Kieron Testart

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you can summarize the feelings of Members, at least on this side of the House, to say this process that led to the committee's process around this bill was a triumph of consensus. It does draw to mind the previous work that this department and this Minister did on the ATIP Act, starting with a bill that was largely updates, and now has ended up being some of the most progressive legislation in Canada governing that topic, and I'm a firm believer in credit where credit is due. I think, in this case, learning from my colleagues, that there was a lot of give and take...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is: is the department prepared to provide a leadership and kind of a central support role for municipalities as they seek to solve their waste management issues and the coming single-use plastic ban? Is that something the department can do? Thank you.

I know this is somewhat forecasting, but we have a federal intention. I guess my concern is for the many businesses who are currently using plastic knives and forks, food services, for example, that they're going to be hit with a lot of costs when this happens. Has the government considered that problem? Are they working with industry to help transition them into this new reality, whether it will be a single-use plastic ban?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize two of my constituents who have joined us today, Ms. Caitlin Cleveland and Ms. Elsie DeRoose. Thank you for being here today and taking an interest in our proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start in addressing this bill by confirming my support for this, for Bill 34, and I will confine the majority of my commentary to the process that brought this bill to third reading today.

The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment lived up to his promises: this bill has made no one happy. Instead, we have a bill that has created confusion, uncertainty, and shown a huge contrast in how legislation has been developed and reviewed in this Assembly by different committees.

Mr. Speaker, the standing committee's clause-by-clause review lasted four-and-a-half...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of the many pieces of devolution-related legislation that came forward, only a few contain preambles. Others contain purpose statements. Some contain both, and some contained nothing. Some Indigenous governments who provided evidence before the committee and some members of civil society, as well, expressed a desire to see a preamble or to see a stronger purpose statement or those kind of features to the bill.

Curiously enough, members of another committee worked on a bill that didn't have a preamble. There was some discussion about adding one. Ultimately, the committee...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think in addition to the chair's comments about kind of broader public knowledge of what a standing committee is, what Regular Members do, and, you know, making it very clear that they are two branches of government, the executive branch that proposes legislation and the legislative branch that reviews legislation.

That being said, I support that, that rationale, but I think what this motion speaks to more directly is that the technical working group that is spending a lot of time in the drafting stages of this bill needs to clearly understand what happens next so that...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really am appreciative of the committee staff and the committee members who worked on this report, but staff really deserves an important shout-out. We, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, had an unprecedented legislative agenda that it was seized with, and common issues arose from each of those around the unique nature of co-drafting bills in a special relationship with Indigenous people as guaranteed by the intergovernmental agreement, and that was broadened in some cases to include Indigenous nations that had not signed on to devolution...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That criteria is incredibly limited, and it's limited to archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical attributes. It does not govern infrastructure or community assets like quarries. That's the whole point of committee's policy direction on this. I understand, the Minister does not have an answer to this question. He does not have a solution to this problem, and our municipalities, once again, will have to wait until a conflict arises, they hire lawyers and go to the courts and something like a quarry is off-limits and useless to that municipality for...

Yes, where there is not an existing land rights with benefit provisions within that land rights agreement. Thank you.