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.
5:55 p.m.
The Clerk
That's right.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
On a point of order, Chair, can I ask that we clarify what we're voting on?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're voting on clause 1 as amended to talk about respecting provincial jurisdiction.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that.
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 2)
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does anyone have anything to say about clause 2? If not, we'll go to a vote.
Go ahead, Mr. Albas.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
No, I agree with it. We should just let it go by.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
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?
5:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I will turn to Laura Farquharson to answer the question.
5:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
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?
6 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
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.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
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.”
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before we go to Mr. Bittle, I'll mention that we can't go beyond 7 p.m., for technical resource reasons.
Mr. Bittle.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It's a very interesting point that Mr. Albas brings up in agreeing that this is flawed legislation and that we'll fix it later. That's whenever we get to it, because legislation is moving very quickly through Parliament, so I'm sure it will rapidly get to things.... I probably shouldn't be sarcastic in a transcript situation. I always warn my clients against that, because that can be read back into the record as the opposite. Sarcasm doesn't read well, but seriously.... I appreciate Mr. Albas suggesting this and telling me my new job, and I do appreciate any suggestions that do come up, as it has only been a few days on the job, but as a lawyer, this really boggles the mind.
Yes, I agree that 99% of businesses and 99% of Canadians are going to follow the law. They want to do what's right, but imagine creating a Criminal Code offence.... I know that I'm speaking of an analogy, and I'll wait for Mr. Albas's point of order to come up because we can only speak about the environment in the environment committee, and I'm sure he may be concerned that I'm venturing off on a point of relevancy. Imagine creating a Criminal Code offence that the police couldn't investigate, or where there would be challenges in investigating that offence. That's not doable. Maybe that 99% becomes 98%, which becomes 97% or 96%, because there's not going to be a concern.
I sit not too far from the Queen Elizabeth Way and [Technical difficulty—Editor] if he's been down to southern Ontario. The speed limit is 100 kilometres an hour. In some places, it's 110 kilometres an hour. If we knew that the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police, were never going to set up a speed trap on the QEW, I can imagine that the rate of speed may increase, despite the good wishes of southern Ontarians to be safe. That may not be the case. You might not get 99% compliance on a regulatory offence or a regulatory conviction.
Again, if there is this desire to better ourselves and to better the disposal of plastic waste—which, again, I believe is there—why are we doing this if it can't be enforced? Why are we doing this if this is the challenge?
At the end of the day, we're getting to a point where it's “Hey, we passed legislation, but we'll fix it later. We just need a Conservative piece of legislation that shows that maybe we care about the environment and we care about climate change”—even though this may or may not be related to that—“despite our previous positions going back. We need that win.”
That's despite the fact that the win is a mess that will cause significant issues, potentially, and which will, if it gets to a court [Technical difficulty—Editor] for problems that do exist, for problems that exist with respect to investigations that don't follow the proper course of action.
I guess I'd go back to Mr. Saini's point that perhaps this was rushed. I get it. I've seen colleagues in the previous Parliament who were up early and had to get something out the door fast, and it may not have been as great as they would have hoped.
If we're all acknowledging that it's bad and we'll fix it later, why don't we just acknowledge that there are problems with it and...? We've gone past the point. We tried to hit pause on this because industry in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, industry that is trying to make this planet a better place.... Mr. Longfield is right when he says they're for-profit companies, but they're for-profit companies trying to do the right thing, trying to be green, trying to be part of recycling and trying to make things better, because that's what Canadians want. When we put out that blue bin, we want to know that it's being done properly.
We don't want to see waste exported. We don't. I think we're all in agreement on that.
My former member of provincial parliament and Mr. Baker's former colleague in the legislature, a gentleman by the name of Jim Bradley—I want to get his name in the record—was a member of provincial parliament in St. Catharines for 41 years. He was the minister of the environment in the 1980s who brought in the blue box program in Ontario.
This is something I'm excited about—he was a mentor to me—and I know St. Catharines is excited about and Canadians are excited about. They want to be part of that and they want to do more. If we're going to create issues, if we're going to create problems, and if we're going to create a mechanism of enforcement that's laughable, where the committee's message back to the parliamentary secretary is, “Go speak to the minister to fix the mess we created”....
It's unbelievable, Mr. Albas. That argument is unbelievable. I haven't heard anything so interesting, to put it mildly, in my five and a half years here: “It's a mess and we'll fix it later, maybe, possibly, and hopefully it will be before it starts going through the court system, before someone gets charged—or no one may ever get charged, because the view is that the enforceability is zero. We'll count on the good graces of Canadians, because 99% of them will do the right thing.”
It's weird. I don't hear that when we discuss issues of criminal justice reform: “Oh, Canadians are good. They'll do the right thing.” [Technical difficulty—Editor] necessary, and we won't tie back our amendments to the Criminal Code into sections that will deal with the level of enforcement.
It really just seems to me, in this interaction, how concerning this piece of legislation is...or maybe it's just acknowledgement that “It won't do anything, but we'll get a 'win'. We can try to convince Canadians that we're tough on the environment. Don't listen to our party members and what they have to say. We're tough on the environment. We're going to get things done. We have a plan—maybe.”
We've been hearing about this plan now for a few years going back. I appreciate that there's a desire for enforcement, but there wasn't a desire to look into how that works.
I don't know. Mr. Saini's point about perhaps its being rushed isn't an insult against the author of the bill, but that's what it seems, that we have a piece of legislation—I've used this analogy before—that is well-intentioned legislation written on the back of a napkin, and an acknowledgement by the opposition that it has serious issues. There's no desire to fix those issues and no desire to hit pause. There's just a desire to push ahead.
I get “The government's opposed, let's stick it to them.” But why are we sticking it to the government if that means people will potentially lose their jobs, it creates uncertainty and it might create unnecessary litigation in our court system and lead to tie-ups there? That's if it even makes [Technical difficulty—Editor].
Maybe he can come down one day and I'll take him for a ride on the QEW. To go back to the analogy I gave—I didn't reach this part of my point—despite the view of Canadians, I think the average speed seems to be well in excess of 120 kilometres an hour. My colleagues from Ontario can chime in there. Again, in the absence of enforcement on a regulatory offence, you get some creep in there. Canadians want to be safe on the QEW. They want to do the right thing, but at the end of the day...why?
Why are we doing this? This is shocking.
I guess Ms. Collins has her hand up, so maybe I'll come back to it after Ms. Collins speaks.
This is shocking.
