Evidence of meeting #29 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 plastics.
A video is available from Parliament.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Can I ask for clarification? I'm not certain what your question is.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Basically, if there are substances that bioaccumulate and we know that they're dangerous for marine systems, avian birds or things like that, how are you going to create the regulations? How are you going to decide what...?
I want to have an understanding of the processes. How are you going to do the regulations?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
With respect to the approach for regulatory and non-regulatory measures, we had laid out the approach in our discussion document. We are looking specifically at the ban targeting those items that are found in the environment and are known to cause or potentially cause problems, and we're not able to recover them or they're hindering the recovery system and they're not being recycled. That's how we're targeting those items.
With respect to other considerations on what other measures may be needed, we'll assess the information put forward. This includes the additional research that's been undertaken and that Marc D'Iorio and his team and colleagues elsewhere in the Government of Canada are doing. We'll be guided with respect to what their findings are.
On the other items, with respect to the life cycle, we're targeting actions to stop it from getting into the environment so that we don't have that problem. We're targeting actions to encourage circularity and keep the value of the plastics in the economy and out of the environment. We're looking at specific considerations on how we can do that with, for instance, recycling standards and compostability, etc.
When the actions and regulatory proposals are put forward, we do that jointly with Health Canada. We advance this work in co-operation with them.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The other thing we heard from industry was that there's currently a patchwork of regulations across multiple jurisdictions. Sometimes this makes it difficult for businesses. There should be some unified regulatory framework that would create more certainty for business.
Can you comment on how consistent and unified regulations would help businesses?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
We have heard from industry about the importance of this. We have heard it in particular with respect to things like extended producer responsibility. They want to have the same sort of rules apply across the country. Many businesses operate in multiple jurisdictions and need to have that consistency. We hear from them about the importance of being able to define what the criteria are for things like compostability so that in the design of their product they can make sure it can be composted by the facility that's going to be using it.
With respect to recycled content, it's understanding what types of plastics should be being handled. For instance, can the recovery and recycling facility manage it? There's some specificity with respect to that. All of this work is being advanced in co-operation with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and our provincial and territorial colleagues to look at how we can put those elements in place.
Some of these elements are being led by the Government of Canada. We expect to put forward, for instance, proposals with respect to some of those standards, as my colleague Dany Drouin mentioned, through our work with the Standards Council of Canada and the Bureau de normalisation du Québec.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We've reached one hour exactly, to the minute. We'll stop here.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair; I have a quick a point of order when you're done.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Very quickly, there was some confusion with respect to a publication that was it suggested was removed from the Government of Canada website. Though it's not on the ECCC website, it is on publications.gc.ca.
I'm more than happy to provide the link to the clerk, if that would help Mr. Redekopp with his question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. That's good information.
I want to thank the witnesses. I have a feeling that we'll be seeing you again at some point. I don't know when, but we've established a regular working relationship with our witnesses from the department. Thank you again.
Thank you to the members.
We're going to suspend and then go in camera for the second hour. We'll see everyone again shortly, I'm sure.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would ask Mr. Saini to reread his amendment, and we'll start from there.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I move that the sixth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be amended as follows:
In clause 4, replace “once” with “given”; replace “four” with “three”; replace “two” with “three”; and replace “and if necessary,” with “that all”; delete “on clause-by clause”; and replace the final part with “and up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 17 and up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 24”.
In clause 5, replace “Wednesday, May 26, 2021” with “Monday, May 17, 2021 or as soon as possible thereafter”.
In clause 6, replace “Sunday, May 16, 2021” with “Monday, May 10, 2021”.
Chair, I understand the clerk has properly distributed the amendment.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Just for clarity purposes, I'd like to repeat clause 4. This is how it will read now: “That given Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, has been referred to the committee, the committee hold six meetings regarding the bill, three with witnesses and three for clause-by-clause, that all the meetings be scheduled for three hours each, and that up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 17 and up to three meetings be scheduled the week of May 24.”
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Just to make sure we're following process, did we have a motion to even get the subcommittee's report on deck?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, we're going to go right back to the very start. We're going to start like nothing happened before.
I'm suggesting that we adopt the sixth report.
Mr. Saini—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm not asking him to repeat it again, Mr. Chair, but it's just important that we start with—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll start with the sixth report.
We have Mr. Saini's amendment, and we now have Mr. Longfield, who would like to speak.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think this amendment is based on the availability of the minister coming in on the 17th. Also, being able to move up the schedule with three-hour meetings will get it back to the House expeditiously so that we can continue the work there.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we had the original meeting, there was consensus with everyone that we would have this process. Obviously the committee itself reserves the right to make a change from what the steering committee has proposed, and that is Mr. Saini's right, but to have this much of a change without checking in with other ones is unfortunate.
What I also would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that this really limits the amount of time we have to be able to send in witnesses. I know there are going to be some who really want to have this bill pass with flying colours—I'm sure there are those—but other parliamentarians want to make sure that we do not rush this job so fast that we don't have witnesses coming in. This abbreviated, expedited schedule, I think, puts that at risk.
I also would suggest, Mr. Chair, that there are also challenges with having three-hour meetings. I don't know if we checked in to see if these dates are available or whether or not we can go on that far. I've been reading stories, as I'm sure all of us have, about the difficulty of having translation available. We've also talked in this motion about allowing people to send in their briefs; there may not be enough time to be able to properly translate them.
I understand the desire of the Liberal government to jump forward, but really, they should have come to the table at the steering committee and had a good discussion around these things so that we wouldn't be taking up significant airtime and significant time for members of Parliament to relitigate what was originally a consensus report.
I'll stop there. Maybe there are some other points I might want to address or that maybe other members might want to address, Mr. Chair, but I really think that by jamming this up front, we are going to see fewer witnesses, have briefs that are not translated and not do our jobs as members of Parliament. I think that it does no one any service.