Environment Committee on March 29th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the second part of Ms. Collins' motion, I'd like to point out that Bill C-204, as it's currently drafted, proposes a ban on exporting plastics to foreign countries for final disposal.

The second part of the amendment, as we're looking at it, appears to deal with plastic waste exports destined for recycling, which is beyond the scope of the bill before us at the moment, as I understand it.

I'm not really clear on why we would propose to exempt something that is not already captured under this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, to respond to Mr. Bittle's question and to what we heard from the officials, unfortunately, despite that reassurance, since the current legislative structure we have has been in place, we have seen waste showing up in countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. There have been a number of reports since Canada changed its regulations and its rules, which means there is still a gap. This is very well documented. We have also had testimony and briefs from environmental stakeholders, and we referenced a report from the Environmental Law Association demonstrating that there are still gaps in our current legislation.

Our current legislation is not adequate to actually stop the export of this kind of waste. I think it's really important also to note that we have heard from two different Liberal committee members so far that, on the one hand, this is somehow redundant and we do not need it whatsoever, and on the other hand, it somehow goes far beyond the scope of the bill and is going to be way too far-reaching.

I think you have to choose one or the other.

I would just say in closing that I think it's really important that we're addressing not only the issue of waste for final disposal but also the issue of unsorted plastic waste that ends up in countries and has serious health impacts for people around the world. Canada needs to stop doing this. We also need to make sure we have strong legislation to avoid what we've heard again and again, which is that currently there's a loophole that allows Canada to send waste to the U.S., which could then be sent to other countries that don't have the infrastructure to deal with it, and that there isn't a firm way to stop that.

This amendment attempts to strengthen the bill, and I hope we can get committee support to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Collins.

Mr. Saini is next.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to comment, one of the things that the bill's sponsor was very frank about was that he had limited time to draft this bill because he was one of the first MPs to be drawn in the PMB lottery. As members of this committee, I think we need to be careful about advancing amendments that would create more uncertainty with a bill that has already been subjected to limited consultation.

In terms of Ms. Collins, I think the officials [Technical difficulty—Editor] Basel amendments and with all the other transboundary agreements that we have worldwide, I don't think the amendment is necessary. Maybe the government officials can comment on that, but I just heard them say that there is no loophole and there's no way that anything is going to change with this amendment, so I don't see the necessity of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have Mr. Albas and Madam Pauzé.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply would remind Mr. Saini that Mr. Davidson feels very strongly about the issue of protecting our oceans and our water. He has worked on Simcoe to restore some of the beauty of it and also to conserve it as a lake. It's very important to him.

I would say that just because a member comes up first does not mean that the work was rushed to the point that it did not meet the need. I think it's a bit of an unfortunate piece of rhetoric that's being used here to say that, because his number came up early, somehow the work wasn't done well. We are going to simply not support this particular amendment, but we do feel that the legislation was drafted correctly and meets the intent of what Conservatives want to see, which is to make a real difference in protecting our oceans from plastics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I just want to say that the Bloc Québécois is going to vote for this amendment because it forces action, in a way. We take issue with the inaction.

For example, not that long ago, this past July 23, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment did not even discuss the Basel Convention. We even wondered whether the government had panicked itself into deciding to adopt the Basel Ban Amendment.

The advantage is that it puts the Basel Convention back on the agenda. So it forces action, in a sense. That is why we will be voting for the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to note as this amendment is put forward that the exceptions are there because we're adding the language around “special consideration”. That is not in the bill. Canada has not ratified amendments around “special consideration” and this is a huge gap. We need that. We need to ensure that we are not shipping waste that falls under what the Basel Convention talks about in terms of “special consideration”, which is mixed waste that ends up harming people around the world.

Just to respond to Mr. Saini's points around certainty, this language is actually taken directly from the Basel Convention, and it's not creating more uncertainty. It's actually creating certainty, because we're aligning with international agreements around shipping and attempting to stop the shipping of this kind of waste to other countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Next is Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

One of the difficulties I've had with this is that we've had testimony that is clearly saying that the legislation we have, which we introduced in December, by the way.... This isn't something we've been sitting on for years. We worked with our international partners on the Basel Convention. We actually led a lot of those discussions. Then we worked with the new administration in the United States so that we have a regime in place to make sure that, first of all, we protect the recycling industry and do no harm there, and second of all, we reduce the amount of plastics going into landfill, which I think all of us would like to see.

The point is that this legislation doesn't achieve that, in a two-line private member's bill that's up against all of the documents that we have, that we've negotiated internationally and that protect the environment from plastics getting into landfill and our oceans and streams. The industry itself is eager to continue to do this. Now the industry is saying to us that what we're doing will cause a lot of harm to their industry. It will actually go in the opposite direction to achieving the results around reducing the amount of plastics that end up, in a linear economy, going from consumption to landfill. We need a circular economy. This legislation will not get us there.

We're not saying, “Let's stop. Let's do the status quo.” The status quo has already changed. We've negotiated that internationally. We have partners through the Basel Convention. We have partners now with the United States. We are on track to reducing the plastics getting into our rivers and streams and our landfills. This actually puts an anchor around our ankle.

The good intention is there, but the legislation doesn't back up the good intention. The details aren't there even for the definition of what “final use” is. We have no definitions to work with. Industry needs certainty. This doesn't give certainty. It actually gives the opposite. It opens it up to a free-for-all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before I go to Mr. Saini, I want to mention that it's 5:30 p.m. We can continue if that's what the committee wishes. If the committee doesn't wish that, then—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You wish to continue. Okay.

We'll keep going until we get a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes.

I just want to clarify my remarks, especially to Mr. Albas. In no way was I suggesting that Mr. Davidson was not passionate about the environment. I would never suggest [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I was just recalling part of his testimony when he was in front of the committee.

Now that we're talking about the second amendment, I wonder if the officials could reiterate what they said earlier and give a wider sort of understanding of why this amendment would not be necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would the officials like to comment?

[Helen Ryan]

Mr. Chair, I will turn to Nathalie Perron on that.

[Nathalie Perron, Director, Waste Reduction and Management Division, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much.

In this amendment, there is new terminology that is not clear, but from what we understand, waste that is clean, exempt from contamination and single resin, which is actually now excluded from the Basel Convention, would now be covered under existing regulations and would require prior and informed consent, including with the U.S.

That's our understanding of how this amendment would work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does that answer your question, Mr. Saini? Okay.

We'll go to Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to circle back with Ms. Collins about the second part of the amendment. We heard clearly from the Basel Action Network that Bill C-204 would not address the much larger issue of plastic waste destined for recycling. The executive director, James Puckett, testified to this committee that “Bill C-204 aims to halt exports for final disposal, but all of this waste now moving to developing countries is not moving for the stated purpose of final disposal; it is all moving for recycling.”

Neither Bill C-204 nor this amendment would address that much bigger problem. I'm really not clear on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is this a question for the officials, or...?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

My question is first to the officials, and then I would also like to hear from Ms. Collins.