Environment Committee on March 29th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

We go now to Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I want to also highlight concerns raised by folks in the recycling industry. In this case, I wanted to cite the concerns raised by the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association. I'm not going to read the entire letter. You all have it. I just want to highlight some of their concerns. They say:

We are aligned with our colleagues at the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada...in our assertion that Bill C-204 will bring great harm to the industry, while detracting from our efforts to build a circular economy and increase opportunities for plastics recycling.

When I hear that, that's very concerning. I'm not going to read the entire letter, but here's another piece:

lt is important ta note that, despite best of intentions, the current sorting infrastructure and technology systems in place at Canada's recycling facilities do not allow for completely pristine (clean and fully sorted) bales of plastic to be sent for recycling. This means that bales of plastic destined for recycling will include materials that end up for final disposal in the US. This Bill could hamper the efforts to develop and support the recycling ecosystem whereby mixed bales are sent to various facilities with different sorting capabilities across North America.

That's speaking about how the bill would prevent that ecosystem from functioning.

I want to read on:

ln addition, because of the absence of any definition for 'final disposal' this Bill fails to recognize that what may be destined for final disposal in Canada could potentially be used by companies for manufacturing in other jurisdictions. Since we lack infrastructure for advanced sorting, Canadian companies may send plastics bales to other locations because of equipment/technologies they have in place. lt is not unusual for bales to go through primary and secondary sorting at different facilities in North America; this Bill is unclear regarding how the definition of final disposal will apply and when it will apply in the trade of plastic bales.

What they're basically saying is that it's uncertain what would be allowed for export and what would not. Regardless, what they're saying is that a lot of infrastructure is necessary to process what may be required to stay in Canada and that means it may not be processed. You can imagine that would mean it would likely go to landfills, and that's the last thing we want.

Near the bottom of the letter, they talk about this:

Bill C-204 does not represent the interests of our members who provide plastic recycling solutions in support of Alberta and Canada's objectives to advance a plastics circular economy. Bill C-204, if passed, would create harm to our members' and the wider industries' ability to collect, process and market plastics in the future. Alberta needs full access to overseas markets.

All this is to say that I think the folks at the Alberta Plastics Recycling Association have highlighted a number of concerns.

One is that the definitions in the rules in the bill are unclear, which makes it unclear as to which materials would be allowed for export and which would not. That's number one. Number two, they're highlighting that it would bring great harm to the industry.

Number three, they're highlighting that this would have an environmental impact within Canada, a negative one, certainly, because the infrastructure doesn't exist in Canada to process much of the material that would be prevented from export and which is currently exported for the purpose of processing cleanly. This would do harm to the environment because it presumably would force Canadian industry to put a lot of this material into landfills.

The fourth concern is the economic impact on the members of Alberta Plastics Recycling Association and also the employment impact.

I wanted to highlight all of those and thus suggest that this portion of the bill shouldn't pass. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

We'll go to Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to build on what my colleague Mr. Baker was saying. Usually on committee [Technical difficulty—Editor] letters are against the passage of this bill, and they are from people who are widely connected in the industry, have investments in the industry and probably know the industry better than we do. I think if we're going to impact people in such a way that every letter reflects how this will have a negative impact on us, then we have a duty to listen to them, to listen to their concerns and to really get down to the bottom of this in terms of how we are producing legislation when there's so much economic influence tied to that.

I'm looking at one letter from my home province of Ontario, from the Ontario Waste Management Association, which writes:

The Ontario Waste Management Association strongly supports recycling and waste diversion efforts, including transitioning Ontario's signature Blue Box recycling program to full producer responsibility. Evidence shows that this is the best way to encourage producers, manufacturers and retailers to incorporate changes in product and packaging design to reduce waste.

The industry itself is on the pathway to reducing waste. They go on further to say:

Policies to encourage waste diversion and material recovery here in Canada are far more beneficial to our country's circular economy, and the environment, than an outright ban on waste export. There is considerable potential for increased capital investment and job creation in the recycling sector through producer responsibility requirements for end-of-life management of plastics, as well as economic benefits by stimulating the development of markets for recycled materials.

An outright ban on the export of waste materials that contain certain types of plastic will have a significant cost impact on waste management companies and municipalities—

He's now talking about the legislation affecting municipalities and ultimately affecting provinces:

—who regularly transport a range of materials for recycling and final disposal across the Canada-US border.

It is impossible to overstate the negative impact on Canada that would result from the type of waste export ban that is being proposed in Bill C-204. Many of the plastics listed in Schedule 7of Bill C-204 are normally found in solid waste that is routinely transported from Canada to the United States for disposal. The disruption to this cross-border waste flow would greatly exceed the physical capacity of disposal sites in Canada to manage these volumes.

We urge the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to recommend against the passage of Bill C-204.

It's signed, “Sincerely, Mike Chopowick, Chief Executive Officer”.

He, in his letter, has been very clear and succinct in three main areas. One is that investing in our own industries will create more jobs and would be better for the economy and, ultimately, better for the environment because you would have that circular recovery.

Number two, things are going to be impacted. We have free trade agreements across borders that may be impacted by this. Also, he mentions, significantly, that the municipalities would be impacted, which would also encroach upon their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the provinces. More importantly, he talks about the negative impact and how it's going to impact the association and its employees.

I think it's important that we hear these voices and we continue to investigate to see how this legislation will have negative impacts, because as a committee, we would want to be more aware, not less aware, and more knowledgeable as to how the actual impacts will occur. I think it's important that we hear these voices, as I've said on other committees, to get different, varying degrees of opinion.

These are serious organizations. These are serious people. These are people who have skin in the game. Their organizations have skin in the game. Multiple recyclers across the country are going to be affected, and I, as one person, would like to know how the impact will happen, in what way the impact will happen and how we can either minimize the impact or change certain things. I think to just ignore all these voices would be bad for us and ultimately bad for the country. These voices, as I said before, who have skin in the game with investments, who have made clear investments not only economically but in terms of training their employees, are coming not just from one province; they're coming from Ontario, Alberta and B.C.

I think we need to hear their voices to make sure, as we review this legislation, that we're making a positive impact and trying our best to make sure that all voices are heard. The voices that are the most pertinent are the voices of those folks, the individuals or associations, who have come out clearly asking us to not pass this legislation. They have clearly defined in their letters how this legislation would impact them.

I reviewed it earlier. First, economically there will be an impact. Second, there will be the loss of recyclable ability for certain companies. Third, companies have acknowledged that they want to take a path forward in making sure that they try to keep the plastic circular in a way.

They have also defined that going in that direction would actually be good for the environment and good for the economy. Jobs would be produced. I think you have a win, win, win. You are protecting the environment. You're advancing the economy. You're creating jobs for Canadians.

If you look at all the letters, they are all similar to some extent, depending on what part of the [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We need to take the time to analyze this in a way that reflects their worries, but also encourages us to be more aware, more responsible and ultimately produce legislation that's going to be effective and not have a negative impact on those people who are currently working to reduce waste.

Mr. Chair, that's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

We will continue with Ms. Saks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to continue with what my colleagues Mr. Saini and Mr. Longfield have shared about the letters we have received from the industry. I have one here from Ice River Sustainable Solutions, another industry leader here in Shelburne, Ontario. This letter says the same things about the impact on the circular economy that we have heard in the other letters we have received, and not just the circular economy within Canada but also in terms of our relationship and our imports and exports with the United States.

I just don't see how we can ignore the impacts of not hearing these voices as we review this legislation. Ice River shares that:

Without a clear definition for the term “final disposal,” Bill C-204 has the potential to block the export of plastic wastes for the purposes of downstream processes that could permit secondary markets and maximize value from plastic waste. Downstream processes like advanced recycling, waste to fuels, and waste to energy, are integral components of a circular economy for plastics.

Given the absence of any definition for “final disposal”, this Bill fails to recognize that what may be destined for final disposal in Canada could potentially be used by companies in other jurisdictions. Since we lack infrastructure for advanced sorting, Canada may send plastic bales to other locations because of equipment/technologies they have in place.

If we disrupt the industry this way and we don't think about the impacts, there would be a cost all along the way. There would be a cost to industry, a cost to the end-user, a cost to B2B and a cost to Canadians. Without a careful thought process [Technical difficulty—Editor] to clause 1, we're missing a clear definition on what we're talking about in terms of plastics.

I share the concerns of my colleagues in making sure that we do hear from these individuals and from these companies. They are making their voices loud and clear. Many of them are from out west, from B.C. and Alberta, and I don't understand why our Conservative colleagues don't want to stand up for these businesses and make sure they are heard as we move through this discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Madam Saks.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm just going to read a few excerpts from one other letter that otherwise wouldn't have a voice. This one is from P.E.T. Processing in Delta, British Columbia. It comes to us from its president, Antoine Moucachen.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

This is different from what we've had before—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, Ms. Collins has a point of order.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Again, this is my first time on committee, so this is just as a point of clarification for me. We're doing clause-by-clause. We're voting on the first clause. It just seems as though most of the speakers have either been arguing against the amendment that we defeated earlier or been debating the bill as a whole.

I just wanted to know from you, Mr. Chair, if this is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe it is. It's debate around clause 1. Mr. Longfield is the last speaker.

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

I have a point of order on the same topic, Mr. Chair.

Every time I've done clause-by-clause, it seems to starts immediately by going to amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. That will be the next step.

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

Okay. Usually we do amendments and then vote on the clause—whether or not it's been changed—and I just hope we can get to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I was about to get to the amendments when we got into some debate.

We just have Mr. Longfield. If no one else is added to the list, then I can ask for amendments to clause 1.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.

P.E.T. Processing has sent us a letter from their president, Tony Moucachen. I won't read the three pages other than his closing, which is based on all of the background in his letter. It has a lot of technical issues in it. Unfortunately, we don't have the letter in front of us because of translation services. I absolutely respect that. I think we just passed a motion about making sure we have everything available in both official languages.

Mr. Moucachen says the following in his closing:

PET believes it's important that the Committee understand the following realities and how the passage of the Bill will negatively affect the plastics recycling industry:

Intricate north-south business relationships are already well established;

Prohibiting shipments of plastics waste bales across the border because only a small component may not be recyclable, would be a crushing blow to the recyclers and their ability to successfully recycle the millions of pounds of plastic that are recycled every year.

He has three more points:

Cross border shipments are often made to facilities that have the ability and interest to perform additional sorting and additional recycling for specific plastic types;

Canada does not have as robust a manufacturing sector as the US. Therefore, what the Bill might designate as being for “final disposal” could actually be something that is usable by US manufacturers for other purposes;

Not all plastic types are recycled in Canada, and there are more recycling facilities available in the US. Therefore, if access to the US is reduced, this will correspondingly reduce access to their recycling infrastructure and hamper Canadian businesses.

We therefore submit that enacting the Bill will frustrate the proper development of a circular economy and should not be passed.

Thank you for allowing us to share our views on the Bill.

I wanted to give him a voice here. He doesn't mention it directly in his conclusion, but it's stated elsewhere in his letter that the municipalities, therefore, would have to handle the extra waste.

We now have before us clause-by-clause on a bill on which we are being screamed at by the industry. They're a for-profit industry, but they're based on helping the environment through commercial means and through recycling and sorting. They're saying, “You're going in the wrong direction.” Now we're in clause-by-clause. How do we get back to the right direction? At least partly, it's to get their voices at the table.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's the end of the speakers list. I will now ask if there are any amendments to clause 1.

Yes, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In terms of the amendments that we had submitted in advance [Technical difficulty—Editor], I submitted a motion or a—

[Jacques Maziade, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, if I may, this is the legislative clerk speaking.

I just wanted to make sure of this before we start on NDP-1. I just want to know if CPC-1—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, that's what I'm wondering.

[Jacques Maziade]

Yes, because it's before NDP-1. I just wanted to make sure of this to avoid confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is somebody proposing CPC-1?

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

Mr. Chair, in testimony, we decided that we heard there was adequate.... The Basel Convention has a very clear section B: “Operations which may lead to resource recovery, recycling reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses”. That's clearly laid out.

While there were some industry concerns about there not being a direct definition in the bill, rest assured that there is one, in a reference in CEPA to the convention itself, which actually says that operations that may relate to “resource recovery, recycling reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses” are clearly allowed. This should at least put some minds at ease that there is a very clear process for it, as there are over 170 different signatories to the Basel Convention, and this happens every day in certain jurisdictions.

We will not, therefore, be putting forward the amendment at this time.