Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The study raised a lot of issues for me personally. A couple of those issues are international.
I have never received a clear answer. We keep talking about the Basel Convention and the Canada-U.S. agreement that was signed back in October, but what we haven't discussed is the further, broader implications, whether they be with the WTO or with GATT. What would the impact be on our international agreements and how would that impact our ability to do other things?
For me, that's a very important question. We live in a global world. Any legislation that we put through here has to be seen through a lens of how this affects our trading partners and our global responsibilities when it comes to the WTO and the GATT agreements we signed.
The second thing raised, and Mr. Baker alluded to this, was about landfills. I don't know much about landfills, but I'm sure there is a permitting procedure. I'm sure land has to be purchased. I'm sure that other requirements will have to be met. If there is a prohibition, then, obviously, there is going to have to be an increased domestic capacity for more landfill capacity. I do not know what the procedure is, but I know that it takes sometimes up to around five years for landfills to be created.
However, there is a provincial and a municipal jurisdiction that's also involved. Nobody has clearly stated to me over the last two meetings or meeting and a half how we work with our provincial and territorial partners, and how we make sure that they are part of the conversation, as opposed to just imposing something upon them.
The third thing I think we also need to do is to take a much broader study. We've heard conflicting advice from different stakeholders who have said that this would work and that something else would work.
When we look at the Basel Convention, we see the amendments capture everything. Is this redundancy going to create more regulation, more red tape, more frustration for the suppliers and the creators of plastic, or is it actually going to solve a problem?
A lot of things have emerged over the last meeting and a half that have raised questions. I think we all want to do a good job and make sure that we study this legislation in the way it should be, that it be given the respect it deserves and that we try to make sure....
To Mr. Schiefke's point, if I can add a subamendment, I would like to add that maybe we need to call the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM. Maybe we have to call provincial officials to see how this would work. What's the capacity of the provinces and provincial officials? Also maybe we need to look at our obligations when we trade solid waste with the United States back and forth, and the implications of that. What are our international treaty obligations? The gentleman from GAC said that this would be important, but he didn't elaborate on that.
Maybe if I'm permitted, Mr. Chair, to amend Mr. Schiefke's motion, I would like to include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the provinces and anybody else who we think would be.... I think FCM and the provinces at a minimum should have the opportunity to come and speak to this, because they are going to be impacted, whether materially or financially. I think it's important we have their voices. I would also appreciate learning how the permitting process actually goes from start to finish, how you actually create a landfill site, what's required and what the cost is.
I think I would like to suggest that subamendment if I can.
