SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 5:11:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant line item expenditures is the Canada disability benefit. It is a substantial— An hon. member: One billion a year?

27 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/18/24 5:12:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, $1 billion is a considerable amount of money, believe it or not, for the member across the way. At the end of the day, I find it a little confusing. I am trying to understand the Conservatives' policy on the Canada disability benefit. That should not surprise anyone, because we do not know what their policy is on the pharmacare plan or the dental plan. We assume, based on their voting patterns, that they are against those initiatives. Does the member support the allocations in the budget for programs such as the dental program, the pharmacare program and the disability program?

103 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/18/24 5:12:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the government is applauding the disability program. It over-promised and under-delivered. If we want to talk about line items in the budget, let us talk about debt servicing costs. Debt servicing costs are now the exact same amount that the GST is to require. I have a bunch of friends I like to see on Fridays at Frank's compound, Waxy and Frank. Those guys go for lunch once a week. Now, every time they get a bill that has GST on it, they are paying interest on the debt. There might be some good things in the budget, but people do not buy a house because they like the curtains.

118 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Apr/18/24 5:13:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, page 74 of the budget says that the government is exploring new measures to expand access to alternative financing products for mortgages, including halal mortgages. We know, or rather we do not know, the Conservatives' regard for the separation of church and state. We know that they love to pray for their King. That being said, I know that my colleague is very familiar with the banking system. I would like to know whether the Conservative Party is in favour of changing banking laws, mortgage laws and our prudential and mortgage regulations to accommodate certain religious minorities and possibly add to the mortgage rules certain precepts that are found in sharia law.

114 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/18/24 5:14:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to see this in the budget as well, but I must admit that I am not an expert in how those kinds of mortgages work. All Canadians would like to believe that Canadians should have access to financial products. I am interested to see how the government is going to consult on this. I do not know what is being proposed. I think we should learn a bit more. I would tell my wonderful colleague that the government is creating dual classes of mortgage borrowers with respect to those insured and uninsured on mortgage renewals. The government is allowing insured mortgage holders to shop around for a renewal but not allowing uninsured mortgage holders to shop for a better rate on renewal without doing the stress test, and that is unfair.

136 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Apr/18/24 5:15:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's financial acumen is renowned in our party. What does he think is missing from this budget that he would like to see?

27 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/18/24 5:15:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a year and a half ago, the government tabled a fall economic statement that showed a balanced budget in five years. Now the deficit is $20 billion. Since everyone started telling the government to slow down its spending, it has added $103 billion of new spending. That is net. The gross number is $156 billion. What I would like to have seen in this budget is some kind of plan.

72 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 5:16:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I reflect on the budget, what I see is a government that is committed to the issue of fairness, fairness for every generation. What I see is a consistency that has been clearly demonstrated since 2015. As a government, we have a responsibility to be there in a very real and tangible way, in many different ways, to support Canadians. We saw that in the first budget we presented back in 2015-16, shortly after the 2015 fall election, where we made it very clear that fairer taxation was important. That is the reason why we put a special tax on Canada's wealthiest one per cent back then, which the Conservative Party voted against. We also reduced the tax on Canada's middle class, which the Conservative Party also voted against. We have not been discouraged with respect to moving forward and have supported Canadians in many different ways. I can talk about the supports for the poorest seniors with the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, which was greatly enhanced back in 2016 because of a budget measure. We can go through the years that followed, where we have consistently seen the government take actions to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That is the consistency we have demonstrated. This budget is a reflection of what Canadians are telling the individual Liberal members of Parliament from coast to coast to coast. We are not saying that everything is perfect. We recognize that Canadians have very real needs. This budget, much like the fall economic statement, is there to support Canadians. One of the other things that has been consistent is the Conservative Party of Canada's approach. Its members are not there to serve the needs of Canadians. They are more interested in filibustering and being a destructive force. One member just moments ago was talking about rural Canada and how he wanted to see a certain area get a larger percentage of the carbon rebate. There is irony in that. The fall economic statement includes a doubling up of the rural carbon rebate. Why has that not been implemented? It is because of the Conservatives. They are preventing the legislation from passing, which would enable more money going into the pockets of rural Canadians, yet they criticize the government for not providing supports. That is only one example of many I could share with the House. Unlike the Conservative Party, when we talk about a sense of fairness, we mean it. One only needs to take a look at what happened during the pandemic as a great example. We created programs that saw literally millions of dollars put into the pockets and purses of Canadians so they would have disposable income to buy the groceries necessary, pay for their mortgage and so forth. We were there to support small businesses by providing things such as the wage loss subsidy, which also helped Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We can talk about how we were there for our seniors and people with disabilities with one-time payments. We could talk about infrastructure and what we have built over the last number of years. If I were going to give a Homer Simpson award to the leader of the Conservative Party, it would probably be, at least in part, for his position on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We invest billions of dollars and, as a direct result of that investment, it levers virtually $2 billion for every $1 billion we invest, and we have infrastructure projects happening across the country. What do the Conservatives say about that? They want to get rid of the Canada infrastructure program. What kind of stupid idea is that? Do they not realize the positive impact it has on Canadians every day? That is just one program about which they have no idea what they are talking about. Today, one of the needs we are facing is the issue of housing. During the nineties, no Conservatives, New Democrats or Liberals, and I am not sure about the Greens because they were not in the House at the time, but not one political party inside this chamber was advocating for the national government to play a role in non-profit housing. There was not one political party doing that. If we fast-forward to 2016, under the current Prime Minister's leadership, we saw a government begin to take an active interest in housing. When the leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing, we know what he did. He was in the position to develop a housing strategy or build houses. We barely need more than one hand to count it. He built one, two, three, four, five, six houses. That was it. His total contribution was six houses. It is literally a joke when the Conservatives stand to be critical of the government. No government in the last 50 years has done more proactively to deal with housing than this government has. We can look at the programs. There are supports for housing co-ops and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. We are working with different levels of government to ensure the dream of owning a home is possible. No government has demonstrated more leadership on the housing file than this government, which is the absolute opposite of what the current leader of the Conservative Party did when he was the minister responsible for housing. We understand the importance of the issue, and that is why we are seeing literally hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in every region of this country. We understand the best way to build more homes is by investing in it, unlike the Conservative Party. Members can look at the contrast. Today, after the leader of the Conservative Party spoke, I asked him a question. I asked him about the fact that he only built six houses. What did he do? He stood up and attempted to mislead Canadians. He said he had built 90,000 homes. That is absolute garbage, but it is consistent with what we see coming from the Conservative Party. It does not matter. The Conservatives will say things in here and they will use social media to mislead Canadians. When the leader was called out on it, I cannot say whether he stayed in the House, but he sure vacated his seat. He might have still been in the chamber, but he did not like being called out on the truth. The truth is, as a government, we recognize that there is a role for the national government, and the Leader of the Opposition does not recognize that. There is the contrast. I believe if Canadians were to understand who the leader of the Conservative Party is, they would turn their backs. They want to see a national government that is prepared to work with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profits and social enterprises, or anyone who has ideas to assist in bringing in more houses. That is what it is going to take. It is not just the federal government. It is going to take a lot more co-operation, and the federal government is prepared to provide leadership. That is what we see in the budget. One member stood up and spoke about how the government does not have anything regarding innovation and that we are not trying to encourage companies. I pointed out that we do have the accelerated investment tax credit, and the member just did not realize that. They did not hear what the Minister of Finance had said. He was being critical because he thought we did not have anything like that. Again, here is the contrast. As a national government, we recognize that there is a role for the national government to play in encouraging innovation and encouraging investment, and we are not alone. Even Progressive Conservative Doug Ford in Ontario recognizes that, which is why we landed, for example, the Volkswagen electric battery plant. Members can imagine a plant the size of 200 football fields. It is likely going to be one of, if not the, largest manufacturing plants in North America. It will provide thousands of jobs, and this is not just in Ontario. This is the type of thing in which we believe. We think of the future green jobs, and there will be a lot more coming because we have a national government that has taken an interest in developing an economy that is going to be there to continue to build jobs into the future. For those who are following the debate, I will give a clear indication of success. It took Stephen Harper almost nine years to generate just under a million jobs. Well, we are at just over eight years today, and we have actually generated over two million jobs, and that was while going through a pandemic. It is because we understand that the Government of Canada has a role to play in increasing opportunities into the future, which is why we will find that there is no government in the history of Canada that has actually signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. We have done that because Canada is a trading nation. Trade creates jobs. I was so pleased to be with the minister of agriculture in the Philippines where we opened up a trade office for agriculture and agriproducts. Why did we do that? We can take a look at future opportunities in the Asia-Pacific. I am glad that it is located in metro Manila in the Philippines. This is going to create more jobs into the future. It highlights industries that are very important to us. This is a government that cares, whether it is the larger cities, the smaller municipalities, our rural farms and all regions of the country, which is why we will see there are investments to support Canadians in every way. We can take a look at what a progressive government can do to make a difference. We can think of child care. There is a national child care program, the first ever, which enables more women to participate in the workforce and improves the quality of life for so many. We can think of the Canada pharmacare program, which would take steps towards complementing the Canada Health Act and the health care services that Canadians have grown to love and cherish. We can think of the national food program. For many years, as an MLA, I used to talk about kids going to school on an empty stomach. This is a national government that would address that issue. We are supporting children because we understand the need for it. However, what kind of response do we get from the Conservative Party, from the members opposite? They say, “Well, the federal government should not play in roles like that. Maybe just hand over money, but do not care how that money is spent.” That is not good enough. Canadians' expectations are that the government will be there to support them.

1855 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Apr/18/24 5:30:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-380

moved that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, soggy, limp, wet and utterly useless: we are not talking about the Liberals. We are talking about paper straws. The only people who like to suck on these paper straws are Liberal and NDP MPs. New research shows them to be harmful to our health because they are coated in truly toxic, forever chemicals. The Liberal replacements are four times as expensive. Just in case the Liberals in the chamber have not knocked on any doors lately or talked to Canadians, which we know is true, Canadians are suffering in the worst inflationary crisis in my lifetime. Two million Canadians are using a food bank. One in four Canadians are skipping meals because of the cost of living crisis caused by the Liberal government. The Liberal government is hell-bent on making everything more expensive. Banning plastic is bad for people's health. It is bad for their pocketbooks, and it is bad, actually, for the environment. Take a look around. People are listening to this speech, maybe in the chamber, maybe at home on their laptops or cellphones, which are all made of plastic. Many of the items we see in the rooms we are sitting in have plastic components. What the Liberals are trying to do is replace those components with more expensive materials. If people think they cannot afford their bills now, wait until the Liberals fully enact their plastic ban. Start with six items, then 16 and then 60. After that, the cost of living quadruples again. The plastic straw ban is a fantasy. It is not based on reality. The reality is that the science backs up my position. Later today, I will be attempting to table the documents that I am referencing here to help people understand the science behind this ridiculous ban that does not make sense. First up is that eco-friendly paper straws may be worse. According to this peer-reviewed article, it was reported in 2023 that many of the paper straws on the market have toxic forever chemicals like PFAS, which are associated with health problems like low birth weight, cancer, low response to vaccines and more. That is the first report that I will be tabling later on. Another one is a regulatory impact analysis statement that members of the government should know about very well because it is from the Department of Health. The government's own regulation analysis shows an increase in costs, GHG emissions and also tonnes of waste as a result of this ban. This means there will be increased emissions and increased costs for consumers. Their own report shows that. The third report that I will be tabling later today is a comparative study of a life-cycle assessment of bio-plastic straws and paper straws. This is a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that plastic straws have a lower environmental impact than paper straws. Paper straws are terrible. No one likes them. They suck. Now the science shows that they are actually bad for people's health, bad for the environment and bad for our pocketbooks. We have a waste management issue, not a plastics issue, so we do have issues. The poster child of this is garbage in the ocean. We should never use our waterways as a dump. We should never transport waste through our waterways, but that is exactly what is causing the garbage in the ocean. There are 10 rivers in the world that cause 95% of the garbage that is found in oceans. Eight of those rivers are in Asia and two in Africa. Banning more and more plastics in Canada will not stop this problem. Banning plastic straws will hurt the most vulnerable: the disability community. This ban is cruel and heartless for people who rely on safe plastic straws. If people cared and listened to Canadians, they would hear from nurses and care aids about how people with physical and mental health challenges are suffering with this ban. I have a friend who just got shoulder surgery done. He is in a sling and having difficulties drinking and carrying on. It would be nice to have one of those plastic straws that bend to be able to take sips of water as casually as can be. We are hearing from many medical professionals about how this ban has impacted their ability to care for seniors and people with disabilities. It is cruel that the Liberal government is banning one of the tools they use to make sure that people are hydrated. It is not just the straws the Liberals are banning that makes things more expensive. It is also grocery bags. Grocery stores are making a killing selling reusable plastic bags. They come with massive margins that are supposedly good for the environment. If we look in the trunk of our cars or at home, everyone has bags stuffed with other bags and stuffed with other bags on top, because every time we go to a store and forget to bring them or whatnot, we buy another reusable bag. It is the margins on these bags that are very impressive for the grocery stores. My NDP colleagues always want to bring up Galen Weston, and I am sure they receive a huge card of thanks for supporting the Liberals. Maybe the Liberals themselves will get a big card thanking them for banning plastic bags because now they get to sell reusable bags over and over again, which is maximizing profits for grocery stores. Long suffering Canadians pay the price for this ill-thought-out and illogical argument. Depending on the bag, if one buys one of the reusable ones, one might need to use it over a thousand times before it equals the environmental footprint of a plastic bag. This is unrealistic and ultimately worse for the consumer and the environment. On these reusable bags, we often see organic cotton bags, which are popular with the woke crowd. Those organic cotton bags are worse for the environment than the regular cotton bags, because they need to be used weekly for years to match the environmental footprint. The problem with organic farming is the yield is not as much off the acre of land and the inputs are different and cost more, so the organic material the stores are selling has a larger footprint than just regular cotton. It is not that long ago and we remember what it was like before we had the Prime Minister, and it will not be like this when he is gone. We used to be able to receive complimentary bags for our groceries, and we could reuse them for multiple purposes. For example, for a pet, a garbage can in the house or to store anything. There was no cost to us and we had these bags. We could save our money to pay for other items. However, the Liberals, in the charade of belief that this is for environmental reasons, banned this and are making us buy replacement bags, which are usually plastic and have an even larger environmental footprint than the original plastic bag. There is technology that can help. Governments should be working with provinces and companies, and the Calgary Co-op is a great example. After it heard of the silly idea to ban plastic bags, it tasked its supplier to come up with a biodegradable bag, which it did. It found a bag that performed much like the old plastic bags and in 10 years' time in a landfill it composts to nothing. It is a great idea. It is great for the environment. It is great Canadian technology and it is something the government, after review, said no to. It said that if they were to be sold, they needed to be sold in bulk and at a distance away from the till, making it inconvenient for consumers and ultimately inconvenient for the country. This is not about science. It is about government controlling our lives. If the government really cared about Canadians and the planet, it would cancel next week's radical international plastics banning meeting. There is a delegation of people flying from all corners of the world to Ottawa to discuss what plastic item they will ban next. They will be burning all that jet fuel and driving those emissions into the atmosphere, and while they are here I am sure they will be hosted with galas, food and fine wine. I propose we take the millions that are going to be blown next week on nothing and a whole bunch of hot air and invest them in waste management in the countries that have those 10 rivers that are causing 95% of the garbage in our oceans. That would be a concrete, common-sense Conservative solution. Spike the meetings, take the money and invest in waste management in countries that need it. If we do that, we actually have an impact on the environment versus the virtue signalling these guys are so good at. However, the idea is too practical for the Liberals, who are not about solutions but feelings, emotions and tag lines. On the plastics in the ocean, which is a problem that we need to address, when we faced environmental problems in the past, we used technology, not government's heavy hand, to fix it. I have done some research: What is that plastic? Where is it coming from? The majority of plastics are from commercial fishermen. They call it “ghost gear”. When fishermen are done with the gear, which is made out of plastic, be it nets or fishing lines, the practice that takes place is that they throw it overboard. These nets float with the ocean currents, collecting debris and making a bigger problem. What I am proposing here as a common-sense solution is that we have a deposit placed on the commercial equipment that usually gets tossed overboard. Instead of tossing it overboard, the fishermen would take it back to the supplier, get their money back from the refund and the net will never get into the ocean. That is a common-sense solution that I plead with some of the MPs here who might be at this elitist, fancy gathering next week to propose. Steal the idea. It costs nothing for consumers. It costs nothing for the taxpayer, but it is a concrete solution to go after the majority of plastic that we find in the oceans. Common-sense Conservatives will fix what this Liberal government has broken. Canada should be a superpower in recycling plastics. If this government would just meet with the first ministers, it would learn the solution is plastic recycling, not the heavy hand of government. Like many issues we face in Canada, the federal Liberal government ignores the provinces. To improve plastic recycling in our country, it starts with meeting with the premiers. It is real Canadians, such as from the premiers, that this government needs to listen to. It is not cheap slogans and bans that will make a difference in our environment. Why the Prime Minister needs to meet with the ministers was proven in court. The federal Liberals broke the law. They went around the Constitution and meddled in provincial business. If the Prime Minister would just meet with the premiers, whom he brags about not having met with since 2016, he may find out about some of the great work they are doing on recycling. With this recycling of plastic molecules, we can do it over and over again, which can become the building blocks for the next consumer good. It would drive down the cost of goods, which is a good thing in a cost of living crisis. Any consumer goods that we can lower the cost on is a good thing, and I encourage, once again, this government to pick up on that idea. Canada should be that superpower in plastic recycling. If we had a competent government, we would be investing in technology, not bans, and this technology already exists. If there were a federal government willing to partner with provinces and private entities to increase and scale up that recycling, we could be that powerhouse and reuse that molecule over and over again. However, the Prime Minister will not listen to the courts, will not listen to Canadians and will not listen to the experts that are in these studies. There is another study I will table after my speech about the Calgary Co-op shopping bag ban, which shows that it is scientific, it is biodegradable and it can work within our system. However, for this government to admit its errors, backtrack and be transparent, I will not hold my breath. The Prime Minister will not listen to anybody, but soon enough, he will hear from voters.

2173 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 5:45:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the fact that part of demonstrating leadership is to take action. It is not just words. If we go around the world and say, “Look, we think you should be doing X, Y and Z,” would he not think that one of the ways that we demonstrate leadership is to actually take action, which he is suggesting we not take? The member opposite is saying that we should not be having any form of ban on plastics and that it is okay to have plastic grocery bags and so forth. I would think that a majority of Canadians might disagree with that principle. Does he believe that the banning of plastic grocery bags is a bad thing?

132 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Apr/18/24 5:46:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is bad for one's health, one's environment and one's pocketbook. There are studies that I will be tabling that the member has access to. It is the government's studies that show that greenhouse gases increase with such a ban. The costs increase with such a ban. If they want to take a leadership role, they should follow the science. The science shows that plastic is not toxic. What this Liberal government is doing is virtue signalling at the worst level.

87 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Apr/18/24 5:47:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I have to say that he gave a rather odd speech to Parliament. He spoke for almost 10 minutes about paper straws. In any case, my understanding is that my colleague and the Conservative Party want to reverse the ban on plastics. I never thought I would hear such a thing in an institution like ours, in Parliament. At the same time, he had a lot to say about the fact that there is so much plastic in our oceans. That strikes me as a paradox. Is my colleague simply trying to highlight the relevance of oil, since we know very well that plastics are primarily made from oil?

118 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Apr/18/24 5:47:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about plastic straws and paper straws. Paper straws are shown to be worse for one's health and worse for the environment. With this ideology that is hell-bent on opposing anything associated with the petrochemical industry, one might find people opposed to bringing back the plastic straw, but I would propose that the member go knock on a hundred doors and ask Canadians what they think. They will tell us that no one likes the paper straw. It sucks. Let us get back to the plastic straw. It is functional. It works. It is better for the environment. As for the ocean, he must have missed the first part of my speech, when I talked about how the majority of plastics is ghost gear, which is fishing gear, not plastics. Changing the straw in Canada will not make a lick of difference in the oceans, because we actually have a waste management system.

159 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/18/24 5:48:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was a very interesting speech, to say the least. I would love to sit down and talk with the member, as a person who represents coastal communities, about the amount of plastic we see in our oceans. He compared a friend of his who had a short-term injury to a person living with a disability. What I am trying to get clear about is this: My mother had a stroke close to seven years ago. She is physically disabled on one side of her body. She does not have the use of the right side of her body. She uses a straw to drink because of that limitation. She uses metal straws. There are particular people who have disabilities, who may need to use a plastic straw. I am just wondering if he could be very specific about who they are, because it felt like he was saying that all people living with disabilities have the same need, and I do not think that is the case.

171 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Apr/18/24 5:50:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to go look at the plastics and, unfortunately, the garbage that is on her coasts and to do a little investigating on where it is coming from. We know that 95% of the garbage comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are found in Asia and two of which are in Africa. There is not a plastic issue from Canadian consumers. It is from developing worlds that do not have a waste management program. As for people with disabilities, they have made a loophole whereby if one goes into a store to ask for a plastic straw and asks really nicely and winks twice, they will look underneath their counter and there might be a box of plastic straws.

126 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 5:50:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-380

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-380, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding plastic manufactured items, introduced by the member for Saskatoon—University, whom we just heard from. If passed, Bill C-380 would remove “plastic manufactured items” from the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is more commonly known. We unequivocally oppose this bill. It would eliminate the legislative basis underpinning the regulatory actions the government has taken and is taking under CEPA to prevent plastic pollution. The vast majority of Canadians are concerned about plastic pollution and they expect our government to act. In 2021, a survey found that over 90% of Canadians expressed concern about the impact that plastic pollution has on oceans and wildlife. In late 2023, a survey from the Angus Reid Institute revealed that most Canadians felt that a single-use plastic ban is an effective means to reduce plastic waste. We know that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, posing the threat of harm to wildlife and damaging their habitats. Scientific findings support this conclusion. The government's 2020 science assessment provides a summary of peer-reviewed studies related to the effects of plastic pollution on organisms and their habitats. It confirms that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, including shorelines, surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food. Statistics Canada's physical flow account for plastic material estimates that of the 4.9 million tonnes of discarded plastics in Canada in 2020, only a little over 7% of that was recycled into pellets and flakes for use in the production of new products, while over 40,000 tonnes ended up in the environment as pollution. That is why the government is taking regulatory action, as part of Canada's comprehensive zero plastic waste agenda, to eliminate certain harmful and problematic plastic products before they enter the marketplace. The Government of Canada's zero plastic waste agenda also includes a wide range of measures aimed at reducing plastic pollution, enhancing value retention processes including reuse and recycling systems, minimizing single-use plastics, and fostering a circular economy approach to plastic management. With a focus on collaboration between government, industry and stakeholders, we are making meaningful and substantive progress. Implementing measures to prevent plastic pollution from single-use plastics is a common-sense approach. This preventative approach is reflected in the government's single-use plastics prohibition regulations. These regulations, published in June 2022, phase out certain single-use plastics that are commonly found in the environment as pollution, pose a threat to wildlife and their habitats, are difficult to recycle and have readily available alternatives. Over the next decade, it is estimated that these regulations will eliminate over 1.3 million tonnes of hard-to-recycle plastic waste and more than 22,000 tonnes of plastic pollution, which is equivalent to over a million garbage bags full of litter. These regulations have spurred businesses across Canada to elevate their efforts and successfully transition to sustainable alternatives, including the adoption of reusable items. Provinces and territories are also providing important leadership in improving the management of plastic waste and diverting plastic waste from landfills. Across Canada, many municipalities, including major cities such as Montreal, St. John's, Edmonton and Victoria, have either banned single-use plastic checkout bags outright or are charging a fee to discourage their use. Bill C-380 arrives in the House for debate at an interesting moment. Next week, Canada will welcome the world to the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC4. This is a pivotal moment for Canada and the world as countries meet to negotiate a new global agreement on plastics. Canada, from the start of the negotiations, has called for an ambitious and effective treaty that addresses the life cycle of plastics. We want to see negotiations conclude this year so that countries can move forward on implementation. To ensure that we take an evidence-based approach and measure progress over time, we are advancing a federal plastics registry. The registry, the first of its kind in the world, would require plastics producers to report annually on the quantity and types of plastic they place on the Canadian market. This would facilitate the design, implementation and monitoring of measures aimed at addressing plastic pollution that are part of the zero plastic waste agenda, and it would help to identify areas where further action is required. We also recognize the importance of innovation in addressing plastic waste and preventing plastic pollution. Through the innovative solutions Canada program, we are supporting Canadian businesses to spur innovation and the development of technologies that address issues such as reuse and difficult-to-recycle film and flexible plastic. Most recently, the government has contributed over $25 million to support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to find innovative solutions to specific plastics issues. The government will continue engaging provinces, territories, civil society, indigenous partners, industry and other concrete initiatives to keep plastics out of the economy and out of the environment. A plastics circular economy would help strengthen sustainable economies and create jobs; it would help fight climate change by avoiding the production of virgin plastic in favour of approaches like recycling and reuse, and it would protect biodiversity and the environment. In conclusion, federal leadership, via concrete regulatory action, is essential to effectively prevent plastic pollution. It is in the interests of Canadians and the environment that the listing of plastic manufactured items on schedule 1 of CEPA is critical to the important work we are doing, and it should be kept intact. It is essential that we oppose this bill.

968 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/18/24 5:59:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-380

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑380 raises some worrisome doubts about the Conservative Party's position on a policy objective that is in the common interest and that is accepted by all departments of the environment in every province and territory, including Quebec. This bill once again embodies the official opposition's denial of environmental issues, but especially its denial of everything that years of scientific work and research have analyzed and confirmed, namely four things. First, plastic pollution is a major environmental and health problem. Second, it is the result of the widespread use of plastic, especially for manufacturing single-use products. Third, whether it is in the form of visible waste, microplastics or nanoplastics, this pollution harms our ecosystems as well as biodiversity. It can also have adverse effects on health, particularly when it goes up the food chain and ends up in our food. Fourth, plastic pollution is present along our shorelines and in our surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food. The author of the bill, the member for Saskatoon—University, makes a bold statement by claiming, and I am paraphrasing, that the management of plastic manufactured products has no positive impact on environmental protection and public health. This is patently false. I would almost describe this statement as abhorrent. No specialized scientific organization recognized in this field of research shares this position, not one. We might reasonably wonder whether the Conservatives have ever read a scientific study on this. To be clear, I am talking about independent studies carried out somewhere other than the labs at Dow Chemical or Imperial Oil. Before I address another angle, I would like to clarify something right away, because members of the official opposition might try to say that the Bloc Québécois is not defending provincial jurisdictions. What Bill C‑380 seeks to do is invoke the alleged unconstitutionality of the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We all know that the federal government is appealing the Federal Court's decision to overturn the government's order on plastics, which the court found to be unconstitutional. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the government's approach for one simple reason, that is, because the Federal Court's decision was wrong, period. If an environmental policy were unconstitutional, of course the Bloc Québécois would immediately demand that the Government of Canada review that policy and respect the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces. As a reminder, the Supreme Court already ruled in favour of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that prohibit “specific acts for the purpose of preventing pollution or, to put it in other terms, causing the entry into the environment of certain toxic substances”. However, the Conservatives do not see the difference between reviewing a policy and completely abandoning a legitimate policy objective. Bill C‑380 proposes to completely eliminate the main regulatory measure that allows the government to act on the issue of single-use plastics. It comes as no surprise to the Bloc Québécois that the official opposition is once again acting as the political valet of the oil and petrochemical lobby. I am saying that because Dow Chemical, Imperial Oil and Nova Chemicals are the ones that led the legal challenge against the regulations. I am sorry, but no good will come of rejecting science, denying the evidence and filling the legislative agenda with the concerns of companies that want the status quo or, even worse, full deregulation. Let us look back on what the government has done. In 2019, it made an ambitious announcement about banning the use of some single-use plastics. In October 2020, it announced its intention to impose standards to make plastic manufacturers accountable when it comes to the collection and recycling of plastic waste. Then, the environment minister at the time, the current Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced, with great fanfare, the goal of achieving zero plastic waste by 2030. That was a good intention, an honourable desire, but it was just an announcement, nothing more. The government had promised to bring this regulation into force as early as 2021. However, as has been the case with other issues where the government has lacked ambition and not taken action, they blamed the pandemic, that old scapegoat. That said, the government did not lack ambition or action during the pandemic when it came to prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel sector. It subsidized oil companies in the name of fighting climate change, granted new multibillion-dollar loans for Trans Mountain and authorized exploratory offshore drilling without impact assessments and in marine refuges it had created itself, to name just a few. Today, the restrictions in force are very incomplete. They cover only six of the hundreds of items in the economy. As far as exports are concerned, no ban on manufacturing or sales will be in force before December 20, 2025, in other words, after the government's current term of office. In our opinion, this is already a rather half-hearted regulation, and I sometimes doubt that it will be enforced. Liberal policies are certainly not up to the task of providing solutions to the growing and worrying problems of plastic pollution, but the Conservative stance on this global issue is damning in its denial of what is basically obvious—namely, that the use of plastics, and consequently its waste, has reached dizzying, even stratospheric heights. According to every credible and independent source, items made of plastic were considered a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act precisely because the scientific literature proved it. As far as the temptation to talk about recycling is concerned, I would remind the House that the data from 2016 show that Canada recycles only 9% of plastic waste, that 86% ends up in landfills, that 4% is incinerated and that 1% end up in nature. There is no circular economy here. Recognizing the problem may lead us part-way to the solution. However, let us be clear: the challenge before us is first to recognize that we must act predictably and firmly and then oppose any hint of deregulation with respect to the existing framework. Reusing, remanufacturing, repairing, prioritizing the use of renewable energy in the process of using the material: these priorities alone would guide us to healthy public policies on plastics. Thanks to the expertise of Recyc‑Québec and its recycling facilities, Quebec is already engaged in a process aimed at moving away from the linear extractivist economic model that the Conservatives hold dear and that also seems to suit the government just fine. Recyc‑Québec has made the circular economy its priority. In Quebec, we value the principle of extended producer responsibility, under which the responsibility for managing end-of-life products lies with the companies that produce them. I will close by quoting Michael Burt, vice-president and global director of climate and energy policy at Dow Canada, in an appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on the issue of single-use plastics. I talked about Dow Canada's expertise in industrial chemistry and engineering, and I said that there was no doubt that Dow Canada could contribute to advancing the circular economy or developing something innovative. When I asked him if he intended to transition away from virgin resin production, he slowly leaned towards the microphone, maintained eye contact with me and, without hesitation, replied no. He also said, “The reality is that the world doesn't have a plastic problem, but it definitely has a plastic-waste problem. ...The reality is that, from an investment standpoint, Dow Canada is a profitable company.” I think his remarks were clear. How can the production of plastics possibly be separated from their existence as waste? Mr. Burt's statement speaks volumes, does it not? One thing is certain. By introducing Bill C‑380, the official opposition wins the prize for being this major lobby group's legislative representative.

1374 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/18/24 6:09:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up and speak to this bill. I have to admit it is a little disheartening to hear how the mover of this motion started his speech this evening. However, it is also not surprising from a party that continues to deny that there are environmental issues that need to be addressed in a timely manner in order to protect our futures and the future generations to come. We heard the member speak about paper straws, make jokes about the sogginess of them and ask who really liked paper straws. I understand they are inconvenient, but my goodness, let us talk about the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is that we have plastic pollution that is destroying our marine ecosystems and is destroying the health and well-being of people across the country. The real problem is around plastics that are polluting our planet and being ingested through marine ecosystems. It goes into the entire ecosystem and then into us, creating health implications. Instead of talking about the real issues at hand, the member was deflecting and talking about soggy straws. I think this is exactly what is to be expected from my colleagues in the Conservative Party: a consistent deflection from the issues at hand. The member even went so far as to say that banning plastics is bad for health, bad for pocketbooks and bad for the environment. I am floored to hear this. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

253 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/18/24 6:11:27 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members to not be heckling or trying to make points while someone else has the floor. I am sure the member was not disturbed while he was speaking, and I am sure that he would want to return that respect during other people's speeches. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

57 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Apr/18/24 6:11:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, instead of what was shared in the prior member's speech, we know that regulating plastics is essential to addressing the harms of plastic, especially of single-use plastics, that are caused to our ecosystem, human health, the environment and even our climate. This is what we should be talking about. We know that plastics are polluting our oceans at a fast rate. The impacts are horrific. As the critic for fisheries and oceans, and a West Coaster, previously an East Coaster, but now on Vancouver Island, I know that, in Canada, we are seeing the impacts of plastic pollution in so many ways. One such example that comes to mind is from when I was first elected and we had the Zim Kingston freighter spill along the coast of Vancouver Island. I believe there were over 100 containers spilled, and only four of those containers were recovered. The rest were left to sink along the shores of Vancouver Island. In these containers were a variety of items, many of them plastic. A year after the spill, there was a story by the CBC, entitled “From urinal mats to unicorns, cargo from major container spill is still washing up on B.C. shores”. I will ask members to imagine walking down the shoreline of our beautiful coastal Vancouver Island and there are these pink inflatable unicorns washing up on the shore. I do not know if everybody here has had an opportunity to visit our beautiful coastline, but most certainly, pink plastic unicorns are not a part of our natural marine ecosystem. It is quite the opposite. There is a tremendous negative impact to our environment when these plastic unicorns and urinal mats break down into microplastics and get into our marine life. The exact seafood we are eating is full of microplastics, and the cycle continues. We need to be addressing this plastic pollution in all ways. One being that, if marine cargo spills continue to happen, there needs to be a strategy in place to make sure we are integrating local knowledge to put a response plan in place immediately. I hope we will see some of these things from the Liberal government in due time. With that, I would like to speak about a new disease that has been found. There is an article by the National Audubon Society, a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats, entitled “Plastic Pollution Is So Pervasive That It’s Causing a New Disease in Seabirds”. This new disease is “marked by severe stomach damage from eating little bits of plastic”. The damage is tremendous to these birds that are ingesting these plastics. It is scraping their organs, causing “several knock-on health effects”. It makes the birds “feel less hungry.” There is also “less room for nutrients.” It is scarring their stomachs, creating less flexibility, “so birds are able to transport less fish back to the nest.” The article explains how the “damaged organ creates less digestive acid to process food and protect against parasites.” With that, I would like to point out that the impacts of the plastic pollution disproportionately impact many indigenous communities across Canada. A constituent in my riding, from whom I have not received permission to talk about this, but I know he will be very excited for me to do so because he talks about it at all times, has been very focused on gathering and providing detailed information around the location of city dumps and how close in proximity they are, consistently, to first nations. We know these dumps are places where plastics are brought. I would like to finish by saying that constituents in my riding are reaching out, asking for the Minister of Environment to deal with plastic pollution, and are calling on him to take action on plastics in Canada to address the adverse human health outcomes linked with chemicals of concern in the cradle-to-grave cycle of plastics. This includes a few points: a just and equitable treaty, and national policies that respect human rights; limit global production of plastics; eliminate unnecessary plastic products; prioritize the prohibition of hazardous chemicals of concern; prioritize immediate action to address people vulnerable to exposure; and ensure that business respects the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Despite the Conservatives' attempt to ensure that our planet is burning, that our planet is polluted and that people are not provided with strong solutions to move forward, I would ask that we take the actions necessary to put an end to plastic pollution.

785 words