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. 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.