Environment Committee on May 13th, 2019

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, and it's good to see some familiar faces.

My first question will be pretty specific. You may need to get back to me on it. On June 7, 2018, we heard that Environmental Defence submitted a request for single-use plastics to be added to the priority substance list, which of course is a first step in assessing whether a substance is toxic. That was about 11 months ago.

There's a 90 day statutory time frame for the minister to respond, which has long passed. It's clear that single-use plastics are having a serious impact on the environment. Can you explain why this request has not been responded almost 11 months later? If not, you can get back to us.

[Nancy Hamzawi]

To that particular request, the minister did provide a response, and I believe Environmental Defence provided that to you as part of its evidence. From listening to their testimony, they did note that an interim response had been provided. There's no requirement for a decision within 90 days; there is a requirement for a response. That response noted the fact that further science is required.

For example, you heard from Chelsea Rochman that she had participated in a science symposium in November 2018 that we hosted alongside our colleagues at Health Canada. We also had a best brains exchange to bring together the best available expertise from around the world to identify where there are potential gaps and areas of focus in order to help us in identifying where we need to focus more research and in getting a very clear sense of the state of science.

A significant milestone in that process was the symposium and the best brains exchange. We are continuing to work on that. In my previous testimony, I did note that we're hoping to have the research agenda ready by June, so we're making good progress.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

We heard from several witnesses that getting plastics listed under CEPA would probably be the quickest way to move forward. Would you have something by June?

[Nancy Hamzawi]

That would be the research agenda for June. What would be required for listing on schedule 1 would be a full risk assessment. The very clear message from the best brains exchange and the science symposium is that there are significant gaps in research. We are looking at making sure we have the most robust science assessment and that we take the appropriate regulatory steps.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How far away might we be from getting plastics actually listed under CEPA, timewise? Are we months away? Are we years away?

[Nancy Hamzawi]

Well, the specific request from Environmental Defence was a listing on the priority substance list. Essentially, if the minister would proceed with doing do that, the first step to put it forward would be a science assessment that would take up to five years. That's what a PSL listing would do.

Schedule 1 is different. It can be shorter than the PSL.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Can the committee's recommendations help to speed that process up?

[Nancy Hamzawi]

It's our understanding that a schedule 1 listing would be more efficient than a PSL listing.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Related to that, I'm trying to understand the relationship between free trade agreements.

I asked several witnesses in the industry if they knew what percentage of plastics in Canada come from outside the country initially, and nobody could answer that question. There are so many different products, of course, that include plastics of different kinds.

What would be the relationship between getting plastics listed under CEPA, and free trade agreements and bringing plastics in from other countries, if any?

[Helen Ryan]

Putting something on the list of toxic substances is what allows us to gain access to our authorities under CEPA. Then, from there, we need to undertake the development of the risk management measure that targets the risk.

For instance, if you're talking about products that are coming from abroad, when we're looking at assessing the nature of the risk and what targeted action is warranted, in undertaking that assessment, we look at those issues in terms of the origin of the material, the nature of the risk that it poses and so on. That information is then used to help inform the design and development of the targeted risk management measure. It's also used in the analysis that's needed to support putting forward a regulation, for instance, where we have to complete a regulatory impact assessment. We have to assess the implications of moving to take action.

That's how those kinds of things would be taken into account in a decision to take some specific action.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If it's listed under CEPA, then it could or would ultimately influence the kinds of plastics that are allowed into Canada. As you know, there are many, many different kinds of plastics, and some are of more concern than others.

[Helen Ryan]

Depending on the nature of the risk management measure that's put in place, it could.

Remember I had mentioned the kinds of things that we have the authority to look at under CEPA. You can look at imports, exports. Depending on the nature of the measure that's needed, it could have an impact of that nature potentially.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Do you have one more quick question?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yesterday I took a bike ride over into Quebec. The flooding that's going on there is tragic. All along the way, it was tragic, with all of the flooded areas and plastics floating everywhere in that water.

Obviously, we need to work on changing behaviours. Here I'm wondering whether you see a role for the federal government in just helping people. I mean, giving it some monetary value is helpful, but also from a societal perspective, reducing littering and getting people to act differently, is there a role for the federal government around that?

[Helen Ryan]

I'll turn to my colleague, Jacinthe, to provide some details of the kinds of support the federal government has been giving in this area. We have a number of grants and contributions with other parties that are engaged in this.

I'll leave it to Jacinthe.

[Jacinthe Seguin, Director, Plastics Initiative, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

This year, in support of the agenda, we carved out some of our resources to do exactly that, to support community action and to also support some third party organizations that are going to do education around a number of issues related to plastic waste. We have up to about seven organizations across the country that are doing quite a range of work. There are some up north, some at the community level, some are NGOs: Ocean Literacy, for example. There's quite a range. You'll probably hear about their launch of some of those programs in the coming weeks.

The other thing, as well, is that our EcoAction program issued a call for proposal earlier this year—December or January—so we have another call going out for projects that are going to be community-based. They're going to be leveraged projects. Those should be announced during the course of the year.

There's a certain amount.... We have a big country with a lot of communities, so we can't get to everyone. However, we're trying to build as well from the grassroots up.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Amos, you have six minutes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'm very glad to hear from Ms. Hamzawi that we can expedite our science assessment processes by looking to other jurisdictions and doing summaries. I think that's something that Canadians will like to hear, because they're looking for very fast action on this. They're really not looking for a long, slow and deliberate process. They want good, science-based decisions, but they want them made as expeditiously as possible because they see the gravity of the situation.

I want to go to the specific issue of the ocean plastics charter, which as Ms. Ryan mentioned is non-binding, and compare that to the EU. I've heard it mentioned previously that the EU plastics regulations don't surpass the commitments made in the ocean plastics charter.

Is that a position the department would agree with? My understanding is that it is different and that the EU has in fact taken several measures that go far beyond the ocean plastics charter and that ought to be considered.

[Helen Ryan]

I would say that there's not a one-for-one alignment, but the actions the EU has taken go towards supporting the ocean plastics charter. As I mentioned, the charter is non-binding, but its objectives still call on us to take concrete action and to have measurable reductions.

The EU directive is a measure for them to take action in support of the ocean plastics charter. They have a variety of actions that they're looking to take. They have targets and commitments they're making with respect to that.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I do appreciate that. The discussion point that I'm trying to raise here is that we ought not to be focusing so much on the plastics charter commitments. Rather, we ought to be focusing on the highest standards established in other jurisdictions, so that we can confidently tell Canadians, “We're doing everything that we possibly can on this plastics issue.”

I'll point out a few examples that I've uncovered with assistance from our team. The EU has indicated that all plastics will be reusable or recyclable by 2030, whereas the charter says that all plastics will be reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030. Recoverable means they can incinerate them, which is already 100% possible. That can be done.

For another example, the EU bans at least 10 categories of single-use plastics. There are no bans identified in the charter. The EU identifies specific requirements for recycled content, for example, having 25% recycled plastic in PET bottles by 2025. The ocean plastics charter says, “Working with industry towards increasing recycled content by at least 50% in plastic products where applicable by 2030.” The EU indicates there is extended producer responsibility for fishing gear and tobacco filters, but there's nothing on that in the ocean charter.

I'm putting these out there and would be really interested to hear the department's response to these distinctions. I think that Canadians will want to know whether we're going to the highest standard or to a globally negotiated, slightly lower common denominator. Also, of course, you know that industry is heavily involved in the charter.

[Helen Ryan]

What I would say is that the ocean charter is a broad statement, with broad commitments that are negotiated internationally. When you then look at the EU directive and the work the EU is doing with its member states, it's a targeted response. They've specified the actions they want to take within Europe that respond to their specific issues, based on their information.

I would put it forward to you in that context.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. Would you consider the EU targets to be science-based?

[Nancy Hamzawi]

In developing their directives, the EU's top-10 list of items to ban was based on a review of what was found on beaches. They surveyed 263 beaches across Europe and counted and classified things by what they were—cigarette butts, etc. From their perspective that was enough for them to be able to take action against that top 10 list.

They also had an impact assessment study, but it looked at multiple perspectives, including some science, but primarily socio-economic...and a number of policy measures and various scenarios. The EU has initiated some scientific work to support the directive and is looking at undertaking further work, for example on microplastics, which wasn't captured in the directive, but is number one in the “dirty dozen” you heard about from Peter Ross.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

All right, we'll go to Ms. Gladu now for her six minutes.