Evidence of meeting #22 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
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
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. You can take your hand down then and put it back up again.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We'll go to Mr. Albas, and then Mr. Bittle is back, after Madam Pauzé.
Mr. Albas.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
March 29th, 2021 / 3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
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.
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—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, but I would like to bring you back to the realm of environmental policy if possible.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
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—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Again, I'm finishing my response to the point of order, Mr. Chair, if that's all right.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
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?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I was going to say, again, on relevance, Mr. Chair, that he is not showing respect for your ruling.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think Ms. Saks might have had her hand up before me. I don't want to butt in.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's possible, but this is what the system is telling me. I mean, if you want to have Ms. Saks go first....