Industry Committee on March 29th, 2023

[Megan Nichols]

Mr. Chair, the federal government, indeed, has some environmental performance agreements in place with the base metals smelting and refining sector.

In terms of a federal standard, Health Canada is currently developing a health-based ambient air quality objective for arsenic. There is not one in place at the moment, but we expect that this tool will be able to be used by the federal government, provincial governments and industry to help establish the level that's appropriate in order to manage arsenic health risks.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Nichols.

Mr. Chair, may I ask one last question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Certainly, Mr. Lemire.

After all, you are the one who suggested that we do this study.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I would like those documents to be provided to the Committee, if that is possible.

The last aspect we should address in connection with this industry, in my opinion, is obviously the question of recycled products. I believe that a tiny portion of recycled products in Quebec and Canada is sent to the Horne Foundry. For example, we know that products from Silicon Valley will end up there.

How could we increase the volume of electronic waste and metals that end up there? In my opinion, it would be in our interest to do that. The more products we recycle, the less we will depend on complex concentrates to get the same volume of products.

At the same time, this waste that is to be recycled, which comes from electronic parts, in particular, contains silicon components, paint, and toxic elements. What impact does that have on product recycling and on the environment? There seems to be a disconnect between the standards and their effects on the environment.

In other words, can we increase production of anodes or copper by mandating that a larger volume of electronic products be recycled?

What it often comes down to is money. I get the feeling that it costs less to go international, and that corporations—often private corporations—will make more money by buying products and exporting them internationally rather than keeping them here. That means we also lose the resource.

[Sheryl Groeneweg]

Thank you so much. That's a very important line of questioning. Hopefully, I'm answering your question as directly as I can.

The demand for copper is going to be quite a bit bigger—even conservative estimates are very strong. The world has to consider all avenues for access to copper, including through extraction and then refining virgin copper from the earth, as well as what has already been extracted and transformed into some manufactured product, and then the recycling of those.

There will be differentials around the world in terms of how this is approached. In Canada, we are very fortunate to have natural resources and the ability to extract and process, etc. There are countries that are not as fortunate as Canada. They are looking very hard at how to recycle what they have within their borders now and where to get access to greater post-consumer product recycling. I would imagine that those approaches will put farther ahead the ability for recycling to be a more viable economic way in which to do this.

It's not absent right now, of course. You know that the Horne foundry is accepting recycled material and is processing that. It's a very important part of what it does. It does both. It takes virgin copper and it takes recycled content. I would see more of both things happening around the world, and I would see Canada having a very important role in how this plays out as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Fast, the floor is yours.

Usually it would be Brian Masse, but unfortunately he had to run out for a few minutes, so we'll skip the NDP this time.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

He's not here. I'm ready to go.

Thank you.

There are six of you here, so I'm sure one of you can answer my question. I'm trying to understand the extended producer responsibility, because the latest statistics we have in our possession show that Canada has lagged way behind the Europeans in the collection of e-waste. In fact, Sweden is at 70%, and Canada is at 14%. Mr. Drouin, I think you're coming up with some additional stats on this, but that is not a pretty picture to paint for Canadians. We're laggards in that area.

My understanding of extended producer responsibility is that those very manufacturers of the products that end up being waste, which those manufacturers profit from, are responsible for the eventual recycling or at least collection of that waste. Do I have that correct so far?

All right. I see you nodding. Thank you.

Yet, we're at 14% in Canada. These manufacturers, by the way, charge fees to consumers, to their customers. At some point in time, to obviate the responsibility of the consumer to do all the recycling, the manufacturer gets paid for this, yet it doesn't appear that the producers are actually doing the work they have been paid to do. I'm obviously missing something in that equation. Can someone explain to me EPR and the degree to which manufacturers are actually responsible for recycling e-waste?

[Dany Drouin]

The best answer I can give you is that the manufacturers discharge their obligations through the fees from their own operations. They will not collect those fees from consumers to then transfer them to the province, for example. It's within their own operations. There might be eco fees put forward by different jurisdictions, and it's the purview of the provinces and territories to do so.

I think what you're pointing out is what I would call the landscape of EPR programs across the country. I mentioned the one in B.C. not long ago, which covers e-waste. Not all EPR programs cover all types of material, so that could be one example and one explanation of the delta in the recycling rate, for example, in Sweden versus in Canada.

Another important factor is the timelines for when those EPR programs are being implemented through legislation. Some may not be in effect right now or weren't in effect two years ago, so the implementation and the scope of each EPR program may have implications and impacts on the stats you mentioned.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is there something that the federal or provincial governments can do to improve the rigour of our EPR regimes across Canada?

[Dany Drouin]

The provinces are responsible for the setting up and the administration of the EPR programs. At the federal level, we are working with them in the CCME, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, where we created a guidance document around the standardization and harmonization of EPR programs across the country. That document is online on the CCME website. It presents what an EPR could look like across the country for each jurisdiction.

Federally, we spend most of our regulatory effort in action that would apply nationally across the country. We've looked at a prohibition on single-use plastics, for example. We're also looking at recycled content in plastics products so we can have one standard for the country.

The EPR is something that's for a province to deal with.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay. I have another question. Another way we can reduce e-waste—it's a small way but we can do it—is by moving to a universal charger. The European Union is well on its way to doing that. If you came into my home, you would find drawers full of chargers. Somehow I don't believe that in Canada we're yet at a point where we're willing to move towards the adoption of a universal charger.

Can someone clarify whether we're moving in that direction?

[Sheryl Groeneweg]

I think there was a budget item relative to this yesterday. That's just yesterday, so I think it's for future discussion, perhaps at the committee. You can imagine that it's always fresh news for us what's in the budget, as it is for every other Canadian. You might not think that, but it's always news to us, too.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You can confirm that right now, for the Government of Canada, prior to yesterday's budget there was no plan to move forward with a universal charger. It's possible the budget may have changed that.

[Sheryl Groeneweg]

That's right. There was no active action area that was under way prior to that, yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You have minus two minutes, Mr. Fast.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you for your generosity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I always appreciate Conservatives' highlighting the good points in a Liberal budget such as this one.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's very generous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll now turn to Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and maybe that's a good reason to vote for the budget. It's clearly something that's very important to the Conservatives.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm not crossing the floor anytime soon.