House of Commons Hansard #33 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was products.

Topics

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate when all members bring their individual private members' motions or bills to this place. It is an opportunity for members of Parliament to show where their priorities are.

By utilizing the term “all products in Canada”, what is this saying to small, micro-entrepreneurs who, let us say, assemble small jewellery or crafts? What about restaurants right now that are struggling and want to put out a new product, perhaps a house salad dressing? Why would they have to go through the cost of figuring out how much water or greenhouse gas emissions they use?

To me, it seems the member is asking for these small, micro-businesses that are already suffering under COVID-19 to bear a lot of red tape.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, just this week I went to a farm, where I purchased meat and vegetables from local farmers. None of these had the nutritional guide on it that Canadians have said is law.

When people go to flea markets or small businesses, this is not a burden we would be placing on them. However, I would add that local farms and businesses will benefit the most from this because local is probably the most environmentally friendly. This is something that a study could really dive into, to ensure that we are not burdening small and medium-sized enterprises with this.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, as I read the member's motion, I wondered whether he knows that eco-labelling already exists. I felt that his motion did not take into account the role that Quebec and the provinces play in managing eco-labelling.

What does he think about that?

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, indeed, a number of restaurants, a number of provinces and a number of places are taking leadership on this, but the problem is they are inconsistent. What I am proposing is a Canada-wide labelling program that is consistent.

I understand that there is different eco-labelling, but it is just too confusing to consumers. I am looking for clear and concise consumer-friendly information just by looking at the package and understanding what it means.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, it is unclear how effective eco-labelling really is on influencing consumer behaviour and, ultimately, on reducing environmental impacts. A study from the U.K. ultimately recommended that companies be required to modify the source of their products rather than rely on consumer decisions.

Eco-labels could be good for consumer choice and demand for more sustainable products to help push producers to create more environmentally friendly products. My concern is the focus on the individual, especially when we have a government that recently put forward a climate bill that had no target for 2025 and no accountability for 10 years, that bought a pipeline and that has taken decades to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The member opposite talked about eco-labels being inconsistent. The government is inconsistent and I am wondering how he stands behind that.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I can only share from my experience of being a member of Parliament for a year is that we all have a role to play moving forward. However, I have been Mi'kmaq for my entire life. Indigenous knowledge, and indigenous knowledge holders, have told Canadians for generations that we need to do more for our environment and that we need to foster those relationships that we create.

Indigenous scholars are out there asking for environmental reconciliation. We all have a role to play in this, and I hope this is something we can look toward and say that this is a positive step along with all the other things we are doing. I am proud that I have a government that just yesterday stepped up and made sure that in the future we would have accountability for our environment.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the chance to speak about this motion from the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I would like to start by saying I agree with the beginning of the motion, which says that Canadians are looking for opportunities to make an environmental difference in their day-to-day lives. Also, more information is certainly a good thing. However, this motion and its goals have serious problems that I would like to speak about today.

It is undoubtedly true that a great many consumers use and like products every day that have labels that mark them as environmentally friendly. These labelling regimes are virtually all voluntary, and each company decides if it is going to participate and if that is in its best interests. Certainly a great many do, and that is an example of the market at work. From EcoLogo, to the Marine Stewardship Council and organic produce, these voluntary labelling regimes have been very advantageous for a great many businesses. Indeed, a report from the OECD on labelling regimes, such as the one proposed by the member, states that except for labelling related to energy efficiency, virtually every labelling regime is voluntary.

However, the language in the motion related to recommending “a consumer-friendly environment grading label on all products available to Canadian consumers” is full of pitfalls.

First, the motion instructs the committee to recommend a regime. There is no allowance for the committee to study various regimes and then decide not to recommend any labelling. Committees must be allowed to determine the results of their own studies.

Second, although it is important for any regulations to be consumer friendly, this motion does not mention the need to be producer friendly or industry friendly.

Any future rules must be designed to ensure that producers are not unfairly punished. If anyone is thinking that I am just talking about big corporations, allow me to show how this regime could harm small businesses.

The member mentioned a labelling regime that would apply to all products in Canada, which to me sounds like it would be mandatory. The motion also lists the elements covered by this regime, such as greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy usage.

This proposal could have devastating consequences for small businesses in Canada. One example would be someone who has a second job making jewellery to sell on Etsy. Will this business owner now have to include information on the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the jewellery they are selling? What about a small family restaurant that decides to bottle and sell their house sauce? Will the restaurant have to hire a consultant to measure and calculate the energy and water used to produce this product in order to meet the labelling requirements?

I assume that when the member presented this motion, he was thinking that large companies would be able to do these calculations much more easily. However, the motion talks about a regime that would apply to all products in Canada, meaning every single product in Canada. Such a regime would decimate Canada's product-based small businesses. There is no way they could possibly comply.

It would also create a booming industry for consultants, and higher consumer prices, as businesses struggle to comply with these rules and the added costs. The member for Sydney—Victoria may say that is not the situation he wants and it is why he is calling for a study, but then why would he so clearly lay out in the motion that he expects the committee to “recommend a consumer-friendly environment grading label on all products available to Canadian consumers”? He does not suggest looking into the regimes to see what our best practice is. He says to recommend a regime that applies to all products. If the member disagrees with my interpretation then he is perfectly able to perhaps amend his own motion to make this abundantly clear.

I would now like to briefly touch on the regimes that already exist and why strictly voluntary regimes are ideal. The Ecolabel Index lists 456 different regimes globally that address various environmental measures. I gave a few examples earlier, but many of these will be well known to Canadians. For example, the organic label has long been used by producers and consumers to make buying choices. It is completely voluntary, and many choose to use it. EcoLogo is another one used in Canada that shows a product is among the top 20% most environmentally friendly products in the market. I know that dining in restaurants is down now, but I am sure that many people will recognize the Ocean Wise symbol that demonstrates seafood meets certain sustainability principles.

I give all of these examples to show that these labels are not bad. The issue is when they are forced upon companies without understanding the impacts. I completely support any producer or company that believes applying and complying with these regimes is best for their business. I also completely support any consumers who wish to make their buying decisions based on that information. That is the free market at work: a willing buyer and a willing seller.

What I do not support is a top-down, Ottawa-knows-best regulation that removes producer choice and destroys small businesses. An OECD report states that the negative side of mandatory regimes, such as the one being considered in this motion, is that they have huge compliance costs and an increased complexity of supply chains.

It would be completely impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to abide by the guidelines set out in a mandatory Canada-wide regime, and such a regime would kill all the businesses that are barely hanging on right now because of the pandemic.

Statistics Canada data show that self-employed workers, many of whom would be affected, are still feeling the burden of the pandemic weighing on their business. This Liberal plan would kick them when they are down. Let us not do that. Instead, let us find ways to support struggling businesses.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention our frustration with the use of motions in the House to control committee agendas. I spoke about this in the context of Motion No. 34 just a few weeks ago.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and every party has excellent studies to propose, but we do not have very much time. It is not appropriate for a member who is not even part of the committee to propose a motion that would require 12 meetings to study. This motion would paralyze the committee for two months when we already have a lot of important work on our plate.

The sponsor of the previous motion was willing to amend his motion to make it more acceptable in that regard. I am wondering whether this member would be open to doing the same.

A motion that orders a committee to recommend a regime is not appropriate and should not be examined. If the motion was about examining how voluntary regimes work and let the committee decide on the number of meetings, that would be different.

As I mentioned, I am very concerned about this motion and its impact on Parliament, Canada and Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses that are fighting to survive. Attacking entrepreneurs who are following—

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. The member's time is up. He may be able to continue during the next reading. I congratulate him on his French, which is much improved.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Repentigny.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intention behind the member for Sydney—Victoria's motion. Government measures, effective policies and the quality of the policies put forward are at the forefront of my mind as environment critic. However, I have to point out some of the flaws in this motion.

I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Motion No. 35, even though we recognize that eco-labelling has its virtues and that such a mechanism is worthwhile. Over the past 40 years, there has been a lot of demand for that type of labelling.

That said, aside from the fact that the motion calls for 12 meetings of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which would take up a lot of time, there are some issues with the wording of the motion itself, starting with the fact that it says the government has the capacity to create a “clear and concise metric by which Canadians can consider the impacts of their buying habits”. It is not the government's job to operationalize that. What we need to figure out is whether it can be done.

Experts have written hundreds of documents analyzing the vast eco-labelling landscape, and there is a virtually infinite body of technical knowledge on the subject. We can certainly see why. Eco-labelling actually exists already. The flexibility and rigidity of various systems and logos fall into three categories: certifications, self-declared claims and environmental product declarations.

For instance, Quebec has 10 certification bodies in the construction and renovation sector, 10 for residential and industrial cleaning products, eight for electronics, 13 for the food sector, and so on.

Furthermore, the motion ignores the role played by Quebec and the other provinces in managing eco-labels. Creating a single label that would cover all products is impossible. Under no circumstances could a single certification apply to all consumer goods, because each sector, and even each subsector, has its own unique characteristics. For example, one cannot compare the environmental sustainability or the carbon footprint of a fish with that of a two-by-four. If that were possible, it would be worrisome and even pointless.

I would also like to point out that Canada imports a lot of goods, and based on the current wording, the motion would apply to all imported goods, as well. Every organization behind a logo must provide clear information on the measures and criteria it applies to authorize the use of that logo. This information is available to consumers. The vast range of criteria behind a logo cannot be standardized.

From a business perspective, eco-labels are used to promote the products on which they appear. Manufacturers have made organizational and financial efforts. They have put in place procedures to have the privilege of demonstrating their environmental probity. Generally, they make these efforts because they know that consumers notice them.

In other words, there is an important business aspect in the ecosystem of eco-labels that must be considered. Consumers' appreciation of businesses that show good corporate citizenship is real and growing. I think that is excellent news. It means that Quebec and Canadian consumers and consumers around the world where these ecosystems exist can make choices.

For the average citizen with an awareness of the environmental issues caused by the goods they consume, seeing an eco-label will surely generate a feeling of satisfaction. It is a confirmation of their values and it helps the cause of environmental protection. Some consumers only buy eco-certified products.

Companies that agree to a certification process are committed to doing better, which does not go unnoticed. It is not nothing. Let's talk about corporations that have implemented ISO 14000. The Bureau de normalisation du Québec is an expert in this standard and responsible for its successful implementation in Quebec. It knows the positive impact this has had on thousands of businesses. Some labels even include social criteria such as workers rights and fair trade. Motion No. 35 gives the impression that eco-labelling does not exist, but that is not true.

The web site of Quebec's environment and climate change ministry has some interesting information for anyone who wants to learn more about this.

Canada's Competition Bureau has also looked at environmental claims with the Canadian Standards Association. Canada has national expertise on standards, but it should be pointed out that, in order to do what Motion No. 35 is asking, we would need to work within a set of standards. It is important to consider these standards in order to avoid what is known as greenwashing. Working within a set of standards is an ever-present concern when it comes to obtaining these environmental logos or accreditations, no matter the category of products.

It is no secret that we are already very well aware of the environmental impact of certain industries.

We are not ruling out the potential of eco-labelling in the green shift that is needed, but we will focus on several sector-based actions. Here are a few examples: develop energy efficiency and recovery in all sectors; demand that Canadian manufacturers optimize their production operations with processes that are safe for the environment and human health, without compromise; focus on efforts to update the list of banned chemicals; monitor production conditions in this industry sector; promote organic farming and animal husbandry practices, with proximity between production and destination as a priority; and support production activities that genuinely take the life cycle of the product into account. I could go on with many other examples.

I would now like to change tack a little and point out that my colleague put his motion into context by saying, “Canadians understand that climate change represents a threat to our way of life and are looking for opportunities where they can make a difference in their day-to-day lives”.

Personal responsibility is commendable. Making consumer choices based on our values is also commendable. We are responsible for the things we purchase. However, perhaps the government members should stop always criticizing citizens for their climate actions and look toward the big players, those that have a real impact on the crisis affecting us, such as the oil sector, the gas sector and the nuclear sector. We hope that the government members will introduce binding legislation to meet the Paris targets.

I cannot end my speech without mentioning another label, the GMO label for genetically modified organisms. I know that this is not so much about whether these GMOs produce greenhouse gases, but about identifying the foods we eat. GMO labels should indicate that these are genetically modified living organisms that pose a risk and a threat to biodiversity. If there is an eco-labelling issue that deserves our attention, it is that one.

For more than 10 years, 85% of Quebeckers have been calling for such labelling. Initiatives were even put forward here in the House more than 10 years ago, when the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill that was never adopted.

In Europe, labelling GMOs has been mandatory since 1997, for 23 years, and European countries even strengthened their legislation in 2004. Why can Europeans know the characteristics and identification of what they are eating, but we cannot? We already have a fairly clear picture of what is harmful to the environment in Canada.

The government has missed several opportunities to take action on the inherent threats of climate change. When we are elected, we take responsibility, and when we make promises, we must keep them.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, Canadians understand the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss. They want to be better consumers and make more sustainable choices. Environmental grading labels, or eco-labels, could provide Canadians with information about the environmental impacts of products and allow them to make more informed choices.

This could also incentivize producers to create more environmentally friendly and sustainable products to meet consumer demand, but we need to ensure the burden of environmental protection does not fall on individuals alone. Any consumer labelling should always be coupled with strong regulatory standards and real climate action.

The possibility of having the government implement an across-the-board environment grading label that includes greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage and waste creation is certainly an interesting idea. Worldwide there are 456 eco-labels in 199 countries, covering 25 industry sectors.

These labels cover a wide range of environmental criteria for products from cosmetics and clothing to cleaning, home and garden and paper products. Some eco-labels are created and managed on a national level while others are international in scope. They may be based on a narrow set of considerations or more complex full life-cycle assessments.

Consumers who want to make more environmentally friendly choices often have trouble recognizing the meaning of the wide range of labels they are faced with. It is not always obvious which specific environmental claims are true, what they mean or what assurances exist, if any, regarding their accuracy. While consumers distrust private businesses to provide credible environmental information, they do trust governments and environmental NGOs to provide that information.

If the government were to play a role in implementing an environmental grading label for all products and services available to Canadian consumers, it could help to address some of these issues. However, it is unclear how effective eco-labelling really is on influencing consumer behaviour, and ultimately on our goal of reducing environmental impacts.

As I mentioned, a study from the U.K. recommended companies be required to modify the sources of their products rather than rely on consumer decisions. Eco-labels could be good for consumer choice, and increased demand for sustainable products could help push producers to create more environmentally friendly products, but these labels should be attached to strong regulatory standards so we are not relying on consumers to shop defensively.

We need to ensure the burden of environmental protection and climate action does not fall on individuals. We should be taking strong action to strengthen regulatory standards and enforcement. We also need to be better on producer accountability, especially when it comes to plastics.

The modernization and strengthening of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is one way this can be done and is very important. The purpose of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is to prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health. It sets out rules for preventing and regulating toxic substances and for managing pollution.

However, CEPA is out of date and badly in need of reform. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed CEPA in 2017 and made 87 recommendations to strengthen and modernize this act, but so far the government has failed to act.

One of those recommendations is that the right to a healthy environment should be enshrined in law. This is so important, and I want to give a shout-out to the member for Winnipeg Centre who put forward a motion not only to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law but to make sure the foundation is built upon a recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Too often, vulnerable and marginalized populations bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm, and CEPA lacks provisions to protect those who have been made vulnerable or to safeguard against environmental injustice. We need protection for people who are inequitably impacted, including front-line workers, women, children, the elderly and people living in pollution hot spots, too often indigenous communities.

The NDP would like to see an environmental bill of rights that would ensure all Canadians can enjoy a guarantee of clean water, land and air. These are the changes my NDP colleagues and I have been pushing for.

I also want to acknowledge two exceptional young people from my riding of Victoria. They have been advocating for environmental rights since they were seven and 10 years old. They have created a petition with the House of Commons, urging the federal government to update CEPA, including amendments to recognize environmental rights in Canada. Today is the last day for the petition to be open for signatures. It has already gained 8,000 signatures from people across the country.

I am awed, inspired and thankful for the leadership that Franny and Rupert have shown in their advocacy. However, young people should not have to be advocating for these rights. Their government should be leading the way on protecting our environment and our health.

When it comes to waste creation, Canadians thought they were doing their part when it came to recycling. It turns out that less than 10% of plastics disposed of by Canadians every year is recycled. It is now clear that recycling alone is not enough; we need to also stop producing so much waste. Almost half the plastic produced in Canada is from packaging, yet packaging is not included in the government's plan for a ban on the use of plastics. Dealing with our waste does not just mean disposing of it or recycling it. We need leadership on waste reduction targets and a plan to get to a zero-waste Canada. In order to do that, producer accountability, when it comes to the production of plastics, is critical.

Canada is not anywhere close to being on track to meeting its climate targets and we know that those targets are not adequate to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions we need to avoid catastrophic climate change. We are not even close, which is, I guess, the reason why the government is trying to avoid accountability for the next 10 years. The scope of the cuts to carbon emissions is so beyond what the government thinks is achievable and it is definitely beyond what this motion and eco-labelling attempt to do through making more sustainable purchasing choices.

Canadians want to do their part, but we should be careful not to emphasize individual purchasing choices over the bold systemic changes we need to address the climate crisis. We need to end fossil fuel subsidies. We need to implement real climate accountability. We need to invest in sustainable jobs and a low-carbon future.

Canadians understand that the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss pose a great existential threat to our environment, to our health, to our communities and to our future. They want to make better and more environmentally sustainable choices, but they also expect their government to do its part in protecting our land, air and water.

One way of doing that is by setting strong environmental standards and requiring producer accountability. The burden of environmental protection cannot fall on individuals alone. We need to prioritize taking strong action to strengthen regulatory standards, modernizing CEPA and taking bold action on the climate crisis.

We cannot keep putting off action on the climate crisis. Canadians are worried about their future. Parents should not have to worry about the air their children breathe. Students and young people should not have to march in the streets just to draw attention to the crisis that is happening because politicians and people in leadership positions are not protecting their future.

The recent climate accountability bill was a good step forward, but it is not enough. This eco-labelling motion is an interesting idea, but we need to focus on what our priorities are, especially in the upcoming 10 years. This is why it is so egregious that the government has left out a five-year milestone target. It has put off accountability for the next decade, the most critical decade.

Jack Layton was the first person to put forward a climate accountability bill in the House and he would not want us to wait another 10 years to see accountability. We need to push the government to take real climate action. We need investments in good jobs, in the kind of good, long-term sustainable jobs of the future.

I want to thank the member again for putting forward the motion, but we need to focus on what is important to Canadians, and that is real climate action.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak. I am honoured to rise today in support of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, on his private member's motion: an instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like to thank the learned member for passionately bringing forward this considered motion and for his continued and tireless hard work in helping Canadians understand the environmental impacts of the products they buy and use.

Our government shares the hon. member's concerns about the negative impacts of climate change and pollution, and we know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are eager to take action on these important issues. When given accurate and accessible information, Canadians are eager, in their day-to-day lives, to make informed decisions about their health and the environment. Our government has already taken important steps to equip Canadians with the clear, accurate and objective information that they need to understand the environmental impacts of the products they purchase and to confront the growing global crisis that is climate change.

Canadians have long understood that more informative labelling on packaging can lead to more informed consumer decisions. Since 2007, when nutritional labelling became mandatory, Canadians have had the opportunity to make informed decisions about the food they put in their bodies. Nutrition labelling has been designed to be easy to find and simple to read to permit Canadians to make informed food choices. Essential information, such as where the food was grown, prepared and packaged, has proven incredibly popular, as have counts of calories, vitamins, minerals and preservatives. All of which, I might add, has been calculated to single servings.

Now Canadians want the same level of ease in finding information about the environmental impact of consumer products when it comes to exercising their purchasing power. Just as Canadians want to know what they are putting in their bodies, they also want to know their footprint on the environment. Instead of counting calories, they are counting carbon. Instead of asking what preservatives are in their food, they want to know how much particulate matter is in the air. Instead of protein, they are asking about pollution. Not all Canadians have weight loss goals, but almost all Canadians do have “waste less” goals.

As always, our government understands that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand. Having access to this information could also help support Canada's transition to a circular economy. Moving towards a circular economy means focusing on new, innovative approaches and technologies to create economic opportunities out of materials that might otherwise be thrown away as waste, while at the same time promoting innovative product and commodity designs that can easily lead to reuse or recycling.

Canadians are already making environmentally responsible choices when they shop, and they want to play an active role in minimizing the environmental impacts of the products they buy and use. This is why so many cities and municipalities have taken steps to ban single-use plastic bags and why we are seeing a wave of zero-waste groups on social media.

Canadians have said that they are willing to pay more for sustainable products. While this shows that Canadians are ready to take strong action to protect the environment and to fight climate change, our government does not believe that Canadians should have to pay for making the right choices. This is why the Government of Canada has introduced the climate action incentive as part of our plan to put a price on pollution and combat climate change.

Canadians take these issues very seriously and are interested in knowing about the ingredients in the products they buy and how they can safely recycle products after their use and reuse. Canadians want the information they are looking for to be accessible, easy to find and without the use of extra packaging. At this moment Canadians are also keenly aware of affordability and competitiveness, as is our government.

Consequently, the motion put forward by the hon. member would enable members and Canadians to better understand how product labelling can empower Canadians to take further action on important issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy usage, and waste generation. There is a lot of interest in the role of labelling. There is also a need to better understand the ways it can be useful and some of the practical challenges associated with broader use of labelling requirements. I think the motion could be broadened in scope to include possible topics such as chemicals in products, recyclability, durability and digital labelling.

Therefore, I move that the motion be amended by:

(a) replacing “and (b) the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development” with the following: “and (b) the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology”;

(b) replacing “(iii) schedule no fewer than 12 meetings for the study” with the following: “(iii) schedule no fewer than six meetings for the study”; and

(c) adding in part (b)(ii) after “waste creation”, the following: “chemicals in products, recyclability, and durability, and which labelling could also include digital labelling to avoid increasing the need for packaging”

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

To propose an amendment, the author of the motion needs to be in favour of the amendment. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria if he is in favour of the amendments.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I am, and I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments and for his really well-thought-out amendment.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), given that there is consent, the amendment is in order.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be the seconder of the motion. I think the member has brought forward a vision that many Canadians hold dear to their hearts. Recognizing the value of packaging and labelling and how it is that we can better inform the consumer is, in good part, what this motion is about. I thank the member also for moving forward with the amendment.

I do not understand why people would not support a motion that provides the opportunity for the consumer to be that much more knowledgeable. We know the people of Canada today want to be more sensitive to our environment and to climate change. The motion we are talking about today will further the cause of better informing consumers with respect to what they are choosing and its impact on our environment. That is the reason why I feel fairly confident in what the member is hoping to accomplish with the motion.

I specifically look at our younger people. I think there is a lot we can learn from the young people of Canada today as they continue to heighten their expectations of leaders of all different political stripes at all different levels of government, and challenge us to move forward. That is something the mover of the motion has done for all members of the House of Commons. What the motion does is it asks members to recognize the reality of what our constituents would want us to be looking at. That is why I believe the member has done a great service to the House of Commons by allowing us to participate in a debate that is very important. I know we will get another hour of debate coming up when the motion comes forward and I look forward to that ongoing discussion on the motion.

Suffice it to say, when we look at climate change, we just had a major announcement from the minister and the Prime Minister yesterday responding to what it is Canadians want us to bring forward. Whether it is the climate action plan of the government of the day or a motion from a private member on a good initiative, combined or individually, they send a very strong message, which is that we are listening and want to deliver in tangible ways, not only looking at the bigger picture of government but also the important role individuals in society have to play.

I look forward to being able to conclude my remarks when the motion next comes up for debate.

Environmentally Conscious LabellingPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 1:57 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:57 p.m.)