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.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
The intent behind this motion is to align the language in the bill with the Basel Convention. Other countries have done this in line with our commitments in the Basel Convention. We want to ensure that we are not shipping waste to countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it.
Also, an important piece of this amendment is that it specifically talks about the amendment that Canada hasn't ratified—specifically, around the waste for “special consideration”—and that is an important gap in this bill that needs to be strengthened. I hope that I will have the support of the committee to move this forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're not there yet. We are debating the NDP's first amendment.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The NDP amendment affects clause 1, and so does mine. It would add subsection 1.4.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think this amendment really significantly changes Bill C-204 from its current form. I wonder whether the clerk could comment on whether this amendment is admissible, given the wide range of changes that it provides.
Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The way we see it is that Bill C-204 is prohibiting the export of certain types of plastic waste to foreign countries for final disposal, and NDP-1 also seeks to prohibit the exportation of plastic waste, so that's why we believe it's receivable.
Liberal
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I can see the reasoning about that, but in terms of what this amendment is going to do, it's prohibiting something that already applies to the exports for final disposal. The recycling isn't defined in the bill or the act's regulations, so that's going to create some uncertainty.
If adopted, this term could be clarified in regulations that are already made under paragraph 191(a) of CEPA, so again, this is one of those things where we're already doing it. This isn't adding anything other than possibly introducing some confusion to what we've already agreed to internationally.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Collins' amendment appears to be based on the jurisdictions that are exempt from the application of the Basel ban amendment under the Basel Convention.
My understanding is that government officials spoke to the reason Canada did not ratify the ban amendment, and I am wondering if I could ask the officials present if they could clarify whether this amendment would be necessary to control plastic waste exports, or if Canada's existing regulations already control this waste.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That is a question for the officials. I don't know who wants to go on this.
Helen Ryan Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is not necessary to provide the authorities, as they do already exist and they are controlled through the regulatory regime that we have in place.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It does, and if I still have the floor and can have a follow-up question, I'm wondering if I could have clarification from the officials on a separate point. Would limiting the scope of a proposed prohibition to non-OECD countries be inconsistent with Canada's international trade obligations?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, it would.
Richard Tarasofsky Deputy Director, Oceans and Environmental Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you.
I'm afraid I can't provide a legal opinion on that.