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.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's speculative, a bit.
Officials, do you want to answer that?
6:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, as I said, we will look to what the committee will conclude in terms of their interest with respect to this bill.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I see many, many hands up. I would just remind everyone that at 7 p.m. we have to break. We can come back tomorrow at 11 a.m., I'm told. We can even come back at 9 p.m.
We're going to need a decision on the part of the committee in a few minutes. I will consult the committee in about five minutes as to what the members would like to do.
Ms. Pauzé, the floor is yours.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
All I wanted to say is that I will support the amendment as long as Canada implements the Basel Convention, of which it is a signatory. That's what I found worthwhile in this bill. To give the industry some space, I will support this amendment.
I didn't think that we were going to launch into a whole other discussion again. I would have liked to see a vote on this sooner, but I will be patient.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I know it's not fair to ask the officials to weigh in on a political discussion, but I'm wondering about the process going forward of how a regulatory review would happen in order to solve all the issues that we've identified, and there are many. How much time does it take to...?
When we did the Basel convention, and we did the work with the United States, we developed our lists and we did all the work that needed to be done to have effective legislation. Would there be the same types of people involved in reviewing this legislation to propose amendments back to the government? Do we wait for the courts to say that what we're asking to do is in provincial jurisdiction and is not constitutional? What's the process, going forward, of reviewing this? Have we given it enough time to go through the proper review?
6:50 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, I will answer the first part of the question, and then with respect to the process, I'll turn to Laura Farquharson to answer.
With respect to being able to implement, there would be a number of things we would need to undertake to do in order to clarify and provide for some of the definitions that would be required. We would need to be looking at how we align this with our current regulations and then make sure there are consistencies with respect to that. We would need to seek to have clarity with respect to the schedule, in terms of what would be potentially things that would be banned and things that wouldn't be banned, so that we could have clarity with respect to going forward on that.
Now I'll turn it over to Laura Farquharson to speak to the process.
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
To the extent that it will be difficult to implement this immediately, given the changes that have been identified, that's an issue. In terms of the process, first of all, the GIC has the power, under this bill, to change the schedule, on the recommendation of the minister. That's a typical regulatory process. We typically count on two years to change regulations. That's just the whole process from beginning to end.
CEPA, including this kind of order, also requires a mandatory 60-day consultation period. It's published first in the Canada Gazette. There are 60 days for publication; we take comments and then it's published again. I know that only sounds like 60 days, but typically, regulations take two years. Orders might be slightly shorter, but we've identified a need for both.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] amendment, I am a little bit concerned. The bill is a tiny step in the right direction. I would have liked to see it strengthened. Mr. Bittle asked why we are passing it if it has gaps. I'll be voting in favour of it because I'd rather have a small step in the right direction than no step when it comes to stopping the export of plastic waste to countries like the Philippines, Cambodia and Malaysia, where Canadian waste is endangering ecosystems and human health.
We could have had a big win for the environment, a big win for protecting human health, but the Liberals voted against my motion to strengthen the bill. It's disappointing but it's not surprising, since they have voted against even the small step that this bill takes.
If members legitimately have concerns about the bill and want it strengthened, then they should make amendments to strengthen it. It's clear that the Liberals do not want to strengthen the bill. They didn't propose any amendments except for this one, to delay. Instead, they've spent committee reading letters into the record, speaking at great length, which I can only interpret as filibustering. They're not speaking about the need to address the issue of exporting waste to countries that don't have the infrastructure to deal with it, but reiterating again and again the concerns from the plastics industry. It's just surprising to me that it seems [Technical difficulty—Editor].
I'm not wholly opposed to Ms. Saks's amendment, but I am concerned about the delay.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have four minutes left, and then I'll decide when the next meeting is. I will consult the committee, but ultimately, I'm told, it's the chair's decision.
We'll go to Mr. Albas, and then Mr. Bittle.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The government members opposed this in the House. They've opposed this at committee. They've had a dog-ate-my-homework excuse twice now. I don't want to give any more fodder for Mr. Bittle to follow up with, but I do understand that there are some concerns in regard to it.
What I would simply suggest is an amendment. I'll make the following amendment, that we change the language of MP Saks's amendment to say, “six months from royal assent”.
Essentially, Mr. Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] it would say that once this receives royal assent, the government would have six months to implement it. That would allow for them to go through much of what they're talking about. There's nothing to prevent them from starting today to do the necessary work. I do think that six months would give the government adequate time to put everything into place in terms of the schedule.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
That is an amendment, Mr. Chair, and I'm proposing the amendment.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I understand.
We have Mr. Albas's amendment. You know what? I think at this point we need in writing Ms. Saks's amendment as amended by Mr. Albas.
Ross, can you write it out for us and send it to us? Then we can have it on paper. We can have Ms. Saks's amendment as amended by Mr. Albas. Why don't we wait for that?
In the meantime, let me write down who is on the speakers list, not that we are going to get to everyone tonight. We have Mr. Bittle, Mr. Baker, Ms. Saks, Mr. Saini.
I'm just going to wait for.... I don't know if Ross has had....
Okay, so next meeting.... We're not going to get to vote on this tonight, but it would be good to have it on paper. In fact, we could have it on paper in both official languages because we'll have time to translate it.
Are there any thoughts on when the next meeting should be? We're not going to debate this. I'm just getting some input.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Instead of having the steering committee, do we want to do this Wednesday?
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, there seems to be a consensus.
We'll change Wednesday's meeting from a steering committee to a committee to continue our discussion on Ms. Saks's proposed amendment, with the proposed amendment by Mr. Albas.
