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.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That was a lengthy debate.
Maybe just calling the question would be great.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We can do that since there's no one else on the speaking order.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Could I have a recorded vote?
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 3)
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I just want to make a comment on the schedule. Schedule 7 of the bill is called the “List of Plastic Waste”, but we've heard from a lot of witnesses that there are entries on that list that are not typically considered plastics. There are certain chemicals that may be used for other reasons but that have been captured on that list.
Somebody who raised that point was Bob Masterson from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, who pointed out that the list contains ethylene, which is a feedstock, not a plastic waste. In fact, it is a gas at room temperature. We can see that there are issues with some of the listings.
Also on the list are styrene, acrylonitrile and butadiene, which are not typically considered plastic. I think the list was not carefully drafted and could pose a serious problem for administration and enforcement of the bill. Also, obviously if chemicals are being used for different purposes but are captured incorrectly on that list, that would pose a huge problem for industry. They'd have to use the chemical for one thing and not use the chemical for something else.
In looking at the Chemistry Industry Association's input, I think it's very important that it be recognized that you're dealing with chemicals that are extremely important in the production of certain things. We have to be careful. Schedule 7 does not reflect the sort of in-depth review that we should be doing to make sure we don't inadvertently put a chemical on the list that shouldn't be there.
Thank you, Chair.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I just want to move the amendment that I had sent on this section, on the schedule.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
The Clerk
We're still debating clause 3, Chair. We haven't voted on it.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Okay, I'm sorry.
Then maybe in response to Mr. Saini's comments, which were really about that list, it's pretty clearly outlined that the minister can add or remove items from this list. I thought it was important—we'll talk about my amendment shortly—to add something that was missing and that is in the Basel Convention. PVC is one of the most toxic types of plastic. I think it's important that we as a committee put that on there. Anything that needs to be taken out can be taken out by the minister.
If the Liberal members on this committee had concerns about specific items in this, they had the opportunity to move amendments.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
On the last point Ms. Collins raised, again, it's a weird argument from the opposition: that it's a bad bill but you guys can make it better. We've heard it on enforceability. We've now heard it with respect to this. The concerns that keep getting raised grow.
I don't want to cede the floor, Mr. Chair, but I do have a question and I hope to continue afterwards.
Could the officials speak to the challenges of enforcement with this bill, which includes a range of substances, many of which aren't even considered plastic? Could they speak to that?
6:25 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
In terms of the current schedule that's before us, it doesn't include the term “plastic waste”, so it can present some confusion. In addition, it does contain a number of items that aren't normally considered plastics, as we previously heard.
In addition, we have current requirements within our regulations that contain restrictions on a number of these items, so we would have issues with respect to those regulations and what might be put forward in the bill. We would need to make corrections in order to be able to reconcile that.
Then when we think about the specifics in terms of the items, you are looking for something very specific as opposed to something general—plastic waste versus a specific chemical constituent—so that can be more challenging.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I don't know if anyone else was getting it, but I was getting the French translation over the English channel.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to remember what I just said.
With respect to the items that have been put forward in the context of the schedule, these are items that have not been specifically defined in the context of plastic waste but rather in terms of the actual chemical constituent. There are a number of them that are not normally considered to be plastics. In addition, those items—for instance, ethylene, styrene and others—are regulated under other regulations that we have in place.
With respect to how you enforce it, you are now looking at something that's very specific and precise as opposed to a broader term such as “plastic waste”, so you need to then be focusing on those chemical constituents in terms of how you look to enforce the requirements.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Can we go to Mr. Longfield? Does that answer your question?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It answers my question. I guess I'll continue, though, on my point with respect to enforceability.
Again, the more we hear about this, I don't see how, if someone is charged, this won't be a massive fight and unnecessarily clog up the court system. We already know it's flawed. I appreciate the opposition saying that we can just fix it later. That's what the point of this is, and we're now so far down this road.
I apologize if it was a rhetorical question. I genuinely am looking for an answer to what we are doing. If the opposition is so keen on passing a flawed piece of legislation, which it is known cannot be enforced or won't be enforced because of the legal complexities and the hope from Mr. Albas that everyone will be good—they promise, probably, maybe....
From the industry we hear that this is going to lead to uncertainty, uncertainty in terms of the regulations and uncertainty in terms of enforcement. What are we hoping to achieve here with this bill? If it's uncertain as to its goals, if it's uncertain as to its enforcement, what's the goal? Why are we rushing this unnecessarily?
I appreciate Ms. Collins saying that we could have proposed amendments. We look at this and see it as a flawed piece of legislation. I don't know if I appreciate Mr. Albas's point to just fix it months down the road when we deal with this, and “Mr. Bittle, you march down to speak to Jonathan Wilkinson and tell him to fix the mess that this committee has created.” I don't think that's the role of a parliamentary secretary, but perhaps it will be. Should this bill pass, I'll probably have to go back and report that there is a mess that may need to be cleaned up.
Again, with legislation at a standstill in the House of Commons [Technical difficulty—Editor].
No one has answered the enforceability question. I'd be happy to hear from Mr. Albas or Ms. Collins. I hope there's a better answer than that the government can bring amendments months down the road once we've let the horse out of the barn. I'm sorry if that's an agriculture reference, Mr. Albas, in an environment committee meeting.
This is fundamental. People's jobs are on the line here. That's an argument I've heard from Mr. Albas in the House of Commons before on different pieces of legislation. He has been impassioned about that. It seems to be absent here. Again, to get that political win for reasons, I guess.... It's truly bizarre where we are at this moment.
I'm disappointed I wasn't able to participate in earlier debate on this bill, but I'm really disappointed that we were not given the opportunity to hit pause on this, knowing what this committee heard, knowing what we heard from officials. Again, everyone wants to do better on plastics, including, I'm sure, the industry, but to subject them to this, to subject the court system to this, to create that level of uncertainty.... Who is this fair to?
It's not going to lead to an improvement. I'm sure it's a win for the householder, and that's great, but when the rubber meets the road, I'm sure we can tell our constituents that we had this political win, but it's not a win for the environment. It's not a win for the justice system. It's just a bill. It's just a piece of paper. What's the point? It's a potentially dangerous piece of paper if it's going to cost jobs at the expense of not being enforceable.
My mind is blown here at this committee. Again, I appreciate everyone's genuineness of wanting to improve things, but at what cost? What's the cost of the harm that this bill may potentially bring? I don't think that question has been answered by anyone.
Again, it's hurry up and pass it. Minister Wilkinson, please fix it later. We won't let you pass it through the House of Commons, but we want you to fix it later and we'll blame you for not fixing it. We'll blame you for not enforcing it properly, even though officials have raised red flags about it.
I look forward to the questions in question period, should this bill pass down the road. Not getting into our time machine here, but the ghost of question period future may be here to say, “Why isn't the government enforcing this legislation passed by Parliament that doesn't allow for enforcement?” I'm looking forward to that one. That one's going to be glorious when it comes. I see Mr. Albas nodding. I look forward to him leading that question in question period.
These issues have been raised. It worries me that there isn't a concern from the opposition on this. Again, if it's confusing, if it's unenforceable then what have we accomplished? I hope your householders are great and this fits well onto the front page in terms of what everyone wants to see, because the harm may be real.
