Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: Yes, Senator Deacon, I am aware of those issues — having been an elected person, and having worked in a partisan caucus. The Privacy Commissioner has his specialty in regard to privacy, but the Canadian people want transparency in our political parties and in our democratic process. How will the other place — with all four political parties — be able to justly balance the two? I wish them a lot of luck.

[Translation]

Senator Woo: If you’re referring to a delay of the vote on the BIA, I think the answer is unequivocally no, for all of the reasons you’ve heard from my colleagues, including Senator Shugart. However, if you’re talking about a delay in the sense of coming up with an alternative approach to deal with the substantive question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act, yes, I agree with that. I don’t know what that approach would be. Someone has talked about a motion, a study or a bill. There could be different options. That I would be in support of.

Senator C. Deacon: Would Senator Woo take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all saddened to learn of the military helicopter crash that occurred yesterday near Petawawa, which left two crew members dead and two more wounded.

Our thoughts are with their friends and families, and with all members of the Canadian Forces, as we express our condolences for those lost and our hopes for a full recovery by the injured.

Honourable senators, please join me in rising for a minute of silence in memory of those who did not survive this tragic incident.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

[Translation]

Senator Batters: Thank you. I’m very sympathetic to your point of view on this. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of how this government, several years ago, used a budget implementation act was to plug a 200-plus-page carbon tax into a budget implementation act, with no ability to really debate it or amend it or anything like that in that sort of fashion.

I’m part of the Legal Committee, and we were discussing this Canada Elections Act change and found that it was not a great way to do it, to say the least. Is that what your amendment precisely purports to do — simply remove that part of it? It wasn’t specific in the actual amendment, so I wanted to give you a chance to explain.

Senator McPhedran: As I understand it, Bill C-47 is, in effect, a confidence vote. It’s a budget bill. Could you please help me understand the nature of this amendment? What impact will this amendment, if we were to accept it, have on the ability of the government to function?

Senator Woo: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much. I wish to ask for clarification.

You made excellent comments. I wish we were doing this differently, but the reality is that 96% of Canadians would like to see some legal privacy rights related to political parties. If we pass this bill unamended, there’s nothing; there is intention. I’ve dealt with open banking, digital government and digital identity for four years now and the intention for progress to be made. It’s like the sign in the British pub: “Free beer tomorrow.” If you come back tomorrow, it still says, “Free beer tomorrow.” I learned that the hard way.

My concern is that there is 10 years of evidence that there is no intention. Did you consider that?

Senator Gold: I’m really going to exercise restraint in a different context and not address the softball you have just thrown me.

The question of foreign interference is an important question. It’s an interesting question. It is always appropriate to ask questions, but the answer is the same as before. This is a matter that is being considered seriously and responsibly by this government. It is not the case that a foreign registry should be put into place without proper consideration for the consequences to those who may be inadvertently affected or indeed tarred by it. The government is doing the proper and responsible thing, and when it reaches a decision, it will be communicated.

Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, we’ve heard this complaint from colleagues of ours for years and years. What action do you recommend we take to finally send a message to the executive branch of government that they should not treat Parliament as nothing more than a rubber stamp?

Senator Shugart: Yes, it technically is, strictly speaking, very much within the rights of the Senate to make this amendment, as Senator Tannas knows. He’s done his homework. I would still take the view personally that it would be a disproportionate use of that right to pass this amendment now.

Senator Dupuis: I have a question for Senator Ringuette, rather than prolonging the debate on this issue.

Senator Ringuette, do you think that we, in the Senate, have done everything we can to deal with the issue of including bills on issues separate from budgetary matters in omnibus bills?

With respect to this very specific issue, which is being discussed here at the last minute — rather than in the committee that dealt with this matter, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs . . . The Legal Affairs Committee had many opportunities to examine amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Do you think it’s reasonable to say that an amendment is needed at this point in time, when we haven’t pushed further to do everything we can in the Senate? Do you think it is reasonable to say that we should amend a budget implementation bill right now because we don’t like omnibus bills?

Senator Woo: You bring up another valuable point about why this has not come up sooner. To the extent that we had an opportunity to bring it up earlier and did not, until the last minute, does not reflect so well on us. My principal objection is not so much the last-minute nature of this amendment but the contradictory character, if I can put it that way, of its presentation: on the one hand, accepting the omnibus nature of the bill — and, in a sense, expanding on it by making this amendment — and on the other hand, not fulfilling our duty to, in fact, study this issue carefully before throwing out an amendment at third reading for consideration just a few minutes before a vote.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gold: I certainly will do so. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, thank you for your amendment and for highlighting what has become progressively worse year after year with these omnibus bills. Those of us who take our constitutional responsibilities in this chamber seriously recognize that we’re impeded from doing some serious work on some serious bills that have nothing to do with the budget. Yesterday, Senator Simons spoke to the passenger rights bill that has been plugged into this particular budget bill and has nothing to do with the budget, and, of course, it’s very important.

At the end of the day, I don’t think there is anything nefarious on the part of the government. I just think it’s a matter of convenience and a matter of bypassing the nuisance of Parliament, and what comes of it is bad legislation that touches particular citizens.

If this amendment that you propose is gloriously defeated by the government, would you take the principled stance of finally joining those of us in this chamber and send a message by voting against this budget implementation act and by saying that we’re not going to stand for this anymore?

Senator Harder: If that’s what it takes to get applause, I’m happy.

The message we are dealing with is with respect to a bill we dealt with in this chamber a little over a year ago. Senators will, of course, remember the eloquent remarks Senator MacDonald and I made. At the time, we said this bill was urgent for Parliament to pass to fill up the gaps that had developed in our sanctions regime with respect to admissibility. The House of Commons took that urgency to heart and a year and a bit later has dealt with it.

It has made two amendments, both of which the Speaker has referred to, but the first one essentially is to ensure that the bill we passed last December with respect to the trafficking in human organs doesn’t create new loopholes. That has been taken into account in the first half, and the other is to provide for a three‑year review.

I hope that we have the unanimous consent, as we had a year ago on this bill and as the House of Commons had, even though it has taken a bit longer. With that brief explanation, I hope you can accept this message and we can adopt this, as it is an urgent matter.

Senator Plett: When officials from the department briefed me during my critic briefing, they acknowledged that very few sentences for firearms smuggling are at the higher end of the sentencing range permitted under the law. There may be such cases, but they’re so rare that they’re very difficult to find even by officials.

In the face of that fact, the minister claims that raising the maximum to 14 years will send a strong signal to the courts. This seems highly doubtful when most custodial sentences are five years or less.

I recognize that some gun offences may at times attract stronger sentences. In his second reading remarks, Senator Yussuff claimed that “on average those who are convicted [of smuggling] serve eight years of their sentence.” I believe what Senator Yussuff was likely trying to claim was that the average sentence was eight years, not that they actually served eight years in custody. In fact, serving eight years in prison is almost impossible if someone were to receive a maximum 10-year sentence. That is because statutory release of all inmates occurs at about the two-thirds mark of a sentence, so even on a maximum 10-year sentence, all inmates would be released even before the 7-year mark.

I also don’t believe that there is any evidence that eight years is actually the average sentence for gun smuggling. I can only repeat what the Library of Parliament said. They could find no example of a maximum sentence being imposed on firearms smuggling, and officials acknowledged that there were very few sentences at the high end of the sentencing range. One would hope that this trend might change, but, in fact, the tendency is actually towards sentencing at the lower to middle range of the scale.

One illustration of how this works is the case of William Rainville who, in 2021, tried to smuggle 248 Polymer80 Glock‑type pistols into Canada. These pistols were smuggled without serial numbers. The guns had an estimated street value of $1.6 million and they were destined for criminal use. He, colleagues, received a five-year sentence.

Some might argue that is a stiff sentence, but it’s actually only in the middle range, and the fact is that William Rainville was out on day parole in 12 months of that five-year sentence.

Colleagues, think about that: 12 months served for smuggling 250 firearms into our country with the serial numbers filed off. These were guns that were clearly destined for criminal use and would likely have killed people, but he was out in 12 months.

Why only 12 months? Here we have to reference another bill passed under this government, Bill C-83. That bill introduced a principle into the Corrections and Conditional Release Act mandating that all offenders must be incarcerated at the least restrictive level of security consistent with public policy. That means that as long as offenders keep their noses clean while inside, they are often transferred to increasingly lower levels of security, speeding their way to early day parole and full parole. It means that, regardless of the seriousness of the offence, if an offender knows how to work the system, he can often be out very quickly.

The government was warned that this would happen when they passed Bill C-83. Those warnings included ones given by our very own colleague Senator Boisvenu, but those warnings were ignored.

Another individual, Tony N’Zoigba certainly knew how to work the system. He was arrested in February 2020 after crossing the St. Lawrence River in a motorboat in which he had a duffle bag containing nine guns. These guns were clearly intended for criminal use, since their path had been traced through a joint Canada-U.S. sting operation. His intent was to sell those guns to criminal gangs right here in the city of Ottawa.

For that, he faced 92 charges. What was his sentence? He received 18 months.

A few months later, he was out on day parole. And what was he up to on day parole? Allegedly, he was working on yet another deal to smuggle even more guns into Canada, so his day parole had to be suspended.

Colleagues, when it comes to cross-border firearms smuggling, criminals are highly organized and they take advantage of lax Canadian laws, weak Liberal judges and limited law enforcement at the border. I am afraid that neither the limited measures that the government has taken nor the proposed minor increase in a maximum sentence — that even today is rarely if ever used — will have any impact on the grave problem that Canada faces.

The minister has argued that the bill grants new investigatory powers by expanding the list of eligible firearms offences. This, he says, will allow police to obtain more wiretaps. His government also claims that they have invested over $1 billion to combat gun crime. But statistics of money spent are not the same as results. This is a government that is very willing to throw money at problems but never wants to ask detailed questions about whether their policies are actually working.

We also need to be honest that this money is spread over many years. It is spread across the country. It is spread over multiple initiatives. Much of it does not go to the support of front-line officers. Certainly, the $750 million or more that is being wasted to compensate legal gun owners for the 2020 gun ban enacted by the government does absolutely nothing to support our front-line policing.

The reality is that gun crime is going up, and much of that crime is fuelled by smuggled guns. With regard to that problem, the minister is actually doing very little. He claims that border officers are seizing record numbers of guns at border crossings. But how are such seizures actually impacting the crime on the streets?

My office posed an Order Paper question related to firearm seizures at border crossings. We asked how successful the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has actually been in intercepting illegal guns destined for street gangs. In response to that question, the Department of Public Safety responded that in 2019 the CBSA seized 713 firearms from all sources at the border. That sounds impressive, but the reality is that the CBSA also reported that only 72 of these firearms were identified as prima facie crime guns, that is to say, firearms that were believed destined for illegal use in Canada.

In 2020, the numbers were less impressive. While 470 firearms were seized by the CBSA at the border in 2020, a mere 8 of these were identified as likely crime guns, in other words, about 2% of all gun seizures.

Seizing guns from otherwise unsuspecting American travellers, unfamiliar with Canadian laws, who will only be in Canada for a few days or weeks, has no impact on crime in urban Canada. We need instead to stop gun smuggling by organized groups who are funnelling those guns to gangs on our streets.

For all the minister’s talk about investments and money spent, the sad reality is this, colleagues: If we don’t have sufficient numbers of officers on hand to investigate organized gun smuggling, then we will not seriously address violent crime on our streets. If we don’t have aggressive and well-funded intelligence-led policing that targets gun smuggling, then we will not address violent crime on our streets. If we don’t have sufficient numbers of police officers or border officers policing the border between ports of entry, then we will not seriously address violent crimes on our streets. If we don’t have sufficient numbers of officers and Crown attorneys to pursue wiretap warrants and to support major investigations, then we will not seriously address violent crimes on our streets. Lastly, if we don’t have serious sentences for gun smuggling and gun crime, sentences that will permanently remove violent criminals off our streets, then we simply will not address gun crime on our streets.

To be honest, Bill C-21 and all the rhetoric surrounding it provide none of those capabilities. This bill is focused almost exclusively on legal firearms owners. It views them as the problem. The approach is particularly evident in another provision of this bill. It relates to the so-called “red flag” provisions.

Minister Mendicino said:

We are seeing gender-based violence in our workplaces, communities, homes or wherever online. There is a trend between gender-based violence and guns. Between 2013 and 2019, the incidents involving gender-based violence and guns went up more than 30%, and that trend has continued.

The minister is suggesting that the mere existence of legal guns is a problem, but there are millions of legal guns in Canada. Unless the minister is suggesting taking them all away from every hunter and sports shooter, then I don’t know how he plans to address this. He certainly won’t address this through any provisions of Bill C-21.

I do think that all Canadians agree that the increasing incidence of violence, sometimes rampage attacks, that we are seeing in our society is extremely disturbing. Such attacks may be driven by religious or other ideological extremist ideas. They may simply be driven by a collapse in an individual’s mental health. Whatever the reason, we seem to be seeing more of them. They may be random stabbings or other assaults. They may involve someone using a car as a weapon, or they may involve firearms.

Our legal firearm controls are designed to help address that issue. That is why, in Canada, we have long recognized the need for reasonable firearm controls. There has been a broad political consensus in Canada when it comes to firearms licensing, mandatory safety training and ensuring the safe storage of firearms. There has also been a broad consensus around police background checks. Holders of firearms licences in Canada must renew their firearms licences every five years. Firearms owners are subject to continuous review. If issues of concern arise, licences can be suspended, and firearms seized. These are comprehensive legal provisions, but we must recognize that we will never have fully foolproof solutions.

In Bill C-21, the government is proposing to add a new set of provisions called “red flag” laws. The provision will allow anyone to go to court and ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they believe they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves. What does this provision really add in terms of enhanced public safety?

The Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association, the CBA, notes that police officers already have the power to seek a warrant to seize firearms under specific circumstances. The law allows police to seize firearms without a warrant when obtaining one is impractical or when someone fails to show a licence or other authorization.

The seizure of a firearm means an automatic revocation of licences and authorizations. The individual then has an opportunity to be heard in court. In other words, any individual can already file a complaint or a concern with the police, who are then empowered to act.

As stated on the CBA website, the Criminal Justice Section of the CBA believes:

. . . the current law contains sufficient powers to accomplish the goal of seizing weapons believed to have been used in a crime or removing them from the hands of persons who are believed to be a danger to themselves or to others.

It is difficult to understand what precisely layering “red flag” provisions on top of these already existing provisions will achieve. Is an individual more likely to call the police if they have a serious concern, or are they more likely to take the time to go to court? The answer seems rather obvious.

It will be very important for the Senate committee studying this legislation to hear from legal and other witnesses on this matter. These issues are complicated, and it will be necessary to understand how the current law functions, as well as what these proposed new provisions add when it comes to enhancing public safety.

In considering all of these issues, this bill appears to have no practical value. What is its actual purpose? I believe that purpose is not to eradicate gun violence, as the government claims, but to lay the foundation for future actions that can target legal firearms owners more comprehensively. In that regard, the government proposes to incorporate in this legislation an expanded definition of prohibited firearms. That definition would now include semi‑automatic centre-fire firearms that were originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more. That will technically incorporate, perhaps, the 1 million‑plus existing non-restricted firearms that I have already referenced.

The government claims that this definition would apply prospectively, meaning that it would only apply to firearms designed and manufactured on or after the definition comes into force. It would not impact the classification of the existing firearms in the Canadian market. But if that is the case, what is the public safety benefit of the amendment? New firearms that may be largely the same as old firearms, and that shoot the same ammunition, would be banned, but the 1 million-plus existing firearms would not be banned.

When I use the number “1 million-plus,” I do so because nobody actually knows the exact number. What we do know is that banning new guns — that are exactly the same as the old guns — and then leaving the old guns in circulation makes absolutely no sense. The government claims that the purpose is to “close a regulatory gap where firearms that enter the Canadian market may be misclassified.” But the capacity to do much more than that is there, and the government’s ultimate intent is shown in the amendments that have, for now, been withdrawn. This means that no one should be fooled into thinking that firearms — which may have been held by Canadians for decades — are safe from arbitrary prohibition. In the firearms prohibitions that the government introduced by order-in-council in 2020, the government showed that it is more than willing to initiate completely arbitrary firearms prohibitions whenever the political considerations suggest that this would be a good idea.

Canadians are not made safer when governments arbitrarily take a political decision to ban a few classes of firearms simply based on their look, but leave other similar classes of firearms, often shooting exactly the same ammunition, in legal circulation. That, of course, makes no sense, but it is exactly what the government did in 2020.

Previously, the government argued that its decisions related to firearms prohibitions would always be based on facts and on professional input, but that promise has gone out the window, and the reclassification of firearms will now take place behind closed doors, subject to all manner of pressure from politicians.

What are the implications of all this for gun control in Canada? As occurred with Bill C-68 exactly 30 years ago, it is probable that support for gun control will take a major blow. Gun control of legal firearms is, by its very definition, focused on law-abiding citizens. For the most part, gun owners in Canada have always cooperated with gun control in Canada, and their cooperation is necessary in order to maintain viable and effective gun control. It is, after all, their firearms that are being regulated. But laws must be seen as legitimate and necessary if they are to retain the cooperation of those who are most impacted by those laws. Bill C-21 undermines that public confidence. This bill is already being perceived as a politically driven and gratuitous attack on gun owners. It is their personal property being targeted.

As a result of the government’s actions, 1 million handguns held by law-abiding gun owners can no longer be legally bought or sold. This arbitrary decision comes with absolutely no financial compensation, making it particularly unjust.

Shooting disciplines and handgun clubs across the country are being impacted. When it comes to the various handgun shooting disciplines, the government has decided that only Olympic shooters will be exempt from buying and selling handguns. What sense does that possibly make? How can you sustain Olympic‑level competitors in Canada without allowing any other shooters into the shooting sport? As I have said before, it’s as if we were to say that the only hockey that will be allowed is the NHL, but we won’t allow anybody in amateur hockey to play. Every legal gun owner knows that the real objective here is to kill all shooting sports in Canada.

We have also been told that a side impact of this is that police officers across the country, who are often only able to train at their local gun club, may suddenly have nowhere to keep up their shooting skills, as these clubs start to close in the years ahead. Did anyone in the government think about this public safety impact? How will our police officers keep up their shooting skills as clubs start to close?

It is hardly surprising that — when one looks at all of the implications — people are reacting very negatively to this bill. That is why this bill is already opposed by a broad cross‑section of Canadians. Colleagues, it is also opposed by most provinces and territories. In fact, some provinces are enacting legislation that will thwart the very objectives of Bill C-21.

Some senators in this chamber will, no doubt, console themselves by believing that this is only what Conservative provincial governments are doing. But this is what Irfan Sabir, justice critic for the Alberta NDP, said about this legislation:

There are legitimate criticisms of the federal firearms program, and absolutely they needed to withdraw and reconsider their amendments that would have captured many firearms, including those used by Albertans and Indigenous peoples for hunting.

Honourable senators, that is the view of the Alberta NDP.

The only point of correction I would make is that, unfortunately, the federal government has not walked away from its amendments to Bill C-21. Instead, it has merely tried to temporarily freeze those amendments with the full intent of bringing them back in future regulations. These regulations will be recommended by a ministerial committee composed entirely of individuals appointed by the Minister of Public Safety — a man whose credibility is already completely shattered by the bad bill that he has introduced. We should not be surprised that this minister is simultaneously presiding over other fiascos, such as his demonstrated incompetence over the transfer of killer Paul Bernardo to a medium-security institution.

Honourable senators, the reality is that this minister and his government have mishandled the entire criminal justice file from the very beginning. Its approach to combatting gun and gang violence in our communities is wrong, and it should simply start fresh.

What should it be doing instead? First, it should admit its mistakes on Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83. In regard to Bill C-75 and bail conditions, it has now done that half-heartedly, but the new measures that it has proposed are unlikely to have a major impact on stopping crime on our streets. All of the bad bills that the government has passed need to be completely revisited if we are going to make a dent in the rise of violent crime in Canada.

Second, in regard to firearms smuggling, tackling this problem should become the real top priority. We will never be able to fully stop crime guns from entering Canada from the United States, but we can, at least, try to make it very costly for criminal gangs to engage in cross-border smuggling. We need to make it monetarily costly for them — and we need to ensure that when someone is caught smuggling guns into our country, they are removed from our streets, either for a very long time or, if they are repeat offenders, permanently. Parliament, not the courts, is supreme when it comes to law-making in Canada, and we need a government that is ready to stand by that important principle.

Third, the government needs to work closely, and in a collaborative fashion, with vulnerable communities. We need a government that invests in them and in the youth with measures that actually work.

Most importantly, those communities, like all other Canadian communities, deserve an environment in which law and order can be taken for granted and where children and youth can grow up without fear. You can have all the programs you want, but if the streets around where those programs are being delivered are unsafe, then the impact is going to be very limited.

Fourth, we need a federal government that is willing to work collaboratively with provinces and not at cross-purposes from their objectives. In other words, we need a federal government that is more interested in real results than it is in bills like Bill C-21 that are based on slogans and on targeting law-abiding Canadians. I understand that provinces have different views on this matter. The federal government needs to be prepared to work with all of them, not to impose solutions from afar.

Lastly, colleagues — I’m sure you are happy to hear — we need to maintain a firearms licensing regime in Canada that is both effective but also reasonable. This is not the United States, and in Canada, we have a strong tradition of responsible but reasonable gun control.

For gun control to be effective, it must be seen as being legitimate. Gun control must retain the support of legal firearms owners. With this bill, the government risks losing that support. It took years to build back a measure of support for an existing gun control regime after the debacle of the long-gun registry created by another Liberal government 30 years ago. Now, this government has thrown that support away. That makes this bill extremely foolish and short-sighted.

Colleagues, all of these issues need to be thoroughly examined by the Senate committee that will review this legislation. I trust we will not close the door on the diverse number of Canadians who want to be heard on this bad bill. I hope we will not do what the government did in the House, which was to introduce time allocation and ram the bill through the House committee process as well as third reading. That would be a slap in the face to many Canadians who deserve to be heard. It would also be a betrayal and complete abdication of the Senate’s constitutional role.

I strongly oppose this bill, but if we are going to send it to committee, we also need to give the committee time to do its work effectively. I trust we all agree with that principle, but it would be far better if we would not waste the committee’s time with this bad bill.

Bill C-21 will not make Canada safer. It does nothing to address crime on the streets. It is opposed by legal firearms owners. It is opposed by our Indigenous peoples. It has been opposed by provinces and territories. It risks destroying gun control in Canada.

Colleagues, I urge you to reject and defeat this at second reading. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: I don’t believe it is a confidence vote. We’ve seen budget implementation acts amended before. In fact, we’ve seen in this government’s time frame that they have been amended. The government didn’t fall.

That is one of the pressure tactics that is used, but if that’s the case, if we can’t touch the budget implementation act, then how could a government ever resist sticking something in there that no one can do anything about?

It goes to what those bright-eyed people in 2015 said about frustrating the work of Parliament and making it undemocratic. I think that it is intellectually dishonest to say that this piece, because it happens to be in a giant omnibus bill that is named the “Budget Implementation Act,” that our changing something in it would, in fact, cause a government to fall.

I would also say that we are at the end of the session, but we’re not at the end of the session. The government is still over with their colleagues in the House of Commons. They are still meeting today. They haven’t upped and gone home like sometimes when we get the budget implementation act and we have to deal with that issue. I would also say that they have voted and approved hybrid, so them coming back isn’t them coming back at all. They just have to get on their laptops at home to deal with whatever it is that we have sent.

I reject completely the idea that something that is not to do with the budget somehow becomes a confidence vote if you stick it in a budget implementation act. Thank you.