Environment Committee on March 15th, 2021

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to ask for Mr. Puckett's and Ms. St. Godard's texts, because we didn't receive them and I found them very informative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll send them to you once they have been translated.

Is that right, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Isabelle Duford]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Collins.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Puckett, a legal analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law spoke about how the recent Canada-U.S. arrangement on plastic waste violates our obligations under the Basel Convention. As you mentioned, because the U.S. never signed on to the Basel Convention and doesn't regulate plastic waste exports in the same way we do, this has been characterized as a backdoor agreement that allows our government to get around our international obligations on plastic waste.

I am concerned about this agreement. I'm also aware of the reality that many communities rely on sending plastic to the U.S. for recycling. How do we still allow the legitimate trade in recyclable plastic waste while also making sure that the hazardous plastic waste—the plastic waste for special consideration—from Canada doesn't end up being shipped to other countries, without environmental controls in place, by the U.S. once we ship it there?

[James Puckett]

Thank you. That has us very concerned as well. We learned quite late. We were not consulted as stakeholders. The environmental groups in Canada were also not consulted.

This bilateral pact that was enjoined between the U.S and Canada basically allows Canada to ignore its Basel obligations. These new plastic amendments, which are meant to control the mixed and dirty and difficult-to-recycle plastics and to provide transparency and monitoring and controls over them, were just ignored. They said, “We are going to sign this agreement, and by doing that we will maintain the status quo of opaque, untransparent, uncontrolled trade.” This has us very worried, because the U.S. is a major exporter of all kinds of problematic waste to developing countries, and it's very easy for a Canadian actor now to just send things through the U.S. and avoid the obligations of the Basel Convention.

The agreement itself was highly criticized, because although countries are allowed to have separate bilateral agreements under the Basel Convention, they have to have the same controls and environmental rigour as the convention itself. Saying you're not going to do anything with these new definitions certainly does not represent the same level of control as accepting these new controls.

It's illegal on the face of it, in our view, but it's also very problematic in terms of what it's going to do with respect to North America contributing to the contamination of the developing world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll move on now to Mr. Redekopp for five minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of the witnesses.

I want to start with Mr. Puckett again.

The Basel Convention was implemented under a Conservative government back in the late eighties and nineties. Of course it's in effect now, but we've had these issues. Everyone remembers the Malaysia issues, and some of the others have been mentioned. There was a big brouhaha with Canadian plastic overseas.

You mentioned that the Liberals have essentially ignored this problem in the agreements we have with the U.S., and Ms. Khan mentioned the EU waste shipment regulations. Doesn't the fact that we're still having problems prove that we need further legislation, such as Bill C-204, to prevent things like this from happening in the future?

[James Puckett]

Yes, and Bill C-204 is a start. It shows intent to deal with this problem, and I appreciate that very much, but it falls short. We need to model what the EU has done, because the big problem is the so-called recycling trade in which the developing world is not handling this material.

This material is not recyclable. It is mixed and dirty, and even when you have a low-wage situation, as in countries like Malaysia, they don't have the people power to sort this material and clean it, and then you always have this residual hazardous material. The recycling trade is very dirty. That's why it's been going to the developing countries, and that's what we need to control it. We're saying to keep Bill C-204 as it is, with a full ban to all countries. Put down your foot, as Mr. Albas said: No exports for final disposals to any country, but for recycling, no exports to the developing world.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Maybe we could tweak this by allowing for clean sorted materials. That would be a good thing.

Mr. Masterson, thanks for meeting me a month ago. It helped me a lot to learn about this situation, and I do recall talking about British Columbia's province-wide mature recycling program versus what exists in smaller jurisdictions. In my hometown of Saskatoon, we probably don't have a similar situation. We just don't have the ability to clean and sort like that.

Now Conservatives are again proposing to put more teeth into the Basel Convention here in Canada. I can understand why industry is a little concerned, but isn't stronger legislation needed so that we can encourage a stronger and better circular economy here in the country?

[Bob Masterson]

Absolutely, and there's much work under way to do that through the zero plastic waste action plan from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Again, I feel as though I'm on the wrong side of an argument here. I agree with what our colleagues are saying. Sending unsorted materials for disposal is a bad thing, but you're trying to solve a complex issue with, again, one statement: “Thou shalt not send plastic waste”—and you have a poor list—“for final disposal”, and you have not defined “final disposal”. Again, if this were brought into line after considerable consultation about what we are covering, that would be great.

I do take exception to this concept that a Canada-U.S. agreement is some sort of loophole. The Basel Convention specifically allows, under article 11, for agreements like this to take place, and in fact Canada and the U.S. have had a Basel Convention implementation treaty since 1986, so it's a bit of a misnomer that is being applied here to what's happening.

I think the key is to draft this bill in such a way that it accomplishes the objectives but does not get in the way of the movement of plastic materials that are used as resources. Recovery between Canada and the United States is a key part of this process.

It will take caution and it will take much more than one line of code in the national legislation to achieve its objectives, unfortunately—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

For a bit of clarity, then, assuming this legislation moves forward, what specifically would you change?

[Bob Masterson]

Well, if you look at the text of the Basel Convention, where you had 170 countries involved, you see that it's a comprehensive piece. If you also look at what's in the Canada-U.S. agreement that was finalized last year, you see there are a lot of details there too.

Certainly we would look to revise the list and not focus on products and materials that are creatable, not focus on polymers and not focus on chemical feedstocks, on things like ethylene. It's nonsensical to include ethylene on a list like this.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Khan, we've been talking in Canada about a plastics ban. I guess my question for you here is whether you believe that controlling Canada's plastic waste domestically through an effective domestic-based recycling program is an effective approach compared to the Liberal minister's simple solution of labelling plastics toxic.

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

Thank you for your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could we have a very quick response, please? It's a complicated question, I'm sure.

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

I think there are two different issues. One fact is that Canada has international obligations under Basel and also international obligations under the OECD agreement, and then it has an agreement with the U.S., which is actually in conflict with the other two agreements.

That set aside, extended producer responsibility is a part of the solution as well, but in order to enhance EPR programs and in order to stimulate the recycling industry at home, we need to have strong legislation so that those plastics are not leaking into the environment and they can't be opaquely traded towards the OECD or the U.S.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Baker is next.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair. How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have five minutes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I'd love to ask each of you questions, but I won't have time to do that, of course, in five minutes.

I want to start with Ms. St. Godard and just ask about this, if I may. To my mind, if this bill were passed unamended, as is, and came into effect very shortly, it would have carry-on effects within the waste processing and recycling system here in Canada. Can you speak to that? Can you tell me what some of those implications might be?

[Jo-Anne St. Godard]

Thank you for the question.

I think there are two angles to answering that. I think the first is that the definition of final disposition is clear here. It is imperative to pick up on the notion that even though we are shipping loads that are defined as recycling, prior consent doesn't mean that the loads that actually are being received are actually being recycled. The issue is not just prior consent. The issue is tracking this material to ensure that it's actually being recycled.

I will just make the comment that in the material we're actually processing here on domestic soil, we sometimes have 30% to 35% residual kick-out. That means that 35% of a load from Canadian processors as well actually ends in landfill. Banning loads that are destined for final disposition, as the bill does in its language, is not going to address that issue.

I do know that we have more Canadian recycling infrastructure capacity here than we are using, and the leakage into other jurisdictions actually prevents industry.... It certainly doesn't encourage investments on Canadian soil to enhance recycling and expand the industry here. I think what we need is more transparency on how and where this material is being generated and where it's being managed domestically, as well as tracking it through to final disposition in exports.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure. I hear that.

I have to ask you to answer this in 15 or 20 seconds because of the time.

If this bill passed tomorrow and came into effect, could our waste management systems handle the situation? If suddenly we stop exporting this category of plastics, where would all the plastic go?