Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-21.

This legislation has been the subject of intense debate, both in Parliament and in the media. I want to share — on the record — my thoughts on the bill, and discuss some concerns that likely represent the views of many people who watched this debate unfold.

By speaking to this bill, I appreciate that I’m wading into one of the most controversial and divisive topics that we can discuss as legislators: firearm laws in Canada. I won’t spend much time debating the merits of owning firearms, nor will I spend a lot of time sharing my views about the various social and political factors often found at the heart of this debate.

My goal is simply to speak on the components of Bill C-21 that I think could use some work, and touch upon the shortcomings that I believe hindered the bill’s legislative process.

I will start by acknowledging what I believe Bill C-21 does right. I appreciate that the bill acknowledges many of the new realities in the fight against smuggled and illegal weapons. Firearms have changed a lot since they were first invented. The guns that were used by soldiers, hunters and farmers in the 1800s bear little resemblance to the firearms we use today.

Today’s firearms are far more powerful and are manufactured differently. In fact, firearms manufacturing has changed dramatically, with 3-D printers helping to lead the charge. We are all familiar with 3-D printers and the impressive output they can turn out. Unfortunately, the use of these printers in the manufacture of firearms, or components for firearms, and the subsequent rise of ghost guns has become a significant cause for concern, particularly in large urban centres. I’m pleased that Bill C-21 is taking steps to address this issue, and I was inspired to learn that all parties in the other place share this particular concern.

On a similar note, the introduction of red-flag and yellow-flag laws is a sensible approach that I believe will help remove firearms from situations where violence may occur. Not all senators will agree on this legislation, but one thing we all agree on is that we need to protect the public, particularly vulnerable populations, from the threat of violence.

I believe red- and yellow-flag laws are a positive step in the right direction. Senator Yussuff already spoke about red-flag and yellow-flag laws in his sponsor speech. I won’t dwell on the point other than to note that empowering the justice system to proactively take steps to protect victims from gun violence makes sense, and I think the introduction of these laws will help us move closer to the desired results. Of course, we must ensure that the rights of all citizens are respected and that these laws are used carefully and always aim to protect the public from the threat of violence by illegal gun owners, violence-prone individuals, and especially gangs and generally gun owners or prospective gun owners exhibiting traits of instability verging on doing harm to themselves or others.

Now I will speak to some of my concerns with the bill. I believe Bill C-21 is well intended, but its legislative process has been the subject of much controversy. Massive amendments were introduced and then they were withdrawn. Gun owners and Indigenous leaders expressed significant concerns. Sadly, the debate became poisoned in the public sphere, particularly in rural Canada. I’ll try to keep my remarks concise and free of rhetoric. Ultimately, I believe this bill is somewhat flawed and has the potential to cause challenges for law-abiding gun owners.

Targeting criminal behaviour should be our focus, and I’m particularly concerned about those who smuggle guns into Canada. No matter one’s opinion on this specific bill, we should all agree that illegal firearms coming across the border are a problem. I believe we need stronger gun laws on smuggling, with criminal sentences that can serve as a deterrent. We need to invest in stronger border patrols to stop the flow of illegal handguns. As we know, Bill C-21 proposes to increase the maximum penalty from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment for certain firearms-related offences, including smuggling and trafficking.

To my mind, that’s a good start, but I wonder if a four-year increase in the maximum sentence will be enough of a deterrent for those who are already smuggling guns into Canada. Is this increase in the maximum sentence — and I underscore that’s maximum, not minimum — enough of a deterrent to this behaviour and make a noticeable dent in the number of guns that smugglers bring into Canada? Frankly, I’m not convinced. Yet, as I understand it, the 14-year maximum sentence is the last stop before you get a life sentence. Perhaps it should be 14 years with no chance of parole without participating in a substantial rehabilitation program that results in a substantial turnaround and evaluation of being unlikely to reoffend.

Over the last couple of years, senators have debated the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-5, which was passed last year by Parliament, removed mandatory minimum penalties for many criminal offences, but it did not remove minimum penalties for all firearms-related offences, such as the mandatory minimum punishments for certain offences where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used. Since then, further debate has risen over the impact of removing mandatory minimum penalties and its subsequent effect on crime. Should we reimpose mandatory minimum penalties for all gun crimes? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m not convinced that extending the maximum sentence for gun trafficking by a few years will help solve the problems we’re facing without an effective rehabilitation program that is audited for its implementation, execution and success rate.

The government has acknowledged that no one program or public initiative will solve the problem of gun violence by itself. To me, that’s both an accurate and reasonable argument. We won’t solve gun violence simply by banning automatic weapons or handguns. Some may argue that bans are a critical component of solving the issue, but I believe that bans alone will not solve the problem. We must address the socio-economic factors that lead to gun violence the same way we must address the mental health issues that, if left unaddressed, are likely to lead a person to violence.

We must also crack down on gangs. Gangs have been at the epicentre of gun violence in Canada for decades. The level of violence has ebbed and flowed throughout the years, but we’ve never quite managed to eliminate gangs despite the very best efforts of law enforcement, governments and society at large. We need to “double down.” Gang violence needs to be tackled with determination; otherwise we will continue to have to deal with the same issues plaguing our communities.

I’m pleased that the Minister of Public Safety announced in May that the federal government will spend $390 million over five years to help provinces crack down on gang violence. That’s a good start, but we need to be consistent on this issue over a long period if we want to make true progress.

I also want to touch on how Bill C-21 impacts Indigenous peoples. As with any bill we consider in this chamber, the rights of Indigenous nations and individuals must be respected. That means consulting with Indigenous peoples and ensuring their rights are respected. This is a sacred obligation, and one that I take very seriously.

We saw the controversy that arose a few months ago when the federal government introduced amendments to the bill at committee stage in the other place, and Indigenous organizations spoke out. I appreciate that Bill C-21 includes a provision which clarifies that nothing in the legislation abrogates or derogates from the rights of Indigenous peoples, but I believe the government should have done a much better job of conducting advance consultations with Indigenous leaders. The Assembly of First Nations even voted to publicly oppose the bill when the government introduced controversial amendments, and the Assembly of First Nations also expressed their concern that long guns traditionally used by their people were being targeted. I’m satisfied that the government withdrew those controversial amendments, but effective advance consultation earlier in the process would likely have been beneficial for all involved — they may have even discovered some alternative solutions that could have led to breakthrough policies.

I do want to share that I was struck by Senator Kutcher’s speech and his comments on the connection between firearms and suicide. It’s no secret that firearms are often used as the instrument of choice when a person chooses to end their life. That’s a sad reality we must contend with. Senator Kutcher noted in his speech that a recent study found that both men and women who own handguns were more likely to die of self-inflicted gunshots. Is Bill C-21 the answer to reducing incidents of gun‑related suicide in Canada? I cannot definitively answer that question, but I echo Senator Kutcher’s call to study this issue.

There is another concern I’d like to address. To the best of my knowledge, the federal government does not have a dedicated, anonymous phone line or online tip system that the public can use to confidentially report illegal gun ownership or to report gun owners exhibiting concerning behaviour. Of course, there are services such as Crime Stoppers that can be used, but a dedicated system for gun crimes or potential gun crimes would be helpful in this era of mass shootings. We have dedicated anonymous tip lines for reporting drunk driving, so why can’t we do the same for gun crimes? For me, this deserves consideration, and I wish a similar system could have been considered in the formulation of Bill C-21.

Colleagues, Bill C-21 has been the subject of much debate, not just here in Parliament but in the media and in the homes of gun owners and non-gun owners alike. That’s healthy, and a hallmark of our democracy. Unfortunately, the narrative surrounding this bill, and others like it, has, at times, led to deviation from the norms of a grounded democracy.

No matter their opinion, people feel strongly about firearms, and I understand why. I hope that, by providing some measured concerns with this bill, senators will be able to appreciate the challenges and possible alternatives for consideration with this legislation, and I hope I have provided some food for thought in that regard.

Firearms will always be controversial. We should debate the merits of gun laws in a fair, open and honest manner, with respect for dialogue in our democracy, no matter our individual positions or beliefs on this issue. I look forward to more debate to come. Thank you. Hiy kitatamihin.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Pursuant to rule 9-10(2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

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

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

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

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, do you have a question?

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of June 7, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 13, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, do you have a question?

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today as critic of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, a bill that will prohibit the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal.

This bill is the same as former Bill C-204, for which I had given a speech as critic in the last Parliament before the election. My position on this bill has not changed: I agree with the main principles of the bill.

As you know, my thoughts on plastic and pollution are informed by my three-decade career as a civil and environmental engineer assessing and solving pollution and contamination problems created by domestic or hazardous industrial waste. I have witnessed first-hand the negative impacts of our irresponsible and ever-growing waste-producing habits and mishandling of toxic substances. Typical landfill operations stockpile all kinds of domestic objects that could have been recycled but instead become macro- and microplastics that will find their way to soil and water, initiating their path into ecosystems, food chains and, ultimately, wildlife and human organs.

The mismanagement of plastic waste creates social, environmental and health problems that put at risk the well-being of our communities and future generations. The entire planet recognizes we have a major global plastic waste problem. That is why the United Nations Environment Assembly started a process in February 2022 to develop a legally binding agreement by 2024 to end plastic pollution, and the G7 countries have committed, this last April, to “. . . end plastic pollution, with the ambition to reduce additional plastic pollution to zero by 2040.”

Colleagues, the situation is dire. Every year, 13 million tonnes of plastic end up in the oceans, pollute the waters and destroy marine ecosystems. Once these plastics enter the ocean currents, they are unlikely to leave the area until they degrade into smaller microplastics under the effects of the sun, waves and marine life. This has led to the formation of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Please Google it and watch it; it’s incredible. It’s a mass of floating plastic that covers an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square kilometres. It is the area equivalent to our province of Quebec. At this rate, and if we do nothing, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050.

High-income countries generate more waste per person, and thus Canada is part of the problem. With an estimated 1.3 billion metric tonnes of waste per person in 2017, Canada unfortunately ranks as the most wasteful country per capita, and our waste problem is increasing.

With respect to plastic waste, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s report in 2019, we generated 3.3 million tons of plastic waste in 2016, with only 9% of it being properly recycled, 4% being incinerated for energy recovery and an incredible 86% being sent to landfills. But we also mismanage or avoid managing plastic waste, since we export it to developing countries. Waste export per capita in Canada is almost 5 kilograms per day, less than the U.K. with 9.5 kilograms, but more than the U.S. with almost 2 kilograms per day.

The plastic producer representing almost half of total plastic waste in Canada is the packaging industry, followed by the automotive, textile, electrical and electronic equipment, and construction sectors.

[Translation]

In fact, more than 60% of all extracted natural resources end up as waste. How shocking! How ineffective and inefficient! This economic model is totally outdated. It relies on the false and illogical premise that our planet has unlimited resources and that we can grow infinitely. Such a system does not exist on our planet, so we need to transform the outdated linear economic model into a circular economic model.

We need to learn how to use our natural resources more effectively, prevent goods and materials from becoming waste for as long as possible and transform unavoidable waste into new resources. Those are the principles of a circular economy that would dramatically reduce pollution caused by our overconsumption.

Bill S-234 would prohibit the export of plastic waste. The idea is that, by banning waste exports, we will be forced to manage it better. There is no reference to ways to reduce the production of single-use plastics or to changes to potential rules governing minimum recycled plastic content in new products. There is no mention of penalties for the use of plastic. However, that could be a workable strategy because it would force us to look closely at the problem right here at home.

[English]

In recent years, governments around the world have announced policies to reduce the volume of single-use plastic, banning products like single-use straws, disposable cutlery, food containers, cotton swabs, bags, et cetera. Last July, California became the first U.S. state to announce its own targets, including a drop of 25% in the sale of plastic packaging by 2032. In December, the U.K. extended its list of banned items to include single-use trays, balloons and some types of polystyrene cups and food containers. Bans are also in place in the European Union, Australia and India, among other places.

The Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations are part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive plan to address pollution, meet its target of zero plastic waste by 2030 and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations prohibit the manufacture, import and sale of single-use plastic checkout bags, cutlery and food service ware made from or containing problematic plastics. But we know this is not enough.

Indeed, to domestically solve our plastic problem, we need to rethink and reduce plastic production. Recycling must be scaled up fast enough to deal with the amount of plastic being produced, and recycled plastic needs to find its way into new products, with contents not less than 50%.

According to a Plastic Waste Makers Index report, just two companies in the petrochemical industry are recycling and producing recycled polymers at scale: Taiwan’s conglomerate Far Eastern New Century and Thailand’s Indorama Ventures, the world’s largest producer of recycled PET for drink bottles.

Yet, Indorama Ventures is also number 4 on a list of 20 of the world’s biggest producers of virgin polymers used in single-use plastic. The list is led by U.S. oil major Exxon Mobil, China’s Sinopec and another U.S. heavyweight, Dow. In making polymers bound for single-use plastic, those 20 companies generated around 450 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, the same amount of total emissions as the United Kingdom, according to Carbon Trust and Wood Mackenzie.

[Translation]

Actions to ensure sustainable waste management must follow a clear sequence: reduction at the source, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and encapsulating final waste materials. This is the waste management model advocated by waste management experts around the world.

Historically, however, Canada has chosen to focus on the third option, creating a recycling industry. We have created an entire recycling industry that is not very efficient. Our recycled materials are used very little in the manufacture of new products. Packaging manufacturers, advocates for planned obsolescence and those who waste materials do not assume any responsibility. Our waste management is a total failure. By skipping the first two steps of sound waste management, we are massively diminishing our opportunities to reduce waste. Worse yet, we are placing the burden of this waste on developing countries, who often do not have the necessary capacity to dispose of it properly.

[English]

So, colleagues, where are we with our plastic waste? Where does it currently end up? Most of our plastic waste — well above 90% — is exported to the United States, with other countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Honduras, Turkey and Chile receiving the rest.

The trade of plastic waste is internationally regulated by the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which was adopted in 1989 as a response to the mounting controversy over wealthy nations exporting hazardous waste to developing countries that did not have the capacity to adequately manage it and provoking massive environmental and health issues. This agreement aims to reduce hazardous waste, restrict the transboundary movement of hazardous waste except to nations capable of environmentally sound management and create a regulatory system to frame permissible trade of hazardous waste.

Although Canada ratified in December 2020 new amendments to the Basel Convention “requiring prior informed-consent controls for all but the cleanest types of plastic-waste exports traded between treaty parties,” unfortunately, the United States hasn’t done so, which has many experts worried about a 2020 bilateral agreement with the Americans, allowing exports of plastic waste to the south with less strict controls than the Basel Convention and possible re-exportation to developing countries.

With heavily mediatized cases of international waste disputes involving Canada in the past few years, I cannot say that I am confident our plastic waste will be adequately managed under our current agreements.

In conclusion, I repeat that I completely agree with the principle and intent of Bill S-234. It is time that we take responsibility for the waste we produce. For centuries, the wealthy nations of the world have imposed a burden on developing countries by making them deal with our toxic waste. The world is not our dumping ground — and to continue to act as though it is reinforces colonial tendencies. Our wealth is not justification for the lack of accountability for our own waste; in fact, it should be quite the opposite. We have some of the highest capacities in the world to manage waste in an environmentally sound way.

I believe that this is an issue that needs a detailed and careful study to compare this bill’s proposal and see its harmonization with other domestic and international initiatives, especially given the potential impacts on interprovincial and international trade, and the fact that it affects many sectors. I hope that the committee study will examine how this plastic waste export ban will impact Canada’s capacity to manage its own waste. I also expect the study to determine how this bill would interact with our current and upcoming international agreements, including the potential legally binding agreement on plastics. Finally, I hope that the study will also consider the effects of the single-use plastic ban which is seeing a staggered implementation until 2025.

Colleagues, I hope you will all agree to send this bill to committee. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

(Bill read first time.)