Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable colleagues, I rise to speak on the government’s motion to impose time allocation cutting off debate on Bill C-21. Before I go to my prepared remarks, I want to say a few words about gun issues in general.

I am a person who has never had much interest in guns. I grew up in a house where there were always the same four guns: a .32 Special — a rifle — a 10-gauge, a 16-gauge and a .22. My father and one of my brothers hunted. I wasn’t interested in hunting.

The first time I went after animals of any sort, I was 10 years old. My grandfather taught me how to tie rabbit snares. That was great until the day I went out and found a couple of rabbits in the snares, with their eyes popping out and their tongues hanging out. That was enough rabbit hunting for me.

Once, when I was about 12, my father took me out hunting. A big beautiful buck came out into the clearing; I screeched and the buck took off. That was the last time my father took me hunting.

I was never much for shooting animals or hunting, but I had a lot of friends who hunted. I like venison. If people showed up with venison, I was more than willing to eat it. My father knew how to prepare venison. I am not against hunting and people handling long guns.

I remember back in the 1990s, when Allan Rock, with the Chrétien government, brought in the gun registry. We were assured it would cost $2 million. It cost $2 billion. We know what it accomplished: absolutely nothing. It was just a big expensive bureaucracy that accomplished nothing but picking on lawful gun owners.

We also know that we are susceptible to media. We see some of the extreme things that occur in the U.S., but we have a different gun culture in Canada. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. I think we should respect that gun culture. I think we are fairly modest when it comes to dealing with these issues.

I have no stake in gun issues, because I have no interest in guns. I put guns in the same category as motorcycles and skydiving; I would just as soon avoid them. It is not something I am interested in. But I am interested in treating law-abiding citizens properly.

In this country, we’ve had the regulation and registration of handguns since the 1930s. We’ve always been fairly responsible when it comes to handguns. We also know that in this country, 96% of the firearm-related charges that were laid against unlicensed criminals were for the illegal possession of firearms. It was always unlicensed criminals with illegal firearms, and we know that almost 96% of the illegal handguns in this country are brought across the Canada-U.S. border.

I’m not sure what this bill is going to solve, but I think it is very unfair to the law-abiding gun owners of this country.

We see the government bringing up time allocation. I am disappointed but not particularly surprised with this motion since it is perfectly in keeping with how the government has approached this entire bill.

The Senate committee reviewing this bill met for 12 meetings and heard from dozens of witnesses, most of whom opposed the bill and many of whom suggested important amendments. Yet, not one amendment was supported by the government majority in this committee.

The entire review of Bill C-21 in committee turned out to be little more than a sham. The witnesses who took the time to appear, and who offered detailed proposals for amendments, fundamentally wasted their time, and now the government is imposing time allocation. That means that important issues that have not yet been touched on by this chamber in relation to the bill will simply be ignored.

I want to touch on just one of those issues, concerning the so-called red flag provisions in the bill.

The red flag provisions in Bill C-21 will permit any individual to make an application to the court for an emergency firearm prohibition order to immediately remove firearms for up to 30 days from any individual whom they believe may pose a danger to themselves or to others.

It also permits an application to be made for the removal of firearms from an individual whom they believe may be at risk of providing access to firearms to another person who is already subject to a firearms prohibition order.

What does this provision actually add to the current law? That is something that we as senators should actually take the time to understand.

The reality is that, as witnesses at committee stated, the police already have full authority to remove firearms from any individual whom they believe may pose a public safety threat. The police can do this without issuing a warrant.

Right now, any individual has the ability to call the police, or the Chief Firearms Officer, or CFO, of their province and raise public safety concerns. The police or CFO then responds to such concerns.

The government argues that these new provisions in Bill C-21 will add “another tool to the tool box,” enabling citizens to go through the courts if they so choose.

But we really need to ask ourselves who is going to take days, weeks or months to go to the court when they can just call the police?

We are told that there are certain circumstances where the police may not act. They may reject complaints that have been made by neighbours. In those circumstances, where there has been a police investigation and the police have talked to the person concerned and to his or her family, we are to believe that reasonable people will then decide to go to court instead of relying on what the police have found.

If we are going to be honest with ourselves, such cases will likely be few and very far between. Legitimate cases may, in fact, be practically non-existent.

But this provision then gives rise to new concerns.

The Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association has argued the following:

. . . 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.

The Criminal Justice Section of the Canadian Bar Association also:

. . . believes the proposed amendments included in Bill C-21 “pose a threat to public safety and a disproportionate risk to marginalized groups” . . . .

Tim Thurley, a firearms researcher and policy specialist who appeared before the committee, made a similar point. He said:

The ill-considered red flag proposals are . . . problematic. Under Canada’s existing licensing system, police and judges already have the power to remove guns and revoke licences from those who pose a threat. The new provisions have no requirements to consider Indigenous hunting rights, for the complainant to have any relationship to the accused or for the accused to be heard in court. Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system and are also the most reliant on firearms for subsistence. We will undermine the built-in safeguards of the existing red flag law. Where people hunt to feed families, this has real consequences.

Noah Schwartz, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of the Fraser Valley noted:

This new change would allow for ex parte revocations, which means that an accusation could be made by someone who doesn’t even know the person they are accusing. They might not have ever met them in real life. There would be no way for the accused to know who is making that accusation.

Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, echoed the same concerns when he testified before our committee.

Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawàke said:

In terms of red flag and yellow flag provisions, we do have concerns regarding the anonymous tip kind of approach, where this could be a potential for racial discrimination.

Serious concerns have been raised about the constitutionality of these provisions in Bill C-21.

An amendment was, therefore, proposed in committee to narrow the scope of these provisions to enable immediate family, persons residing with an individual, police and health professionals to make such ex parte applications. All other complaints would be made, as they are today, to the police or to the Chief Firearms Officer.

However, the amendment was rejected by the government majority, meaning that these witnesses’ concerns have all been ignored.

So now, in the red flag section of the bill, I believe that, at a minimum, we have a provision that is unlikely to be used, except perhaps by angry neighbours who cannot get a response to their liking from the police or who don’t particularly like their neighbours.

At worst, the provision will pose yet another burden on our already overloaded courts, and perhaps will even be found to be unconstitutional.

This is a concerning component of the bill, but it is hardly the worst part of the bill. Yet, we have not discussed this matter in this chamber at all. And now, because of time allocation, there will be no opportunity to do so.

I suppose that means that the majority of government senators are content to simply leave this matter to our already overburdened courts.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: You still have 10 seconds to respond.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in oposition to the government’s motion to introduce the time allocation on Bill C-21.

The more one looks at the actual provisions of Bill C-21, the more one realizes how many issues have been given short shrift in the Senate’s review of this legislation.

One major issue that has been ignored is the total inadequacy of the current bill when it comes to the spike in violent crime — in particular, gun crime — that is plaguing some of our most vulnerable communities.

As a Toronto senator, I have seen the horrendous rise in gun violence. I have been asked repeatedly by community members who worry about their friends and family, what is being done to protect their loved ones.

In fact, I was at a community event this weekend, and the one thing everyone was talking about was how unsafe they are feeling in their homes. They were asking, “What are we going to do?” and “What is the government prepared to do?”

We have already had some idea about how the government’s ill-considered measures in Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have ensured a spike in violent crime in urban Canada.

We know, for example, that under Bill C-5, the government repealed several mandatory sentences for gun crime, including using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by commission of offence; discharging a firearm with intent; robbery with a firearm; and extortion with a firearm.

The government argued that none of these specific measures related to bail would “. . . ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention . . . .”

The impact of that has been nothing short of devastating.

In British Columbia, one study examined 425 bail hearings involving a suspect accused of a violent crime and with a breach of bail conditions on their file. Of those 425 hearings, the Crown sought detention orders in only 222 cases or 52% of the time. That meant that in nearly 50% of the cases, violent criminals with bail breaches on their files were back on the streets.

My province of Ontario has experienced a 57% increase in serious violence and weapons cases before the courts between 2018 and 2021.

There is no question in my mind that our courts are already overburdened, and some cases are often years behind in being heard. For example, the Toronto Police Service reports that in the last two years, 17% of those charged in Toronto with shooting-related homicides were already out on bail at the time of the alleged fatal shooting.

Therefore, every decision we take in this chamber matters. It will have a ripple effect throughout the country and impact the communities we live in.

When we pass legislation that is ill-considered, it is Canadian communities and often the most vulnerable in those communities who suffer the most. Now the government is intent on doing that once again by cutting off debate on Bill C-21.

However, I believe the fact that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs dedicated 12 meetings to this bill is indicative that we too must be diligent in our debates. Senators, we are here to debate and listen to each other’s views whether we agree or disagree.

Honourable colleagues, I urge you to reject this motion, if only to ensure that vulnerable communities do not pay the price of a speedy adoption of Bill C-21.

You only have to look at cities like Mississauga and Brampton, where people are feeling unsafe in their homes, where we’re having home invasions, and guns are used. People are being pistol-whipped. The fear is real. I worry when my own daughters go out in Toronto. I worry about what they will be facing because there are so many shootings. Young people go to clubs; we can’t stop them. I am up the whole night until they get home. For some of us, especially parents in Mississauga and Brampton who have spoken to me, this fear is real. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: That’s correct.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the time for debate has expired.

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 10:04. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

Leave having been given to revert to Presenting or Tabling of Reports from Committees:

The Hon. the Speaker: Any advice on the bell?

An Hon. Senator: An hour.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say, “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps I am rising on debate because I don’t think there is any more time for questions.

Listen, Senator Housakos. I heard you, and I couldn’t help but rise because I think you’re living on a planet that doesn’t exist. You have this idea that you’ve been completely muzzled and that you can’t speak. We worked on bills like Bill C-11, which took six months of study. Do you feel like we prevented you from bringing in all of the witnesses that you wanted, for weeks on end?

I am thinking of Bill C-18. I have been here for five years. The idea that the opposition is being prevented from doing its job is completely absurd to me. That is simply not the case. You referred to the House of Lords, to our British system. In England, there is a House of Lords with cross-benchers. They do exist. Such independence is not a joke.

Every day, you say that we are Liberal senators, that we don’t have any freedom and that we are kowtowing. That is absolutely shameful. I can’t take it any more. We are people with minds of our own. I certainly don’t consider myself to be under the heel of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Have you seen the number of amendments that we’re trying to get adopted? It’s nothing like it was in your day. You’re just making up a story. You’re making yourselves out to be victims. You’re saying that there is no more democracy.

Listen, we have debates here. That happens. I honestly don’t know where you got this idea about us. I can’t take it any more. It’s not true. We’re not puppets. That’s not true.

There. I think I’ve said enough.