarians are supposed to debate the government’s proposed legislation. They are not supposed to rubber-stamp measures proposed by public servants or the executive. They are supposed to carefully consider the measures, talk about them, amend them, study them and ensure that taxpayers’ concerns have been fully expressed.

What Senator Gold is doing here tonight is ramming Bill C-21 through and cutting off debate. This is an affront to our job as senators. We are not here to govern. We are here to hold to account those who do. To do that, we need the ability to debate legislation and propose amendments.

Senator Gold’s motion would not only restrict our ability to debate; it means none of you can present amendments. I repeat: The government is doing that while 90 senators have not spoken to the bill. This means 90 senators have been stripped of their right to present an amendment and no longer have the ability to try to improve this flawed bill.

Not only does time allocation take away the right of senators to speak on this bill, it silences the voices of all those whom the government failed to consult. If we vote in favour of this motion and allow it to pass, then we are complicit with the government’s clear intent to silence those who need to be heard.

Colleagues, as you know, stakeholders cannot walk into this chamber and make their views known. We are here to represent them. We are required to protect the voices of Canadians who would otherwise not be heard. Today, that is gun owners.

Whether you agree with this bill or not, you should support the rights of stakeholders to be heard. This motion removes that. It silences all of those voices before they are heard.

Senator Boisvenu put it well when he said:

. . . 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.

Senator Boisvenu went on to give example after example of the government’s failure to consult.

The Indigenous peoples were not consulted.

Paul Irngaut, Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, said:

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

The government also failed to consult with sport shooters.

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.

I have no confidence in the minister.

We heard yesterday from Senator Deacon; she all of a sudden renewed her confidence in the minister that he promised her something. He promised us that he had consulted.

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.”

Colleagues, the list goes on. The views of Canadians impacted by this legislation were not sought and, when they spoke up to say no, they were shut out. By cutting off debate, we are silencing them once again.

Let me quote, once again, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, a member of the Justin Trudeau Liberal caucus, Jim Cowan, from March 2012:

We all know that this bill is contentious, and we have all received hundreds of emails and other communications from very concerned Canadians — asking us — pleading with us — to reflect carefully on the proposals in this bill.

How insulting to these people to then invoke closure, to shut down debate, to limit it to the maximum degree possible, and to do so immediately . . .

Colleagues, you have no idea how many emails we have received asking us to do exactly the same thing. This applies perfectly here with Bill C-21.

Since 2016, we have heard over and over how the Trudeau senators are independent. Their voting record is with the government 96% of the time, but they are independent. They sponsor government legislation, but they are independent. The vote on this motion will be another test of this independence.

We have to remember, colleagues, that debate is not simply trying to convince one another to vote a certain way. Debate is part of a process of ensuring that, before we make a final decision on a bill, we have fully considered the issue; that we have taken the time to listen and consider all voices on the issue, not just those that agree with us.

The government has not done that. Now, through this motion, the government wants to prevent us from doing that. That is unfortunate.

The Senate of Canada serves as an integral component of the nation’s legislative process, with one of its key roles being the representation of marginalized, under-represented voices. This function is crucial in ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach to governance.

The Senate acts as a platform where interests and concerns of minority groups, individuals in remote or less-populated regions and those whose voices are often overlooked in the political arena are brought to the forefront. The importance of this role cannot be overstated.

In a diverse country like Canada, there are a myriad of perspectives and issues that may not always find adequate representation in the more politically driven House of Commons.

The Senate’s mandate to listen and give voice to these less-heard segments of the population is a cornerstone of its existence. The process of consultation is vital in this context. The Senate’s effectiveness in representing these groups hinges on its ability to actively engage with them, understand their concerns and reflect these in the legislative process.

Through consultations, the Senate gathers insights and viewpoints that are essential in crafting laws and policies that are equitable and inclusive.

Believe it or not, colleagues, this role of the Senate of Canada becomes particularly significant in the context of debates over issues like gun control, where diverse viewpoints need to be heard and considered. Gun control is a contentious issue in Canada, encompassing a wide range of perspectives, from public safety concerns to the rights of gun owners.

While the primary focus often lies on enhancing public safety and reducing gun violence, it is essential to recognize that lawful gun owners also represent a significant segment of the Canadian populace. These individuals include hunters, sport shooters and rural residents for whom firearms are a part of their lifestyle and culture.

Whether you agree with them or not, the Senate’s role in representing gun owners is vital. By ensuring that their voices and concerns are heard in the legislative process, the Senate contributes to a more balanced and comprehensive discussion.

This motion to cut off debate strikes to the core of the Senate’s role of representing the voices of the unheard. This is regrettable, colleagues. We should not approve this motion.

Let me reflect for a few moments.

The fact that we got this bill as late as we did is not our fault; it’s the government’s fault. They didn’t give us the opportunity.

We are going to receive a few more bills this week. We don’t know when, because the government leader doesn’t know when.

Today in the other place, we are waiting for a bill in this chamber — concerning the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — that we don’t have. Our government leader says we have to pass that before we go home for Christmas. We don’t have the bill.

Today, when the government had the opportunity to present that bill, what did they do? They called Bill C-58, the scab workers legislation, to send it to committee, to sit at committee until February when they come back and do nothing, instead of bringing Bill C-57, concerning the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, to the forefront so we can have it.

What’s going to happen at the end of the week when we receive that bill, and we want to do proper debate and send it to committee? We’re going to have the government leader say, “No, we’re out of here next week on Wednesday, and I’ll bring time allocation.” He’s going to come in here and say, “I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition, and I told him I was doing time allocation,” — not that I consulted; I told him I was going to do time allocation.

These people in the other place — this government — can’t organize a two-car parade over there, and then they send this to us on their way out the door. That’s what is going to happen, colleagues. They’re going for Christmas on Friday, trust me, and they’re going to send it on the way out the door: Senate, deal with it. The government leader is going to say, “We’re not going home until we deal with it. Can you give me leave?”

I have a feeling my friends over in the far corner, where they’re hard to recognize some days, are going to say, “No, we’re not giving leave.” So there we are. I would give leave — I know that — but they won’t.

So there we are. We’re going to have to be here, and then we’re going to have time allocation. We’re going to cut off debate, and Canadians won’t have the right.

Colleagues, we heard earlier today when this bill came to us — and let me just refresh your memory about when we got this bill. We received the bill on May 18. Senator Yussuff spoke on May 31. I spoke on June 21, which was three weeks later. I think there were eight speakers in between. The first committee meeting was on October 4. Of course, on June 21, we went home for the summer break. On October 4, we came back for consideration of a draft agenda. We went through the committee meetings, as agreed, with the entire committee. We weren’t holding anything up. Yes, we presented amendments, but we had all the committee meetings.

I think December 5 was the date that we agreed when it was brought into the chamber for the report. Senator Yussuff spoke on the December 6. Here we are on December 15.

I spoke yesterday. I wasn’t in my seat when Senator Gold jumped up with “I’m now doing time allocation,” cutting off every opportunity. I am beside myself with trying to work with this government to try to move legislation forward — not pass legislation, but move legislation forward — that the people in the other place cannot organize; they can’t get us legislation. This bill languished in the other place for a year, colleagues. This is not a money bill. Nobody is going to go hungry at Christmastime if this bill isn’t passed.

We all know that, in due course, the government members — 60- or 70-some government members in this chamber — are going to pass this bill. We understand that and we accept that, but why the hurry? What’s going to happen if we come back February 5, and we continue another couple of weeks of debate on this bill? The government can do everything through regulation; they’re already doing it. They can continue to do all of it through regulation, but no, we’re being told to cut off debate.

Then the leader says, “We have done thorough debate.” How is that thorough debate? I think there are four speakers tonight, at least so far, who would like to speak to the main bill when we have our six hours later on sometime. There might be more, but they have to do it tonight because debate has been cut off. Now they have to get their comments on record.

It’s just unfair. This has happened before. As Senator Gold said, this is the second time in this particular government’s history here that they have done time allocation. The last one was done with no consultation with the opposition — none — and the Speaker devised a way of calling Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government — he refuses to accept that styling. He says, “I am not the Leader of the Government.” Yet, Senator Gold has to be in order to do what he did tonight, honourable senators.

I challenge you, Your Honour, to ask this leader to at least admit that he is the Leader of the Government — he is the leader of a registered party; he is the leader of the Liberal government of Canada — if he wants to do this. If he does that and stands in this chamber, Your Honour, and says, “I am the leader of the Liberal government, and I invoke closure,” I will vote for it. I will vote for it.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I will not speak to the merits or the issues of Bill C-21. The debate has happened and will continue to happen for an additional six hours, in accordance with the motion, if passed.

However, I will take this opportunity to highlight the many senators who have spoken on the bill, in favour or against. I will simply explain why the time allocation motion brought forward by the government representative is warranted and needed at this time.

[Translation]

In my view, Bill C-21 has been thoroughly studied for nearly two years in Parliament and that it is acceptable at this point to set a limit and circumscribe the amount of time devoted to the debate on this government bill. Without the government’s exceptional use — and I emphasize the word “exceptional” — of this tool, which, as Senator Gold pointed out, is being used for only the second time since 2015, I fear that this bill will be the target of delaying tactics for the purpose of blocking its passage.

Reassure me, Senator Carignan, because I am genuinely concerned.

[English]

Before the House adjourned for the summer on June 24, 2014, the Conservative government managed to pass their seventy-fifth motion since they were in power. They did so on time allocation. I look at the issue of Hansard from June 29, 2012 — time allocation has then been used seven times in the past seven months. That is one time allocation per month.

I do believe that the House of Commons has also very thoroughly studied Bill C-21. It was introduced in the other place on May 30, 2022 — around one year and seven months ago. It proceeded through the different steps at the House for around one year and was adopted at third reading in May 2023, which is when we received it. Eighteen meetings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security took place in order to study the bill between October 2022 and May 2023. At the third reading vote, the bill had the support of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party — that is the majority of the elected parliamentarians.

Now I will speak about the Senate: The bill was also studied thoroughly in the Senate. It was received in May 2023. It was debated during six different sittings at second reading. The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs had 12 meetings on Bill C-21, where they heard from 66 witnesses. The witnesses included the following: the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs; federal officials from relevant departments and agencies; academic researchers and individuals appearing on their own behalf; selected provincial chief firearms officers; and representatives of advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations and Indigenous organizations and governments, as well as law enforcement agencies. The committee also received 34 briefs from organizations and individuals — some of whom did not appear as witnesses.

Today is our fifth day debating this bill at third reading. Colleagues, I believe we can say, without a doubt, that this bill has — so far — received the necessary amount of scrutiny and sober second thought. Every senator has had the time and opportunity, if he or she so wished, to hear from others and look at this bill in order to form their own idea on the content and how they should vote.

I now have a few words on the Salisbury Convention.

Firearms regulations have been part of the electoral platform of the Liberal Party since their accession to government in 2015. It was also a key part of their electoral platforms for the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. It is part of a multi-layered approach that has included a buyback program for firearms owners and a previous bill — Bill C-71 — which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019. As such, we are in a situation in which the Salisbury Convention clearly applies. It is our duty to consider the will of the elected chamber.

Now I will say a few words on the political context surrounding Bill C-21. The Conservative Party has expressed a strong opposition to Bill C-21, both in the House and in the Senate. They have promised to delay this bill, which is part of the government platform and supported by all other parties in the other place — as I’ve already demonstrated — at all costs.

In his speech at second reading on June 21, 2023, Senator Plett, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, made it perfectly clear:

 . . . having personally reviewed the very negative implications of this bill, I wish to say that since the last speaker in this chamber spoke on the bill literally two minutes ago, I have now officially begun to delay Bill C-21. So let there be no question, and let the minister know so the minister and his parliamentary secretary can mark that in their calendars for future reference.

As such, colleagues, I believe that a time allocation motion is the only common sense solution for Bill C-21 to see the light of a third reading vote in the Senate. This motion as well as this bill finally getting to a vote at third reading is in the interest of Canadians. It is the will of the elected House and the wish of the Canadian people.

The status quo is no longer sustainable. Let’s vote for respecting the democratic process, and vote for Motion No. 150.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, did you want five more minutes? Very well.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Peter Harder: Would the honourable senator take a question?