Evidence of meeting #153 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waste.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We have one last round of questions from Mr. Stetski to finish the planned rounds we have.
It's over to you, Mr. Stetski, for your wrap-up set of questions.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
My is for Mr. Valiante, and potentially Mr. Burt.
The “one size doesn't necessarily fit all” approach is one of the statements we've heard when it comes to plastic pollution. I'm interested in your perspective. When you're looking at reduce, reuse, recycle and recovery, does it make sense to set legislated timelines by sector—for the electronic sector, the textile sector and single-use plastics, sector by sector? Does it make more sense to set an overall goal for plastics in general for reuse, reduction, and recycling, doing it by industry and letting industry figure out how to reach those targets? Which do you think is more effective at getting results in the end?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
Theoretically, you could set a national plastics recycling target, and different sectors would engage in strategies. One recycles more than the other, and they could trade their recycling credits. That sounds good in theory, but I prefer looking at sectors and saying, “We use this much plastic in the manufacturing of vehicles. We need to have a strategy to recycle plastics in vehicles.” It's the same with electronics. When we regulate producer responsibility today, that's how we look at it. We look at tranches of products that are in the market. We just don't have very stringent plastics recycling targets associated with it, and we don't really even track where the plastics go once we recycle those plastics. I prefer looking at the portfolio of durable products that we have, what we're calling single-use products or short-lived products in the market, and then developing targets that are specific to the uses of those materials.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
But I mean targets for all three Rs—not just for recycling, but also reducing and reusing—
5:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
A lot of questions have been asked about reduction, and I think you have to ask yourself what problem you're solving. If you're reducing plastics because they're going into the marine environment and they're a problem, that's a specific issue you're dealing with. It may be that you ban plastic bags because they're going into the environment and causing harm, recognizing that there's a trade-off that you're making with whatever the substitutes are in the short term. That's a public policy decision to protect the marine environment, so you need to be conscious of that.
That's a legitimate policy tool. For the broader scale of materials, if we're dealing with this 9% recycling rate—and that's going to waste and all of the embodied energy and greenhouse gases in it—we want to recoup that. That really does require looking at the different segments of the economy and saying, “Where are we using plastics? Where can we intervene with policy tools to change the flow of that plastic?”
Though not applied sector by sector in exactly the same way, EPR as a policy concept—if it's applied stringently, and I keep saying that—can be highly effective.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Burt, here's the same question. Do legislative targets for the three Rs make more sense by sector or by industry as a whole, potentially?
5:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Dow
It's a good question. It's equivalent to what we're discussing when it comes to carbon as well. The reality is that there are some sectors that can reduce substantially easier than others, whereas some have a substantially more difficult time. Setting a federal target will basically force companies to kind of hit that target.
There are usually some sort of sectoral differences. I guess my personal preference would probably be to move to some sort of sectoral target that the federal government could potentially implement, taking into consideration the type of industry that you're dealing with, who can hit a target easier than others.
What you really don't want is to set a target that's unrealistic, that nobody's ever going to be able to hit. It will spur innovation, but it also sometimes spurs companies leaving one jurisdiction to go manufacture in another. You always have to be careful about capital—capital risk, capital flight.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay, that takes us to the end of the planned rounds. We do have a few minutes left on the clock, and with the agreement of the committee we could go with three minutes for each side if there's interest. We would normally go Liberal, Conservative, NDP.
If we're okay with that, I'll go over to this side for three minutes, if anybody wants to take it. Whoever wants to jump in can do so, because we're going to start the clock.
5:15 p.m.
A Voice
Be nice, William.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Of course.
Maybe I'll start with Mr. Valiante and move through the witnesses.
Are you aware of any particular reforms to render more stringent plastics regulation any time after 2005?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
Am I aware of any reforms?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Yes, or were there any specific new measures undertaken—whether they're sort of policies or programs—that really got to the issue of plastics pollution?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
I think—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Sorry, we've just heard the bells ring for a vote. Once the bells start, I need the unanimous consent of the group to continue, and we would probably wind it up now anyway.
It looks as if we won't able to get a response. Sorry I had to cut you off there.
Thank you to each of the witnesses for joining us today. It's been a very good discussion. If anybody does have anything further that you would like to submit, we encourage written briefs in conclusion. We ask that you try to limit them to 10 pages just for translation purposes. If there are things coming out of the discussion today that you think would be useful for us to know, please send in your additional briefs to the clerk.
We're hoping to conclude our gathering of information by next Wednesday, which will give our analyst time to develop a report by the end of May. That will allow us to table it in the House before we rise sometime in June.
Thank you so much for being here. It's been a wonderful panel. Sorry to have to cut it off like this.
Now we're adjourned.
