EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development NUMBER 022 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Monday, March 29, 2021 Le lundi 29 mars 2021 Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 29, 2021 Committee NUMBER 022 NUMBER 022 NUMÉRO 022 22 29 03 2021 2021/03/29 15:30:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de l'environnement et du développement durable Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development ENVI Chair Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia 2 43

(1530) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)) :

I call the meeting to order. Welcome, Mr. Viersen, to the environment committee. I hope you enjoy your experience here. Welcome to the 22nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 3, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on February 17, 2021, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-204 ,

an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding the final disposal of plastic waste. We have government officials with us here today as requested. They will be here to answer questions during the clause-by-clause. As the name indicates, this is an examination of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may then explain the amendment. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee, or by email for members participating virtually. Since this is the committee's first clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in a hybrid meeting format, the chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. During the debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing or by email for members participating virtually. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment may not be amended.

When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it. Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-204 .

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair...?

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Longfield, let me just get set up to see the hands here. We have Mr. Longfield and Ms. Collins. Go ahead.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Thank you. Just before we get going to the clause-by-clause, we've received a number of letters. Three of them have been translated, and there are seven more, to my count, that haven't been translated yet. However, they've been sent to us, and I've looked at them. We have the president of the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association, the president of Merlin Plastics, Van WasteCo, P.E.T. Processing out of Delta, B.C.—

(1535) Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC) :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Excuse me, Mr. Longfield—

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I'm in the middle of a motion. I'm just giving you a short

preamble to give you a motion.

Mr. Dan Albas :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I'll come back to you, Mr. Longfield. Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dan Albas :

Mr. Chair, this is not relevant to the subject of clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

No, it actually is.

Mr. Dan Albas :

I came here specifically intending to do clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

It actually is. I have a motion that I'm in the middle of making. I was just listing the letters we've received, and then I was going to make a short motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

There are letters from the chief executive officer of Ontario Waste Management Association; the president of Waste Management Association of B.C.; the sustainability manager of Ice River Sustainable Solutions from Shelburne, Ontario; the director of Rundel Eco Services out of Calgary; and of course the president and CEO of the Association of Plastic Recyclers. These are important stakeholders we haven't heard from. Three of the letters have been translated for our consideration, and Bill C-204 is generating a lot of interest from industry that we haven't heard from.

We've had only three of these letters translated, Mr. Chair, so I'd like to move that we defer consideration of Bill C-204 to consider these submissions; that the remaining submissions be translated and distributed to members; that we have the steering committee consider whether some of these individuals should be asked to appear as witnesses; and that the steering committee report back to the committee on its recommendations.

Mr. Dan Albas :

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dan Albas :

We are here to do the business of clause-by-clause, not to entertain other motions for committee business. I think you should find that the member is not being relevant to the subject at hand. I think you should rule this out of order, so that we can get on with the business we are here to do today.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I think this is in order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Give me a second. We're going to go slowly today, since this is our first experience with clause-by-clause. First of all, Mr. Longfield's motion relates to Bill C-204 . It also relates to clause-by-clause in the sense that he wishes to delay clause-by-clause. I have to consider the motion in order. Ms. Collins.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not necessarily related to Mr. Longfield's motion, but it's potentially relevant. I was just having tech issues as we were logging in. I haven't done my audio check-in. Hopefully, this can serve as that.

The Chair :

You sound fine. Yes, it's all good.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Great. We had agreed at our last meeting to start off this meeting with a motion on the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I was hoping we could still do that.

The Chair :

You did mention that, absolutely, Ms. Collins. I'm told that you would still have to move it at this meeting. Unfortunately, Mr. Longfield moved his first. What I would suggest is that after the debate.... Well, let's get through Mr. Longfield's motion first. Mr. Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) :

Thanks, Chair. I want to speak to Mr. Longfield's motion. I think what Mr. Longfield is trying to do is to flag for the committee the concerns of a number of stakeholders whom I think he would like us to hear from. I think that makes a lot of sense. I'd be surprised if there was push-back on this; I'll put it that way. I hope there's not push-back. There are concerns from across the country, from British Columbia, from Alberta, and I think there are pretty significant and foundational concerns from industry groups. They are concerned about the loss of jobs, including in Alberta and B.C.

Some of the letters have been translated. Some of them have not. We should at least have time for those letters that haven't been translated to be translated so that we can all consider them. We've had a number of discussions at this committee and at others about the importance of making sure that materials that are brought to the committee are translated. Here we have several letters that haven't yet been translated. That's not a criticism of anyone. I'm just trying to underline how important it is that we take the time to get them translated so that we can properly interpret them and consider them.

My greatest concern, of course, is the substance of what's being said in these letters, which is that businesses could be destroyed and jobs could be lost. I just think that's something we should be considering before finalizing the bill and sending it back to the House.

(1540) The Chair :

We'll go to Mr. Bittle in a moment. Ms. Collins, I'm told that after we deal with this motion, we could go to yours. Mr. Bittle

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.) :

If it's all right, Mr. Chair, I see that Madam Pauzé and Mr. Albas have their hands up. I'd like to hear from them. I'm happy to go afterwards.

The Chair :

Okay. You can take your hand down then and put it back up again.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Yes, certainly.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll go to Mr. Albas, and then Mr. Bittle is back, after Madam Pauzé. Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dan Albas :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would simply point out that we went through this exercise before. The Liberals actually did invite additional witnesses, and the witness in question said no. Now it's “the dog ate my homework” and “we need more time”. I know the Liberals opposed this in the House, and they've opposed this and have tried to stall this over and over. I would like us to get to clause-by-clause instead of this usurping of the process before we actually get to it. I've done my homework. Our Conservative members have done their homework.

We have amendments that have been proposed by all parties except the Liberals. This is just a blatant attempt, Mr. Chair, to stall the process, and I'm not sure why the government is doing this. Our Conservative members feel very strongly about the environment. We want to make sure that plastic waste is not being disposed of in developing countries where they have different laws or no laws. We want to make sure that our oceans do not have plastic in them. It really seems interesting that we have MPs on the Liberal side saying that this is about jobs and investments.

Really, we are going to be studying their own government's proposal on plastics, which is creating a huge amount of concern within the industry. I really hope those arguments are also going to be heard whenever we get to the motion on plastics and to the Liberal government's decision to ban certain plastics without a proper scientific process. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Albas. It's now Ms. Pauzé's turn.

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to go sort of in the same direction as Mr. Albas. Last time, we asked the witnesses questions, and we agreed on another hour of study. But that didn't happen, and we moved straight to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Meanwhile, I looked at it again and made an amendment. Indeed, the letters we received were already translated. During our study on zero-emission vehicles, a witness submitted a document in French only. So he translated it himself before it was sent to the committee and distributed to us.

As a result of that experience, I think that organizations should do this translation work. However, in the letters we received, which were already translated, we can see that the concerns are the same. I think that during the clause-by-clause study, we may be able to answer some of these questions.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. (1545) [ English ] We have Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Thank you so much. I do apologize. In the background there may be a couple of toddlers screaming, but around this time when kids are returning from school my Internet connection gets worse, so I'm afraid to close the door and cut that off. I do apologize if there's a bit of yelling in the background. Everyone is okay—not to worry. I'm a bit concerned by Mr. Albas's phrasing of this as “usurping” the process, when we're trying to get documents translated into French so that we have a full understanding of the impact of this. I appreciate that Mr. Albas thinks this is magnificent legislation.

I think others have raised fundamental concerns. I know that I'm new to this, and based on what I've heard and what I've read—in English—in these letters, there are some serious concerns about this legislation, which is perhaps well intended but may have significant consequences for Canadian jobs across the country. We've said from the start—I know Mr.

Albas is shrugging as if Liberals don't care about jobs, and nothing could be further from the truth—that with our environmental policy and our action on climate change and sustainable development, this is about being part of furthering jobs for Canadians and furthering economic benefit, and doing so in a sustainable way and in an environmental way that tackles climate change. I'm a bit worried that we're rushing this through. If I remember.... The last meeting was my first meeting, and I don't know why the opposition cut short our debate. That seemed to be my first interaction with this.

We're just asking for a little more time to ensure that we have all of the information before us. I know that's what the opposition wants. If this is really a science-based and evidence-based plan for plastic pollution, then I don't know what can be harmed and why there's a willingness to shut this down and rush this through as quickly as possible. Coming in from the outside, it's worrying to me, based on what I've read and what I've heard, and the concerns that I've seen from [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] the desire to have some kind of win on climate change.

Given what the Conservatives have done in the past, which is very little, I can appreciate the desire to have some win on an environmental issue, but why rush that through? I appreciate that owning the Libs may be at the heart of it. Maybe that's the case. I hope I'm wrong. Again, I truly believe this comes from a place of genuine concern. It did receive support from other opposition parties as well and that should be part of our discussion and thought on this issue, but if we're throwing out or ignoring.... That's probably a better way to describe it. If we're ignoring experts in the field, even from Mr.

Albas's own province, or from my own province as well, in that there may be an issue in terms of jobs.... I know that people maybe overuse “the environment and the economy go hand in hand” and that we've heard that a lot in question period, but there's a truth to that. There's a significance to that. I think everyone here wants to see good jobs. We all want better action on pollution and plastics [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] the issue by holding off a bit so that we have all the information in front of us. It seems [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] move forward on this.

We wouldn't want to pass a bad piece of legislation that's well intended. I'll give you an example. I remember that in the last Parliament Mr. Cooper brought forward a piece of legislation with respect to bail reform, and I voted for it at second reading. Based on my cursory reading of the legislation, it seemed well intentioned. It was worthy of study.

(1550) We needed to move that forward and have that debate, but then we heard from expert after expert about how flawed that legislation was, what a disaster it could be and what significant impacts it could have on our justice system. Despite voting on it at second reading, we heard from Crowns, we heard from defence lawyers and we heard from police chiefs, all—

Mr. Dan Albas :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he is not being relevant to the issue at hand, and I'd ask you to bring the member to order. I hear that he loves to filibuster, but this is about what we're debating and not about his prior experiences on other committees, or else we could all regale each other with stories.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Chair, can I speak to that point of order?

The Chair :

Yes, but I would like to bring you back to the realm of environmental policy if possible.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

On the realm of environmental policy, Mr. Chair—I'll just very briefly speak to the point of order by Mr. Albas—I'm explaining how this exact same process worked out in another parliamentary committee in terms of how we view and how we operate things. Just because I didn't say the word “environment”.... It is a process of Parliament, a process by which we were determining a private member's bill. I don't see how I've gotten off track, because I haven't—

Mr. Dan Albas :

On a point of order—

Mr. Chris Bittle :

I'm speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dan Albas :

It sounds like debate to me.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Again, I'm finishing my response to the point of order, Mr. Chair, if that's all right.

The Chair :

I understand that you're making a parallel between what happened in another committee, and that's fine. However, I would urge you, now that the parallel is made, to come back to the environmental fold. Mr. Albas, did you have another point of order?

Mr. Dan Albas :

I was going to say, again, on relevance, Mr. Chair, that he is not showing respect for your ruling.

The Chair :

No, I think he's nodding, so I think I made my point. We'll see if Mr. Bittle appreciates my point. Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

I always appreciate your point, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate all your work, and not only here. Mr. Scarpaleggia also chairs our national caucus. I apologize if I'm going off point here, but I respect your opinion and your views regardless of the circumstances or place. Again, that parallel exists, but in terms of the environment, again we have a significant.... I mentioned justice and it's outrageous that I would mention something like justice in the environment committee, but we do want there to be a positive outcome. That's what I'm arguing for. That's what we all want to see.

We all want to see the environment benefit at the end. Perhaps we can get these letters translated, it will become part of the public record and everyone will want to move forward—no problem. I don't see the issue of leaving out a piece of the puzzle. I guess that's the surprising thing. Again, I know that I'm new to this committee. You've all sat through these meetings, and I don't want to overstep—even though now that I'm a member of the committee I guess I'm not overstepping. There's something missing for me, and I want to get that piece of the puzzle back in here.

Be it climate, be it justice or be it any issue before Parliament, it's a bit surprising that we want to avoid this information, that we don't want to see it and that we don't want it translated, which is, I guess, according to Mr. Albas, “usurping” the process, to have documents translated into French. That's a weird definition that Mr. Albas was suggesting, which is surprising given his party's commitment and what they talk about in question period, but when the rubber hits the road in committee, nothing could be further from the truth. I see a few more of my colleagues with their hands up.

I guess I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all that you bring to the committee and I appreciate the opportunity to [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] again after hearing from my colleagues.

(1555) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Bittle. We have Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I think Ms. Saks might have had her hand up before me. I don't want to butt in.

The Chair :

It's possible, but this is what the system is telling me. I mean, if you want to have Ms. Saks go first....

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

No, that's fine, if Ms. Saks is okay with that. This isn't a process of filibustering or delaying. I think my concern going into this meeting was that we just heard from a lot of people who didn't just “not like” this legislation; they really did not like it. In fact, they said it would jeopardize the future of their business as well as any future activities going toward a circular economy. One letter that we haven't been able to see is from Rundle Eco Services Ltd., from Calgary. We don't have it on the record, so I just want to read this very short paragraph from him, which states:

Simply put, passage of Bill C-204 will put Canadian Recyclers like Rundle Eco Services Ltd. out of business. Our employees will lose their jobs and certain jobs of the service providers Rundle employs such [as] the construction companies and transportation companies, may be in jeopardy. The development of a plastic circular economy will be that much more challenged as we lose opportunities to create economic value and new jobs. Critical channels for our clients to recycle will be redirected to Canada’s landfills.

This is the point I was making in the last committee meeting. It continues:

Our US recyclers will be short of used plastic materials and unable to supply the increasing demands for higher recycled content in a multitude of plastic products.

These aren't wishy-washy statements. I think they're very critical to the study we're doing. It's very important that their voices are heard. This is Calgary, Alberta. It's not a political “let's hear from my constituents”. We have similar letters from Alberta Plastics, from Merlin Plastics in British Columbia, from the Ontario Environment Industry Association, and from Ice River Sustainable Solutions in Shelburne, Ontario.

These are people who are very concerned about this study, saying that if this legislation goes through, it will have a dramatic impact on their business as well as recycling in Canada, which I think is critical for our study. I want to find a way to have their voices heard, especially the ones from [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] need their voices at this table, but also Ontario and Quebec. Are we going to tell Quebec how to run their landfill systems after this? I think there's enough flaw here, before we go to clause-by-clause, that we need to hear their voices. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Longfield. Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (York Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we're missing a critical piece of due diligence here. For any piece of legislation that we're going to go through and review, and even get to the clause-by-clause stage on, the due diligence needs to be done. I'm frankly shocked that Conservative MPs, who are always asking for due diligence, who are really always asking us to get down to the facts and to the nitty-gritty and to the fine details of understanding the full picture, are in this case saying “no”.

I don't know how western Canadian businesses would feel to see a Conservative MP saying that their voices aren't relevant to this discussion and that their businesses don't matter. I'm really quite surprised. Frankly, if we're going to go through this process, we didn't receive one or two letters; we received seven. We have an absolute obligation to make sure that everything is translated to meet our obligations, not just to this House but to the language laws of Canada, to make sure that all members in all committees can have access to this important information from stakeholders.

If western Canadian industry is saying that this is a problem for them, and if Quebec recycling.... They're a model for the country with what they've built there. If they could potentially be impacted by this, why wouldn't we pause to make sure that we have a fulsome, Canada-wide understanding of the impact on industry before we take a bill that's been rushed through this process? Everyone here wants a good direction in climate action. Everyone here wants proposals and legislation put on the table that will help the Canadian economy grow and thrive while we switch to a green economy.

Why wouldn't we take the time to make sure that these stakeholders are heard in both official languages and we have a clear understanding of what we're doing as we move forward? Frankly, I'm just very shocked. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1600) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Saks. Ms. Collins and Ms. Pauzé would like to speak.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Chair, I had lowered my hand to go after Madam Pauzé.

The Chair :

I was wondering. That explains it. [ Translation ] Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I'd prefer to speak after Ms. Collins. I'd like to hear what she has to say since she hasn't spoken on the matter yet.

The Chair :

Okay. Ms. Collins, would you mind going before Ms. Pauzé?

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I was going to ask the chair if we could call the question, but I would love to hear from Madam Pauzé before doing so.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Okay.

The Chair :

Please go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I'll come back to what I was saying earlier. The letters we received in committee that were already translated are along the same lines as what Ms. Saks read earlier. The concerns of the industry are there. That's why I've already proposed an amendment to respect jurisdictions and everything else. I think we needed to do this work between the two times Bill C-204 was discussed in committee, it needed to be done. The advantage of Bill C-204 is that it contains respect for international law and for the Basel Convention.

In other documents I've seen on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there was no mention of the the Basel Convention. That's the advantage of Bill C-204, especially with Ms. Collins's amendments. We have to enforce our international obligations at the national level. That's what I think is so interesting about this bill.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I was just going to ask the chair if we could call the question.

The Chair :

We'll have a vote. (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair :

We'll move on. Ms. Collins, your hand is up.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

As we discussed at our previous meeting [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].

The Chair :

Sure.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I move:

That this committee call upon the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development by:

1. making the Commissioner a full and independent Agent of Parliament (“Office of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development”) reporting to Parliament directly through the Speakers of both the House of Commons and the Senate;

2. clearly affirming and appropriately circumscribing the duty of the Office of the Commissioner to advocate on environmental and sustainable development issues;

3. requiring that the appointment of a Commissioner be approved by both the House and the Senate;

4. ensuring that a funding mechanism at arm's length from the government be established for the Office of the Commissioner; and

5. protecting the right of the Commissioner to name the Office's staff, including environmental auditors, without government influence.

And that the Committee adopt these recommendations as a report to the House and that the Chair present this Report to the House.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Collins. I have Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Chair, thank you, and thanks to Ms. Collins for putting that motion on the floor.

I have an amendment to delete all words after “That this committee” and then replace them with the following: “That this committee, further to the motion adopted on February 1, 2021, related to a hearing on the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, produce a report with respect to strengthening the role and mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; and that the committee take into consideration all testimony to the committee with respect to that role and mandate in the 43rd Parliament, as well as the report of the committee tabled in the 39th Parliament, first session, on March 1, 2007.”

(1605) The Chair :

Mr. Longfield, would you mind sending that to the clerk so that I can have in front of me a version of the motion as you are suggesting it be amended?

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Sure.

The Chair :

That is a long amendment, and I just want to make sure I understand what we're trying to do. Ms. Collins, was your hand up from before?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

It's a new hand in response to the amendment, just to say that I'm not going to take this as a friendly amendment. I would like a vote on it, and I would like to speak to it, if possible.

The Chair :

You were coming after Mr. Longfield, but before Mr. Baker. You don't need to put your hand up. I've made a note. Mr. Longfield, if you could take your hand down....

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I'm multi-tasking. I'm just sending you an email.

The Chair :

That's fine. We have Ms. Collins and then Mr. Baker. We'll have to pause for a second. I need to see this written down. I think Mr. Longfield is sending the amendment to the clerk, who will then send it to me.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I've just sent it to both you and the clerk.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Longfield. If the clerk wouldn't mind sending me Ms. Collins' motion with Mr. Longfield's amendment in yellow or some colour that demarcates it from the original motion.... I'm sorry for the delay, but this is the new reality. I'm going to wait until I receive the wording, but as I understand it, Mr. Longfield, what you're doing is just saying that you would like to be considered, as part of this report, that—

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

We had a previous study on it and we could take some additional testimony in order to do the proper work to give our report back to the House.

The Chair :

Yes. I'll just take a second. Okay. Here we go. Here's the way it reads with Mr. Longfield's amendment. As I understand it—and please feel free, Madam Clerk, to correct me—the only part that would stay the same would be “That this committee”. The motion as amended by Mr.

Longfield reads, “That this committee, further to the motion adopted on February 1, 2021, related to a hearing on the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, produce a report with respect to strengthening the role and mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; and that the committee take into consideration all testimony to the committee with respect to that role and mandate in the 43rd Parliament, as well as the report of the committee tabled in the 39th Parliament, first session, on March 1, 2007.” I think I remember that report.

That's what we're voting on, essentially. Does somebody want to debate this? Mr. Baker, do you want to debate this amendment?

(1610) Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Chair, just to remind you, I still had the floor while you were pausing. I would like to comment first.

The Chair :

You're absolutely right, Ms. Collins. Go ahead.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that this amendment does delete the entire content of my motion, which I'm not sure—this is my first term on committee—is totally in order. I also want to speak to the fact that, really, this motion that I've put forward is a replica of the motion that was put forward by the Liberals back in 2007. This is something the Liberals were on board with when they were not in government. They sent a report at that point. We heard very clearly from all of the witnesses in our one-day hearing that this needs to happen. We need an independent officer of Parliament.

I guess it's surprising to me that the Liberals have hesitation about supporting the motion as is. I'm hoping that we can just vote on the motion as is and ideally send this report to Parliament.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Collins. Mr. Baker, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thanks very much, Chair. Ms. Collins made a few points. I want to speak to one or two of those, and then I have some other thoughts to add. I hear your point, Ms. Collins, about removing so many words of your motion. The good news, at least from my vantage point, is that I think the intent is to address the same problem that I think you're trying to address. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think what Mr.

Longfield is trying to do is to suggest that we look into the problem that I think you're trying to flag—or at least one of them, if I understand the intent of your motion correctly—which is to make sure that we understand how we strengthen the accountability mechanisms, or one of the key accountability mechanisms, to make sure that government is doing what it has to do to fight climate change, protect our environment and achieve a whole bunch of other goals. So although I appreciate how it has eliminated a lot of the text, I wanted to flag that aspect of it.

I saw it much more as a sort of co-operative or constructive approach to trying to address the same problem that I think you were trying to address, although I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You referenced that this motion is similar to what was done in the past. I have to admit that I wasn't around for that. I gather you weren't. You clearly identified it, though, and I applaud you for having caught it. I wasn't there for that. I wasn't part of that Liberal team. I don't know what was moved and in what context and everything else. I also wasn't there for the reports that Mr.

Longfield alluded to that had been done by the committee. My thinking is that if we're trying to solve the problem of making sure that the environmental commissioner is providing the appropriate oversight and transparency, a study on the matter, or studying the matter further, would be helpful. It would just help us be that much better equipped to make sure we have those mechanisms in place. That would be my key argument for supporting this. One other thing that is worth keeping in mind.... I think it was when Ms. Hogan came and presented to us.

I think on a couple of occasions the issue came up of the importance of having environmental and sustainable development expertise available and involved across all audits. There are such things as just environmental audits, but many audits or a lot of oversight involves a range of expertise across a range of ministries, etc. That would be an argument for why, I think, if we want to achieve the goal of providing the best possible oversight.... Let's look into that. Let's study that. I'm all for that. It's important.

But I would suggest we take that extra step to do it as thoughtfully and in as balanced a way as possible to make sure that we come up with the best outcome.

(1615) Ms. Laurel Collins :

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

A point of order.

The Chair :

Ms. Collins and Ms. Pauzé have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I just wanted a ruling on whether this was in order, given that it takes out the entire content of my motion.

The Chair :

Just one moment, please. I believe it's—

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Excuse me, Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

Yes, Ms. Pauzé. You have a point of order.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I'll be brief. I feel excluded from the debate. I'm having trouble following you. If I at least had the written motion in English, I could use the interpreter. I don't have the written motion, so I can't know what it's about.

The Chair :

I understand.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I thought it was to be sent to our personal email. This would have allowed me to at least better follow what's going on during the debates.

The Chair :

I understand. One moment, please. [ English ] Ms. Collins, I've checked with the clerk, and I think you're right, in the sense that.... It's not so much the number of words that Mr. Longfield has added; it's that an amendment is meant to add to the motion or subtract from the motion to some extent, but here we seem to be totally stripping the motion of all its content. As I said at the beginning, all we're leaving is “That this committee”, so I have to agree with you that it's not admissible.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

On Madam Pauzé's point, just so that—

The Chair :

We're going to send the motion as amended to everybody.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

If the amendment is not in order, potentially not, but for the main motion, everyone should have a translated copy of that.

The Chair :

Yes. Everyone should have the translated copy. Based on what I'm seeing on my screen, your motion has a number of paragraphs. I think there are four or five points in it. Is that correct?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

That's correct.

The Chair :

Your motion says “That this committee call upon the government to bring forward legislation” and then has paragraphs one, two, three, four and five. Is that right? Okay. You should receive it in a moment, but unfortunately I do have to rule it out of order based on the advice of the clerk. I must say that I see the clerk's point.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Mr. Chair, I have another suggestion, then.

The Chair :

Mr. Longfield, if you want to do that, you have to put your hand up and wait your turn.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

It is.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll move now to Ms. Saks on the main motion.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I had another amendment.

The Chair :

I think you still have to wait your turn. I'm sorry about that.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Mr. Chair, is it possible for me to give my spot to Mr. Longfield in an effort to try to move this issue forward?

(1620) The Chair :

Normally I would say no, but Mr. Longfield comes right after you. If you would withdraw your comments, we can go to Mr. Longfield.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

I will withdraw my comments so that my colleague can speak.

The Chair :

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Okay. Thanks. Maybe we could change the amendment to “that this committee produce a report for the government to consider strengthening the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development” and then leaving the rest of that, including...but I think we need a report on this. We don't normally jump to recommendations without having background. We have heard some testimony, but I think what we want to do is produce a report for the government to consider the following items, whether that would be acceptable. Then we don't have to go through a whole translation. I'm adding the words “that this committee”—

The Chair :

So you're submitting another amendment.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

It's another amendment, yes.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

A point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, but I'm unable to follow the debate.

The Chair :

That's why—

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

The motion is too long. I haven't received it yet. I'm trying to refresh my page, but there's nothing I can do, and a new amendment has been submitted.

The Chair :

I understand, but I assume you have the motion as proposed by Ms. Collins in both official languages.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Where? At any rate, it's not in my P9 account. It's not in my House of Commons email inbox or my personal email inbox.

The Chair :

You should have it in your binder somewhere, because notice of this motion was given. Ms. Collins' motion is not brand new, notice was given.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

When?

The Chair :

Madam Clerk, when did you send the motion? It may be hard to say off the top of your head, but...

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it looks as though the clerk has just emailed us a new copy. I did send it out months ago, but it looks as though it just arrived in my email.

The Chair :

Let me check my email.

[ Translation ]

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Isabelle Duford) :

Ms. Pauzé, notice was sent out in November, so it has been a while. I just sent it to the committee again.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Thank you.

The Chair :

I just received it. Perfect. We have the motion. Mr. Longfield would like to propose another amendment to the motion.

[ English ]

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Perhaps I could just restate it for the benefit of Madam Pauzé, because I think I'm making it easier to follow by—

The Chair :

Okay, but I would still ask the analyst to type in your amendment and send it around to us so that we know what we're.... It's one thing to hear it, but I need to see it. Go ahead, though, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

For the analysts, then, it is “that this committee”, and then remove “call upon the government” and put in “produce a report for the government”. At the end of that statement, take out the “by” so that it would say, “That this committee produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development considering”, and then those points. Then they aren't recommendations out of nowhere; they're considered and they are part of the report.

The Chair :

Can we, so that we all know what we're doing...? That's a pretty simple change, so if the analyst or whoever is doing the typing over there—

Mr. Dan Albas :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't believe there's any mal-intent here, but in effect he's doing the same thing that you've already ruled out of order. He's doing indirectly what he can't do directly, and I would ask you to simply say that a change to what Ms. Collins has put forward substantially changes the intent of the motion and should just be ruled out of order. I would hope that members would simply let Ms. Collins have a vote on it so we could actually get on to the business that is on the committee docket today, which is Bill C-204 . Thank you.

(1625) The Chair :

I'm still going to ask an analyst or the clerk to send us a typed version of the motion as amended [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].

Mr. Dan Albas :

[ Technical difficulty—Editor ] a ruling, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, I'm going to get to that, but I can't rule on it if I can't see it. I'd like to see the text with Mr. Longfield's changes in red or something, and I'd like that sent to the members of the committee, and then we can make a ruling on it.

Mr. Dan Albas :

He's taking an NDP orange and making it into a Liberal apple. That's a substantive change.

The Chair :

Your point is clearly made. The clerk is sending it around so that we can all see what Mr. Longfield is proposing. Mr. Longfield's additions will be in red. It hasn't changed much. It is very much a refinement. It's not a total negation of the ideas in Ms. Collins's original motion. I mean, look, if there's disagreement with the amendment, the committee can vote down the amendment. Then we're back to debating and voting on Ms. Collins's original motion. I don't think it's out of order, to be honest, but I'll wait until you all get a written copy.

We have more speakers, but that doesn't prevent us, after the speakers, from voting on Mr. Longfield's proposal. If it's defeated, we're back to the original motion. Has everyone received the written version with Mr. Longfield's proposed changes? As I understand it, it says “That this committee produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development considering”, etc., and then it all follows.

(1630) Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Yes. That's fine.

The Chair :

The clerk has just sent it. There's one error, I think. There are two mentions of “considering” in the motion. The first one doesn't belong there, so that it's just “bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner”. So that first “considering” comes out. I think you can all see that. We'll go now to Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Longfield has his hand up, so perhaps he can address this. I think there might be a disparity in what was sent by the clerk and what Mr. Longfield proposed. He can explain that better than I can, but I'll make my point regardless. It's a very bizarre argument that, “Hey, MPs like you, 14 years ago, agreed on this. Let's just push this forward without any further discussion on the issue.” If that's my understanding of things, in 2007 I was just out of law school. Mr. Baker was probably in elementary school—

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Ms. Collins.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Mr. Chair, I have the floor, and I'm making a point—

Ms. Laurel Collins :

It's a point of order.

The Chair :

If it's not a point of order, we'll just go back to....

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I very much want to hear what Mr. Bittle has to say. I just wanted to maybe get clarity from Mr. Longfield to make sure that the amendment is correct before we continue on with a discussion of the amendment.

The Chair :

Mr. Longfield, am I correct that the only—I don't want to call it an error—thing that needs to be taken out of what the clerk just sent us is the first “considering”? There are two in the same sentence.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Yes. In what the clerk has sent out, what's highlighted in yellow would be removed and replaced with what's in red.

The Chair :

That's right. Okay. So—

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

The main point is for us to provide a report that would substantiate those recommendations.

The Chair :

Yes. The red

part is the new part. Okay. That's what it is, Ms. Collins. Mr. Longfield has confirmed that. Mr. Bittle, go ahead, please.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

I do apologize. Even though I'm new to this committee, I should probably know better than to question the clerk in any committee, so I do appreciate that and I do apologize for that. Going back to my point about 14 years ago, a lot has changed. Maybe the chair was here as a member of Parliament, and perhaps some others on this committee. I was just out of law school and, as I was suggesting, Mr. Baker was far younger than I was and probably in elementary school at some point.

I can appreciate what is trying to be done here, which is to gum up the House of Commons in terms of giving an opportunity for a concurrence debate on the issue to prevent passage and delay passage of things like UNDRIP and to prevent passage of other pieces of legislation, to delay it, to slow things down a bit. This is my first time in a committee—and I've been on a few others, as I've mentioned, on justice, but I've been on PROC and transport and now on environment—where it's just “let's just have a report”, with no evidence and no witnesses and “we'll just put this forward”. I appreciate Mr.

Longfield's amendment that's saying “let's take some time to consider this.” I know there are a lot of items on the committee's agenda. I don't know that there's enough time to deal with all the items on the committee's agenda before we get to the end of June, but we have the fall. We have a lot of time. There's lots of time left in this Parliament to debate the important issues, and jumping the gun on this issue isn't necessarily the right way to go. I appreciate that it will make for a great concurrence debate to take three hours out of the House of Commons and to....

There may not be enough opposition days for the NDP to fill the time as they would like, and this would be perhaps a great opposition day motion. I would think.... From speaking to my colleagues before I started on this committee, my understanding was that there was a real willingness on this committee to get to the bottom of various items, and I guess I've been disappointed today. First, in this effort to rush forward legislation, we didn't want to hear with respect to stakeholders in an industry who were concerned about losing their businesses, to delay it a week or so, so that we could hear and get evidence.

Now, to push forward something that, hey, this was something that was agreed on 14 years ago and let's just push it forward.... I think Mr. Longfield is right. Let's have a discussion. Let's bring in some evidence. Let's bring in some witnesses. Let's talk about these items. Let's have a proper report. If we're going to make recommendations to the government, I think there is a willingness to listen to recommendations, but is this coming from a place where we want this to be properly considered?

Is this that we just want there to be an opportunity for a concurrence motion so that we can have a few clips for Facebook and then we lose that opportunity to really sink our teeth into something that is significant and something that is fundamentally important? Again, I see the willingness of all members of this committee who want a greener future, a greener Canada, and there are different paths forward on that, but I don't see how this is really advancing things, and again, from the other side of it, how it's going to slow things down in the House of Commons....

(1635) I see a couple of hands up, and I will yield the floor, but I appreciate that and hope that we move forward with a thorough discussion and a proper report. Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Collins.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to triple-check to make sure that I have the correct wording that we're actually discussing and arguing about. At the end of the sentence that we sent, “considering” was added, but otherwise nothing would have been added other than “produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation”, and then it starts up at my wording, beginning with “to strengthen”.

The Chair :

Yes.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

That's great. Okay. I would love to just go to a vote so that we could get on with committee business, but I see that Mr. Longfield has his hand up still. If we could call the question as soon as possible, that would be great.

The Chair :

Okay.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I just have a brief intervention. I love the word “great” in that last sentence. I think what we're trying to do here—

The Chair :

Just a moment, Mr. Longfield, please. Okay. Go ahead.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Just briefly, I'm not trying to drag this out. The point is that if we've invested.... We have invested in the commissioner of sustainability's budget, and we have invested in the Auditor General's budget. They have both said they think they can get expertise in, and that would be another piece that I would like to have in the background, which doesn't show up in the motion. I think the motion can really address the urgency of getting the commissioner some added strength and some teeth within his department. I would just like to have the background information that would come up with recommendations that would have some background behind them.

(1640) The Chair :

Okay. Ms. Collins.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Quickly, in response to the comments that have been made, I will say that we had background. We had the environment commissioner as well as the Auditor General here twice. We've had reports. We had a report in 2007. We've had another hearing. The witnesses have clearly articulated that this is needed. I am so confused as to why the Liberals, who supported this up until they formed government, and who now, I guess, are maybe hesitant about being held accountable, are wanting to delay, wanting to push it back and not actually wanting to make a decision on this. I hope we can vote and get on with this.

The Chair :

Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Just in response, we have heard all of that, and, yes, we have spent some time on this, but it doesn't show up in this motion. All I'm asking for is to follow normal committee procedure of having a report, along with recommendations, not just recommendations without referring to anything that we've heard from, such as where we came up with this. Was it something from 2007 or was it something that has changed between then and now? I would just rather have a report with recommendations, the way we always do.

The Chair :

Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Again, to address that point, this is quite unusual. I have to agree with Mr. Longfield. If there has been evidence that this committee has heard in this session of Parliament, let's do a proper report. I guess I haven't seen it.... That doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention. But the practice of the committees that I've been on, which maybe are different from this committee, is that we hear evidence. We compile that evidence. We do a report.

Then we submit that report to Parliament, rather than just have a quick motion in order to produce a concurrence report at the end of the day so that we can slow down the House of Commons on fundamental issues. That's debate that can happen on other issues. I can appreciate that this may be a great opposition day motion for the NDP. This might be a great one. But trying to do this in a way that, again, doesn't build on what's been heard.... If evidence and witnesses have come forward, let's do a report and say, “This is where the commissioner said X. This is where they said Y. This is where we agree.

This is what we recommend to the government.” Again, there is a willingness to listen. There is a willingness to have a strengthened regime for environmental protection across government and in this country. I don't see the need to rush this. Is this something that we do all the time in this committee? It really worries me that, on day two of being on this committee, it's, “Hurry up. Just pass it. We don't need to hear from witnesses.

We don't need proper reports.” It's troubling, given the significance of all these issues to Canadians, be it with respect to the first motion and the businesses that could potentially be impacted, and now in terms of having an actual report and putting the evidence together and piecing that together. I know it's more challenging. I know it's more difficult. I know it will take longer to be in a position to have a concurrence motion. But rather than just put it through, isn't it better to put it off a couple of months and have something genuine? Again, I believe this is genuine.

If there is evidence tied to actual recommendations that allow for the government to respond back, then we have something positive, something that we can build upon and something that we can be proud of as a committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Bittle. Ms. Saks.

(1645) Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to keep my comments brief, because I know there's an interest by Ms. Collins to move ahead. I'm a rookie here in Parliament and I'm a rookie on this committee. I've watched the process happen, and I would say to Ms. Collins that just like we did with the zero emissions work for Madam Pauzé on her report, you want to take something to the House that you're proud of, that really has impact and can make a shift. It's not really a matter of accountability to me here. It's that we've compiled evidence and we don't have a report.

I know you think that with the reports from years back...but I certainly didn't sit at those meetings, nor did you or many other individuals who are sitting here. Let's put something forward that makes sense so that it has impact when it gets to the House, rather than having a back-and-forth. I'd like to see some of the things you've suggested in your motion. These pieces are important. My constituents have talked to me about how important accountability is for them. You're better served in the House with a motion that has a report to back it up. It's not about stalling here.

It's about doing the process and the good work that comes to the House to have impact. That's why I'm here. I really do want to support conceptually what you're trying to move forward, but the strength comes with the material and the recommendations behind it rather than a fast and dirty throwing down of a motion and sending it through. I'm a fan of substantive work. I like to be proud of what I put my name on when it goes forward into the House, and I would hope for that too. That's really what we're trying to do here, rather than just copying and pasting and saying, “You said this then.

Let's do it now.” Well, certain principles of what you're putting forward still matter now, absolutely, but we have more information and we have to compile that and make it comprehensive for the House so that what you put forward sticks. Otherwise, I really question why we wouldn't do it in a way that process dictates we do through this committee. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we can proceed to a vote on Mr. Longfield's amendment. You have it all in front of you, highlighted properly. Madam Clerk, would you like to go through the members to see how they want to vote on this? (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

We can vote on the motion as presented by Ms. Collins, because the amendment was defeated. (Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2)

(1650) The Chair :

Okay. I don't think there's any more business related to motions. I guess that means we can go to clause-by-clause. Let's get ourselves organized for clause-by-clause. Essentially, what I'm doing is seeing if we agree with clause 1 as it appears in the bill. (On clause 1)

The Chair: On clause 1 in the bill, how do we view it? Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I'm glad that we're moving forward into clause-by-clause, but I'm troubled that we're missing out on the voices that we've received. Richard Seto from Rundle Eco Services was the example I brought forward to try to have his voice heard at our committee, and we're not hearing his voice. We don't have a translated copy, but I think it's really important to hear his voice. He represents a lot of voices in Alberta and I want to tell you want he said:

Rundle Eco Services Ltd...appreciates the opportunity to provide this brief [on] concerns regarding Bill C-204.

Rundle is a small business operating in Alberta and a member of the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association. We endorse their comments as laid out in their briefing submitted to the Committee.

Unfortunately, as I said, these haven't been translated, but we can read it so that we can get the translation. It continues:

Rundle does not support in any way whatsoever, the export of plastics to other countries as a means of plastics disposal. In this brief, we wanted to describe what the passage of Bill C-204 will do to our small business which will be reflective of what will happen to many other small businesses engaged in plastic recycling in Canada.

Rundle collects plastics from major petroleum producers in Canada. Our clients do have a cheaper option and can dispose of the plastics directly to a land fill. However, they choose Rundle because of Rundle’s commitment to ship plastics to recyclers who will transform the recovered plastic into feedstock for producing other products. Furthermore, our clients desire to kickstart a circular economy while fulfilling their environmental stewardship duties.

Since inception, our company largely depends on exporting our plastic commodity with most of it going the United States and a lesser amount to Asia. Rundle continues to search out Canadian recyclers but there are few takers for our type of plastics. The acceptance of used plastic is challenging. Typically, a recycler producing recycled plastic feed stock needs to be located close to major manufacturing hubs. Those recyclers, based on their customers needs, take only certain types of used plastic and certainly not all plastics.

These recyclers must make significant investments in technology and specialized facilities that can sort, clean and process used plastic A high level of plastic throughput is mandatory to achieve economies of scale and create value. Most of this infrastructure for Rundle exists only in the United States.

Since Rundle started shipping used plastic to the USA years ago, each individual load is scrutinized by US Customs and Border Protection. The loads were admitted only because their end use is for feed stock for a specific recycler. We further note Canada has ratified, along with 170 other countries, the recent amendments to the Basel Convention. Specifically, new entry B3011 in Annex IX allows for the cross-border movement of nonhazardous plastic waste that is only bound for recycling that will be performed in an environmentally sound manner.

Bill C204 wants to prevent plastic waste from be exported however this prevention already exists as mentioned. We are concerned that Bill C204 is redundant and will cause further confusion.

Simply put, passage of Bill C-204 will put Canadian Recyclers like Rundle Eco Services Ltd. out of business. Our employees will lose their jobs and certain jobs of the service providers Rundle employs such the construction companies and transportation companies, may be in jeopardy. The development of a plastic circular economy will be that much more challenged as we lose opportunities to create economic value and new jobs. Critical channels for our clients to recycle will be redirected to Canada’s landfills. Our US recyclers will be short of used plastic materials and unable to supply the increasing demands for higher recycled content in a multitude of plastic products.

(1655) He concludes with the following:

Rundle appreciates the opportunity to present it's concerns to the Committee. We are available to answer any questions the Committee may have about our submission.

Yours very truly,

Richard Seto

Director

Rundle Eco Services Ltd.

This is what I was saying when we had our initial debate. There are letters upon letters, and they all say the same thing: This legislation is dangerous for their businesses, will not help us recycle and, in fact, anything in this legislation that could be considered positive already exists in agreements that we've already signed as a country. Based on that, for clause 1, I can't see passing it, because it is going to hurt Canadian businesses and not get us to the objectives of recycling that we all want.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Longfield. We go now to Mr. Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thanks very much, Chair. I want to also highlight concerns raised by folks in the recycling industry. In this case, I wanted to cite the concerns raised by the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association. I'm not going to read the entire letter. You all have it. I just want to highlight some of their concerns. They say:

We are aligned with our colleagues at the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada...in our assertion that Bill C-204 will bring great harm to the industry, while detracting from our efforts to build a circular economy and increase opportunities for plastics recycling.

When I hear that, that's very concerning. I'm not going to read the entire letter, but here's another piece:

lt is important ta note that, despite best of intentions, the current sorting infrastructure and technology systems in place at Canada's recycling facilities do not allow for completely pristine (clean and fully sorted) bales of plastic to be sent for recycling. This means that bales of plastic destined for recycling will include materials that end up for final disposal in the US. This Bill could hamper the efforts to develop and support the recycling ecosystem whereby mixed bales are sent to various facilities with different sorting capabilities across North America.

That's speaking about how the bill would prevent that ecosystem from functioning. I want to read on:

ln addition, because of the absence of any definition for 'final disposal' this Bill fails to recognize that what may be destined for final disposal in Canada could potentially be used by companies for manufacturing in other jurisdictions. Since we lack infrastructure for advanced sorting, Canadian companies may send plastics bales to other locations because of equipment/technologies they have in place. lt is not unusual for bales to go through primary and secondary sorting at different facilities in North America; this Bill is unclear regarding how the definition of final disposal will apply and when it will apply in the trade of plastic bales.

What they're basically saying is that it's uncertain what would be allowed for export and what would not. Regardless, what they're saying is that a lot of infrastructure is necessary to process what may be required to stay in Canada and that means it may not be processed. You can imagine that would mean it would likely go to landfills, and that's the last thing we want. Near the bottom of the letter, they talk about this:

Bill C-204 does not represent the interests of our members who provide plastic recycling solutions in support of Alberta and Canada's objectives to advance a plastics circular economy. Bill C-204, if passed, would create harm to our members' and the wider industries' ability to collect, process and market plastics in the future. Alberta needs full access to overseas markets.

All this is to say that I think the folks at the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association have highlighted a number of concerns. One is that the

definitions in the rules in the bill are unclear, which makes it unclear as to which materials would be allowed for export and which would not. That's number one. Number two, they're highlighting that it would bring great harm to the industry. Number three, they're highlighting that this would have an environmental impact within Canada, a negative one, certainly, because the infrastructure doesn't exist in Canada to process much of the material that would be prevented from export and which is currently exported for the purpose of processing cleanly.

This would do harm to the environment because it presumably would force Canadian industry to put a lot of this material into landfills. The fourth concern is the economic impact on the members of Alberta Plastics Recycling Association and also the employment impact. I wanted to highlight all of those and thus suggest that this portion of the bill shouldn't pass. Thank you.

(1700) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Baker. We'll go to Mr. Saini.

Mr. Raj Saini (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. I want to build on what my colleague Mr. Baker was saying. Usually on committee [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] letters are against the passage of this bill, and they are from people who are widely connected in the industry, have investments in the industry and probably know the industry better than we do.

I think if we're going to impact people in such a way that every letter reflects how this will have a negative impact on us, then we have a duty to listen to them, to listen to their concerns and to really get down to the bottom of this in terms of how we are producing legislation when there's so much economic influence tied to that. I'm looking at one letter from my home province of Ontario, from the Ontario Waste Management Association, which writes:

The Ontario Waste Management Association strongly supports recycling and waste diversion efforts, including transitioning Ontario's signature Blue Box recycling program to full producer responsibility. Evidence shows that this is the best way to encourage producers, manufacturers and retailers to incorporate changes in product and packaging design to reduce waste.

The industry itself is on the pathway to reducing waste. They go on further to say:

Policies to encourage waste diversion and material recovery here in Canada are far more beneficial to our country's circular economy, and the environment, than an outright ban on waste export. There is considerable potential for increased capital investment and job creation in the recycling sector through producer responsibility requirements for end-of-life management of plastics, as well as economic benefits by stimulating the development of markets for recycled materials.

An outright ban on the export of waste materials that contain certain types of plastic will have a significant cost impact on waste management companies and municipalities—

He's now talking about the legislation affecting municipalities and ultimately affecting provinces:

—who regularly transport a range of materials for recycling and final disposal across the Canada-US border.

It is impossible to overstate the negative impact on Canada that would result from the type of waste export ban that is being proposed in Bill C-204. Many of the plastics listed in

Schedule 7of Bill C-204 are normally found in solid waste that is routinely transported from Canada to the United States for disposal. The disruption to this cross-border waste flow would greatly exceed the physical capacity of disposal sites in Canada to manage these volumes.

We urge the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to recommend against the passage of Bill C-204.

It's signed, “Sincerely, Mike Chopowick, Chief Executive Officer”. He, in his letter, has been very clear and succinct in three main areas. One is that investing in our own industries will create more jobs and would be better for the economy and, ultimately, better for the environment because you would have that circular recovery. Number two, things are going to be impacted. We have free trade agreements across borders that may be impacted by this. Also, he mentions, significantly, that the municipalities would be impacted, which would also encroach upon their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the provinces.

More importantly, he talks about the negative impact and how it's going to impact the association and its employees. I think it's important that we hear these voices and we continue to investigate to see how this legislation will have negative impacts, because as a committee, we would want to be more aware, not less aware, and more knowledgeable as to how the actual impacts will occur. I think it's important that we hear these voices, as I've said on other committees, to get different, varying degrees of opinion. These are serious organizations. These are serious people.

These are people who have skin in the game. Their organizations have skin in the game. Multiple recyclers across the country are going to be affected, and I, as one person, would like to know how the impact will happen, in what way the impact will happen and how we can either minimize the impact or change certain things. I think to just ignore all these voices would be bad for us and ultimately bad for the country.

These voices, as I said before, who have skin in the game with investments, who have made clear investments not only economically but in terms of training their employees, are coming not just from one province; they're coming from Ontario, Alberta and B.C.

(1705) I think we need to hear their voices to make sure, as we review this legislation, that we're making a positive impact and trying our best to make sure that all voices are heard. The voices that are the most pertinent are the voices of those folks, the individuals or associations, who have come out clearly asking us to not pass this legislation. They have clearly defined in their letters how this legislation would impact them. I reviewed it earlier. First, economically there will be an impact. Second, there will be the loss of recyclable ability for certain companies.

Third, companies have acknowledged that they want to take a path forward in making sure that they try to keep the plastic circular in a way. They have also defined that going in that direction would actually be good for the environment and good for the economy. Jobs would be produced. I think you have a win, win, win. You are protecting the environment. You're advancing the economy. You're creating jobs for Canadians. If you look at all the letters, they are all similar to some extent, depending on what part of the [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].

We need to take the time to analyze this in a way that reflects their worries, but also encourages us to be more aware, more responsible and ultimately produce legislation that's going to be effective and not have a negative impact on those people who are currently working to reduce waste. Mr. Chair, that's all I have to say.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Saini. [ Translation ] We will continue with Ms. Saks.

[ English ]

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to continue with what my colleagues Mr. Saini and Mr. Longfield have shared about the letters we have received from the industry. I have one here from Ice River Sustainable Solutions, another industry leader here in Shelburne, Ontario. This letter says the same things about the impact on the circular economy that we have heard in the other letters we have received, and not just the circular economy within Canada but also in terms of our relationship and our imports and exports with the United States. I just don't see how we can ignore the impacts of not hearing these voices as we review this legislation. Ice River shares that:

Without a clear definition for the term “final disposal,” Bill C-204 has the potential to block the export of plastic wastes for the purposes of downstream processes that could permit secondary markets and maximize value from plastic waste. Downstream processes like advanced recycling, waste to fuels, and waste to energy, are integral components of a circular economy for plastics.

Given the absence of any definition for “final disposal”, this Bill fails to recognize that what may be destined for final disposal in Canada could potentially be used by companies in other jurisdictions. Since we lack infrastructure for advanced sorting, Canada may send plastic bales to other locations because of equipment/technologies they have in place.

If we disrupt the industry this way and we don't think about the impacts, there would be a cost all along the way. There would be a cost to industry, a cost to the end-user, a cost to B2B and a cost to Canadians. Without a careful thought process [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] to clause 1, we're missing a clear definition on what we're talking about in terms of plastics. I share the concerns of my colleagues in making sure that we do hear from these individuals and from these companies. They are making their voices loud and clear.

Many of them are from out west, from B.C. and Alberta, and I don't understand why our Conservative colleagues don't want to stand up for these businesses and make sure they are heard as we move through this discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1710) The Chair :

Thank you, Madam Saks. Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I'm just going to read a few excerpts from one other letter that otherwise wouldn't have a voice. This one is from P.E.T. Processing in Delta, British Columbia. It comes to us from its president, Antoine Moucachen.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

This is different from what we've had before—

The Chair :

Mr. Longfield, Ms. Collins has a point of order.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Again, this is my first time on committee, so this is just as a point of clarification for me. We're doing clause-by-clause. We're voting on the first clause. It just seems as though most of the speakers have either been arguing against the amendment that we defeated earlier or been debating the bill as a whole. I just wanted to know from you, Mr. Chair, if this is in order.

The Chair :

I believe it is. It's debate around clause 1. Mr. Longfield is the last speaker.

Mr. Dan Albas :

I have a point of order on the same topic, Mr. Chair. Every time I've done clause-by-clause, it seems to starts immediately by going to amendments.

The Chair :

Yes. That will be the next step.

Mr. Dan Albas :

Okay. Usually we do amendments and then vote on the clause—whether or not it's been changed—and I just hope we can get to that.

The Chair :

I was about to get to the amendments when we got into some debate. We just have Mr. Longfield. If no one else is added to the list, then I can ask for amendments to clause 1.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Yes. P.E.T. Processing has sent us a letter from their president, Tony Moucachen. I won't read the three pages other than his closing, which is based on all of the background in his letter. It has a lot of technical issues in it. Unfortunately, we don't have the letter in front of us because of translation services. I absolutely respect that. I think we just passed a motion about making sure we have everything available in both official languages. Mr. Moucachen says the following in his closing:

PET believes it's important that the Committee understand the following realities and how the passage of the Bill will negatively affect the plastics recycling industry:

Intricate north-south business relationships are already well established;

Prohibiting shipments of plastics waste bales across the border because only a small component may not be recyclable, would be a crushing blow to the recyclers and their ability to successfully recycle the millions of pounds of plastic that are recycled every year.

He has three more points:

Cross border shipments are often made to facilities that have the ability and interest to perform additional sorting and additional recycling for specific plastic types;

Canada does not have as robust a manufacturing sector as the US. Therefore, what the Bill might designate as being for “final disposal” could actually be something that is usable by US manufacturers for other purposes;

Not all plastic types are recycled in Canada, and there are more recycling facilities available in the US. Therefore, if access to the US is reduced, this will correspondingly reduce access to their recycling infrastructure and hamper Canadian businesses.

We therefore submit that enacting the Bill will frustrate the proper development of a circular economy and should not be passed.

Thank you for allowing us to share our views on the Bill.

I wanted to give him a voice here. He doesn't mention it directly in his conclusion, but it's stated elsewhere in his letter that the municipalities, therefore, would have to handle the extra waste. We now have before us clause-by-clause on a bill on which we are being screamed at by the industry. They're a for-profit industry, but they're based on helping the environment through commercial means and through recycling and sorting. They're saying, “You're going in the wrong direction.” Now we're in clause-by-clause. How do we get back to the right direction? At least partly, it's to get their voices at the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1715) The Chair :

That's the end of the speakers list. I will now ask if there are any amendments to clause 1. Yes, Ms. Collins.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

In terms of the amendments that we had submitted in advance [ Technical difficulty—Editor ], I submitted a motion or a—

Mr. Jacques Maziade (Legislative Clerk) :

Mr. Chair, if I may, this is the legislative clerk speaking. I just wanted to make sure of this before we start on NDP-1. I just want to know if CPC-1—

The Chair :

Yes, that's what I'm wondering.

Mr. Jacques Maziade :

Yes, because it's before NDP-1. I just wanted to make sure of this to avoid confusion.

The Chair :

Is somebody proposing CPC-1?

Mr. Dan Albas :

Mr. Chair, in testimony, we decided that we heard there was adequate.... The Basel Convention has a very clear

section B: “Operations which may lead to resource recovery, recycling reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses”. That's clearly laid out. While there were some industry concerns about there not being a direct definition in the bill, rest assured that there is one, in a reference in CEPA to the convention itself, which actually says that operations that may relate to “resource recovery, recycling reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses” are clearly allowed.

This should at least put some minds at ease that there is a very clear process for it, as there are over 170 different signatories to the Basel Convention, and this happens every day in certain jurisdictions. We will not, therefore, be putting forward the amendment at this time.

The Chair :

Okay. Ms. Collins, are you moving NDP-1?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

I am.

The Chair :

Would you like to speak to that?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

The intent behind this motion is to align the language in the bill with the Basel Convention. Other countries have done this in line with our commitments in the Basel Convention. We want to ensure that we are not shipping waste to countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. Also, an important piece of this amendment is that it specifically talks about the amendment that Canada hasn't ratified—specifically, around the waste for “special consideration”—and that is an important gap in this bill that needs to be strengthened. I hope that I will have the support of the committee to move this forward.

The Chair :

I have Madam Pauzé and then Mr. Longfield.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

May I present my amendment?

The Chair :

We're not there yet. We are debating the NDP's first amendment.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

The NDP amendment affects clause 1, and so does mine. It would add subsection 1.4.

The Chair :

I think we need to do things in order.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Okay.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

(1720) Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I think this amendment really significantly changes Bill C-204 from its current form. I wonder whether the clerk could comment on whether this amendment is admissible, given the wide range of changes that it provides.

The Chair :

Could the legislative clerk speak to that?

Ms. Émilie Thivierge (Legislative Clerk) :

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The way we see it is that Bill C-204 is prohibiting the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal, and NDP-1 also seeks to prohibit the exportation of plastic waste, so that's why we believe it's receivable.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Longfield, does that answer your question?

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I can see the reasoning about that, but in terms of what this amendment is going to do, it's prohibiting something that already applies to the exports for final disposal. The recycling isn't defined in the bill or the act's regulations, so that's going to create some uncertainty. If adopted, this term could be clarified in regulations that are already made under paragraph 191(

a) of CEPA, so again, this is one of those things where we're already doing it. This isn't adding anything other than possibly introducing some confusion to what we've already agreed to internationally.

The Chair :

Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Ms. Collins' amendment appears to be based on the jurisdictions that are exempt from the application of the Basel ban amendment under the Basel Convention. My understanding is that government officials spoke to the reason Canada did not ratify the ban amendment, and I am wondering if I could ask the officials present if they could clarify whether this amendment would be necessary to control plastic waste exports, or if Canada's existing regulations already control this waste.

The Chair :

That is a question for the officials. I don't know who wants to go on this.

Ms. Helen Ryan (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is not necessary to provide the authorities, as they do already exist and they are controlled through the regulatory regime that we have in place.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Bittle, does that answer your question?

Mr. Chris Bittle :

It does, and if I still have the floor and can have a follow-up question, I'm wondering if I could have clarification from the officials on a separate point. Would limiting the scope of a proposed prohibition to non-OECD countries be inconsistent with Canada's international trade obligations?

The Chair :

Would that be Mr. Tarasofsky perhaps?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

Yes, it would.

Mr. Richard Tarasofsky (Deputy Director, Oceans and Environmental Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) :

Thank you. I'm afraid I can't provide a legal opinion on that.

The Chair :

Okay. Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to the second part of Ms. Collins' motion, I'd like to point out that Bill C-204 , as it's currently drafted, proposes a ban on exporting plastics to foreign countries for final disposal. The second part of the amendment, as we're looking at it, appears to deal with plastic waste exports destined for recycling, which is beyond the scope of the bill before us at the moment, as I understand it. I'm not really clear on why we would propose to exempt something that is not already captured under this bill.

The Chair :

Ms. Collins.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, to respond to Mr. Bittle's question and to what we heard from the officials, unfortunately, despite that reassurance, since the current legislative structure we have has been in place, we have seen waste showing up in countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. There have been a number of reports since Canada changed its regulations and its rules, which means there is still a gap. This is very well documented.

We have also had testimony and briefs from environmental stakeholders, and we referenced a report from the Environmental Law Association demonstrating that there are still gaps in our current legislation. Our current legislation is not adequate to actually stop the export of this kind of waste. I think it's really important also to note that we have heard from two different Liberal committee members so far that, on the one hand, this is somehow redundant and we do not need it whatsoever, and on the other hand, it somehow goes far beyond the scope of the bill and is going to be way too far-reaching.

I think you have to choose one or the other. I would just say in closing that I think it's really important that we're addressing not only the issue of waste for final disposal but also the issue of unsorted plastic waste that ends up in countries and has serious health impacts for people around the world. Canada needs to stop doing this.

We also need to make sure we have strong legislation to avoid what we've heard again and again, which is that currently there's a loophole that allows Canada to send waste to the U.S., which could then be sent to other countries that don't have the infrastructure to deal with it, and that there isn't a firm way to stop that. This amendment attempts to strengthen the bill, and I hope we can get committee support to do so.

(1725) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Collins. Mr. Saini is next.

Mr. Raj Saini :

Thank you, Chair. Just to comment, one of the things that the bill's sponsor was very frank about was that he had limited time to draft this bill because he was one of the first MPs to be drawn in the PMB lottery. As members of this committee, I think we need to be careful about advancing amendments that would create more uncertainty with a bill that has already been subjected to limited consultation. In terms of Ms. Collins, I think the officials [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] Basel amendments and with all the other transboundary agreements that we have worldwide, I don't think the amendment is necessary.

Maybe the government officials can comment on that, but I just heard them say that there is no loophole and there's no way that anything is going to change with this amendment, so I don't see the necessity of it. Thank you.

The Chair :

We have Mr. Albas and Madam Pauzé.

Mr. Dan Albas :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I simply would remind Mr. Saini that Mr. Davidson feels very strongly about the issue of protecting our oceans and our water. He has worked on Simcoe to restore some of the beauty of it and also to conserve it as a lake. It's very important to him. I would say that just because a member comes up first does not mean that the work was rushed to the point that it did not meet the need. I think it's a bit of an unfortunate piece of rhetoric that's being used here to say that, because his number came up early, somehow the work wasn't done well.

We are going to simply not support this particular amendment, but we do feel that the legislation was drafted correctly and meets the intent of what Conservatives want to see, which is to make a real difference in protecting our oceans from plastics.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Albas. Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I just want to say that the Bloc Québécois is going to vote for this amendment because it forces action, in a way. We take issue with the inaction. For example, not that long ago, this past July 23, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment did not even discuss the Basel Convention. We even wondered whether the government had panicked itself into deciding to adopt the Basel Ban Amendment. The advantage is that it puts the Basel Convention back on the agenda. So it forces action, in a sense. That is why we will be voting for the amendment.

(1730) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's important to note as this amendment is put forward that the exceptions are there because we're adding the language around “special consideration”. That is not in the bill. Canada has not ratified amendments around “special consideration” and this is a huge gap. We need that. We need to ensure that we are not shipping waste that falls under what the Basel Convention talks about in terms of “special consideration”, which is mixed waste that ends up harming people around the world. Just to respond to Mr.

Saini's points around certainty, this language is actually taken directly from the Basel Convention, and it's not creating more uncertainty. It's actually creating certainty, because we're aligning with international agreements around shipping and attempting to stop the shipping of this kind of waste to other countries.

The Chair :

Next is Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Thank you. One of the difficulties I've had with this is that we've had testimony that is clearly saying that the legislation we have, which we introduced in December, by the way.... This isn't something we've been sitting on for years. We worked with our international partners on the Basel Convention. We actually led a lot of those discussions.

Then we worked with the new administration in the United States so that we have a regime in place to make sure that, first of all, we protect the recycling industry and do no harm there, and second of all, we reduce the amount of plastics going into landfill, which I think all of us would like to see. The point is that this legislation doesn't achieve that, in a two-line private member's bill that's up against all of the documents that we have, that we've negotiated internationally and that protect the environment from plastics getting into landfill and our oceans and streams.

The industry itself is eager to continue to do this. Now the industry is saying to us that what we're doing will cause a lot of harm to their industry. It will actually go in the opposite direction to achieving the results around reducing the amount of plastics that end up, in a linear economy, going from consumption to landfill. We need a circular economy. This legislation will not get us there. We're not saying, “Let's stop. Let's do the status quo.” The status quo has already changed. We've negotiated that internationally. We have partners through the Basel Convention.

We have partners now with the United States. We are on track to reducing the plastics getting into our rivers and streams and our landfills. This actually puts an anchor around our ankle. The good intention is there, but the legislation doesn't back up the good intention. The details aren't there even for the definition of what “final use” is. We have no

definitions to work with. Industry needs certainty. This doesn't give certainty. It actually gives the opposite. It opens it up to a free-for-all.

The Chair :

Before I go to Mr. Saini, I want to mention that it's 5:30 p.m. We can continue if that's what the committee wishes. If the committee doesn't wish that, then—

Mr. Dan Albas :

Yes.

The Chair :

You wish to continue. Okay. We'll keep going until we get a motion to adjourn. Mr. Saini.

Mr. Raj Saini :

Yes. I just want to clarify my remarks, especially to Mr. Albas. In no way was I suggesting that Mr. Davidson was not passionate about the environment. I would never suggest [ Technical difficulty—Editor ]. I was just recalling part of his testimony when he was in front of the committee. Now that we're talking about the second amendment, I wonder if the officials could reiterate what they said earlier and give a wider sort of understanding of why this amendment would not be necessary.

The Chair :

Would the officials like to comment?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

Mr. Chair, I will turn to Nathalie Perron on that.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Nathalie Perron (Director, Waste Reduction and Management Division, Department of the Environment) :

Thank you very much. [ English ] In this amendment, there is new terminology that is not clear, but from what we understand, waste that is clean, exempt from contamination and single resin, which is actually now excluded from the Basel Convention, would now be covered under existing regulations and would require prior and informed consent, including with the U.S. That's our understanding of how this amendment would work.

(1735) The Chair :

Does that answer your question, Mr. Saini? Okay. We'll go to Ms. Saks.

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to circle back with Ms. Collins about the second part of the amendment. We heard clearly from the Basel Action Network that Bill C-204 would not address the much larger issue of plastic waste destined for recycling. The executive director, James Puckett, testified to this committee that “Bill C-204 aims to halt exports for final disposal, but all of this waste now moving to developing countries is not moving for the stated purpose of final disposal; it is all moving for recycling.” Neither Bill C-204 nor this amendment would address that much bigger problem. I'm really not clear on that.

The Chair :

Is this a question for the officials, or...?

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

My question is first to the officials, and then I would also like to hear from Ms. Collins.

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I'm going to call on Laura Farquharson to answer that question.

Ms. Laura Farquharson (Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment) :

I'm sorry, but it cut out halfway through, so I didn't hear what the question was.

The Chair :

Could you repeat the question, Ms. Saks?

Ms. Ya'ara Saks :

Certainly. Does this amendment address the larger problem of recycling when it's sent to foreign countries?

Ms. Laura Farquharson :

I think someone from the program is probably more suited to answering that.

Ms. Helen Ryan :

Yes. I'm sorry. I had understood it as a different question. I will call upon Nathalie Perron.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Nathalie Perron :

Thank you very much. [ English ] As written, the bill deals with final disposal and would not apply to waste that is destined for recycling. I will let you conclude how that could help with what was raised in the context of the NGO's comment, but as we understand it right now, this bill is dealing with final disposal only.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

In response to Ms. Saks's question and comments, for the latter portion of this amendment, it's really important to know that Canada has ratified specific amendments, but they have not ratified a very crucial amendment around waste for “special consideration”. What we heard from the testimony from Mr. Puckett.... He was our witness from the organization focused on the Basel Convention. He said that this amendment would actually fill in an important gap in the current legislation, and that he was hoping to see us align our language with the parts of the Basel Convention that we haven't yet ratified.

In response to what we have heard from officials, yes, absolutely, since 2016 we have changed our regulations to require permits whenever plastic garbage is exported to countries that see that waste as hazardous, but since 2016 we have been seeing.... In 2019, there were reports from Malaysia and Cambodia that they had found containers of Canadian plastic garbage in their ports. Clearly, the 2016 changes have not addressed the issue.

The amendments that came in most recently in December are amendments that don't actually cover hazardous waste, or waste for special consideration in particular, which is why I have put forward this amendment.

(1740) The Chair :

Seeing no other speakers, we can go to a vote on this amendment. (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Are there any other amendments that someone would like to move? As no one is moving CPC-2 or CPC-3, we will be moving on to Bloc-1.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

It will come as no surprise to you that the Bloc Québécois is thinking about provincial and federal jurisdiction. I believe it would also reassure people in the industry, who were asking a lot of questions about the fact that the bill didn't distinguish between levels of jurisdiction. That's why I am proposing this amendment, which respects the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments.

The Chair :

Okay. We will hear from Mr. Bittle, Mr. Albas and Mr. Baker. [ English ] Go ahead, Mr. Bittle. We have you, Mr. Albas and then Mr. Baker on Madam Pauzé's amendment.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

I appreciate that. I have a question for the officials. Can you please help us understand how this amendment would impact the functioning of the proposed prohibition?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I'm going to call upon Laura Farquharson to answer the question.

Ms. Laura Farquharson :

Strictly speaking, it's not necessary because all laws are interpreted in light of the Constitution, so a federal law has to be exercised in federal jurisdiction. Moreover, there's already a

section in CEPA—section 2—that covers the idea. It says that “the Government of Canada shall, having regard to the Constitution”, administer the act, so the idea of being within your jurisdiction is already in CEPA. In fact, if you add it to this part, it might introduce some confusion about whether it's a concept that applies only to this part or to other parts of CEPA.

The Chair :

Does that answer your question, Mr. Bittle?

Mr. Chris Bittle :

It does. Do I still have the floor or should I put my hand back up, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

You still have the floor.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Thank you. Further, I have another couple of questions for the officials, but I'm happy to proceed however the committee would like. I was wondering if the officials could explain how the Government of Canada works with provinces and municipalities in managing plastic waste.

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I'll call upon Dany Drouin to answer this question.

Mr. Dany Drouin (Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate, Department of the Environment) :

Thank you. There are a few points to say on this one. The transboundary movement of plastic waste is a responsibility of the federal government. The CEPA allows for issuing permits to municipalities, but to provinces and territories first, to manage the recycling and the treatment of waste, and then municipalities do the operations. That is in general how it works. Having said that, there's a strong collaboration between all levels of government, in particular around the CCME action plan for zero plastic waste or, generally speaking, in programs by the federal government that incentivize infrastructure, for example. Thanks.

(1745) The Chair :

Thank you. Does that answer your question, Mr. Bittle?

Mr. Chris Bittle :

It does. Could the officials explain how the government ensures that it considers provincial jurisdiction when protecting the environment?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I'm going to call upon Laura Farquharson to answer that question, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Laura Farquharson :

I think that's a very general question. Every day, obviously, the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction, so in developing or implementing all legislation, that is considered. People are aware of the various sources of jurisdiction that are provided for in the Constitution and that's considered in our daily work.

The Chair :

That's good. We now have Madam Pauzé.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I do not believe this amendment is dangerous or that it changes everything in the bill. It just reinforces what already exists in the Constitution, as we know. That said, this amendment would help reassure some in the industry who are unaware of all the purposes of the Constitution. I have talked to people who said the bill is not clear in that regard. That's why I wanted to reassure them by putting forward this amendment.

The Chair :

Okay, thank you. Mr. Redekopp, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to let you know that Mr. Albas's computer died on him. He's in the process of coming back into the meeting. I'm trying to catch up here a little bit. It seems to me that, possibly, it's redundant, I suppose, but there is no harm that can come by putting it in here. As Madam Pauzé just said, it provides clarity, and if somebody is not sure exactly how things fit together, it reinforces a principle that is common in law, as it should be. From our perspective, we like this amendment and would like to see it in there.

The Chair :

I see no further speakers, so it's time for a vote. However, Mr. Albas is trying to get back into the meeting. How do we handle that, Madam Clerk? How would we handle a situation where, through no fault of his own, a member—

Mr. Chris Bittle :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can I propose a five-minute suspension, to be fair?

The Chair :

Okay. Let's do that. It's five minutes, so we'll be back at 5:53. Thank you.

(1745) (1750) The Chair :

There are no further speakers on Bloc amendment 1, so can Madam Clerk count the votes? (Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Shall clause 1 as amended carry?

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up.

The Chair :

Oh, I'm sorry. That's my fault.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Are we still on clause 1?

The Chair :

Yes. We've amended clause 1, and we're about to vote on clause 1 as amended.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

I have a question for the officials about the definition of “plastic waste”.

The Chair :

Sure. Go ahead.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

I want to ask the officials to clarify whether references to plastic, any type of plastic, in the bill are too broad. Could these terms create any kind of uncertainty with respect to what could be captured by the bill?

The Chair :

Who would like to answer that?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I'm going to turn it to Dany Drouin.

Mr. Dany Drouin :

CEPA does not define plastic or plastic waste. The regulations that we have in place would consider waste as hazardous or non-hazardous, based on the fact that.... For example, if it's hazardous under Canadian regulations, or if the receiving country prohibits or just doesn't want to receive the waste, that would be captured under regulations like this.

(1755) The Chair :

Okay. Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Let's have a recorded vote.

The Chair :

Okay. Could you count the votes, please, Madam Clerk?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Pardon me.

The Chair :

Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

I'm sorry, we're talking about clause 1 as amended. Ms. Collins also has amendments. She had introduced a paragraph (1.2.1). Is it included in clause 1?

The Chair :

Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but I don't believe it is. The amendment was defeated.

The Clerk :

That's right.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

Was the amendment proposing subsection (1.22) also defeated?

The Chair :

Everything Ms. Collins introduced was defeated.

Ms. Monique Pauzé :

All right, thank you.

The Chair :

We will continue with the vote.

[ English ]

Mr. Yvan Baker :

On a point of order, Chair, can I ask that we clarify what we're voting on?

The Chair :

We're voting on clause 1 as amended to talk about respecting provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Yvan Baker :

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that. (Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5) (On clause 2)

The Chair :

Does anyone have anything to say about clause 2? If not, we'll go to a vote. Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dan Albas :

No, I agree with it. We should just let it go by.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

I wonder if the officials could clarify what challenges would be posed in enforcing this clause. We've just done a study on the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Does this clause give any authorities that are needed? Is there a way of properly enforcing this, given the other legislation that this pertains to?

Ms. Helen Ryan :

I will turn to Laura Farquharson to answer the question.

Ms. Laura Farquharson :

I think the issue is that, while this bill clearly identifies that if you violate the prohibition it is an offence under the act [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] provisions in CEPA there [ Technical difficulty—Editor ]. For those inspection powers, it gives authority to inspectors to enter a place where they suspect a substance is found, let's say, just as an example. Then “substance” is defined as waste and hazardous waste, not plastic waste. You have a situation here where you have created an offence, but you may not have the authority you need to inspect and the other powers you might need to actually follow through with the enforcement.

(1800) Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

Could I have a follow-up?

The Chair :

Sure.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield :

When we have a

schedule that gets down to the molecular levels of what types of plastics are in there and if we have mixed shipments, do we have the means to enforce, let's say, one type of plastic that might be on a

schedule that's being proposed in this legislation? How would we actually physically enforce the legislation?

Ms. Laura Farquharson :

I can imagine that.... I'm not from the enforcement branch, but obviously when you are trying to.... It's a lot of testing. If you have big shipments of mixed waste, obviously it's a lot of testing. I don't have any more details on how you go about that.

The Chair :

Okay. Now we have Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle :

Thank you so much. I guess this is just concerning.... Again, I didn't hear the evidence, and I've gone back through and looked over some material. I appreciate the author's commitment to the environment. I know that he has spoken passionately about it. He was on the transport committee. These are issues that are near and dear to him. It seems to be a proposal written on the back of a napkin that we are now putting forward to Parliament and that could have significant far-reaching consequences and cause chaos in the industry, but that would have no mechanism with which to properly enforce it.

What are we trying to achieve here? I guess that is my question. We've rushed this, in my short view of it, because on the two motions we've heard on this bill, one was to limit debate and the next one was to prevent further debate. That one was today's motion. Now we're hearing that there may not be an ability to enforce these confusing mechanisms that are being put into place. Why are we doing this? This is problematic. If it doesn't help and it can't be enforced, why are we even going through this exercise, to just cause chaos in the industry?

Again, I get that Conservative politicians had a bad week last week on climate change with the Supreme Court decision, with doubling down on failed rhetoric and [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] want to achieve that win, but what's the win going to look like? Again, I appreciate the passion, and I appreciate that everyone wants to see better management of plastic waste. I don't think that's an issue that's disputed. We all want to see that. Why are we doing it in such a way that it can't be enforced or will be challenged just based on that one answer? If it can't be inspected, it can't be enforced.

If the inspection powers aren't tied to it, are charges going to be thrown out? I've already asked one legal question and was told I couldn't get a legal opinion, so I won't ask another one. This is fundamentally flawed, yet we push on, and yet we want to see this through, regardless of the outcome, regardless of the industry's pleading to put a pause on this, to try to make it so that there's some sense in this.

Again, if the goal is to have it enforced—and I appreciate that my friends in the opposition likely want this enforced—and if Parliament passes legislation, we want to see that enforced and enforced properly. If that can't happen, what are we doing here...? I appreciate that Mr. Albas has his hand up, and I'm really looking forward to hearing from him, but this is shocking to me, coming into this, and again at the last minute.

I don't know where this committee wants to go with this and where it sees this piece of legislation—which is confusing, unenforceable and has the potential to cause damage to an industry that is trying to help—ending up. I appreciate that Mr. Albas has a point. I'd be happy to hear from him.

(1805) The Chair :

Mr. Albus.

Mr. Dan Albas :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank Mr. Bittle for raising my intervention, because I hope this will not just help clarify the position of the Conservatives but also allow for industry as well as for Canadians in general to understand that our primary motivation is that we are concerned that too much plastic is ending up being dumped into our oceans. That is why we are here. We want to make sure that Canada is being responsible for its own waste.

As a father and as a community leader, I know there is so much that we could be doing, and the average citizen is saying, “Let's try to make systems that work.” First of all, I would just say to this that I believe that 99.9% of Canadian industry members are ethical and want to do the right thing, but as long as we have laws that allow them to utilize other means, they will be at a competitive disadvantage. The great thing about Scot 's bill here, Bill C-204 , is that it clearly says that we are no longer going to be allowing this to happen unless it falls under annex IV B of the Basel Convention.

People who still want to recycle clean, sorted plastics can do so and have that trade. That's not a problem, but what has been cited here is a small ability from the enforcement [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] inspection. If—as we believe and, I hope, Mr. Bittle agrees—99.9% of Canadian industry members are good, outstanding citizens who want to do good things for our planet and for our country, they are going to comply. I will also point out to him, se