Environment Committee on March 29th, 2021

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes. In what the clerk has sent out, what's highlighted in yellow would be removed and replaced with what's in red.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's right. Okay. So—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The main point is for us to provide a report that would substantiate those recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. The red part is the new part.

Okay. That's what it is, Ms. Collins. Mr. Longfield has confirmed that.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead, please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I do apologize. Even though I'm new to this committee, I should probably know better than to question the clerk in any committee, so I do appreciate that and I do apologize for that.

Going back to my point about 14 years ago, a lot has changed. Maybe the chair was here as a member of Parliament, and perhaps some others on this committee. I was just out of law school and, as I was suggesting, Mr. Baker was far younger than I was and probably in elementary school at some point.

I can appreciate what is trying to be done here, which is to gum up the House of Commons in terms of giving an opportunity for a concurrence debate on the issue to prevent passage and delay passage of things like UNDRIP and to prevent passage of other pieces of legislation, to delay it, to slow things down a bit.

This is my first time in a committee—and I've been on a few others, as I've mentioned, on justice, but I've been on PROC and transport and now on environment—where it's just “let's just have a report”, with no evidence and no witnesses and “we'll just put this forward”. I appreciate Mr. Longfield's amendment that's saying “let's take some time to consider this.”

I know there are a lot of items on the committee's agenda. I don't know that there's enough time to deal with all the items on the committee's agenda before we get to the end of June, but we have the fall. We have a lot of time. There's lots of time left in this Parliament to debate the important issues, and jumping the gun on this issue isn't necessarily the right way to go. I appreciate that it will make for a great concurrence debate to take three hours out of the House of Commons and to.... There may not be enough opposition days for the NDP to fill the time as they would like, and this would be perhaps a great opposition day motion.

I would think.... From speaking to my colleagues before I started on this committee, my understanding was that there was a real willingness on this committee to get to the bottom of various items, and I guess I've been disappointed today. First, in this effort to rush forward legislation, we didn't want to hear with respect to stakeholders in an industry who were concerned about losing their businesses, to delay it a week or so, so that we could hear and get evidence. Now, to push forward something that, hey, this was something that was agreed on 14 years ago and let's just push it forward....

I think Mr. Longfield is right. Let's have a discussion. Let's bring in some evidence. Let's bring in some witnesses. Let's talk about these items. Let's have a proper report. If we're going to make recommendations to the government, I think there is a willingness to listen to recommendations, but is this coming from a place where we want this to be properly considered? Is this that we just want there to be an opportunity for a concurrence motion so that we can have a few clips for Facebook and then we lose that opportunity to really sink our teeth into something that is significant and something that is fundamentally important?

Again, I see the willingness of all members of this committee who want a greener future, a greener Canada, and there are different paths forward on that, but I don't see how this is really advancing things, and again, from the other side of it, how it's going to slow things down in the House of Commons....

I see a couple of hands up, and I will yield the floor, but I appreciate that and hope that we move forward with a thorough discussion and a proper report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to triple-check to make sure that I have the correct wording that we're actually discussing and arguing about.

At the end of the sentence that we sent, “considering” was added, but otherwise nothing would have been added other than “produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation”, and then it starts up at my wording, beginning with “to strengthen”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's great. Okay.

I would love to just go to a vote so that we could get on with committee business, but I see that Mr. Longfield has his hand up still.

If we could call the question as soon as possible, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I just have a brief intervention.

I love the word “great” in that last sentence.

I think what we're trying to do here—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just a moment, Mr. Longfield, please.

Okay. Go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Just briefly, I'm not trying to drag this out.

The point is that if we've invested.... We have invested in the commissioner of sustainability's budget, and we have invested in the Auditor General's budget. They have both said they think they can get expertise in, and that would be another piece that I would like to have in the background, which doesn't show up in the motion. I think the motion can really address the urgency of getting the commissioner some added strength and some teeth within his department.

I would just like to have the background information that would come up with recommendations that would have some background behind them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Quickly, in response to the comments that have been made, I will say that we had background. We had the environment commissioner as well as the Auditor General here twice. We've had reports. We had a report in 2007. We've had another hearing. The witnesses have clearly articulated that this is needed.

I am so confused as to why the Liberals, who supported this up until they formed government, and who now, I guess, are maybe hesitant about being held accountable, are wanting to delay, wanting to push it back and not actually wanting to make a decision on this.

I hope we can vote and get on with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Just in response, we have heard all of that, and, yes, we have spent some time on this, but it doesn't show up in this motion.

All I'm asking for is to follow normal committee procedure of having a report, along with recommendations, not just recommendations without referring to anything that we've heard from, such as where we came up with this. Was it something from 2007 or was it something that has changed between then and now? I would just rather have a report with recommendations, the way we always do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Again, to address that point, this is quite unusual. I have to agree with Mr. Longfield. If there has been evidence that this committee has heard in this session of Parliament, let's do a proper report.

I guess I haven't seen it.... That doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention. But the practice of the committees that I've been on, which maybe are different from this committee, is that we hear evidence. We compile that evidence. We do a report. Then we submit that report to Parliament, rather than just have a quick motion in order to produce a concurrence report at the end of the day so that we can slow down the House of Commons on fundamental issues. That's debate that can happen on other issues.

I can appreciate that this may be a great opposition day motion for the NDP. This might be a great one. But trying to do this in a way that, again, doesn't build on what's been heard.... If evidence and witnesses have come forward, let's do a report and say, “This is where the commissioner said X. This is where they said Y. This is where we agree. This is what we recommend to the government.” Again, there is a willingness to listen. There is a willingness to have a strengthened regime for environmental protection across government and in this country. I don't see the need to rush this.

Is this something that we do all the time in this committee? It really worries me that, on day two of being on this committee, it's, “Hurry up. Just pass it. We don't need to hear from witnesses. We don't need proper reports.” It's troubling, given the significance of all these issues to Canadians, be it with respect to the first motion and the businesses that could potentially be impacted, and now in terms of having an actual report and putting the evidence together and piecing that together.

I know it's more challenging. I know it's more difficult. I know it will take longer to be in a position to have a concurrence motion. But rather than just put it through, isn't it better to put it off a couple of months and have something genuine?

Again, I believe this is genuine. If there is evidence tied to actual recommendations that allow for the government to respond back, then we have something positive, something that we can build upon and something that we can be proud of as a committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Ms. Saks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to keep my comments brief, because I know there's an interest by Ms. Collins to move ahead.

I'm a rookie here in Parliament and I'm a rookie on this committee. I've watched the process happen, and I would say to Ms. Collins that just like we did with the zero emissions work for Madam Pauzé on her report, you want to take something to the House that you're proud of, that really has impact and can make a shift.

It's not really a matter of accountability to me here. It's that we've compiled evidence and we don't have a report. I know you think that with the reports from years back...but I certainly didn't sit at those meetings, nor did you or many other individuals who are sitting here. Let's put something forward that makes sense so that it has impact when it gets to the House, rather than having a back-and-forth. I'd like to see some of the things you've suggested in your motion. These pieces are important. My constituents have talked to me about how important accountability is for them.

You're better served in the House with a motion that has a report to back it up. It's not about stalling here. It's about doing the process and the good work that comes to the House to have impact. That's why I'm here. I really do want to support conceptually what you're trying to move forward, but the strength comes with the material and the recommendations behind it rather than a fast and dirty throwing down of a motion and sending it through. I'm a fan of substantive work. I like to be proud of what I put my name on when it goes forward into the House, and I would hope for that too. That's really what we're trying to do here, rather than just copying and pasting and saying, “You said this then. Let's do it now.”

Well, certain principles of what you're putting forward still matter now, absolutely, but we have more information and we have to compile that and make it comprehensive for the House so that what you put forward sticks. Otherwise, I really question why we wouldn't do it in a way that process dictates we do through this committee.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers, we can proceed to a vote on Mr. Longfield's amendment. You have it all in front of you, highlighted properly.

Madam Clerk, would you like to go through the members to see how they want to vote on this?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We can vote on the motion as presented by Ms. Collins, because the amendment was defeated.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. I don't think there's any more business related to motions. I guess that means we can go to clause-by-clause.

Let's get ourselves organized for clause-by-clause. Essentially, what I'm doing is seeing if we agree with clause 1 as it appears in the bill.

(On clause 1)

On clause 1 in the bill, how do we view it?

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm glad that we're moving forward into clause-by-clause, but I'm troubled that we're missing out on the voices that we've received.

Richard Seto from Rundle Eco Services was the example I brought forward to try to have his voice heard at our committee, and we're not hearing his voice. We don't have a translated copy, but I think it's really important to hear his voice. He represents a lot of voices in Alberta and I want to tell you want he said:

Rundle Eco Services Ltd...appreciates the opportunity to provide this brief [on] concerns regarding Bill C-204.

Rundle is a small business operating in Alberta and a member of the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association. We endorse their comments as laid out in their briefing submitted to the Committee.

Unfortunately, as I said, these haven't been translated, but we can read it so that we can get the translation. It continues:

Rundle does not support in any way whatsoever, the export of plastics to other countries as a means of plastics disposal. In this brief, we wanted to describe what the passage of Bill C-204 will do to our small business which will be reflective of what will happen to many other small businesses engaged in plastic recycling in Canada.

Rundle collects plastics from major petroleum producers in Canada. Our clients do have a cheaper option and can dispose of the plastics directly to a land fill. However, they choose Rundle because of Rundle’s commitment to ship plastics to recyclers who will transform the recovered plastic into feedstock for producing other products. Furthermore, our clients desire to kickstart a circular economy while fulfilling their environmental stewardship duties.

Since inception, our company largely depends on exporting our plastic commodity with most of it going the United States and a lesser amount to Asia. Rundle continues to search out Canadian recyclers but there are few takers for our type of plastics. The acceptance of used plastic is challenging. Typically, a recycler producing recycled plastic feed stock needs to be located close to major manufacturing hubs. Those recyclers, based on their customers needs, take only certain types of used plastic and certainly not all plastics. These recyclers must make significant investments in technology and specialized facilities that can sort, clean and process used plastic A high level of plastic throughput is mandatory to achieve economies of scale and create value. Most of this infrastructure for Rundle exists only in the United States.

Since Rundle started shipping used plastic to the USA years ago, each individual load is scrutinized by US Customs and Border Protection. The loads were admitted only because their end use is for feed stock for a specific recycler. We further note Canada has ratified, along with 170 other countries, the recent amendments to the Basel Convention. Specifically, new entry B3011 in Annex IX allows for the cross-border movement of nonhazardous plastic waste that is only bound for recycling that will be performed in an environmentally sound manner. Bill C204 wants to prevent plastic waste from be exported however this prevention already exists as mentioned. We are concerned that Bill C204 is redundant and will cause further confusion.

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 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. 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.

He concludes with the following:

Rundle appreciates the opportunity to present it's concerns to the Committee. We are available to answer any questions the Committee may have about our submission.

Yours very truly,

Richard Seto

Director

Rundle Eco Services Ltd.

This is what I was saying when we had our initial debate. There are letters upon letters, and they all say the same thing: This legislation is dangerous for their businesses, will not help us recycle and, in fact, anything in this legislation that could be considered positive already exists in agreements that we've already signed as a country.

Based on that, for clause 1, I can't see passing it, because it is going to hurt Canadian businesses and not get us to the objectives of recycling that we all want.