Evidence of meeting #23 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
That's convenient. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would simply say to MP Pauzé that I appreciate the spirit of where she is going.
I want to make a few things very clear. We all know from debate that Liberals are opposed to our resolving our own plastic waste for final disposal—keeping that within Canada. Conservatives think we should be able to do it.
We've heard some members lament the low [Technical difficulty—Editor] this is the way to deal with it. We have heard that there are some deficiencies; that's what the Liberal members are calling this.
Let's be very clear, Mr. Chair. The way that MP Saks's amendment is structured is the final Hail Mary pass of this bill for the Liberals. In effect, if we were to pass her amendment without the changes proposed by Madam Pauzé and me, we would in fact be allowing the government to determine when and if this law would ever come into force. They are in a minority, so if this is given to the Governor in Council, they could postpone indefinitely or infinitely. It's all up to them.
This is about the will of Parliament expressing itself, saying that Canada needs to be a leader, much as Australia has done. Scot Davidson has created a bill, and while I still have the floor, Mr. Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] he said there was deficiency in enforcement. The officials actually said that there may be difficulties compelling inspection, which is systemic to the regime itself.
This bill only carves into CEPA this new provision, which is why I suggested that if the parliamentary secretary is concerned about enforcement, he should join with Conservatives and, at the upcoming review, try to strengthen the regime so that those who are tasked with enforcing CEPA have all the tools they need to comply, while bearing in mind that Canadian businesses are very honest. If the law is changed as Mr. Davidson suggested in this bill, that would go a long way towards seeing their compliance, albeit there may be an act or two that we need to work on. That's exactly what we're proposing here.
We've also heard the concerns of industry.
As a former parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, I will say that the two-year timeline that officials gave is for a standard review of regulations. Again, this is a very small bill. For example, very simple changes to the schedule can be made by the minister directly. This is not the same as a wholesale revision of a set of regulations, which can take two years.
I want to thank Madam Pauzé for believing that we can express ourselves as a Parliament and, at the same time, recognize some concerns by government or industry about the implementation and, at the same time, give them a timeline that is clear and that allows them to be able to work within it. I certainly appreciate the friendly amendment and look forward to—hopefully—having convinced Mr. Bittle to vote for Madam Pauzé's and my amendment today.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Madam Pauzé for proposing a way for us to work. I really appreciate having a committee that tries to work together, even at difficult moments. I think that's critically important in the work that we do here.
I'd like to ask the officials if they could weigh in on this. In light of the deficiencies and the matters we have discussed here, and in light of the concerns that many colleagues have expressed in the implementation process of this bill, could any of you weigh in with us on what are reasonable and realistic timelines in addressing a bill of this nature?
My colleague Mr. Albas seems to have an understanding that the timeline could be held tight.
Again, I will pull my rookie card here and say that I am less familiar with these processes. I would like to hear from officials, if I may, on what their thoughts are on getting this bill to a place that we're all comfortable with.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
March 31st, 2021 / 3:45 p.m.
Dany Drouin Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate, Department of the Environment
If it's okay, Mr. Chair, I will start, and I think you'll benefit from the expertise of both Nathalie Perron and Laura Farquharson.
I want to clarify that the plastic amendments of the Basel Convention were accepted by Canada in December, so they're now in effect.
On the question of the bill, Nathalie can present some implications on operations.
3:50 p.m.
Nathalie Perron Director, Waste Reduction and Management Division, Department of the Environment
Thank you.
With respect to implementing the bill, we'll definitely have to look at the need to develop regulations. The average timeline, which I would say is an optimistic timeline, is two years. That is because—if we take the definitions, for example—we will need to have an informal consultation before we even get into the formal consultation. We will have to talk to people and get information to allow us to do the requirements from Treasury Board and CEPA. They require us to conduct a socio-economic analysis and an environmental impact analysis. That of course takes quite a bit of effort and time.
As for amendments to a schedule of an act, the way we understand the bill as written is that it is the Governor in Council who would be able to make amendments to the schedule, on the recommendation of the minister. That process requires a mandatory publication and consultation period in the Canada Gazette of at least 60 days.
We must fulfill the mandatory requirements from the Treasury Board. That is why it would take an average of two years before we are able to publish the regulations in the Canada Gazette.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I guess I'd like to revisit Mr. Albas's revisionist history of the other day, especially in light of what we just heard from officials.
The Government of Canada has taken action on this file. I mentioned it on Monday. This is an issue that I think everyone here is interested in, that everyone here wants to see action on.
There are two different views. There's a view from Mr. Albas's party, which is “Oh dear goodness, let us pass some environmental piece of legislation as quickly as possible, regardless of what it is, so that we can get away from the bad couple of weeks we've been having and say that we're doing something,” even though there's a full acknowledgement by him that there are flaws, that it may or may not be enforceable and that investigation may or may not be possible with respect to this amendment. It's all coming back down to the length of time.
I appreciate the fact that Madam Pauzé is being far more reasonable on this subject with respect to an acknowledgement from the officials who have come to us and said that this is going to need some changes, that there are some issues and that it could take upwards of two years. If this legislation passes Parliament, don't we want to see it enacted properly? That should be a significant concern to everyone here, especially if Ms. Collins and Mr. Albas have fully acknowledged the flaws in this bill. I would think they would want as much time as possible.
I know that Ms. Collins said that any step forward is a good step forward, and this is a small step forward. However, do we even know if that's the case if industry is saying that jobs are going to be lost, if there's concern about landfills—and I'm just coming into this at the last minute—and if there are issues with respect to enforceability?
I agree with Mr. Albas that Canadian industry is well respected and is a solid player with respect to this—it plays by the rules—but he knows that there is a certain percentage that won't, which is why there needs to be an enforcement provision. [Technical difficulty—Editor] is to exist, it should be done in the appropriate way.
Again, it's really bizarre to see a committee so gung-ho about passing legislation where there's acknowledgement that it is flawed and there are significant problems. Perhaps there are broader problems with the act beyond this. It should warrant some discussion.
Again, I'm new. I'm getting briefed on various elements of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and I look forward to my briefings on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and issues and possibilities forward.
Again, this is strange ground in my five and a half years in this place. I don't think I've ever seen a bill like this where all the parties have said, “There are problems and there are flaws. Let's try to limit the debate and get this through and done as quickly as we can.” This isn't a bill that is pure symbolism. This is going to have real-life impacts on people's lives.
I appreciate the significance of wanting that symbolic political win, and I think we would all like that win for the environment. Every person in this committee wants us to do better on plastic waste. That's something I want to see. However, if we're not going to do it in a realistic way, with a realistic timetable, with government officials, in their professional diplomatic way, waving the red flag at us....
I don't know. Is there an acknowledgement by the opposition? I believe the officials in what they're saying and that they're telling the truth. Is there not a belief by the opposition that there's exaggeration going on by the officials? That's what it seems like to me, with Mr. Albas saying, no, it won't take that long, six months is fine—now 12 months—and two years can't be right.
I take the officials at their word that this is the likely process, so if there's an acknowledgement that it needs to be fixed and that it's going to take that period of time, perhaps we should be engaged in a realistic discussion about the length of time and perhaps be more amenable to what the officials are telling us: that even though we might like it to happen tomorrow, there's a process in place and there are consultations in place.
Though we might like it to go faster, there's a process that needs to play out for it to be appropriate and for it to be done properly, and we're not giving that to them. If it does pass the House and it does pass the Senate, what are we left with if the will of Parliament can't be carried out in the way that the committee and Parliament want?
At the end of the day, passing this piece of legislation and expecting that it be carried out, that it be enforced.... If we're all here and we're all saying that's going to be a problem, let's at least give ourselves some time, the proper amount of time, to address these issues.
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Pauzé, I appreciate your efforts to find a reasonable solution.
The department officials just told us that two years would be an optimistic time frame for implementing the bill.
In the spirit of co-operation, I would like to propose a subamendment to Ms. Pauzé's amendment. I move that the time frame for the bill's coming into force be increased from one year to two years. That would provide the necessary flexibility to implement the bill properly.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Clerk, can you tell me whether Ms. Pauzé and Mr. Albas both have to agree, or whether we just need consent from Ms. Pauzé?
4 p.m.
Jacques Maziade Legislative Clerk
Mr. Chair, procedurally speaking, there is technically no such thing as a friendly amendment. I noticed earlier that everyone was in agreement to increase the time frame from six to 12 months. In this case, neither Ms. Pauzé nor Mr. Albas needs to consent. If everyone agrees on what is being proposed, then, it's fine. If they don't, however, the subamendment cannot be moved, since it's not possible to move a subamendment to a subamendment. The committee has to deal with the first subamendment, and then, a new subamendment can be put forward.
4 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We don't have unanimous consent, so we have to vote.
Just before, Ms. Collins would like the floor. Then, if no one else wishes to speak, we will proceed with the vote.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'd like to speak to this subamendment as well.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Are we going to be voting on Mr. Baker's subamendment, or are we just simply going to—
4 p.m.
Liberal