Bill C-204 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste)

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to prohibit the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I want to switch over to Mr. Roter. [Technical difficulty—Editor] organization has come to Guelph. In fact, [Technical difficulty—Editor] our mayor and I were talking about The Natural Step program and how that applies to the different orders of government. Again, Bill C-204 , which we were debating, is pushing some requirements on municipalities to stop shipping plastics that will end up in landfills.

Could you talk about how The Natural Step works with the three orders of government to try to coordinate with us, and maybe how you're working with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, if that's an organization that you're familiar with and working with?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have visited your plant in Luxembourg and I've visited your plant in Bolton many times, working with the plant development people on the hydraulics and control systems.

One of the areas I wanted to explore was the use of recycled plastics in your feedstock. We just finished debating Bill C-204, and it sounded like we were starting to debate it again today. The recyclers in both British Columbia and Alberta said that you're going in the wrong direction. Limiting the travel of product actually cuts this off at the knees by eliminating the supply chain opportunities.

In the case of your feedstock, are you able to specify amounts of plastic recycled material that can be used on your injection presses?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Again that is interesting, because in opposing Bill C-204, MP Saini's reason was that the chemicals at play are important in the production of things. If the government declares all plastics are toxic, will that result in the loss of jobs?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] tool. That's interesting, because during the Bill C-204 debate, MP Bittle opposed the bill by arguing it would increase the level of uncertainty and MP Longfield argued that the bill was bad because industry was saying we were going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Masterson, you represent industry. Why do you think they are ignoring your claims in this case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

(Bill C-204 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Baker. I also want to thank Mr. Albas for being open to discussing my amendment. As he's put forward his subamendment, I'd like to speak to the reason that I put my amendment forward.

I'm a fan of getting work done that is done well, with due diligence and with the proper process that we need to go through, so that we come out at the other end with a bill that really does what it's meant to do. It should serve the community and the various industries and municipalities that will be impacted by the piece of legislation we are debating, discussing and breaking down.

Officials have said to us that the process to get Bill C-204 to the point where it would be implemented well will take somewhere around two years. I hesitated to put a timeline on this, but I did so to give the Governor in Council the flexibility they need to do the work they need to do to get the bill in order. Without this, we aren't doing a process of due diligence.

My concern is that we get it right. That's why I put this amendment forward for colleagues of the committee to consider. At the end of the day, we all want a good piece of legislation to go forward. That's really why we're here. That's certainly why I'm here. As a rookie MP, I can feign ignorance, perhaps, on some things, but I know that I came here to get good work done, and I'm committed to that.

Good work takes time. It's not a process of hurry up and wait. It's not a process of hurry up and hurry up. It's a step-by-step process of taking the time to discuss things, to see where the deficiencies are in what's being proposed and to make sure that we get this right. Ultimately, it's not for us. It's for Canadians. It's for the industries that will be served by the bill and what they're able to achieve to move an environmental plan forward that works well for Canadians and communities. It's so that we don't have backups in landfills and don't have plastic being shipped off to other places that will cause harm in other parts of the world.

We want this to be a win-win. Wins don't happen by trying to ram something through the system. Wins happen when they're done step by step, with the intention and mindfulness that needs to come with moving through a process and really unpacking it properly.

That was my intention by putting the amendment forward. I certainly hope that colleagues will get behind it so that we can get good work done.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I want to reiterate my support for the amendment proposed by Ms. Saks.

At our last meeting, we heard from the Environment and Climate Change Canada officials. We also heard from members of the waste management and recycling industry all over the country. The public servants are the experts; they are the ones working every day to keep the system robust. I trust them and I trust what they told us when they appeared before the committee.

Mr. Albas has proposed in his amendment a timeline that is not achievable for a number of reasons. There is a range of deficiencies in the bill.

Namely, I'm referring to the lack of clear definitions, the inaccuracies in certain definitions, the fact that it's impossible to [Technical difficulty—Editor].

For example, if Bill C-204 were implemented, plastic waste that would normally be sent to another country would remain in Canada. However, according to what witnesses told us, we don't even have the capacity to dispose of the plastic here, in Canada.

If it were even possible to fix that, the government would need time to remedy all the deficiencies—

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

No, I'd like to move the following amendment, that Bill C-204 be amended by adding new clause 4, on page 2, after line 10: “Coming into force: The provisions of this act come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

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, seeing as he sits on the ENVI committee with us, that we will have an opportunity to review the CEPA at some point so we can fine-tune those things.

If he's really concerned about the enforcement mechanism, why on earth doesn't he use his position as a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment to go to Jonathan Wilkinson, look him in the eye and ask, “Why, Minister, have we signed an agreement with President Trump whereby the Americans have not given themselves the power to stop items from going out?” We had officials say, in the hearings we had, that right now, we have traceability. I have asked how the Americans can have a system that Canada recognizes as being equivalent to Basel if they don't have a mechanism to even charge people if they decide to send our plastic waste to another country for it to be dumped, illegally, perhaps, or even legally, because some countries don't have that.

If the member is truly committed to enforcement, then he will work with Conservative members when that part of CEPA comes up. He will then also go to his minister and protest the fact that Canada has signed up with a country that doesn't have a legal mechanism to enforce the same standard as that under Canadian law.

I would simply say to the member that he can be part of the solution. He can join with Conservatives right now. We can pass this legislation and we can all go home tonight—or for those who are at home, such as me, we can go to the other room—and say to our family members, “We did something good for Canada today.”

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

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.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

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.

[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.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.