Environment Committee on April 28th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's great that you're here. We'll have you give your five minutes of opening comments, and then we'll go back to the questioning. We have to break for about 10 minutes for a vote, and then we'll all come back and finish off the meeting.

Go ahead, please.

[Sonya Savage]

Thank you. I'll try to be quick.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. It’s a pleasure to be here on behalf of the Government of Alberta.

Our province has a long history of pairing responsible resource development and the development of our natural resources with sound environmental stewardship. When it comes to the plastics industry, that combination remains our primary focus, and we believe that it's the best long-term solution to the issue of plastic waste.

As a government, we recognize the immense danger that plastic waste can pose to the environment, not just in Canada but for the whole world. However, Alberta’s position is quite easy to summarize. Plastic itself is not the problem—the problem is waste. For instance, in 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada estimated that 86% of the plastics in our country were sent to the landfill. This represents not just an environmental waste, but an economic one as well. That same amount of waste could have been recycled and resold, with an estimated value of $7.8 billion.

It is that future that we are pursuing, in coordination with our partners in industry, academia and environmental groups. Collectively, we need to capture that lost value and avoid the plastic waste that can harm our lands, oceans and waterways.

We understand that Alberta has a central role to play in the future of plastics in Canada. That’s because we house the largest petrochemical manufacturing sector in Canada, and our goal is to be able to diversify our economy and to grow this industry further in the coming years.

When considering the effects of banning single-use plastics, please know that the decision will undoubtedly impact the future of Alberta’s economy and environment. We expect the immediate impact of such a ban on our existing plastics manufacturing sector to be significant.

Alberta companies produce a wide variety of plastic products, including many multi-use plastics, and our single-use plastics will remain in demand in international markets. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada estimates that between $100 million to $500 million in sales are at risk, representing between 500 and 2,000 jobs.

Our longer-term issues with the ban are of greater concern.

First, the opaque process by which plastics are being treated under the Canada Environmental Protection Act is troublesome. This approach, we believe, intrudes into provincial jurisdiction and overrides our responsibility to manage waste within our own province. If individual provinces wish to proceed with bans of materials that they view as harmful, that should remain a provincial responsibility. A federal ban announced through changes to a regulatory schedule is a one-size-fits-all approach that quite simply doesn't fit all needs. As we have seen during the COVID pandemic, plastics of all kinds are often vitally important to daily life. When it comes to the management of single-use plastics, provinces—and even municipalities—are in a better position to decide what should be allowed or banned.

More concerning is the long-term signal that this sends to our potential partners in building a truly circular economy for plastics. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada again warns that there are significant risks to the larger plastics supply chain, especially resin producers in Alberta and Ontario.

Banning plastics outright instead of working with industry and consumers to establish the kinds of advanced recycling techniques and practices needed to push the sector forward, ironically, wastes an enormous opportunity for Canada. Establishing ourselves as leaders in plastics recycling, as Alberta intends to do, not only will take plastic out of landfills and oceans, but will provide much-needed jobs across a range of industries.

My colleague, the Minister of Environment and Parks, is overseeing the policy initiatives to lead the way in Alberta by bending the curve on plastic use towards a circular economy. We're in the process of introducing extended producer responsibility, EPR, which we believe is the most effective way to deal with plastic waste. EPR accounts for regional differences when implemented at the provincial level, while furthering collective action on reducing waste.

Going further and building on an innovative hub of recycling know-how and connecting it with the large-scale petrochemical manufacturing that we have available in Alberta gives us a unique opportunity. We are well positioned to become a global destination for green investors while simultaneously enhancing Canada's reputation as a steward for our planet's pristine environment.

That's the future that Alberta is trying to build, but such a move will be possible only with the coordinated efforts of industry, researchers and government. Banning plastics, with the opportunity to arbitrarily expand that ban to more items in the future, will instead remove the very investor interest that we need to build a positive future for plastics in Canada.

Here in Alberta, we're aiming to attract $30 billion of new investments in the petrochemical sector over the next decade, and this ban reduces the attractiveness of Canada as an investment opportunity.

In summary, Alberta does not support the plastic ban as planned, not necessarily because of any immediate impacts on our industry or environment, but because it implies a short-term thinking that will be detrimental to the innovation needed to reduce plastic waste.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll continue finishing off our first six-minute round, with Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for their testimony so far today.

My first question is for Ms. Wallis.

We've heard from the plastics industry—and I think we heard some of this in the minister's comments a moment ago—that plastic isn't the problem but waste is.

I wonder if you could comment on this perspective on the issue and provide your view on it.

[Ashley Wallis]

For more than half a century, the plastics industry has been touting recycling as the solution to our plastic pollution crisis, yet globally, only 9% of plastic waste has been recycled and 91% has ended up in the environment. That is 5.7 billion tonnes of plastic. It's a huge amount.

Our recycling systems, as Mr. Lee was mentioning earlier, were never designed to handle the volume or complexity of the plastic materials on the market. I think it is short-sighted to assume that we could be able to handle this through recycling and that it is just a waste issue. Frankly, consumers have been told for years that if we just did a better job of putting stuff into the right bin and cleaning things before we put them into the bin, this wouldn't be a problem at all, but it obviously is.

I am particularly concerned about the recurring narrative about chemical recycling saving us from all of this, because the vast majority of chemical recycling systems that exist today are not actually turning plastic into new plastic. They are turning plastic into fuel, and that fuel is then burned, which means that plastics are really only a pit stop in a fossil fuel's existence from extraction to tail pipe.

The priority here really needs to be reducing plastic use overall, and an obvious place to start would be eliminating these unnecessary single-use plastics, including the ones that the government has proposed in its ban.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Picking up where you left off—the topic of the plastics proposed for the ban—I don't think anyone likes the idea of products being banned. It seems like a policy of last resort.

Why is it such an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing the global plastic pollution problem?

[Ashley Wallis]

There are a few reasons. In general, the way we have looked at this problem in the past has been as a kind of end-of-pipe solution. We already have a bathtub overflowing with water, so let's get a mop, but we're not willing to turn off the tap.

Bans are an example of a way we could help reduce plastic use overall. That's important, because as I said in my opening remarks, the modelling shows that plastic production is expected to increase significantly by 2040. If we don't meaningfully reduce that, all of the potential interventions we can put on the table will not be enough to stop the flow of plastic into our oceans.

Bans are a critical piece. They also signal that Canadians are unwilling to accept unnecessary single-use plastic; they prioritize plastic for the places in our society where they might have real value, for example, in the medical space.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One of the other issues we've heard a lot of contention about from the plastics industry over the course of these hearings is the inclusion of plastic under CEPA's definition of toxic substances.

I'm sure you've followed this debate. Why do you feel it's appropriate—and I believe from your introductory remarks you indicated it was—that plastics be listed under CEPA's definition of toxic?

[Ashley Wallis]

I think plastic manufactured items absolutely meet the definition of toxic under CEPA. I'm not going to read the definition again because I know that Ms. Curran from the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria already did that, but I want to reiterate that CEPA is the federal law that the government has available at its fingertips to regulate plastic production, use and disposal.

We've heard a lot from industry and other folks who have presented to the committee about how this shouldn't just be about bans; it should also be about recycled content requirements. It should be about maybe reuse or refill targets. Those are all things that can also happen under CEPA once this listing is final. Really this is a necessary step for the federal government to establish its jurisdiction and take appropriate actions to keep plastic out of the environment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you. I will shift briefly to Ms. Wirsig.

We've heard the topic of fossil fuel subsidies already raised. Could you speak to the role that Canada's fossil fuel subsidies play in the plastic pollution problem?

[Karen Wirsig]

Unfortunately, Canadian public coffers are paying subsidies both for the production of plastics and also for these untested and, frankly, not environmentally sustainable processes to try to deal with plastics at the end of life, usually through some manner of burning them or thermally treating them and turning them, as Ms. Wallace mentioned, back into fuel. Fossil fuel subsidies are a much bigger problem than subsidies for plastics, but plastics should not be forgotten when we're talking about the need to transition away from subsidies and from carbon in general.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I was going to try to fit one more in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, Mr. Bachrach, you were already over six minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's okay. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we're going to cut everybody off for a few minutes, because it's time to vote. Our apologies to the witnesses, but we have to leave the call for, at most, 15 minutes. We have to vote with our iPhone voting apps and then come back.

I would ask that the committee members just put themselves on mute, stop the video and vote on their phones. Apparently, we can't start until the voting period is over. Once we have the result of the vote, we can all unmute and turn our cameras back on, and it will be seamless, if that's okay with everybody. I'll suspend the meeting for about 15 minutes, and again, apologies to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll continue and start the second round of questioning. It's a five-minute round.

We'll start with Mr. Redekopp for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks to all the panel members for being here today.

I want to speak with you, Mr. Goetz. I think you probably deserve the gold star for the most recycling—and we've talked a lot about that today—at 75%, I think you said, in your industry.

I was looking on your website, and under the “Initiatives” section, you talk about the Canada Plastics Pact, and it makes note that your members are part of the Canada Plastics Pact, which is an industry-led initiative launched in 2018, well before the Liberals decided to come out and declare plastic as toxic.

In your opening statement it sounded like you were clearly suggesting to the committee that we stay the course rather than go down a magical Liberal red brick road.

I just want to ask: Do you believe that the Liberal government took into account the work that you and your partners have been doing with the Plastics Pact since 2018, prior to their recent announcement that plastics are suddenly toxic?

[Jim Goetz]

Many of our members, I will say—not all of them—are members of the Canada Plastics Pact, and it is an initiative that the Canadian Beverage Association is supporting.

This is a place where industry, recyclers, processors and even some environmental groups have come together and said, “Let's work together collaboratively to try to remove more plastic from the environment,” which is what we all want to do.

My only concern at the federal level, when it comes to the beverage sector in particular, which I represent, is that there is a bit of a lack of understanding about what goes on in every single province when it comes to beverage container recycling.

Again, we have programs in place in every province. Some are EPR and some are run by industry, which is, of course, what I think almost everyone around this table has said we need to support. Some are government controlled, which we are not as much in favour of. We want to take responsibility for our containers, but there needs to be collaboration around the fact that these files lie at the provincial level.

Obviously we appreciate the idea of harmonization on a national level; we would like that. It's hard to work in every province and every territory with a different program, but perhaps, through CCME, we really need to take that idea of harmonization to a new level. Simply having the federal government weigh in with new rules that are not coordinated at the provincial level, which is where waste and recycling is handled, is problematic.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

If I might ask that a different way, does the government's ban on plastics reflect the desires of your association?

[Jim Goetz]

No, it does not. Again, with the plastic we use in our industry, it's PET. I'm not going to get into technicalities; I'm not a scientist, but it is highly recyclable, recycled at high levels domestically and not shipped overseas, so we would ask the federal government to be very careful on putting rules in place that are not reflective of what is going on in the domestic market and some of the plastic markets here in Canada. Fully recognize that some plastics are much harder to recycle, but make sure to coordinate with the provinces on this in the programs that are already in place across every region in the country.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Going back to your website again, I noticed on that same Plastics Pact page that you referred to a Deloitte study that was undertaken for the Government of Canada. It talked about the economic risks and rewards of the approach of the pact, versus the government's outright ban.

Are you familiar with that? Can you briefly tell us if there is anything of value for us in that report?

[Jim Goetz]

My comment on that would be that the government, at one point, is saying it wants to ban certain products, but is also saying it wants to increase the circular economy. I think—and I'm sure we'll disagree with certain witnesses on this committee—that there is a real value there to try to build that circular economy.

In particular, jurisdictions—the Europeans, and even certain large jurisdictions in the United States, like California—are starting to talk about recycled PET content. Because we have fairly robust recycling programs here in Canada, that is a real opportunity for us if we are serious about building the circular economy instead of just banning material. There is an economic opportunity there.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Could you provide that study to the committee, please?

[Jim Goetz]

Absolutely. We'll follow up on that tomorrow, a hundred per cent.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.