The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Tannas: Well, originally I thought 18 months because I had heard somewhere that you can get just about anything written and consulted on within 18 months. However, I did purposely pick two years instead of three because I think they should make an effort to do this before the next election. By all accounts, it’s going to be a highly active election. The public is very engaged. They’re going to say things — in my example — at the door. Things are going to happen around artificial intelligence and all of the data work. We had the Cambridge Analytica revelations.

Going into this particular upcoming election, there are a lot of things that may have lasting impacts on people’s privacy and the data they will be disclosing that will be collected on them. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to say that this needs to be dealt with in the next two years.

Senator Housakos: We know the RCMP has confirmed that they exist in Canada, and we know from the RCMP that the investigations are ongoing. That’s not the question. Why doesn’t the minister know that the RCMP, which is under his responsibility, is operating and investigating while he’s saying to the House, “No, they’ve already been shut down”? That’s the problem with Minister Mendicino; he doesn’t know what is happening in his own ministry.

And while we have the Australians, the Americans and the U.K. taking seriously transnational repression and taking action, in this government we see a minister and a government that isn’t taking the same approach of seriousness and action.

Just over a year ago, I had Minister Mendicino right on the floor of the Senate Chamber recognizing the merits of a foreign registry, saying he would do something and put one into place — over a year ago. A year later, he’s still in the consultative stage. We’re still waiting for when it’s going to happen.

The question is one I’ve asked many times, and I know you’re tired of it. I’ve asked many times because we don’t get a concrete answer. The question is this: Will the minister and your government make sure a foreign registry will be put into place before the next new government of Pierre Poilievre is sworn in?

Senator Tannas: I have made it a habit of supporting government budgets. They’re elected; they’re there. I will continue to do that no matter which government is in power and no matter whether I agree with the spending or not.

I haven’t, frankly, got that far yet. I still have a light in the window that maybe this will pass.

There is so much that is good in this act. I would sure love to be able to vote, having received a message that the government has at least considered an amendment from us, at least received the message that we’ve reached our fill of this and that we need to do something else.

Senator Dagenais: The government you represent claims to have developed an economic policy based on the countries of Indochina to counter China’s power in the Asia-Pacific region. The same article in La Presse reported that the growing number of delays in equipment procurement and chronic underinvestment in the military have ensured that Canada is not welcome in AUKUS, the pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that was created in 2021 to counter Chinese power.

Are we to conclude that Canada and its military are no longer reliable enough to be part of certain strategic alliances with some of the world’s major powers?

Senator Gold: Honourable senators, it’s my pleasure to rise briefly to speak to Senator Tannas’s amendment.

Colleagues, I strongly urge you not to support this amendment. First, it is unnecessary for all the reasons well outlined by Senator Loffreda.

Let me reinforce Senator Loffreda’s comments as the Government Representative in the Senate. I can indicate formally here, on behalf of the government, that the government will be bringing forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure a uniform federal approach regarding federal political parties’ collection and use of personal and private information. This will go to the core of many of the concerns that senators, and others, have raised around privacy implications and the need to create a robust and effective regime at the national level. When that legislation is brought forward, we in the Senate will have our opportunity, as will our colleagues in the other place, to scrutinize it, debate it and study it in as granular and as detailed a fashion as we choose.

This legislation that the government intends to bring forward will build off the provisions contained in Bill C-47. Given the government’s commitment, including the fact, colleagues, that maintaining the health of Canada’s democracy is an element of the supply and confidence agreement of which we are all aware, I am confident that these proposed legislative changes will be brought forward quickly. Therefore, a sunset window of two years would be unnecessary.

I would also echo, but will not repeat, Senator Loffreda’s reminder of the many important measures that may be at stake should Bill C-47 not pass swiftly.

Second, and to be frank, I also believe that it is a concerning course of action within the context of the Senate’s overall relationship with the other place. Bill C-47 is a matter of confidence in a minority parliament. In putting it to a vote in the other place, the government tested this confidence and put its survival at risk. And the bill passed. In such circumstances, the Senate has customarily — and wisely, I might say — exercised a significant degree of restraint.

There is more as well. When it comes to rules governing elections, we must be circumspect, careful and, indeed, somewhat deferential vis-à-vis the choices made by elected members in the other place. They’re the ones who have to play by the rules and they’re the ones who will be accountable for whether they do play by the rules.

The provisions in Division 39 of Part 4 of this bill, which lay the groundwork for a privacy and data collection regime, were supported by the elected members in the other place, representing the major political parties that they would affect. As our former colleague Senator Dawson said during our debate on Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act:

Well, amendments are always normally considered by this place. As far as elections law, je pense qu’on a une petite gêne.

Honourable colleagues, is it within our power to send back Bill C-47 to the other place, even though it’s a budget bill and a matter of confidence? Yes. Is it within our power to amend laws relating to the electoral process that has been endorsed by the elected members of Parliament? Yes. However, it’s not because one has the power to do it that means it’s advisable to wield it.

The relationship between our two houses of Parliament is crucial for the proper functioning of our democracy. As an appointed body, when we’re dealing with a matter of confidence, a matter that is covered by a budget bill, I believe we must tread lightly, and when we’re dealing with matters related to the electoral process, so too should we tread lightly.

Colleagues, in this session, I feel that the other place has shown tremendous respect and openness to our good work. As some of you may know — certainly those who pay attention — we in the Government Representative Office advocate behind the scenes for the government to accept Senate amendments, for the government to allocate House time for the Senate messages we send over. The government must, in turn, advocate for those so that it will be accepted to the other parties in the House.

Colleagues, this is far from easy. However, despite the minority context in the other place, the government has been able to secure support for Senate amendments from other parties, including the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, which, as you all know, question, if not deny, the very legitimacy of the Senate.

Despite these different viewpoints, Parliament has functioned well. We have sent back amendments on a wide range of initiatives, and the other place has been able to respond before the summer adjournment, often with many amendments accepted. We’ve been able to work constructively, collaboratively and positively with the other place. This week, it looks like the session will end on a positive note, with many bills receiving Royal Assent, with contributions from both chambers. I dare say we have been fostering a very positive form of bicameral collaboration.

When the House rises is still not fully known, although it may be much sooner than we think. It’s been a good session, a collaborative session and one that we in the Senate should be proud of. We should be mindful of the respectful response that our amendments have gotten from the other place, from the government and from other parties.

The course that Senator Tannas is proposing is to send a confidence measure back to a minority House in the very twilight of the session — a proposal that would set us up for a standoff with the other place. This is not the way I wish to end a sitting that has been so fruitful, so collaborative and so successful. Therefore, I will be exercising restraint. I will be voting against the amendment. I urge you to do the same. Thank you.

Senator Gignac: As you know, Senator Loffreda, I mentioned this week in the Senate that I will support the budget implementation bill. However, it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that the government is including things in the budget that have nothing to do with its economic or fiscal policy. Our colleague Senator Deacon talked a bit about that. I look forward to listening to all of the arguments.

My question is as follows. If ever this amendment is accepted, if the majority of senators vote in favour of this amendment and in favour of the bill, are we going to send everything back to the House of Commons? The House of Commons is free to reject the amendment and send it all back to us. That would bring us to Friday, rather than tomorrow, but either way, we do not have much time. It would be the same as other times that they had already come to an agreement.

However, we still need to send the message that the Senate is independent. The government should not be including anything and everything in the budget implementation bill. It should only be including things that are related to economic and fiscal policy. In this case, we are talking about Elections Canada. We are talking about the ground rules for a democratic country.

My question is the following: If we vote on this amendment, is it a confidence vote? I do not believe so, since there is no monetary aspect at play. We can vote in favour of the amendment and vote for the budget implementation bill at the same time. There would be no vote of confidence in this government. I would just like to understand. You are the sponsor of the bill and I need clarification on how we should conduct ourselves. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: I think everything was said, Your Honour. I won’t take questions.

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

Senator Gold: I appreciate your comments, though, on this particular issue because, in fact, the standing orders were changed, providing the Speaker of the House of Commons with the ability to carve out separate votes on any part of an omnibus bill that was not announced in the budget documents that were tabled before Parliament. In fact, the standing order provides that it shall not apply, that is, the ability to carve it out:

 . . . if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The Speaker ruled that Division 39 of Part 4 met this task because it was contained in the annex and, therefore, ruled that it was appropriately contained.

Senator Tannas: Well, I would tell you I was here before and I’m here now, and the standing orders may have changed. The work product is identical.

Senator Plett: I asked the minister about this when he was here in the Senate to answer questions. I asked how the government’s repeal of eight mandatory minimum penalties for gun crime in Bill C-5 would help combat the rise in violent crime. The minister did what his government always does: He hid behind court decisions and claimed, by implication, that he had no choice.

Colleagues, that is a pathetic response from a minister and is cold comfort for the victims of rising violent crime.

Effectively, what the minister is saying is:

We are sorry, but as a government we are completely helpless. We have no choice but to go after legal gun owners because the courts won’t let us go after the violent criminals.

First of all, the minister’s response is factually wrong. The courts have not struck down all mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that Parliament may impose mandatory penalties and, in specific cases, has often given the government options to respond to its judgments.

The Supreme Court gave such an option to the government in R v. Nur, a decision of the Supreme Court in 2015 which struck down one aspect of a minimum penalty related to firearms possession.

The court struck the provision down, but it nevertheless provided room for the government to modify the existing law. The Harper government did just that in response to that particular ruling when it introduced Bill C-69. Unfortunately, that bill died on the Order Paper prior to the 2015 election and the current government chose not to proceed with it.

If the current government is too afraid to respond to Supreme Court rulings in order to work within those rulings to protect Canadians in the face of gun crime, it should say so. But it should stop hiding behind the courts and claiming that it has no choice but to do nothing. That is an abdication of responsibility and it ensures that many Canadian communities will continue to be plagued by gun crime.

Second, even where the court provides the government with few options in a particular case, we still have a principle of parliamentary supremacy in this country.

When Canadian streets are plagued by rising violent crime, there are other constitutional and legislative tools available for a government and Parliament to protect Canadians. If the current government doesn’t have the courage to use those tools, then that government deserves to be replaced; it is as simple as that.

Parliament and the Government of Canada have an obligation to protect Canadians. When Parliament fundamentally disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, it should be prepared to act. What we require is an elected Parliament that is willing to do just that. Hopefully, colleagues — and I am, indeed, positively hopeful — that we will have such a Parliament after the next election.

What we have now is a government that is doing exactly the opposite of what is required to protect Canadians. There is ample evidence to suggest that various government measures, including badly thought out criminal justice legislation, as well as Liberal policy on drug distribution, have contributed significantly to the major increase in violent crime in Canada.

The sad fact is that, since 2015, violent crime in Canada has increased by 32% while gang-related murders, many of them committed with firearms, have doubled. None of these trends are impacted at all by Bill C-21.

The government may argue that Bill C-21 is part of a larger effort but I see no evidence of a larger effort. The truth is that Bill C-21, like Bill C-68 before it, diverts and wastes the efforts and resources to go after legal firearm owners when the attention of police, instead, should be on real criminals.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the government’s decision in 2020 to ban certain classes of previously legal firearms and to pay the necessary compensation will cost as much as $750 million. Others say the costs may be even higher.

This money, colleagues, should be used to support front-line officers. Instead, these funds are being completely and totally wasted. This, again, leads one to ask with whom the government actually consulted in order to produce this bill.

In his remarks on the bill a year ago, the minister claimed:

Bill C-21 represents the culmination of the advice we have received from so many constituencies, including from survivors and many others . . . .

If Bill C-21 represents the culmination of advice that the government has received from so many constituencies, then there remains a remarkable degree of public opposition to this bill.

If we consider even what earlier supporters of the bill are saying, it does not seem that the government listened to any advice they provided. Their expectations were unrealistically raised by the government when the minister unrealistically claimed that he could somehow eradicate gun violence. Now these groups feel betrayed.

The group PolySeSouvient supports Bill C-21 but has declared that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will no longer be welcome at future Polytechnique memorials.

Nathalie Provost, a survivor of the terrible shooting at the École Polytechnique, in speaking about the Prime Minister’s attendance at future commemoration events, reportedly said, “We won’t invite him and if he wants to come, we will not agree for him to be there.”

I understand why they are angry. The government promised a bill that would do the impossible. Then, when expectations were dashed, people became angry. You can’t promise the unachievable and then backtrack and not expect severe disappointment.

What about the total lack of government consultation with Indigenous peoples? Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake told members of Parliament that the absence of comprehensive consultation with Indigenous peoples is clearly evident given what she says is the “incoherence and inconsistency” of the bill itself.

She further said:

We ask that you address the real underlying problems that cause gun violence, not further restrict Indigenous peoples from carrying out their lives in a sustainable ceremonial and generational way.

This, again, is the essence of the problem with Bill C-21. The government claims that this is a bill that is designed to address gun violence. The real target is law-abiding firearms owners, including Indigenous hunters.

Vice Chief Heather Bear of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations said that Bill C-21 and its proposed amendments infringe on Indigenous rights to hunt both on reserve lands and on traditional territories. This includes the provisions in the bill that target legal handgun owners.

Bill C-21 proposes to freeze the sale, purchase or transfer of legal handguns. This provision impacts more than 1 million legal firearms that have been used by law-abiding competitive shooters and collectors for a century and more.

Naturally, this measure will have no impact on criminal gangs who are largely interested in illegal firearms, which they can easily acquire from across the border. Instead, this so-called handgun freeze goes after those who hold restricted firearms licences for a variety of legal purposes.

As Vice Chief Bear stated, “Handguns are used in the far north. . . .” Why are they used? They are sometimes employed for safety reasons, where an animal such a bear may come upon a hunter very quickly, making a handgun easier to use at close quarters than a rifle. Having an available tool like a handgun might actually mean the difference between life and death; not only did the government not consider that when it drafted Bill C-21, it also did not, of course, consult with the people most affected.

It is scarcely surprising that, in December, First Nations leaders at the AFN General Assembly voted to oppose Bill C-21.

Cat Lake First Nation Chief Russell Wesley, who brought forward the resolution at the AFN Special Chiefs Assembly, referred to the bill as “just another demonstration of our First Nations constantly being attacked with respect to our rights.”

When it comes to Indigenous consultation, the Department of Justice states:

The Government of Canada has a constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples when it considers measures that might adversely impact their potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. This has been consistently confirmed by the Courts. The Government of Canada has consistently worked to uphold this duty and has shown its commitment to taking additional steps to do so.

What happened to that commitment? I believe that it is absolutely imperative that when our Senate committee reviews this bill, it must take the time to hear from all Indigenous witnesses who want to be heard.

If the government is not going to consult Indigenous peoples in the manner that it promised, then the Senate must do that job for them. We will do our utmost to ensure that this bill receives full hearing at the Senate committee, and that Canadians can and will be heard.

In that regard, I want to come back to the matter of the handgun freeze that is proposed in this bill. The minister said that this provision:

. . . would introduce a national freeze on handguns for the first time. In very clear language, this means that on a go‑forward basis no one would be able to buy, sell, transfer or import a handgun.

That is the purpose, according to the minister. But what will that provision actually accomplish when it comes to public safety? We know it will do nothing when it comes to illegal handguns, which are the weapon of choice for criminal gangs. The Deputy Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, as he then was, Myron Demkiw, recently testified in the House of Commons that approximately 86% of crime guns seized were ones that had been smuggled into Canada. A recent CBC story noted that 90% of gun crimes in Ontario were committed with smuggled guns.

Deputy Chief Demkiw was very clear about handguns on Toronto’s streets, saying:

They’re not domestically sourced. They are internationally sourced. Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.

When asked about the proposed handgun freeze and the government’s other firearms buy-back program, he said:

Investing in what you described is certainly not going to deal with the crime problem we’re facing in Toronto as it relates to criminal handguns and the use of criminal handguns.

We must ask again: Who did the government listen to or consult with? There is no public safety benefit in legislating that legal handgun owners can keep their 1 million firearms, but they can’t legally buy or sell them. Neither does restricting competitive pistol shooters make our streets safer.

The government claims that in many areas of Canada, the theft of legal firearms must be combatted, but freezing purchases and sales of legal firearms that are already tightly controlled does not address that problem. The major problem for a city like Toronto is organized firearms smuggling. On that, Bill C-21 does nothing at all.

In his remarks on the bill, the minister claimed that:

Bill C-21 will take on, in a very intentional and direct way, organized crime. It does this by first and foremost raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border, from 10 years to 15 years. What is the effect of that statement of intent? It is to send a very powerful and clear message to anyone who is in the business of illegal gun smuggling that they are at greater risk of facing stiffer sentences.

It’s hardly surprising that the minister actually got the proposed new maximum wrong. The new maximum proposed in the bill is 14 years, not 15 years as the minister said. He doesn’t know his own bill. He’s a lawyer and a former prosecutor, but somehow he missed the fact that 14 years is a normal maximum sentence in the Criminal Code, not 15 years.

Be that as it may, what does this increase in the maximum possible sentence actually accomplish?

First of all, in relation to the current 10-year maximum for firearms smuggling, we need to be honest that even this sentence is rarely imposed in Canadian courts. I asked Library of Parliament researchers how often the 10-year maximum sentence had been imposed in the past 20 years. Library researchers failed to find a single example.

Senator Tannas: Senator Woo and I have an understanding. The reason we went this way is that the amendment specifically asks — begs — for a bill to be placed before us to do our study in a full and complete fashion. It preserves what is there and asks that we have a bill. Did you miss that, or am I not catching the nuance?

Senator Moodie: Senator Woo, I have a question for you about another approach. Should we consider that instead of responding to the BIA now, we delay, continue discussions until the fall and adopt it then, so that we conduct the discussions that we feel are necessary around some of these issues?

Senator Tannas: I really wasn’t ready to go that far by deleting things that a government is intending to do. I felt it was better that we try to improve upon it while making a point. I was also thinking of the public. This isn’t on the public’s radar screen, but if it were, they would be hopping mad, and they would expect something to be done.

So deleting it leaves us where we are. I think this, at least, has highlighted it and can continue to highlight it.

That’s the best answer I can give. Thank you.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Dasko. No, I would not because if making an amendment to the current provision on the Canada Elections Act is already an excess of enthusiasm, I would say that removing that clause altogether would be even more so.

Senator Batters: Would Senator Dalphond take a question?

Senator Tannas: Certainly.

Senator Gold: No; the answer is no. It is true that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing challenges, as you point out, but it is not true that we are not prepared to play our role. On the contrary, we have long-standing partnerships with our allies, including those who are in that region.

As I already explained in response to a question on the same topic, there are very specific reasons why Canada was not part of this small group. It is about the nuclear submarines that were central to this organization. That being said, Canada continues to play an important role everywhere, but especially in defending our interests in the Asia-Pacific region.