Environment Committee on March 29th, 2021

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Ms. Saks.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

Ms. Collins and Ms. Pauzé would like to speak.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I was wondering. That explains it.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll move on.

Ms. Collins, your hand is up.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Collins.

I have Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

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.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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.