Pursuant to notice of December 12, 2023, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated at third reading stage of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 150, which proposes to allocate an additional six hours to the debate on Bill C-21.

This bill seeks to better protect Canadian communities from gun violence in all its forms, including gangs, domestic violence, mass shootings and suicide. It is, without exaggeration, a matter of life and death, and we have a duty to deal with this bill without delay, while studying it thoroughly.

Bill C-21 is vital legislation that aims to better protect Canadian communities from gun violence in all its forms. It was a key electoral platform committed by this government. It has been a government priority throughout this mandate, and it has been thoroughly studied in both chambers of Parliament. As such, I am now moving this motion seeking agreement on a road map to get Bill C-21 to the finish line at long last.

Applying time allocation to an item of government business is not a decision I take lightly. This is only the second time that the Government Representative Office has done so, and it is not our preferred way of dealing with legislation. However, on occasion, it is the appropriate way, and I will explain why I believe that this is such an instance.

Bill C-21 was introduced in May 2022, over a year and a half ago. It was extensively studied by members of Parliament with numerous amendments proposed — some withdrawn, some defeated, some adopted — and the bill was ultimately passed by the other place in May of this year with support from over 200 members of Parliament representing four different parties.

We received the bill in our chamber on May 18. Over the course of three weeks in June, eight senators spoke on debate before we referred the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. That committee studied Bill C-21 for 33 hours over 12 meetings this fall. It heard from more than 60 witnesses and received 34 written briefs. It reported the bill back to the chamber last week unamended, although with extensive observations. We’ve now been debating it at third reading for several days.

All that to say that this bill has undergone a meaningful review. I’d like to thank the many senators who took part, especially the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. After a year of study in the other place, six months of study in the Senate, and more than two years since an election campaign in which one of the government’s main commitments was to ensure better gun control, it’s high time to proceed with the final stages of the process.

This is all the more true in light of the years, even decades, of hard work put in by victims of gun violence and activists, who have never stopped calling for tangible measures to better protect our communities.

Colleagues, we just marked December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On that day in 1989, 14 women were murdered at École Polytechnique in Montreal; another 10 women and 4 men were injured. In the 34 years since, the survivors of that shooting, along with friends and family members of the victims, have been calling for legislation like Bill C-21, and during that time, they’ve been joined by people whose lives have been turned upside down by far too many shootings in places all across this country. They have been joined as well by survivors of intimate partner violence and those who work with and advocate for them. They’ve been joined by medical professionals, from emergency room doctors to pediatricians to those who specialize in suicide prevention. They have been joined by mayors and police chiefs who work every day to address the scourge of gang violence in their communities. And they’ve been joined by people vulnerable to — as Professor Pam Palmater described at committee — the link between hate groups and gun violence.

They were joined this fall by Brian Sweeney whose daughter Angela was murdered in Sault Ste. Marie. Mr. Sweeney took the stage at the December 6 commemoration in Montreal last week as one of the newest members of the community of victims, advocates and survivors that no one wants to be part of. No one wants to be part of that community.

From the podium, he said he travelled to Montreal “. . . to support the other victims here that have been suffering for a lot longer than myself.” In a letter to senators about Bill C-21, he wrote:

Implementing these measures is urgent. The bill is the result of years of advocacy from victims and women’s groups, and women have died while the bill has been debated.

Colleagues I would not be moving this motion for time allocation if we were at the start of the process, but at this point, the Senate has conducted a thorough and conscientious review. We have analyzed the bill from all angles. We are very well aware of all the arguments for and against. So, after a lengthy parliamentary process and after decades of hard work by advocates, it is time to agree on a road map that gets us to a final vote.

Pursuant to rule 7-2, I have spoken with the Leader of the Opposition, but we’ve not reached an agreement to allocate time for the remainder of the debate. Accordingly, I urge and encourage honourable senators to support this motion to allocate an additional six hours for the third reading debate of Bill C-21. Thank you for your kind attention.

Honourable senators, Senator Gold has found in his tool box the tool that Senator Furey left with him — the ability to use the power of the government majority to shut down debate.

Don’t let the form of Senator Gold’s motion fool you. Chapter 7 of our Rules talks about a motion to allocate time, but what we are talking about in reality is shutting down debate. Let me quote from a few good old Liberals in the good old days. Let me quote Senator Jim Cowan, Leader of the Opposition in December 2012. He said:

Some honourable senators opposite, and certainly the . . . government, try to say that this is a process issue, not important to Canadians, and of course, the motion before us sounds dry and technical — time allocation. Who could be interested in that?

Let me tell you who is interested. It’s the senators who wanted to add their voice to this debate and who wanted to improve the bill, the thousands of Indigenous people who were never consulted about this bill, the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners who were and are constantly being targeted by this government, the millions of Canadians who feel cheated by this move of the government to shut down debate on a bad bill.

As I said, the term used in the Rules of the Senate is “time allocation.” Since I’ve been here a few years, I am trying to remember the synonyms that were used over the years by our Liberal colleagues who were then in opposition. It might help the Trudeau-appointed senators who were not here at that time to understand what time allocation really is. I think that using the words of these old Liberal senators, some of whom are still here, could convince the new Liberal senators, disguised as independents, that Senator Gold’s motion is bad.

What Senator Gold and the Trudeau government want to do has been described as an effort to do time allocation, do time limitation, invoke closure, curtail debate, limit debate to a maximum degree possible, cut off debate, shut down debate in Parliament, ram Bill C-21 through and cut off debate, run shortcuts around due process, avoid careful scrutiny, silence our voices on the most critical issues facing Canadians, and slam through its agenda without listening to either Parliament or to Canadians.

What Senator Gold is doing has been called undemocratic; a guillotine imposed by the government on this chamber; using power to secure more power; the muzzling of Parliament; the muzzling of Parliament and, through that, of the Canadian people; an abuse of Parliament; and denying Parliament its right — our duty — to seriously examine what is proposed to be the law of the land.

With Senator Gold’s motion, we have been told that Parliament is being emasculated and our examination of important government legislation has been radically truncated.

This is what Liberal senators said about time allocation about 10 years ago. Let me quote, again, Senator Cowan when he spoke about the words “time allocation”:

They are words used to stop debate, to kill it outright, to prevent each one of us from asking questions about the very important and complicated bill before us, to stop us from looking too closely at this government’s plans for our country.

To look closely is, of course, our job. It is what Canadians expect us to do, what we are paid to do, what we were summoned here to do. . . .

The use of time allocation by a Leader of the Government who is neither the leader nor a member of the government caucus was a departing gift to the government from former Speaker Furey.

You all know that I have — and I have always had — great respect for our former Speaker. However, one thing I will remember is the level of creativity and novelty that he could bring in his April 25 decision. There are those who apply rules and those who rewrite rules.

The Liberal Party of Canada is the governing party. Senator Gold is not a member of the Liberal Party. He admitted that this is so. No matter the facts, we are told to imagine that Senator Gold is the leader of a theoretical governing party —

— a party that exists only for the purpose of giving Senator Gold the ability to shut down debate. This ruling was wrong then, and it is still wrong today. It was purely a political decision. In normal circumstances, it would have been reversed by a new Speaker, but we are not in normal circumstances.

I understand that some of the new senators may not be familiar with the notion of time allocation or closure. You have to know, colleagues, that this place functioned for 124 years without any form of limitation on debate. It was the debate on the GST and the antics of the Liberal senators — who used their right to debate the bill for weeks and weeks — that convinced everyone that the government should have a tool to limit what amounts to a filibuster.

The overuse by Liberals of their privilege to unlimited debate was studied by the Rules Committee, which came up with what is now Chapter Seven of our Rules. The use of time allocation is a reaction to a filibuster by the opposition.

Again, let me quote my friend Jim Cowan — this time, it’s from March 2012. I miss Jim Cowan. He said:

I readily acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which proceeding in this way is justified, for instance when a deliberate filibuster drags on and on . . . .

Debate at third reading on Bill C-21 started one week ago — on December 6 — when the sponsor, Senator Yussuff, spoke. The day after, Senator Boisvenu spoke. Then, on Monday, at the next sitting, Senator Carignan spoke. I spoke yesterday. That’s hardly dragging our feet. I am the critic of this bill. Normally, I would speak last. I offered to speak early. I hardly sat down in my seat when Senator Gold jumped up to give notice of his time allocation motion. Four senators spoke at third reading. At every sitting since third reading was moved for the bill, a senator spoke. That is no filibuster, colleagues — not by any stretch of the imagination.

I will continue to quote former Liberal senators. Maybe their words will enlighten senators also appointed by a Liberal Prime Minister. This is what Senator Joan Fraser said in July 2010:

There are occasions when time allocation, drastic as it may be, may be necessary. It may be necessary on a major piece of legislation when the opposition is being obstructionist for pure obstruction’s sake. . . .

I will admit that sometimes our caucus has filibustered a bad bill or a motion. How can someone seriously accuse us of being obstructionist when we speak on the bill at each sitting? Remember when Mark Gerretsen accused me of holding up the bill before we even had it in the chamber? The Senate never adjourned debate on third reading of Bill C-21 — not once. Yet, how is this a filibuster? How are we being obstructionist? We never hid the fact that we do not like this bill, that we wanted to amend it thoroughly and that, if the bill were not amended, we would vote against it. We were not being obstructionist in any way.

I submit to you, colleagues, that this use of time allocation has one objective only: to shut down the Senate early. It is not used to counter a filibuster. There is no filibuster. That’s why the use of time allocation by the government is so outrageous and should be opposed.

The other reason usually invoked for imposing the guillotine on debate is the urgency of passing a bill. I am sure we all agree that debate should be limited when time is of the essence. If a legislature is called upon to pass a bill in order to stop a strike in a hospital, for instance, where patients are in danger, it is easy to understand that it is fair to put parameters on the duration of the debate.

However, there is no urgency in the case of Bill C-21. This bill — in its current form, or as tabled in previous parliaments — has been around for years. The then-Minister of Public Safety — or “public safety disaster,” as some like to call him — Marco Mendicino amended the bill, and then rejected his own amendments. The legislative process of this bill will become a classic story of what not to do for future generations of parliamentary assistants. Bill C-21 may be important to the Prime Minister. Bill C-21 may be important for some Canadians. But Bill C-21 is not urgent. If it had been urgent, do you think the government would have left it lying in the House of Commons for a year, doing nothing with it?

The essence of Bill C-21 merely confirms orders-in-council that have already been enacted by the government. That is the case with the ban on the purchase and sale of handguns, and it is the case in relation to the expanded definition of “prohibited firearms.” Even the so-called “red flag” provisions in the bill duplicate powers that the police and chief firearms officers already possess.

Colleagues, as this bill is not urgent, the use of time allocation by the government should be opposed.

As I said, before Senator Gold gave his notice that he intends to invoke time allocation, only four senators had spoken at third reading. This means that 90 senators have not yet spoken to this bill. With only six hours of debate left, that means at least 66 senators will be deprived of their right to speak. With this motion, Senator Gold is telling at least 66 of his colleagues that the government has absolutely no interest in listening to what they have to say.

As the then-Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Claudette Tardif, said in 2012:

I find it hard to believe that members of this government, who proudly boast that they defend freedom of expression, would use any means available to them to limit the opposition senators’ right to speak.

I have some questions for the Trudeau-appointed senators who are ready to give Senator Gold the hammer to shut down debate on Bill C-21: When the Prime Minister called you to announce your appointment to the Senate of Canada, did he tell you that, on the whim of the government leader, you would have to hold your nose and shut down debate after four days of debate on a bill? Did he mention that he would gladly use the good old tools of the past to silence the opposition, and that he would do — with your help — what he and his Liberal senators were denouncing when the Conservative government was doing it? This is what is asked from you today.

Senator Gold is telling us the following: “I don’t care what senators have to say. The government wants this bill now. We have to bow to the Prime Minister’s wishes.”

I have given you several quotes from the ghosts of the Liberal past. Let me now quote a senator who ended his Senate career as a member of the Progressive Senate Group.

In 2012, Senator Dennis Dawson said —