Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I do not have information as to the status of that particular bill. I’ll make inquiries and be happy to report back.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

I vividly remember the day three years ago when I got that message from Ottawa asking me to provide proof that I was qualified to be a senator, that I owned $4,000 worth of real property.

As it happens, I was on holiday outside the country and I had to scramble to pull together all the necessary documentation to prove I owned my house. I needed to provide a land title certificate from the Alberta Land Titles Office. I needed to provide a property tax assessment from the City of Edmonton. I needed a copy of my mortgage agreement with my bank and a copy of my Alberta driver’s licence to prove that my official legal address matched the address on all those other documents, all to prove that I actually lived in the house that I owned.

I was lucky. I did indeed own the little house where I lived. While my lawyer and I hustled to round up all the necessary documentation as quickly as possible, I wondered, why exactly was a $4,000 property requirement still a thing?

Since I speak to a lot of school groups about the Senate, and they often ask me that same question, I set out to find an answer. Here’s some of what I tell students when they ask me.

To understand the origin of the property qualification, it’s necessary to understand just how tumultuous a time the sixties actually were. I don’t mean the 1960s; I mean the 1860s.

It was a decade of seismic shifts in political power, a decade that saw the Russian Empire free its serfs and the United States abolish slavery. It was a decade when Mexico threw off its French imperial occupiers and executed its French emperor, Maximilian I; a decade when Spain deposed its Queen Isabella in its Glorious Revolution; a decade where Italy became a free and united nation, thanks to the revolutionary leadership of Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Of course, 1867 was the year Karl Marx published Das Kapital. It was the year of the Fenian Uprising in Ireland. And it was the year the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli signed the second Reform Act, which enfranchised a million new British voters, including thousands of urban working men, effectively doubling the number of British men who had the right to vote.

It was against that backdrop that the British North America Act was written and that Canada became a country, which is essential to understanding why we have a Senate in the first place and why one of the key qualifications to be a senator was that you owned a significant amount of land.

Now, $4,000 isn’t a lot of money now, but back then it was roughly the equivalent of owning a $1 million worth of property.

In a time of social upheaval and worldwide worker revolts, in a time when elites were rightly nervous about their futures, it’s no wonder the architects of Canada’s Confederation were keen to set up a form of government that would protect the interests of the landed and the wealthy.

Canada, after all, could have had a unicameral system of government, as our provinces do, with only a single House of Commons. Instead, the powers that be opted for a bicameral system, with an upper chamber modelled on the British House of Lords, which safeguarded the rights of the hereditary landed gentry. Except, of course, the four Canadian colonies that made up that embryo Canada didn’t have dukes or barons or earls. We had no hereditary nobility here at all except a few odd remittance men.

Since we couldn’t have a House of Lords, it was decided we should have a Senate, an upper body named for the Senate of ancient Rome.

Who would our senators be? Well, the Latin root for “Senate” is “senex,” meaning old man, so our senators would be older men.

Senators in ancient Rome were appointed, not elected. They were also supposed to be men of outstanding character, imbued with Roman civil virtues. They were meant to be men of gravitas, dignitas, humanitas.

In the days of the Roman Republic, they also had to be rich or at least independently wealthy since Roman senators served unpaid. It was the first Roman Emperor Augustus who added a property qualification. Augustus decreed that no man could sit in the Senate unless he owned property worth 1,200,000 sesterces.

It’s probably foolish to try to translate that into contemporary currency, but some who have tried, nonetheless, translate 1 million sesterces into roughly $1 million, though I’d take that with a grain of salt — a fitting expression, since the words “salary” and “salt” come from the same Latin root.

To return to 1867, it’s fair to say that the original architects of our bicameral Parliament expressly intended our Senate to mirror its Roman namesake, to the extent that appointed Canadian senators would represent the interests of the wealthy and the landed. Sure enough, when the first 72 senators were called to sit in Canada’s first Parliament, they were a collection of wealthy seigneurs and shipping barons, bankers and gentlemen farmers, men of wealth and property. To judge by their photos, you might well assume that ownership of an enormous pair of side whiskers or a giant moustache was also a requirement for the job — a more ornate collection Victorian facial fuzz you could never hope to see.

My friends, it is not 1867 anymore. Victoria isn’t on the throne and neither is the Emperor Augustus. Our Constitution is a living tree, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. It is in a continuous process of evolution.

That’s what Lord Sankey, the British Lord Chancellor, wrote in 1929 when he ruled, in the Persons Case, that Canadian women were entitled to sit in the Canadian Senate. It was a radical change to the qualification rules, and it was five formidable, flawed, unyielding Alberta women — Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy — who fought that fight and forever changed the make-up of the Senate.

The first woman, Cairine Wilson, was appointed to our Senate in 1930. While it took a long time, we are now at effective gender parity in this chamber.

Yes, there is indeed a precedent to change the qualifications to sit in the Senate. In 2022, it is anachronistic — bordering on offensive — to think of this chamber as a defender of the rights of rich property owners.

Senator Patterson has already done an excellent job of outlining the ways the property ownership provisions discriminate against the residents of Nunavut, where much land is held in common, and against people who live on First Nation reserves or in Métis settlements.

In 2022, when anyone can apply to be a senator, it should surely be unconscionable to have a system designed to discriminate against Indigenous peoples in this way.

It’s not only First Nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians who may be precluded from applying to be senators under the current rules. Given the stratospheric property prices in Vancouver and Toronto, property ownership in some of Canada’s largest cities may soon be out of the reach of a generation. If we become a society where even the most accomplished urbanites are primarily renters, not owners, we could disqualify all kinds of talented Canadians from Senate service.

Let me quote the words of a truly great senator from Edmonton, the delightful Tommy Banks, of blessed memory. This is from a speech he gave to the Senate on this issue in January 2009. Banks joked that:

There was perhaps an apocryphal story that one senator‑to‑be sought to qualify by having bought a cemetery plot, which was seen to be not entirely in order.

Then he added:

There have been instances in the past in which persons considering appointment to the Senate have actually bought the garage of someone else. That is a fact.

This is a preposterous requirement. It is antediluvian and it has no place in the requirements for being named to this place in the 21st century. . . .

To which I say, hear, hear.

[Translation]

That said, it will not be simple to get Senator Patterson’s amendment adopted. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that such an amendment could be made unilaterally by the federal Parliament without the agreement of the provinces.

However, I should point out that Quebec is in a unique situation. It’s the only province in which senators are assigned to a specific division of the province and are required to own property in that division. According to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, we can’t really do this if the Government of Quebec hasn’t agreed.

I don’t see any real reason why Quebec would oppose this, given that these sections are so archaic that they don’t even include the northern half of the province. I, of course, can’t speak for Quebec, but until Quebec is consulted and agrees, I think it will be hard for us to move forward.

[English]

That said, I want to thank Senator Patterson for continuing the work of my Edmonton predecessor, Senator Banks. It is time to find a way to extinguish a property requirement, which could certainly be seen as classist if not racist, and to ensure that no otherwise qualified candidate is prevented from applying for a position in the Senate simply because they aren’t “landed.”

And if we are worried that we are breaking with tradition and disrespecting our history, well, let me quote the words of another Roman Emperor, the Emperor Claudius.

In AD 48, Claudius shocked the Roman Senate by deciding to appoint senators from Gaul, what is today the territory we call France. Many senators were appalled at the idea of appointing these French barbarians from the provinces into the Senate of Rome.

According to the Annals of Tacitus, the Emperor had this response to these Roman hidebound folks, said the emperor:

Everything, senators, which we now credit as ancient and established, was once new: plebeian magistrates followed patricians; magistrates from Latium followed plebeians; magistrates from all the other races of Italy after the Latins. This thing, too, will become the custom, and what today we defend by means of precedents will be a precedent itself.

Honourable senators, if our namesake institution could adapt to the times and allow into the Senate new and worthy members who didn’t meet the old-fashioned qualifications, well, I think we should be able to do the same.

When in Rome, as they say, do as the Romans.

Thank you, hiy hiy and gratias.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Colleagues, I rise today to express my reservations about the motion before us. These concerns are based on the testimony heard over four hours at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and a review of the legal proceedings initiated in Saskatchewan, debates in the legislature of that province and in the House of Commons, relevant laws, and the 313-page ruling that the Federal Court of Canada handed down on September 29 in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada.

I will begin by giving an overview of the context and then explaining my reservations.

[English]

In 1880, unable to deliver on the promise to B.C. to be linked to the rest of Canada by a railway, the federal government signed a contract with a group of entrepreneurs, who would become the founders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

In consideration for constructing the railway and operating it in perpetuity, the contract provided, among other things, for the grant of $25 million to the company; the transfer of 25 million acres of what was considered Crown land to be sold to settlers brought to the West by the company; and a tax exemption in perpetuity in connection with certain property.

Commenting on the contract, Justice Nesbitt of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, in 1905, in Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. James Bay Ry. Co.:

. . . the undertaking was thought to be so hazardous that exceptional privileges were deemed necessary to induce the contractors to enter upon the undertaking . . .

Today, we are dealing with the tax exemption found at clause 16 of the contract, which reads as follows:

The Canadian Pacific Railway, and all stations and station grounds, work shops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the Company shall be forever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any Province hereafter to be established or by any Municipal Corporation therein . . .

(1520)

In other words, the agreed upon exemption in connection with certain property was to include federal and municipal taxes as well as provincial taxes should provinces be established.

In 1905, Parliament created the province of Saskatchewan from what was once more considered federal Crown land. Mindful of the government obligation to continue the tax exemption, Parliament included, at section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, a restriction preventing the use of provincial taxation powers in a way that infringes clause 16 of the contract.

It is not disputed that, since 1905, the company has paid all the provincial taxes imposed from time to time by Saskatchewan, and until 2008, the company did not argue that portions of these taxes could be related to property covered by the tax exemption found in the contract.

However, the company changed its position further to an important 2007 judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in Kingstreet Investments Ltd. In that decision, the court concluded that amounts paid pursuant to a tax later found unconstitutional may be reclaimed without statutory time limits. In other words, a government can never benefit from collecting an unconstitutional tax.

Being of the view that the tax exemption included in the 1880 contract enjoys constitutional protection, thus making ultra vires any tax collected contrary to it, the company initiated legal proceedings to recover certain amounts paid to Revenue Canada and to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. In the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan, the company stated that if it were to prevail, it could be entitled to a refund as of December 31, 2020, of about $341 million. This estimate breaks down as follows: fuel taxes $248 million, sales taxes $49 million, income taxes $14 million and corporation capital tax $4 million.

The purpose of the constitutional amendment before us is clear: to remove from Saskatchewan’s internal constitution the obligation to honour the tax exemption found at clause 16 of the contract, retroactive to 1966.

I will now express my concerns. My first concern, which I share with Senator Simons and Senator Tannas, is that the motion would repeal Saskatchewan’s obligation back to 1966. Before the committee, the constitutional experts concurred that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, the House of Commons and the Senate have the authority together to amend section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act by resorting to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, called the bilateral amendment procedure.

They also agreed that this authority should include the ability to make an amendment that applies retroactively, adding that the motion, if adopted, will be the first constitutional amendment with retroactive effect, the first in Canadian history.

However, these experts, especially Professor Benoît Pelletier, to whom Senator Tannas just referred, expressed concerns about how the retroactive application of a constitutional amendment may impact taxpayers’ settled expectations, as well as legal principles such as vested rights, including private rights, and finally, the integrity of the rule of law.

My second concern is that the Saskatchewan government has designed this constitutional amendment to affect the outcome of ongoing litigation before that province’s court. I share the concerns of Senator Quinn. Essentially, Saskatchewan seeks to extinguish the company’s right to argue that it is entitled, pursuant to section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, to claim a refund in connection with some taxes.

Today, we are asked to adopt this motion without further delay because the trial in Saskatchewan is set to resume soon. I am disheartened to see a province using the constitutional amendment process to interfere with the outcome in a pending legal proceeding.

My third concern is the lack of need for a constitutional amendment.

Colleagues, you may not be aware of it, but the scope of the tax exemption was the subject of the recent Federal Court judgment I referred to at the beginning of my speech. This judgment rejected the company’s arguments that it was entitled to a refund of some federal taxes. In fact, the judge adopted the federal government’s arguments and concluded that the tax exemption, as drafted, was not intended by the parties to cover income tax, fuel tax and what is often called carbon tax.

The judge concluded that the exemption could apply only to the federal tax on capital stock of the company, a tax repealed in 2006 and refunded by the Canada Revenue Agency to the company before the Federal Court trial, rendering that point moot.

Of course, if the scope of the exemption does not include federal income tax or federal fuel tax, it cannot include Saskatchewan income tax or fuel tax. Moreover, it cannot logically include Saskatchewan sales tax, because excise taxes are exempted. In fact, the exemption could only apply to Saskatchewan’s capital tax on large corporations, a tax reduced to zero in Saskatchewan in 2008.

In other words, if the interpretation of the contract made by the Federal Court is adopted by the Saskatchewan courts, the amount at stake is not $341 million, but a mere $4 million.

Some will reply that this judgment has been appealed by the company and is now pending before the Federal Court of Appeal, and thus not final. This is true. But why not wait for that decision and possibly that of the Supreme Court of Canada before resorting to the ultimate tool, a retroactive constitutional amendment?

The answer seems to be that the Saskatchewan government prefers to impose an outcome in the provincial courts. However, judicial proceedings will continue at the federal level. Thus, if the Federal Court judgment is confirmed in appeal regarding the scope of the contractual tax exemption, the amendment’s sole impact will be to have prevented a refund of $4 million to the company by Saskatchewan. Is that worth a constitutional amendment, one that is precedent-setting on retroactivity? I believe not.

Unfortunately, the Federal Court judgment was not mentioned in the other place or in the Saskatchewan legislature. Incidentally, in both places, as Senator Harder said, the motion was adopted without any witnesses being called, including experts, of course.

My fourth concern is about another reason advanced by the Saskatchewan government to justify the motion. The preamble of the motion states, “Whereas on August 29, 1966 . . . [the] Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption . . . .”

Colleagues, that assertion has been rejected by the Federal Court. Based on days of evidence and arguments, the trial judge concluded that in 1966 the company renounced only the exemption in connection with municipal taxes. In other words, the court found that the company did not agree to a constitutional amendment to eliminate the tax exemption in connection with federal and provincial taxes as alleged in the motion. Moreover, that conclusion of the Federal Court is accepted by the federal government that agrees that the contract is still binding, including clause 16.

An assertion to the contrary in the motion is even more surprising when made by the Saskatchewan government, considering that it elected to intervene in Federal Court proceedings. How could it ignore the judgment?

Unfortunately, many speeches in the other place have referred to this rejected assertion to justify supporting the motion, unaware of the Federal Court’s rejection of it. In my view, a government relying on a fact that has been proven false is showing the utmost disregard for the courts of this country and their mission to determine disputed facts.

My fifth and last concern is about the likely consequence of the adoption of the motion to the federal treasury.

Before the committee, the federal Justice Department acknowledged that the contract still binds the federal government and that the scope of the tax exemption clause will not be affected by Saskatchewan’s constitutional amendment.

Thus, if the adoption of the constitutional amendment results in a loss for the company of some provincial tax exemption in Saskatchewan, the company could sue the federal government for breach of contract and seek compensation.

(1530)

Interestingly, no one in the House of Commons mentioned this possibility. In fact, many speakers claimed that the constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent a refund of $341 million to the company. The logic of this argument means, since the contract remains in force, that this substantial amount may accrue to the federal government. Surprisingly, the risk that the federal treasury would be left holding the bag seems to be of no concern to the motion’s supporters.

On the other hand, if the federal government prevails again in appeal, then this unprecedented retroactive constitutional amendment would be proven to have prevented a refund of a mere $4 million by Saskatchewan, most likely to be compensated by the federal government as it did for the federal tax on capital.

In conclusion, colleagues, I will vote no to this motion, which I consider to set a dangerous precedent. I don’t have to decide if some people may argue that it is illegal or an abuse of the constitutional amending process, but I think the legitimacy of the motion has been proven to be non-existent. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Richards wishes to ask a question. You only have about 1 minute and 10 seconds left, Senator Dalphond. Do you wish to take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Yes.

Hon. David Richards: Senator Dalphond, will this concern other industries across the country? Will this set a precedent that will open up a litigation can of worms?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Bovey, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Thank you very much, Senator Simons, for your very interesting speech and history lesson. You suggested that we wait for the situation in Quebec to be addressed, but maybe what we could do is include a clause at the end of Senator Patterson’s bill stating that the constitutional amendment proposed in the bill would take effect only when Quebec adopts a similar motion for senators from Quebec. This way, we could get the system set up, and as soon as the Government of Quebec says yes, we could make the change.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: The financial sector recognizes the existence of black swans. Could you tell us about black swans that are specific to the environmental crisis?

Senator Galvez: Are you referring to the issue of greenwashing?

Hon. Claude Carignan moved second reading of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to my bill, Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).

To recall the words of Senator Frum, who spoke to the precursor to this bill in the last Parliament, what it does is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit the export of plastic waste for final disposal from Canada to any foreign country.

[Translation]

In effect, Canada would no longer send any of its plastic waste to a foreign country unless it will be recycled or otherwise reused.

I should specify that the list of plastics in schedule 7 was designed so that it can be amended by order in council if necessary. In addition, the penalties set out in the law would apply to any individual or corporation violating the law.

[English]

As those of you who were here will recall, this bill was first introduced in the last Parliament as C-204 and made it as far as second reading in the Senate.

It was sent over to us in June 2021 with the full support of the Bloc, the NDP, the Greens and, of course, the Conservatives. We were also led to believe at that time that many Liberal MPs quietly supported it as well.

They are the elected members, honourable senators, and it bears keeping that in mind as we consider this successor bill as it is identical to the bill that arrived here last June as amended by the committee in the House.

[Translation]

This also means that I have the opportunity to comment on the bill after hearing speeches by numerous speakers in both houses. That is why I can state with certainty that if there is one thing everyone agrees on, it is the fact that getting rid of plastic waste is a problem, a big problem.

I would like to share what Senator Gold, who opposed the bill in the previous Parliament, said about it, and I quote:

 . . . the world is facing a challenge with managing plastic waste responsibly. Challenges in domestic management of large volumes of plastic waste often result in releases to the environment or landfilling, posing a serious global environmental problem and lost economic opportunity. There is simply no denying that reality.

(1710)

Senator Gold is right. Although this is a global problem, it is mainly present in the developing world. As our former colleague, Senator Frum, pointed out in her speech on the predecessor to Bill S-234, only 0.03% of plastic waste is mismanaged in Canada. That is a minuscule number compared to countries such as Turkey, which accounts for 1.53% of mismanaged plastic waste; Vietnam, 5.76%; Malaysia, 2.95%; Thailand, 3.23%; and India, 1.88%.

Senator Frum pointed out that these are small percentages individually, but they add up to a significant percentage, and in each case are all orders of magnitude higher than Canada.

From another perspective, according to Our World in Data, Canada mismanaged 23,587 tonnes of plastic waste in 2019. That seems like an enormous amount, but countries such as the United Kingdom and France, which are geographically the size of a small Canadian province, mismanaged 29,914 tonnes and 27,780 tonnes of plastic waste respectively in 2019. Spain mismanaged about 20,000 tonnes.

These numbers are a far cry from what is happening in the developing world, just across the Strait of Gibraltar from Spain on the African continent. Morocco, for instance, inadequately manages more than 10 times as much plastic waste as Canada, or 295,000 tonnes in 2019. Algeria has 764,578 tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste; Egypt a staggering 1.44 million tonnes; the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1.37 million tonnes; and what can we say about Tanzania, with 1.72 million tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste?

Turning to South America, Chile mismanaged 30,767 tonnes of plastic waste in 2019. In neighbouring Argentina, the figure was nearly 500,000 tonnes that year. Brazil, meanwhile, South America’s largest country, which is just a little smaller than Canada, mismanaged a staggering 3.3 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2019.

Lastly, there is Asia, as the sponsor of the previous version of Bill S-234 noted in the other place. From 2015 to 2018, Canada sent nearly 400,000 tonnes of plastic waste to Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, China and the United States.

If we look at the most recent data on mismanaged plastic waste in these countries, we see that Thailand mismanaged 1.36 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2019; Malaysia, 814,454 tonnes; Vietnam, 1.11 million tonnes; India, 12.99 million tonnes; and China, 12.27 million tonnes.

Honourable senators, the speeches from Senator Frum and Scot Davidson informed us that China, which used to be a destination of choice for plastic waste, banned imports of this material at the end of 2017. Canada simply turned to other countries in Southeast Asia and the developing world to handle its plastic waste.

Even though the Trudeau government adopted a zero plastic waste policy in Canada — bearing in mind that our plastic waste accounts for a minuscule part of the global problem and only 0.03% is mismanaged — it just exported the problem to those parts of the world where plastic waste is mismanaged the most.

While the government brags that its Oceans Protection Plan makes Canada a world leader in ocean protection, we continue to ship plastic waste to parts of the world that are the primary sources of the plastic pollution dumped into our oceans.

Do you want to know where the plastic polluting our oceans comes from? Well, it comes from our rivers. A project called The Ocean Cleanup estimates that 1,000 rivers are responsible for 80% of the plastic in our oceans. None of those rivers is in Canada, and only one is in North America. The rest are in Asia, Africa, Central America, and South America.

What about the rivers that transport the most plastic waste to our oceans? The vast majority of them are in Asia, and some are in East Africa and the Caribbean. The 10 rivers responsible for dumping the most plastic pollution into our oceans are all in Asia. Seven of them are in the Philippines, accounting for more than 10% of the plastic that rivers dump into oceans, two are in India, and one is in Malaysia.

Consequently, prohibiting the use of plastic straws in Canada contributes nothing to solving the problem of plastic pollution. That is a perfect example of virtue signalling, a great example of a government that does something not because it is hard, but because it is easy. The government is twisting the famous words uttered by John F. Kennedy when he explained why the United States would launch a mission to the moon.

What’s more, by giving the false impression that we are helping to resolve a problem, we are making it worse. We are doing the same thing when we draw people’s attention away from the hard work required to solve the real problem in places such as Asia, which is the source of 81% of all plastic that ends up in the ocean. Yet that is where we are sending our plastic waste, while banning the use of plastic straws in Canada.

Some will say, as others already have, that Canada signed and ratified the Basel Convention, which, through amendments made in 2019 to Annexes II, VIII and IX, added plastic to the list of imported or exported hazardous waste covered by the treaty. According to that argument, the thing that the bill seeks to make Canada do is something that Canada is already doing pursuant to the Basel Convention. Therefore, Bill S-234 would be redundant.

This type of reasoning stands in stark contrast to the arguments used to defend Bill C-15 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2021. In that case, rather than seeing Bill C-15 as redundant, the government argued that it was important because it enshrined in Canadian law the fact that Canada was adhering to the UN Declaration. Also, it is worth noting that the list of plastics in Schedule 7 to Bill S-234 is taken from Annex IV, section B, of the Basel Convention and that Bill S-234 improves on the Basel Convention by closing the “loophole” that allows Canada to export plastic waste to the U.S.

This significantly strengthens our obligations under the Basel Convention, as recent events have demonstrated. According to a Canadian Press article published early this month, and I quote:

In the year since new rules to slow global exports of plastic waste took effect, Canada’s shipments rose by more than 13 per cent, and most of it is going to the United States with no knowledge of where it ultimately ends up.

The Basel Convention does not prevent these shipments. Bill S-234 does.

The Minister of the Environment, Steven Guilbeault, recognizes that there is a problem and has been critical of Canada’s lackadaisical approach to exports of plastic waste. He said that Canada “clearly has to do better.” I agree with him, which does not happen often.

Between 2017 and 2019, Canada was sending more than 60,000 tonnes of plastic waste every year to the United States. In 2020, that increased by more than 83,000 tonnes. Some will say that this plastic was on its way to be recycled, but we do not actually know where this waste ends up. The United States has not signed the Basel Convention. As stated in the Canadian Press article:

The agreement [between Canada and the United States] is allowed under Basel rules, but because the U.S. is not bound by the convention, it can do what it likes with the waste, including shipping it anywhere else it wants.

(1720)

[English]

Honourable senators, Canada has long been a laggard when it comes to plastic waste. In fact, Canada became famous for this in 2019 when it got into a diplomatic dispute with the Philippines over garbage shipped to that country that had been falsely labelled as plastic waste destined for recycling. Such was the outrage of the Philippines’s president that he threatened Canada with war over it.

[Translation]

Fortunately, war with the Philippines was averted, but it was very embarrassing when 69 containers filled with waste arrived at the Port of Vancouver in 2019.

That same year, Malaysia protested against waste being sent to the country and demanded that Canada, the United States, France, Japan, Australia and Great Britain take back some 3,000 tonnes of plastic waste.

Allow me to repeat what I said earlier. Eight of the top ten rivers responsible for transporting plastic waste to our oceans are in the Philippines and Malaysia. When MP Scot Davidson spoke to his bill prohibiting the export of plastic waste, he very explicitly described the situation in Malaysia and referred to an episode of CBC’s Marketplace. He said that the episode, and I quote:

 . . . highlighted the conditions of the small northern Malaysia village of Ipoh, which had become a primary destination for the processing of Canadian plastic waste. The report describes towering heaps of burning plastic garbage, chemical and microplastic runoff polluting local waterways, and mounds of poorly contained Canadian plastic. The residents of Ipoh were outraged by the invasion of foreign plastic waste and the impact it was having on their health and the local environment. Pleading, they said, “We don’t want to be the next cancer village.” This is just one example of a situation that is becoming all too common.

I do not want minimize the efforts that developing countries are making or blame anyone whatsoever. As Mr. Davidson pointed out, many developing countries are now rejecting plastic imports from abroad, having struggled to properly manage the sheer quantity of plastics coming from around the world since China’s ban took effect.

It was only after the national embarrassment caused by the incidents in the Philippines and Malaysia that the current government decided to ratify the amendments to the Basel Convention. I would like to point out that 98 other countries ratified this convention before our so-called global leader on plastic pollution did so.

Honourable senators, some countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, have already adopted legislation similar to the bill before us. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and certain EU countries, are considering bills similar to Bill S-234. However, the Liberal government has opposed these measures at every stage of the legislative process, choosing instead to grandstand about banning plastic straws and single-use plastics in this country.

The time has come to have this chamber pass a law. We often hear that we must bend to the will of elected officials. Well, it is the will of the majority in the other place to pass this bill. As I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the Conservative Party supported this bill in its previous iteration.

In her speech at second reading of Bill C-204, Bloc Québécois MP Monique Pauzé excoriated the government and condemned its lack of integrity on the international stage with respect to the management of plastic waste. I quote:

 . . . before even considering exporting its plastic waste, Canada has a duty to rethink how materials circulate in the economy. Canada must do the work here first and take the necessary steps to ensure that materials are managed properly in order to stop the reprehensible act of dumping. There is nothing acceptable, either morally or otherwise, about sending our waste to India, Thailand or Taiwan. . . .

Ms. Pauzé added:

Banning six single-use plastic products was necessary, but it is not the most ambitious move. It is a drop in the bucket of what we should be doing to properly manage plastic waste.

NDP MP Laurel Collins also criticized the government’s slow approach to reducing plastic waste exports. She said, and I quote:

 . . . the Liberals have been dragging their feet. They were previously dismissive of the idea of banning plastic waste exports entirely. Only after Australia planned to ban plastic waste exports in 2019, did the Liberals say they would look at what else Canada could do to reduce the amount of Canadian garbage that is ending up overseas.

The Liberals initially, as I mentioned, refused to sign on to the important amendments to the Basel Convention. Parties to the convention agreed by consensus to the amendments in 2019, but Canada continued to fight against these important amendments. When it was formally notified by the United Nations in March 2020 that Canada’s laws would not be in compliance, the government asked for continuous delays.

[English]

Honourable senators, clearly the majority of elected members in the House support this bill and wish it to become law. The only ones who don’t — who say it is redundant, given our Basel commitments — are the Liberals.

[Translation]

I would like to conclude my speech with a quote from James Puckett, executive director of the Basel Action Network, who testified in 2021 before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment about Mr. Davidson’s bill:

It’s appropriate, in our view, to consider the U.S. and Canada together in this mess, because late last year the Canadian and U.S. governments secretly concluded a deal to ignore the Basel Convention’s recent decision to control trade in contaminated and mixed plastics. Rather, the two countries wanted to allow the trade between them to remain opaque and uncontrolled.

This bilateral pact was condemned by the Center for International Environmental Law, as it ignores Canada’s obligations under the Basel Convention. Further, it allows Canadian traders to use the United States, which is not a party to the Basel Convention, as a pivot point to export Canadian plastic waste via U.S. ports to Asia, thus undermining Canada’s requirements under the convention.

Colleagues, this bill may not solve the problem of mismanagement of plastic waste that ends up in the ocean, but it is a legislative statement, and it does improve on our obligations under the Basel Convention. I hope you will agree to refer it to a committee for further study for the good of our oceans. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6 p.m., and pursuant to rule 3-3(1) and the order adopted on November 25, 2021, I am required to leave the chair unless it is agreed that I not see the clock and we continue on. If I do not hear a “suspend,” we will continue.

Senator Galvez, please continue.

Senator Galvez: In conclusion, the financial sector is not exempt from the impacts of climate change; it’s — quite the opposite. Traditional tactics to solve economic problems have not helped the climate crisis. In fact, past approaches have advertently or inadvertently worsened the climate crisis by supporting polluting industries.

Canadians need the financial sector to act according to this climate reality. Meridional Canada warms twice as fast as the planet’s average, and the Arctic three times as fast. We must, therefore, accelerate transition in an orderly manner.

The Bank of Canada, having just released the results of its first exercise to understand the risks to the Canadian financial system, is falling behind in the race to net zero. Several national and international organizations and jurisdictions are not only leading this reflection but are proposing policies and legislative tools, with some already being implemented. Canada must follow suit if we aim to remain a competitive, prosperous, sustainable economy for this and future generations to come.

I look forward to having a robust debate with you in this chamber and with society at large. I expect that our fellow colleagues, bankers, economists, auditors and anyone with interests in developing a sustainable economy in a healthy environment for Canadians will bring perspectives and positive contributions to this debate. I imagine a few committees will be interested in aspects of this bill, particularly the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, but also the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I look forward to hearing from experts during committee studies, and I remain open to improvements that could strengthen this legislation.

Thank you, colleagues. Meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan moved second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Governor General’s Act (retiring annuity and other benefits).

He said: Honourable senators, this is a rather complex bill and I need to review my notes. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo moved the adoption of the report.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is also for the government leader.

Among the promises the Liberal government made to small businesses during the 2019 federal election campaign was a commitment to cut the cost of federal incorporation by 75%, from $200 to $50. This is a relatively small promise for a federal government to make, but it matters to entrepreneurs as every dollar counts when starting a new venture.

A recent answer to a written question on the Senate Order Paper states the government “continues to assess the impact of reducing the fee.”

Instead of saying when this fee will be cut, the answer notes that annual incorporations have increased by over 100% within the past five years.

Leader, this sounds very much as though the NDP-Liberal government has chosen to abandon this promise made by the Prime Minister to small businesses. Why?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?