Honourable senators, I don’t think I’ll be able to speak fast enough to beat the bell on this one, so we may have to do this in two shifts. I rise today to speak on Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Honourable senators, we have seen many bills pass through this chamber in the past eight years. If I am being charitable, I think it is fair to say that a significant number of these bills have been beset by challenges. Some reflect a tendency that we have seen in the current government to not think things through. Too often, such bills have not put the interests of all Canadians first. These bills have been highly political.

In this regard, we are all familiar with bills like Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which will come into force in just a few days. This bill is living up to all the shortcomings that witnesses who appeared before our committees warned us about. Of course, we have then had the range of criminal justice bills that the government has enacted, all of which were driven by an ideological, soft-on-crime approach. Bills like Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-83 have contributed to the significant spike in crime, including violent crime, that we are seeing across Canada. These bills have not only failed to achieve their declared objective of enhancing public safety, but have also actually undermined the ability of our police forces and corrections officers to combat and control rising violent crime.

Now we have Bill C-21. This bill is certainly one of the most divisive that the current government has ever imposed on Canadians. Like the other bills I’ve mentioned, the former minister claimed that Bill C-21 would contribute to the eradication of gun crime in Canada.

To be sure, this is a bold claim, senators, but it is a claim that the majority of witnesses who appeared before the Senate National Security and Defence Committee have already rejected. That is because this bill actually doesn’t deal with gun crime at all; in fact, it completely ignores most gun crime. Instead, the bill targets legal firearms owners, individuals who, in fact, have always abided by the law. In my remarks today, I want to discuss several issues related to this bill.

First, I will discuss the total lack of consultation that the government has engaged in on this bill. This is a factor that I believe has contributed significantly to making this such a bad bill.

Second, I will discuss what is a major focus in the bill — the purposed ban on the purchase and sale of legal handguns. I think it is clear that this measure will do nothing to reduce gun crime. Instead, it will only succeed in destroying competitive shooting sports in Canada for absolutely no benefit.

Third, I want to discuss the expanded definition of “prohibited firearms” that is found in this bill. This is a measure that accomplishes nothing in the short term, but I think it reflects the government’s long-term intention to do through regulation what it could not accomplish through legislation.

These three issues lie at the heart of why this is an inherently bad and divisive bill for Canada. But if we are going to be honest, colleagues, I think we need to accept that this government actually intended this bill to be divisive. That is because they view this bill as a wedge for the Liberal Party in the next election. What they plan to do is use superficial messaging to sell this bill to people in urban Canada who will not fully understand what the legislation actually does and who, the government hopes, will buy the simplistic message that they are eradicating gun crime. But I do not believe they will be successful in this regard. They will not be successful because it will be readily transparent that there is no reduction in gun crime and that Bill C-21 has done nothing to move the needle. But that is what they will try to do.

What the government is attempting to do with Bill C-21 is something similar to what another Liberal government tried to do three decades ago with a bill called Bill C-68. In the mid-1990s, Bill C-68 established the infamous long-gun registry. It was sold as a panacea that would solve many of Canada’s problems with gun crime.

Like all gun-control bills before it, Bill C-68 was supposed to lessen gun crime by imposing yet more controls on lawful firearms owners. The problem was that Bill C-68’s objectives proved to be completely unrealistic and unworkable. The long‑gun registry had been projected to cost just $2 million, but it actually ended up costing taxpayers $2 billion instead. As Senator Gold always says, the government was serious about fixing this. The registry itself had absolutely no impact on firearms crime. Because the legislation could not accomplish what the government claimed that it would do, public support for the bill evaporated. I believe the same will happen with Bill C-21.

There is simply no chance that Bill C-21 can work as advertised, because while the government claims it is addressing handgun crime, the bill actually contains no measures that will reduce the supply of illegal handguns that are being accessed by criminal gangs in Canada. Bill C-21 not only does nothing on illegal guns but does not even reduce the number of legal firearms in circulation in Canada. Instead, the bill merely prohibits the approximately 650,000 Canadians who are legal handgun owners in Canada from selling their guns or buying new ones. This will have no impact on gun crime, but it gratuitously targets those 650,000 Canadians, making them the de facto scapegoats for a bigger societal problem.

The government probably believes that those 650,000 Canadians will be more manageable a number than the 2 million‑plus Canadians who were targeted by Bill C-68 in the 1990s. In the end, Bill C-21 will be just as ineffective and just as divisive as Bill C-68 was. In the end, Bill C-21 will meet exactly the same fate.

I want to focus the first part of my remarks on explaining the major factor that has contributed to making Bill C-21 as bad as it is. The root of this lies in the total lack of consultation that the government engaged in on this bill. When the current minister appeared before our committee on October 23, he claimed the following with respect to consultations. He said:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

Yet soon after the minister made that claim, our committee began to hear from its first witnesses. Our very first witnesses were Chief Firearms Officers for Alberta and Saskatchewan. One would think that if the government was drafting serious firearms legislation, the chief firearms officers in the provinces as a group would be ones with whom the government would consult. However, Dr. Teri Bryant, Chief Firearms Officer for Alberta, responded in this way when asked whether they had been consulted. Dr. Bryant said, “I can answer that very quickly and save us time. No consultation whatsoever.”

Robert Freberg, the Chief Firearms Officer for Saskatchewan, said the consultation “. . . was zero.” Not a little bit — zero.

The blunt nature of these answers led me to ask many of the other witnesses who appeared before the committee what consultations the government had with them before the bill was introduced.

Gilbert White, Chairperson of the Recreational Firearm Community for Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation told us this: “The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was not consulted.”

Eric Schroff, Executive Director of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, stated that his organization received a visit only after the government tabled amendments to the bill late last year. They were not consulted before that. When he appeared, the minister had claimed to us, “. . . I don’t think hunters or sports groups oppose this legislation.” That’s a quote from the minister.

I asked Mr. Schroff about that specific claim, and he responded that, on the contrary, “I do not know of any sporting organizations that support this legislation.” Gilbert White said the same thing: “From my perspective, we don’t know of any hunters or organizations that are in support of Bill C-21.” Where does the minister get off saying these things?

Marc Renaud, President of Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the federation of Quebec anglers and hunters, said:

In Quebec, our federation is not aware of any organization that supports this restrictive bill, from our sport shooters to our shooting clubs, our members or our hunters. . . .

I asked Marcell Wilson, founder of The One By One Movement in Toronto, “Are you aware of anyone within your community with which the government consulted before they introduced this bill?” He responded, “I would have to say no, not one.”

On November 6, Senator Deacon asked Sandra Honour, the Chair of the board of directors of the Shooting Federation of Canada, “Were you and your group consulted? Did you have an opportunity for input?” She responded:

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. . . .

We then turned our questions to witnesses who appeared from various Indigenous organizations — remember that the minister had specifically told us the following: “We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations . . . .” and “. . . I don’t think Indigenous peoples writ large oppose this bill. . . .” But Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the Assembly of First Nations told our committee on November 6 that consultation with them was:

Minimal or none at best. I would say not enough, certainly. This is why we passed a resolution last December.

Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke was asked whether the government consulted her First Nation before the bill was introduced. She responded, “No. We . . . had one meeting and that wasn’t necessarily an adequate consultation, so I wouldn’t consider it consultation whatsoever.”

Paul Irngaut, Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., told us on November 8 that “. . . neither ITK nor NTI has been fully consulted on the language and impacts of the bill.”

Will David, Director of Legal Affairs at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, told us:

Put simply, there was none. The minister had reached out and offered, and we had reached out and requested, but that consultation never occurred. We’re still waiting.

Not a single representative of the Indigenous organizations who appeared before us told us that they had been consulted before Bill C-21 was introduced, despite what the minister clearly claimed. Remember, this is the government that pushed for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. The minister told us, at the time, that adopting UNDRIP meant that — going forward — the government would honour the principle of “nothing about us without us.”

I asked Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the Assembly of First Nations what that pledge actually means if — on a bill like this — there is no consultation before the bill is introduced. The chief responded as follows:

Well, clearly that doesn’t meet the standard that we want to adopt, especially with legislation that may have very adverse effects on our Indigenous peoples. . . . free, prior and informed consent means that there would be proper consultation with First Nations, and I would say even deeper consultation if it has any adverse effects on Indigenous peoples, especially with regard to our inherent rights. . . .

Colleagues, I do not see how one can come to any other conclusion than this: What the minister told us in committee was a complete and total falsehood. I remind senators, again, of what he actually said:

We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

I would submit that — on this basis alone — Bill C-21 should be rejected by this chamber.

What the minister told us is not true. We need to ask whether there are any consequences when the government lies so blatantly. I certainly believe there should be consequences, but, at a minimum, even if some believe that the bill should not be rejected for that reason alone, then, at least, the bill should have been amended to require consultations before it actually comes into force. Consultations are important on any bill dealing with a complex subject matter, because it is always outside the experts and stakeholders who know more than the government.

We proposed such a mandatory consultation amendment at committee, but, of course, that proposal was rejected by the majority of the government-appointed senators.

We then proposed another amendment: The government should, at least, be required to consult with Indigenous peoples before enacting any regulations that flow from this bill. Such consultations would be required if regulations impacted the section 35 rights of Indigenous peoples, but that amendment, too, was rejected by the majority of the government-appointed senators — not only at committee, but also here in the chamber in response to the amendment that Senator Boisvenu proposed.

The only conclusion that one can draw from this is that not only do the principles of UNDRIP mean nothing to this government — that much is obvious — but, in practical terms, they also mean very little to the majority of the government-appointed senators.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson, who repeatedly reminds us that she is from Treaty 6 territory, tried to tell us this at committee:

. . . I believe very strongly in meaningful consultation —

— so do I —

— with Indigenous organizations. I sponsored the UNDRIP bill that was passed in 2021.

She continued, “Obviously, I fully support the idea of consultation, and the government is getting better at it. . . .”

I would ask Senator LaBoucane-Benson the following: At what point will reality ever catch up with rhetoric, or is the rhetoric all that really matters?

I do want to acknowledge that, at least, three government-appointed senators did take their role at our committee seriously. They were Senator Deacon, Senator Anderson and, of course, Senator Richards. They disagreed with some of the amendments proposed, but I believe that they did, at least, consider all the amendments seriously.

On this issue of consultation, Senator Anderson, in particular, made an impassioned plea that future reviews should not take place behind closed doors. She was honest about what such cosmetic reviews had meant in the North in the past. She said:

In regard to the review, I’m not confident of a review. We have reviews constantly in the North. Half the time, maybe more than half, we never hear back about those reviews. People don’t even know there are reviews going on. That’s problematic. . . . We already know it’s an issue. We have a responsibility as legislators to address that issue. We have the authority to do that. To fail to do that is to fail in the aspects of reconciliation and section 35 Charter rights. It’s unconscionable.

I do not think an observation is sufficient. I think it’s insufficient. I’ve been here for five years. There have been a lot of observations in regard to Indigenous issues. I can’t honestly tell you one that I’ve seen acted upon.

That, I think, is what also concerns the many stakeholders who appeared before our committee.

For all the Indigenous, hunting and sporting organizations that appeared before our committee, it is the government’s track record on consultations which suggests that they will also not be listened to in the regulatory process. The government has been very clear in stating that there will be a regulatory process arriving from this bill — that much we know.

In the House of Commons late last year, the government was prevented from pursuing a broader firearms prohibition that would have specifically targeted hunters, including Indigenous hunters. This means that there is a serious potential for regulations that will be drafted behind closed doors that will target hunters. A number of witnesses expressed their concerns about this.

Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, told our committee:

. . . we have seen no government-wide implementation of the structures that we have tried to build with the Government of Canada on systematically upholding our rights and allowing for our participation in things such as legislative processes like regulations. Therefore, we have very little confidence that we would participate and be able to co-develop those regulations.

Similarly, Paul Irngaut, Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik told us, “I really don’t have a lot of confidence if it’s passed very quickly, as we’ve seen in the past.” He continued, saying, “We need to be consulted on this firearms bill so that people are aware and can voice their concerns. . . .”

Colleagues, Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami told our committee:

. . . we have seen no government-wide implementation of the structures that we have tried to build with the Government of Canada on systematically upholding our rights and allowing for our participation in things such as legislative processes like regulations. Therefore, we have very little confidence that we would participate and be able to co-develop those regulations.

Similarly, Paul Irngaut, Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik told us:

I really don’t have a lot of confidence if it’s passed very quickly, as we’ve seen in the past.

We need to be consulted on this firearms bill so that people are aware and can voice their concerns.

Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawàke said:

We also have concerns about meaningful consultation for regulations, because it will deeply affect how our people can carry themselves and carry their firearms, so we would like to have a closer look at what that looks like.

When this was discussed in committee, some senators said they wanted to get a better idea of what future consultations should look like. For instance, Senator Cardozo asked Chief Lazare:

. . . the way I understand it is that if this bill passes, the department in charge . . . would then be in charge of developing the regulations. What we could consider doing is to be fairly specific in terms of what we suggest to them about how to go about those consultations, recognizing that they didn’t take place earlier on when the government was developing the bill.

Would that be the way to go?

Chief Lazare responded:

Yes, the way to go would be to set up an initial meeting that would have to consist of a plan. For meaningful engagement, you need to have a plan to ensure that you cover all sectors and all the needs of both parties. In order to do that, we need to have that initial meeting.

Responding to all this witness testimony, an amendment was then proposed at our committee to ensure that the regulatory process on firearms be informed by consultations with Indigenous peoples. But that amendment was defeated by the majority of the government senators, including, of course, by Senator Cardozo as well. So the regulatory process remains entirely in the hands of the government to do with it what it wants. It has failed to engage in any consultations to date, and unfortunately, that is what we can also expect going forward.

I now want to turn my remarks to addressing what some of the outcomes are when a government does not consult. The main outcome is it will likely produce a very bad bill. In Bill C-21, we can see this outcome in two areas in particular, namely in the proposed ban on the purchase and sale of legal handguns and in the expanded definition of what constitutes a prohibited firearm.

Turning first to the ban on the purchase and sale of legal guns, this component of the bill is the most gratuitous element in the bill because it targets about 650,000 law-abiding Canadians for essentially no supportable reason. The firearms that have been used by licensed sport shooters and collectors for many decades are held under very strict conditions in Canada.

We need to remind ourselves, colleagues, about the very specific restrictions that already apply to all restricted firearms owners in Canada. They must all pass the restricted firearms training course, go through and remain subject to continuous police background checks; only, and before the current freeze, acquire handguns for either sport shooting or collecting; only transport them to an approved shooting range; always store and transport their handguns double-locked, and only transport them as approved by the CFO of their province; and individually register all their restricted firearms.

I do not believe that most Canadians, or even senators, are actually aware of all the restrictions that already apply to restricted licence-holders. But by framing the issue as simply as possible, and by presenting the ban on the purchase and sale of legal handguns as a simple option, the government hopes its simplistic messaging will sell to what they hope is an uninformed public.

If we are going to be frank, Senator Dasko adopted a similar approach in a poll she commissioned a few weeks ago. Her poll asked whether respondents supported freezing the sale, transport and importation of handguns. Senator Dasko proclaimed that 73% of Canadians either supported or somewhat supported this government objective. But what context was provided in that poll about Canada’s already-existing handgun laws?

Were respondents told that it is only licensed sport shooters and collectors who can legally own handguns in Canada? Were all the existing legal restrictions clearly explained to respondents? When a poll asks a general question but provides no context, the result is predetermined. What Canadians will find out in the years ahead is that Bill C-21’s ban on the purchase and sale of legal, already tightly controlled handguns will not make Canadians any safer.

As nearly every witness who appeared before our committee pointed out, the vast majority of handguns being used in crime in Canada are being smuggled into the country. Professor Noah Schwartz testified before the committee and pointed out that:

In Montreal, 95% of handguns used were illegal, and 79% of traced handguns in Ontario were foreign-sourced, largely coming from the United States.

Professor Christian Leuprecht of the Royal Military College of Canada told our committee:

The data is unequivocal: Well over 90% of firearms seized in the commission of a crime or that are possessed unlawfully in Canada have been smuggled by organized crime from the United States. . . .

Show me the data that supports this bill. There is none.

Marcell Wilson, who was formerly involved in criminal activity in the city of Toronto at a senior level, confirmed to our committee that gang members are only interested in illegal, untraceable firearms and that the primary source for such firearms is the United States.

In essence, the reality is this: Banning the sale and purchase of legal handguns will not reduce firearms in circulation because the bill provides that such firearms will only be taken from the estates of such individuals, without any compensation, after their death. This measure will, for instance, have no impact on suicides because you are not actually reducing legal handguns in circulation.

Furthermore, a fact that government senators often miss is that every holder of a restricted firearms licence already also automatically holds a non-restricted firearms licence for long guns. That means they can possess long guns in addition to their handguns.

How does limiting what restricted licence holders can do with only one class of firearm impact any of the other firearms that these individuals already legally possess? The truth, of course, is that it doesn’t. Therefore, there can be no impact on the problem of suicides by firearm, nor will there be any material impact on the larger problem of stolen firearms.

A number of police officers, both serving and retired, testified before our committee on this very specific point. The officers who testified were unanimous that Bill C-21 would not impact the problem of handgun crime in Canada.

Mr. André Gélinas, formerly a detective sergeant with the Montreal police, stated that there is no link between the gang violence in Montreal and firearms legally held by sport shooters. His colleague Stéphane Wall, also formerly of the Montreal police, made exactly the same point. Even those senior police officers who gave the government the benefit of the doubt on Bill C-21 were nevertheless quite clear in noting their skepticism about the bill’s effectiveness.

Bill Fordy of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police told our committee:

Regarding the issue of smuggling and trafficking, the CACP continues to maintain that restricting lawful firearm ownership will not meaningfully address the issue of illegal firearms obtained from the United States. . . .

Similarly, Deputy Chief Constable Fiona Wilson of the Vancouver Police Department told the committee that:

To date in Vancouver, we have had 22 shots-fired incidents in 2023 resulting in three homicides and 16 people wounded. Fifteen of the 21 incidents have confirmed or suspected links to gangs.

She also said that without exception, firearms crime does not emanate from licensed gun owners.

And what of the government’s current efforts to tackle the real problem of firearms smuggling? Mark Weber, the National President of the Customs and Immigration Union, told our committee that much of what the government does at our border is actually only “security theatre” — those were his words. Aaron McCrorie, Vice President of the Intelligence and Enforcement Branch of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, told our committee that the results that CBSA have achieved at the border in stopping firearms smuggling are “. . . a great success and we’re very proud of it.” Mark Weber strongly rejected this claim when he testified. Mr. Weber told our committee that “The agency’s ability to stem the flow of illegal firearms has not improved a bit . . . ” over the past two years.

He went on to say that:

 . . . Border officers still lack the ability to act between ports of entry, making it harder to address problematic situations in a timely fashion. Tools such as mobile X-rays that could help in intercepting illegal contraband, including dangerous firearms, frequently break down. There is still an almost 0% chance that any illegal weapon entering the country through rail would ever be found. . . .

Any thinking person would be legitimately concerned about this imbalance in the current bill. We were told by a number of witnesses that the government’s measure to increase the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking from 10 to 14 years will have no impact on trafficking because the current maximum of 10 years is never imposed by our courts. I noted this fact during my second reading remarks and, unfortunately, that conclusion was confirmed by witness testimony. Senator Yussuff asked officials from the Department of Justice what the average sentence for firearms trafficking was. Mr. Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director of the Criminal Law Policy Section of Justice Canada responded by noting that:

. . . In 2019-20, there was one conviction resulting in imprisonment of more than two years. In 2018, sentencing was from as low as three to six months to more than two years. So the sentences are what they are.

The government is evidently fine with that result since government senators rejected all amendments that were proposed to restore some minimum sentencing for firearms offences that were repealed under Bill C-5. Senators should understand what that means. It means that people in our most vulnerable communities will continue to suffer the most from gun crime.

This is what Mr. Marcell Wilson told our committee related to the claim that Bill C-21 will tackle gun crime. He said:

. . . Please stop exploiting people who have already been through enough for a political agenda. We know better, we want better and we deserve better. . . .

I can assure senators opposite of this: Canadians either know or will soon find out that Bill C-21 is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen that makes legal gun owners scapegoats. It will do nothing to reduce real gun crime. In particular, it does nothing to help people in our most vulnerable communities. That will become very evident as gun and gang crimes continue to rise.

The final element in this bill that I wish to address is the expanded definition of a “prohibited firearm” that the bill contains. Before I discuss this specific provision, I think we need to remember that certain firearms have been prohibited for civilian use in Canada for a very long time. These include fully automatic firearms. They include semi-automatic centrefire firearms that shoot more than five rounds. They include sawed‑off shotguns. They include short-barrel pistols. They include various other firearms that have, from time-to-time, been selected for prohibition for one reason or another. But now, in Bill C-21 — and building on the order-in-council that the government enacted in 2020 — the definition of “prohibited firearm” is to be further expanded in a largely meaningless manner.

In the bill, the government expands the definition of a prohibited firearm to include a firearm that incorporates all of the following criteria: It is not a handgun; it discharges centrefire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; it was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more; and it is designed or manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force. All of these criteria must apply for the firearm in question to be prohibited under the new definition.

When Senator Yussuff spoke to the bill at third reading, he claimed that this bill has nothing to do with long guns. Well, I am sorry, but this clause in the bill, which amends subsection 84(1) of the act, is only about long guns. In fact, the clause specifically excludes handguns. As we heard from witnesses, there are numerous problems with this proposed definition.

What the government is attempting to define is an assault-style firearm for which there actually is no definition. I am sure that if many Canadians were asked what that term meant, they would say it means a firearm capable of being fired in a fully automatic manner. Indeed, if we think of any military rifle in service today, that is what such a rifle would be capable of. However, as I said, such rifles have been legally prohibited for civilian use in Canada for many decades. Instead, the government now proposes to expand the prospective definition to also prohibit firearms simply because they happen to discharge ammunition in a semi‑automatic manner. But it will only define such firearms as prohibited if they are manufactured after the date on which the act comes into force. This means that exactly the same firearm will either be prohibited or legal simply based on its date of manufacture. This is akin to saying that the same make of car manufactured is either prohibited or legal based on the date that it was manufactured. Colleagues, it literally makes no sense.

Theoretically, this provision could impact well over a million hunting firearms in Canada, firearms that are actually classified as non-restricted under current Canadian law and which have been assessed as being entirely appropriate for hunting purposes. It will not apply in that manner because all of the semi-automatic firearms already in Canada are exempt from the provision. So, too, is any semi-automatic rifle that might be imported, as long as it was manufactured before the date on which the provision comes into force.

Senators should understand what this means. This means that literally tens of millions of semi-automatic firearms are eligible for import into Canada, simply based on the date they were made. I really need to ask: How does this enhance public safety? Of course, the answer is that it has absolutely no impact on public safety.

In his third-reading remarks, Senator Yussuff claimed that the fact that the measure is ineffective means that long guns are not impacted by the bill. If that is the case, then why have the provision in the bill at all? In fact, an amendment was proposed at committee for the section concerned to be deleted from the bill. But, again, government senators, including Senator Yussuff, voted against that amendment.

Senator Yussuff cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that nothing in the bill impacts long-gun owners, and then vote against the amendment deleting the clause which references long guns. In this regard, we have to be aware of what the government is signalling about what it intends to do. It may be signalling that it will try to do, through regulation, what it failed to do through legislation last year.

Because so many semi-automatic firearms are non-restricted and used for hunting, when the government attempted to enact a wide prohibition last year, hunters across the country — including, of course, Indigenous hunters — understandably reacted very negatively. They did so because the broad prohibition that was being proposed had no credible justification. I do think that stakeholders are right to be very concerned about the government’s future intent. It seems highly probable that the government still has the aspiration to do through the back door what it tried and failed to do through the front door.

Many witnesses, particularly Indigenous hunters, share that concern. They are rightly worried about the government’s long‑term intent. They are particularly concerned about the arbitrary decisions which will take some semi-automatic firearms away from hunters but leave others in their possession. As Paul Irngaut, Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., told our committee, in his view the proposed definition of assault-style firearm is problematic. He said:

The definition is overly broad and covers many semi‑automatic rifles used for hunting or defence against predators in Nunavut.

Inuit have treaty rights to hunt under the Nunavut Agreement. Hunting is a necessity for survival for a lot of Inuit in Nunavut. . . .

. . . Semi-automatic rifles are effective and necessary as a humane method to quickly dispatch animals and as defence against polar bears, grizzly bears and wolves. Inuit hunters are taught to prevent dangerous encounters and to scare away these predators, but that is not enough. It could mean life or death when one or more aggressive bears are breaking into your cabin or tent. You would need to be able to scare them away quickly, and you might not have the time to reload. If this bill is passed with the ban on semi-automatic firearms, we will have to shoot to kill, resulting in increased fatalities of wildlife.

He went on to say:

There are some provisions in the act that we are not opposed to, but the broad definition of “assault rifles” is quite concerning to us. . . .

Colleagues, take note. This is a life-and-death situation for people up north. They are protecting their lives, their families’ lives and wildlife. For those hunters who depend on their firearms for subsistence, this is understandably very worrying.

In response to this, an amendment was proposed at committee to ensure transparency in the envisaged future regulatory process. Hunters deserve that sort of transparency and, in particular, Indigenous peoples who depend on subsistence hunting, whose rights are impacted and who should be consulted. That is what the amendment proposed, colleagues, but, unfortunately — as with all the other amendments — the amendment was rejected by the government majority.

Now, what Indigenous and other hunters fear is that the government will do what it has already done in the 2020 order‑in-council to arbitrarily select certain semi-automatic firearms for prohibition.

We need to be clear: The measure that the government enacted in 2020 had absolutely no public safety benefit. In fact, it is one of the dumbest measures ever enacted by a Canadian government. This measure selected some semi-automatic long guns for prohibition, largely for their look, while leaving all others in legal circulation. In other words, one semi-automatic long gun is prohibited, but another semi-automatic long gun that may shoot precisely the same ammunition remains legal.

Moreover, since the government says it will pay compensation to those firearms owners whose firearms have been arbitrarily prohibited, nothing prevents these firearms owners from simply using that money to purchase another semi-automatic firearm that may shoot precisely the same ammunition as the firearm that has been prohibited. This is Liberal thinking to the nth degree.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that this idiotic compensation program will cost taxpayers at least $750 million. What is a few dollars among friends is what the Liberals say. In essence, taxpayers will be paying firearms owners to hand in certain of their semi-automatic long guns so that they can use that money to go out and buy another semi‑automatic long gun. Only this Liberal-NDP government could come up with a program that is so utterly pointless but still ends up costing taxpayers at least $750 million, as Senator Boisvenu said, and probably more.

Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Clinical Professor at McMaster University, testified before our committee and he pointedly stated:

The likely billions of dollars spent to confiscate firearms from legal firearms owners would probably be better spent on youth diversion and gang reduction programs, as well as programs in terms of suicide reduction and women’s programs for leaving homes at risk. . . .

He further said:

I see people coming in with suicidal ideation from issues they have in terms of depression, and it’s extremely difficult to get them help. We look at wait times of over six months for some people. We have a shortage of physicians who are working in this area. . . .

Not only will these confiscation measures have no public safety benefit, but they will literally rob front-line police and other workers of very scarce resources. How is this sort of public policy-making acceptable?

How can the Senate, which is supposed to exercise sober second thought, possibly sign off on a bill that confirms an order‑in-council that is so stupid?

Just to be clear, I am not against paying compensation given the circumstances. Firearms owners acquired their firearms legally and in good faith, and they should be compensated when the government arbitrarily decides to prohibit their property and steal their property from them.

But the policy itself makes no sense from a public policy perspective. In fact, what is being done is so wasteful and so pointless that it almost staggers the imagination — all of this simply to provide the illusion that the government is “doing something.” They are “taking everything seriously.” That’s the answer that will be given at Question Period tomorrow: “We take it seriously.”

In my remarks up to this point, I have discussed what the bill fails to do despite the government’s claims.

I now wish to focus on just one of the bill’s most negative impacts, that being its impact on licensed sport shooters and collectors. These law-abiding Canadians may be modestly impacted, or they may be badly impacted.

Let me begin with the collectors of handguns, including many who collect antique firearms.

Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, told our committee this:

. . . there are a number of large collections. There are a number of small collections. Some of the collections might be only two or three handguns, and those collections would be worth, for example, $2,000 or $3,000. The larger collections . . . could be worth well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. . . . I would guesstimate that the overall value of handguns would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars across the entire country.

There is no question that collectors, many of whom are historical collectors, are very impacted. They can no longer sell or buy legal handguns, and their collections are forfeited to the state when they die.

Contrast this obvious impact with what the minister told us:

. . . the premise that this affects law-abiding gun owners who pursue sports activities, such as hunting or sports shooting, is a phrase that is often used. We have been explicit and careful to ensure that these measures do not target those people. . . .

. . . they are not targeted or affected or included in these measures . . . .

That’s the minister. With a straight face he told us that.

Once again, the minister’s statement simply has no connection to reality, none.

Some senators are cavalier about this outcome. Senator Kutcher shrugged his shoulders in committee and simply said that “. . . Canadians do not have a constitutional right to own firearms . . . .” He offered no criticism of the fact that governments in this country have for decades asked sport shooters to play by the rules and to abide by very strict conditions related to the ownership of handguns.

Those legal firearms owners have always abided by the rules, but now the government has arbitrarily decided to change those rules, and it offers absolutely nothing in terms of an apology or compensation.

At least our Prime Minister, who is so good at apologizing for everything everybody in this country has done, should apologize for this.

Senator Kutcher can be cavalier about that sort of betrayal, but in my view, it is completely unacceptable.

Ironically, it will also ensure that no restricted gun owner will hand over their firearms. Those guns will remain in private hands, something which the government purports to be so worried about.

How exactly does that enhance public safety? The truth is, of course, that it doesn’t. Freezing someone’s collection of antique or other historic pistols is a ridiculous measure. Even for senators on the government side that should be more than obvious.

Let me now turn to the impact that this bill will have on specific shooting sports. The truth is that shooting sports in Canada will be destroyed by this bill. They will be eliminated.

The government has claimed that it is protecting Olympic and Paralympic level competition in all of this. When the minister appeared before our committee, he said:

. . . we’re not affecting the ability of these elite athletes to access the firearms they need for their sporting competitions. It’s not only the persons who go to these international competitions representing Canada; it’s those who are training and getting ready to, one day, hopefully, have the opportunity to do that.

But none of that is accurate. It isn’t even accurate today, and the bill is not in force yet.

In this regard, Senator Marty Deacon asked the Chief Firearms Officer of Alberta, who appeared before our committee, how they have navigated the prohibition on the purchase of handguns by Olympic athletes since the government imposed its order-in-council last year. Dr. Teri Bryant told us of efforts to secure an exemption for Olympic-level shooters, “. . . we have not been successful in accomplishing it even once. I am unaware of anyone, anywhere, who has.”

Again, remember that the minister told us that Olympic-level competitors are specifically exempted and that there is no intent to impact them. That, colleagues, obviously, is completely false.

We were told by a previous speaker not to call a duck a duck at times — and I’m paraphrasing — but I am not allowed to call the minister what he did here. This is false, colleagues. He is not telling us the truth.

Now the minister is again promising that, going forward, he will consult because he’s serious about it. He will consult about how to exempt Olympic and Paralympic shooters from the effects of this bill.

He wrote a letter to this effect, which Senator Yussuff has proudly quoted. The minister says:

I want to assure the committee that consultations will take place to clearly establish the process for the elite sport shooter exemption.

How do you square “will take place”? Earlier he said they have taken place. With all due respect, given the minister’s track record, this statement means absolutely nothing and has zero credibility.

It particularly means nothing because below the Olympic level, the government makes no pretense — all of these other shooting sports are to be annihilated. Since nobody starts competition at the Olympic level, this means that Olympic-quality competitors as well will soon not be fielded by Canada at all. Because nobody begins at that level.

Colleagues, it may come as a surprise to you, but Wayne Gretzky didn’t start playing hockey in the NHL. He actually started on an ice rink in his backyard when he was 3 years old. He practised. He bought hockey sticks. They weren’t disallowed. They weren’t illegal. But here our sport shooters are supposed to start in the Olympics.

Robert Freberg is the Chief Firearms Officer for Saskatchewan, and he was once an Olympic-level competitor. This is what he told our committee:

I was an Olympic target shooter, but I didn’t start there —

— surprise, surprise —

— I started in another sport, shooting, and then I developed some skills, and they said, “Hey, you’ve got an ability to do this,” and I slowly started to move up into shooting in Olympic sports, and eventually — even though as I aged, my eyes went — I went off to shoot in other sports. I wasn’t able to compete in the Olympic realm anymore, but at least I had another place to go and enjoy my sport. That’s gone away. There is no way to feed into the Olympic system, and there is no way for us right now, currently, with these regulations — they are just refusing to pass the application.

So this will not only kill all the shooting sports; it will also leave former Olympic athletes with an unclear path of even recouping their investments in their sport. These athletes will also have no ability to mentor new athletes because there won’t be any.

Lynda Kiejko, a civil engineer and Olympian, testified before our committee. She was very clear on that point. She said:

. . . target shooting is one of the most inclusive, lifelong sports in the world and one Canadians should consider valuable. Target shooting sports provides a level playing field that no other sport really provides. All people, all body shapes, all genders, able-bodied, otherwise, it doesn’t matter. We can all compete shoulder to shoulder against each other on a level playing field.

That, colleagues, is completely gone — out of the window.

Colleagues, I have been here since 2009. I have seen many bills go through this chamber. I have seen bad bills before, but frankly, there is no bill that is as absurd as this one.

In this regard, I want to quote from what Professor Christian Leuprecht told our committee based on his analysis:

Instead of being honest with Canadians and devising constructive policies that will actually curb the northbound torrent of crime guns from the United States, this bill constructs a false narrative against 4 million lawful, licensed and background-checked firearms owners. . . .

This legislation is a cynical ploy to polarize Canadian society by leveraging firearms as a wedge issue ahead of the next federal election. . . .

It is not Pierre Poilievre who said that, colleagues. The professor continues:

In over 20 years of studying public safety and national security across democratic countries, I have never seen a bill with this great a disconnect between its supposed means and ends. Any parliamentarian who votes in favour of this bill is going on record as disdaining evidence, supporting derision, fanning polarization, encouraging disinformation —

— “disinformation,” Senator Gold; you’re so quick to use that word every time we say something —

— and wasting scarce public resources on policy measures that missed their intended target. . . .

I do not think there could be a more succinct or accurate summary of the bill that we have before us.

I just want to add an additional comment in relation to this.

I understand the sentiments that underscore this bill. I understand the sentiments of those who are victims of crime, particularly those who are victims of gun violence. I can assure you that there was no senator on the committee who did not have the most profound sympathy for Samantha Price and all the other victims of senseless gun violence who appeared before that committee. But we need solutions that will actually work.

As I have said before: Conservatives support reasonable gun control. We support licensing. We support safe storage laws. We support mandatory firearms training. We support thorough police background checks. But, colleagues, we are doing a disservice to Canadians if we just give in and pretend that a bill like this will seriously address the problem of gun violence in any real way.

We are also doing an extreme disservice to the victims of gun violence, who will be the first to realize that, as it turns out, Bill C-21 means nothing in terms of addressing such violence. I am thinking now of the appearance of Mr. Boufeldja Benabdallah, co-founder and spokesperson for the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City.

We all know about the terrible massacre that occurred there. Six people were murdered and others seriously injured at a place of worship. I cannot imagine the horror suffered by the families that faced an unspeakable crime of this nature.

If we are considering root causes, what we are dealing with in an event like that is an almost unimaginable amount of hate. Hate of that nature is part and parcel of most of the mass shootings that we see. But how does one realistically ensure that such events can never happen?

I believe it is virtually impossible to ensure such an outcome, given what history teaches us about what human beings are capable of at our very worst.

A simplistic solution is to say that more gun control is the answer. The government chose that approach when it randomly prohibited certain semi-automatic firearms, but not others.

As Senator Yussuff himself has noted, there are at least 12 million guns in Canada. Even after Bill C-21 is enacted, there will still be at least 12 million guns in Canada. We have witnessed other mass killings, where the weapon used was an automobile. In Toronto, in 2018, a van was used to kill 11 people and injure many more.

Honourable senators, without transforming the human soul, we will not stop these sorts of events.

What also concerns me in relation to the Quebec tragedy is the message we sent as a society in how we responded to this attack. Initially, the perpetrator of this crime was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. To be frank, in my opinion, that sentence was too light given the terrible crime that this individual committed. Yet for our Supreme Court justices, this sentence was too harsh. They reduced that sentence to ensure that the perpetrator would be eligible for parole one day, so he could commit this crime again.

Quite frankly, this was an outrageous decision, which the Government of Canada simply accepted, even though it had the legislative options to say to the court, “No — we do not agree with your decision and will reverse it.”

As a society, we cannot roll over and accept decisions that fail to hold perpetrators of the worst crimes morally responsible. But that is what this government does time and time again.

It is simply wrong to instead enact gun control laws that we know will not work. It is particularly wrong for the government to target 650,000 Canadians and make them scapegoats for what is wrong with society. That is simply wrong. But that is what we have in Bill C-21.

This is a bill designed in Ottawa by people who are looking for simplistic talking points and who, quite frankly, do not understand other parts of the country. Does it remind you of another bill that we dealt with today?

We heard that complaint from many of our witnesses. We heard it from Indigenous people, including our Inuit witnesses, who spoke about the fact that in the North they don’t even have their own chief firearms officers. Instead, the chief firearms officers for the North reside in Southern Canada.

People in both Toronto and Montreal know what’s best for the farmers in Saskatchewan. That is a large part of the problem with this entire bill; that is, it is a bill designed in Ottawa by a central Canadian elite that simply does not understand — and, quite frankly, does not care to understand — other parts and peoples of Canada.

In that sense, Bill C-21 is just like Bill C-68 three decades ago. It will fail for the same reasons. Make no mistake, colleagues: This bill will be reversed. That is the silver lining here. That is the inevitable outcome of what we are doing today. But in the years in between, all we will have accomplished is sowing yet more division in our wonderful country.

I have been accused of delaying this bill. The minister has said that, and other government members in the other place have said that as well. It is all part and parcel of this government’s wedge politics. I was told that I was delaying this bill before it was ever introduced in this chamber. Before it ever even arrived here, the tweets were out there by the government saying, “Senator Plett is stalling Bill C-21.”

But Bill C-21 — even though it is one of the dumbest bills ever put forward by the current government — has progressed through the Senate.

And they have many. The sad part is that they have some time left to introduce more.

Regardless, the bill has progressed through the Senate in accordance with the schedule negotiated between the Liberal government, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition from day one to now. All the meetings of the committee were scheduled by consensus among all members of the committee.

I want to thank Senator Tony Dean for the collaborative way he dealt with members of our party in scheduling the meetings and giving us the witnesses whom we asked for. The Conservative opposition agreed to have committee meetings during the regular Monday time slot. We also agreed to meet on the Monday after a break week. We agreed to meet on Wednesdays during the Veterans Affairs Committee time slot, and also on extra days.

The bill’s clause-by-clause consideration was completed on December 4, exactly as we had agreed. Yet the political messaging by this government remained the same: The Conservatives are delaying this bill.

For the record, last week, I told Senator Gold that I wanted to speak first today. I’m the critic of this bill. Normally, we have a policy where the critic speaks last. I asked to speak first. Why? Is it because I’m delaying the bill? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I will admit that the official opposition has been looking for ways to defeat this bill. Short of divine intervention, I don’t think that will happen. But most of the witnesses who appeared before our committee either asked us to kill this bill or, at least, make major amendments. Unfortunately, we failed them. We tried, but we had a very strong government contingent who said, “We’re putting this through. Whether it’s a good bill or not is irrelevant. It sends a good message, and we’re going to put it through.”

The reason we tried our best to do this is because this bill is not good for Canada, and Conservatives care about Canada. We care about our country. It is not the end of anything; it is merely the beginning of what will be a regrettable requirement now to reverse this extremely bad legislation. We wanted to take every step possible to avoid such an outcome.

However, that is what this current government ultimately wants, and that is the outcome it now has.

In conclusion — and I know you’ve waited for those words for a long time now; for some people, “in conclusion” only means it’s the last 20 minutes — I want to come back and focus on just one of the many problems with this bill: the impact that this bill will have on the entire range of shooting sports in Canada. It will not only kill shooting sports in Canada, but it will also close the civilian ranges that so many of our police services depend upon in order to maintain their skill levels.

Again, Senator Deacon is one of those Trudeau appointees who actually thinks for herself and has some good ideas — this was one of them. She proposed an amendment in committee that was rejected by the government majority, but which, I believe, we must reconsider now; I really think this needs to be reconsidered. I know that Senator Yussuff thinks that once it’s dead, it should be dead — unless it’s something that he doesn’t support, then we make exceptions, of course.

The amendment would ensure that any shooting discipline be recognized as legitimate for the purpose of an individual being able to purchase or sell handguns relevant to that discipline.

Our committee heard considerable testimony on this issue. I have already referenced what Olympic athlete Lynda Kiejko told our committee. I also quoted what Mr. Robert Freberg, the Chief Firearms Officer for Saskatchewan, told our committee on the same issue. I wish to add one more quote now. James Smith, President of the National Range Officers Institute of the International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada, said the following:

Even though Bill C-21 is not an outright handgun ban, it will result in a slow demise for our sport in Canada. Having no new athletes introduced to replace the existing competitors and being unable to replace equipment as it wears out will result in the end of our sport over time. It will also close the ranges for police officers and other agencies that use our ranges for training and result in no shooting for Olympics.

Nowhere in there, colleagues, did he say “might” — he said it “will.”

The amendment originally proposed by Senator Deacon seeks to, at least, partially address a major flaw in this bill in that it will recognize all shooting disciplines. It requires that the handgun in question is appropriate and necessary for participating in that discipline.

Some might argue that this amendment would restore the status quo when it comes to handgun purchases. Unfortunately, that is not the case. All this amendment would do is recognize more shooting disciplines under the auspices of this bill. It will require that in order to be involved in any shooting discipline, the individual will have to be a member of a club that offers such a discipline.

I will repeat what witnesses have said: Unless this bill recognizes and protects the other shooting disciplines that provide the shooters who might be good enough to feed into Olympic-level shooting, there is absolutely no point in the Olympic-level exemption that is already in the bill.

Colleagues, these are the words that you’ve all been waiting to hear for the last hour. I, therefore, ask you to support what I’m going to propose.