THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 28, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-234: An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).
Senator Josée Verner (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning everyone. My name is Josée Verner. I am a senator from Quebec and deputy chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like to begin with a reminder. Before asking or answering questions, I would ask members and the witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
[English]
Having said that, I invite my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Inkerman senatorial division, Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac, Kennebec senatorial division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Good morning. Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Good morning. Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba region.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Lanaudière senatorial division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Arnot: Good morning. David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings. Today the committee begins its examination of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).
[Translation]
To this end, we welcome the Honourable Senator Carignan, who is sponsoring this bill. Senator, I would like to welcome you and to thank you for accepting our invitation. You have 10 minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Senator Carignan.
Hon. Claude Carignan, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for welcoming me this morning to study an important bill that is very close to my heart, Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste), of which I am the sponsor.
I would now like to provide you with an overview of this important bill which, although short in length, will have a beneficial and considerable impact on the environment. The aim of this bill is to reduce the pollution caused by Canada’s plastic waste in less affluent countries, where it is exported on a massive scale.
This bill is identical to the version of Bill C-204 that was passed at second reading in the Senate and referred to your committee for study on June 22, 2021. Unfortunately, Bill C-204 died on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021 when the federal election was called, which meant that your committee did not have the opportunity to invite witnesses to begin studying it.
Bill C-204 was sponsored in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Scot Davidson. In the other place, MPs voted in favour of Bill C-204 at third reading. If Bill C-204 received such strong support from MPs, it’s because a vast majority of them agree that the pollution caused by Canada’s export of its plastic waste to other countries is a serious and growing problem that Canada has a moral responsibility to address.
Bill S-234 aims to ban the export from Canada of plastic waste destined for final disposal. As MP Davidson mentioned in his speech at second reading of Bill C-204:
The definition of “plastic waste“ outlined in the accompanying schedule is derived straight from the Basel Convention annexes. Likewise, “final disposal“ is a specifically defined term, meaning operations that do not lead to the possibility of resource recovery, recycling, reclamation or alternative reuse.
Bill S-234 obviously does not seek to ban the export of plastics for recycling.
If implemented, the measures in the bill would instead force Canada to only export plastic waste to a foreign country if it can be recycled there.
The data shows us that the problem tackled by Bill S-234 is very real. It indicates that containers containing plastic waste are sent abroad in very large quantities, even though they cannot be recycled there. Let us take some real examples from a written response from Environment and Climate Change Canada received by MP Davidson on April 26, 2022. According to this document, inspections in 2019 uncovered 11 containers totalling 181 tonnes of plastic waste from Canada to Malaysia. Inspections in 2020 also uncovered 15 containers totalling 298 tonnes of plastic waste from Canada to Vietnam. However, as reported by The Fifth Estate and Enquête in 2022, as Canada conducts too few inspections, the amount of waste exported is underestimated.
The management of plastic waste is a global environmental problem that particularly affects Asian countries, which receive huge quantities of waste from western countries. However, these developing countries are not equipped to manage all this plastic waste in an environmentally friendly way. Canada could help put an end to this type of pollution if it were to adopt Bill S-234.
It is worth remembering that China used to be Canada’s main market for plastic waste. However, at the end of 2017, China banned this practice by adopting much stricter standards for imported recyclable products. Our country then turned to other developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, to manage Canada’s plastic waste.
For companies in these developing countries, it is common practice to landfill or incinerate imported plastic waste. This situation has very concerning direct and indirect effects on the environment, as the 2022 reports from The Fifth Estate and Enquête show.
For example, the report told Canadians that their plastic waste ends up in dumps where very poor people collect it by hand to be used as cheap but highly polluting fuel in local factories. The incineration of plastic waste produces emissions that are toxic for the environment and dangerous for the residents of these Asian communities. According to the same reports, large quantities of plastic waste from Canada also end up in Asian rivers. The report also quoted the moving testimony of a young Indonesian environmental activist, Nina Azzahra, who asked Minister Guilbeault to ensure that Canada stop sending plastic waste to her country. Here is her message to the minister:
[English]
I really want you to stop — stop exporting your plastic waste to Indonesia. Just stop.
[Translation]
The Minister of Environment voted against Bill C-204 at the time, even though the report acknowledged the serious problem of plastic waste pollution caused by Canada in other countries.
Following this report, the export of our plastic waste continued. As a result, the pollution generated by our plastic waste on the other side of the world has devastating effects on these communities, on the health of their populations and on Canada’s reputation.
It is true that Canada signed and ratified the Basel Convention in 2019 and that amendments to this convention were adopted to strengthen Canada’s commitments to combat the export of plastic waste. However, this is still not enough, because this convention and its amendments still allow Canada to export its plastic waste via the United States.
According to the Canadian government, 98% of Canada’s imports and exports of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials involve the United States. However, the United States has not ratified the Basel Convention. It is therefore not subject to the same requirements when it comes to exporting plastic waste. As a result, Canada can send its plastic waste to the United States, which then sends it to developing countries that accept it. By sending its waste via the United States, Canada is indirectly doing what it cannot do directly. In doing so, Canada is violating the spirit of the Basel Convention.
On June 13, 2023, Canada passed Bill S-5, a landmark measure that recognizes Canada’s right to a healthy environment. Is Canada being unethical? Is it hypocritical to flout the right of less affluent countries to a healthy environment by sending them plastic waste that is not recycled there?
It is time for this to stop and for Canada to finally assume its responsibilities. That’s why I’m asking you to help me pass this bill. Thank you. I am available to answer any questions you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Senator Carignan, I’m really looking for your knowledge and advice on these quick questions and hope you can help me understand this issue a little better.
First of all, on Schedule 7 there are 32 items. Are some of these plastics unique to specific industries in Canada? If so, which industries?
Which plastic waste items considered hazardous and problematic from an environmental and human health perspective do you know of that are not on this list? In other words, are there others that should be added?
If these plastic waste items remain in Canada, do you know if they will be stored or destroyed? How do we protect the environment if we keep them in Canada? If plastic waste remaining in Canada is managed in an environmentally sound way, what investments do government and industry have to make to manage that waste?
And the last one is this, if you could speak to this: In the journal Science in 2016 Japanese academics published papers concerning bacteria that consume plastic. Is that a technology that could be applicable in Canada?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. If, of course, you want us to go into certain things in more detail, we can always do that later, or there may be other witnesses who are better qualified than I am to answer these questions.
First of all, the list of items comes from the Basel Convention. The problem with this list is that the plastics on it are dangerous, but they can’t be recycled or reused either; that’s why we want to ban their export and deal with them here. Obviously, it’s difficult to determine which plastics come from which industry. We know that there are a lot of single-use plastics, so the food sector could be affected, but there are many other industries. It’s difficult to pinpoint the percentage of each. Company representatives, particularly from the petrochemicals sector, acknowledged that they had to do more to eliminate and reduce single-use plastics or those for final disposal. We need to ensure that we have a cycle and a circular economy for these plastics. Those that are on the list are not part of it, because they are disposed of. How can we reduce them at the source?
The purpose of the bill is to prevent us from sending it elsewhere. If Canada doesn’t have the technology or knowledge needed to reduce or manage the amount of plastic waste, I don’t think that sending it to Vietnam or Malaysia will help. I was lucky enough to go to Asia recently and it’s quite worrying to see the amount of plastic waste in the rivers there. Clearly, they don’t have the capacity to manage it. So it’s not up to Canada to shovel plastic waste into these countries and make the problem worse. This is one of the aims of the bill. Banning the export of plastic waste means that we have to manage it ourselves.
Now, how are we going to manage it? What innovations will we introduce? Like you, I’ve heard of these bacteria that consume plastic; it takes longer. Is this an innovative strategy that could help us manage the situation and ensure that Canada becomes a leader in finding new ways to eliminate this type of plastic? Perhaps. There are certainly other ways. Canada is very creative. We’ll have to do it anyway.
An international agreement is currently being negotiated. In fact, Ottawa will take part in one of the negotiating rounds in 2024, when we really want to have better management and control of plastics. We have to move towards that. What will it cost? We never know, of course. If we don’t want to absorb the cost of positive management of these plastics, we should stop producing and using them. We don’t have to transfer these costs to developing countries.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, Senator Carignan, for sponsoring this bill.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about the Basel Convention. You seem to be saying — and rightly so — that there is a safe-conduct whereby Canada can transfer to the United States waste that would not normally be acceptable in accordance with the Basel Convention.
Like any convention, the Basel Convention, which is in force, is non-binding. Does Canada comply with it? Are any shipments or exports leaving Canada in compliance with the Basel Convention? According to the research we have, is all the waste we send to the United States more or less recyclable when it comes out?
Senator Carignan: There are several elements to the Basel Convention. There are amendments concerning the management system through which we must have the authorization of the importing country and communicate with it to ensure a good understanding of the plastic products or waste that are being shipped. Canada has finally ratified the convention and its amendments. However, there is one amendment to the convention that Canada has not ratified: it concerns the ban on the export of plastics. Canada respects one part of the convention, the management part, but not the ban, which it has not ratified. This means that Canada has the possibility of concluding agreements with countries that have not signed the Basel Convention, like the United States. Normally, there should be a reasonable or rational equivalence management system to ensure that standards are so well managed that the United States handles the plastic waste we export in the same reasonable way that we would. However, this does not resolve the issue of the ban. As the export of plastics is not banned, that part of the convention is not respected. As for the issue of management, we have difficulty controlling the origin and destination of our waste and labelling within our own country.
Imagine: even if you impose these standards and say that the United States is going to do it, how can you monitor all this in a foreign country? It obviously doesn’t work. Have you seen the reports on Enquête? It’s clear that waste from Canada is ending up in landfill sites in India and Indonesia. The system isn’t working.
The best way forward would be to ban this waste, as agreed in the amendment to the Basel Convention to provide for a ban, and to manage it ourselves. This would avoid transferring the problem to developing countries that clearly do not have the capacity to deal with it and are bigger producers than we are. They already have their hands full managing their own plastic waste. It’s not for us to find the easy way out and pile it on the heap over there.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ultimately, we’re aiming for a total ban?
Senator Carignan: Exactly. For this type of plastic.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s right.
You probably remember the scandal at the Montreal sorting centre, where we saw that bales were piling up when China closed its borders. Do we know if there have been any improvements since to these facilities, these sorting centres that separate recyclable plastic waste? Have there been any studies? Do you have any information on this?
Senator Carignan: I know that Montreal has terminated its agreement with the firm mentioned in the report.
There are major challenges in the sorting centres. I’m going to talk a little about my past. I was mayor of Saint-Eustache. I sat on the board of Tricentris, the sorting centre in Lachute that covers a large part of the northern suburbs. We had become one of the biggest sorting centres in Quebec. The different types of plastic have to be sorted mechanically; some are contaminated, others are not, like plastic grocery bags that get caught in the pulley system and block the system, which means that many of these products become waste and go into bales.
A lot depends on China. If the Chinese government decides to block aluminum or cardboard, it accumulates in the yard. When the market tries an avenue or when we find outlets, that’s where we try to send the waste, but with completely variable costs and revenues. This wasn’t a problem for a not-for-profit organization subsidized by the municipalities, but in the private sector, where profit is an important aspect, what are the outlets? What kind of contamination is acceptable? According to the standards, we can send 5% of contaminated products. We’re sending 20% or 25% —that’s what we’ve seen in inspections carried out by Canadian inspectors. This is extremely difficult to manage for a use that is — In 2016, 86% of plastic waste was landfilled. We have problems with glass too. I’m getting ahead of myself, but glass is another issue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So 86% of plastic waste —
Senator Carignan: Landfilled here.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Landfilled here.
Senator Carignan: In 2016.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Carignan: It’s a complex problem, because I can also talk about landfill disposal. It is landfilled with all the other waste. Do municipalities have a responsibility? Should we say that the waste was landfilled in a given place instead of being mixed with other putrescible waste and that together we are managing it better, and when we have technologies to recover or reuse it, we will know where it is in the landfill?
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Carignan, for bringing this bill forward.
I have a couple of questions. I agree with the objectives of the bill. The questions I have are around the integrity of the product, enforcement and things like that.
The other thing that strikes me is the question of, yes, it may be good for Canada to ban export, but do the countries that are being damaged the most have import bans on products such as these? Or are you aware of any that have the import bans?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If the countries that have ratified the convention ban plastic waste, we should automatically refrain from sending it there.
The problem is that countries that have not ratified the ban will accept this plastic waste, which will find its way onto their territory more or less legally. Later, when the authorities of those countries become aware of this, it will cause a crisis. However, those that have ratified the ban should not normally receive the waste.
[English]
Senator Wells: Senator Carignan, we know — or I know — there is deliberate mislabelling of HS Codes, or the codes that are attached to the products that go out. Is there any way, other than greater site inspections, that can get around this problem — the question of mislabelling? Does a port inspector inspecting the export know these products are in there if they’re not labelled as such? We know that not every exporter —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The bill aims to ban a type of plastic that can’t be recycled and reused, that has no second life. So, that’s the type that should be disposed of once and for all. For the rest, as far as inspection and labelling are concerned, will people try to circumvent the law?
It’s already happening, because notices of violation are issued and minor fines are imposed. Sometimes they’re just warning letters. In fact, MP Scot Davidson asked a question about this in the House. According to my notes, there are very few notices of violation issued or deterrent fines imposed. Often, we simply send warning letters.
Not only is the inspection system more or less effective, but the fines imposed don’t really serve as a deterrent. So there’s a lot of work to be done in this area.
In my opinion, labelling is another issue, a parallel issue. It’s a complex issue with several components. There are a number of laws and programs that need to be implemented, and labelling is part of that. If a product that is not recyclable and to be disposed of permanently is labelled as a recyclable product, the companies at fault should have to pay severe fines.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. Is there consideration given for smaller amounts of the banned product as a compound of a larger product? For example, a diaper might have a certain compound that might make the plastic more flexible or more rigid, depending on the product. Is there any consideration given to smaller amounts or trace amounts of these ingredients when the majority of the product might be something that is not that?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: These products don’t necessarily come in alone. They are often mixed or contaminated, and that is a factor. For example, when a diaper is shipped, normally it is not new; it has been used.
In my opinion, this is not the kind of product that should be exported to a developing country.
[English]
Senator Wells: I do know that thousands of tonnes of diapers were sent to Afghanistan for incineration. That’s not a good thing. They are obviously a country that can’t handle that in any environmentally sound way. When we think of amendments or the sharp edges around this bill, we should think of those instances as well.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I believe there are amendments that can improve a private bill. I am open to any amendment that would improve the bill. I would be pleased.
Senator Massicotte: I’d like to summarize to confirm that I’ve understood everything.
The bill represents an important step towards a real solution. For the time being, we’re explaining the reasons why companies might not comply with the bill or we’re finding other things that prevent us from finding a solution. I still think we need to plan the next stage and take the issue seriously. You clearly said that companies will try to circumvent the law to make a bit of money. So, if I understand correctly, we’ll still be at the same point.
Senator Carignan: Basically, what I’m saying is that the ban is more important than the current system. The government will say that a system is in place and that there is an agreement with the United States to ensure that these things do not happen and that when plastic waste is sent there, it is properly managed. However, it’s clear that it’s not working and that the law is being circumvented at the moment. There is a ban on plastic products that have to be disposed of permanently. As Europe has done and in accordance with the Basel Convention, we have ratified the ban and it is in force. Consequently, Canada needs to do what these countries are doing.
We need to do more than just say that the ban may be difficult to apply in certain situations. The fact that it is difficult to impose sanctions or ensure control does not mean that we should authorize it either. Just because it is difficult to control speed on the roads does not mean that speed limits should be abolished. All that has to be managed.
Senator Massicotte: What would be more important would be to use our influence to correct the shortcomings immediately.
Senator Carignan: A number of things need to be corrected. For example, the government is currently banning plastic straws. Admittedly, it’s a step in the right direction, but we all agree that given the millions of tonnes of plastic used and produced in Canada, banning straws is a symbolic gesture. However, it sends out the message that the government wants to tackle the problem.
In my opinion, if the government really wants to tackle the problem, it should first ratify the ban amendment to the Basel Convention and pass the bill. Passage of the bill would mean that even if the ban amendment is not ratified, the government would be obliged to respect it.
The House of Commons passed the bill by a majority. It’s the same principle. The message was understood in the House of Commons, but the problem has still not been resolved. The idea would be to resolve it now by passing the bill and sending it back to the House of Commons, which has already passed it. It would be odd if it didn’t pass it again.
I would also say that if we want to send messages and lecture other countries, we have to make sure we’re doing our job. It’s hard to send messages to other countries when we’re not doing what we should be doing at home.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation, senator. I wanted to look at the overall problem of why we are doing this ban. If we don’t export it and we don’t address the plastic pollution crisis in Canada, then we are essentially doing to Canada what this bill is trying to address to protect other countries. We haven’t gotten to the root of the problem.
In a Toronto Star article, Karen Wirsig, the plastics program manager at the NGO Environmental Defence, says that as long as recycling is seen as the main solution and if plastic is not eliminated at the source, we will continue to have to ban and continue to see if there is an oversight body to monitor this. She says that without substantial new action by all levels of government to prevent plastics from becoming waste, we will continue to have this problem.
Another concern that came forward was the pollution to freshwater lakes that is happening in our own country with plastics — that the unsustainable production, consumption and management of plastic, with its durability and ubiquity, threaten the health of our fresh water and that these macroplastics break down into microplastics and are ingested by fish, birds and other animals in our own country. So unless we address that root cause — and if Canada does not ban plastics in this country — export will always remain a problem.
Could you see an amendment that could be included in this bill to address the problem of this production, overconsumption and use of plastics?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You raise an important issue. Obviously, the best solution is to reduce production at the source. If we don’t reduce it at the source, we must at least use plastics that can be reused, recycled and, ultimately, disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
Yes, it’s a problem here in Canada. This is a private bill, so it has its limits. With a private bill, you can’t spend money to avoid a problematic situation.
Secondly, the bill must fall under federal jurisdiction. There is a link with exports, so it is clearly a bill under federal jurisdiction.
When we propose amendments to limit or reduce plastic waste at the base, we start to fall within provincial jurisdiction, and that can be more problematic. Obviously, the whole issue of managing plastics is a complex one. The beauty of this bill is that it ensures that it becomes an issue for companies to produce plastics that can’t be recycled, despite it being profitable to do so, because they’ll have to manage their disposal here and innovate to dispose of them here. This will probably lead them to change products, to favour products that are recyclable or to use cardboard or another type of product. The indirect effect will help create pressure to reduce the use of this type of product.
So that’s an indirect effect of the bill, but proposing explicit amendments that deal with reduction at the source takes us into provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the House of Commons proposed an amendment that my team and I incorporated into the bill. It has to respect provincial jurisdiction; it’s specifically to avoid any drift in this area.
I agree with you: The problem of reduction at the source exists in Canada. Besides, I think you’ve travelled abroad. If you’ve been to Asia, you’ve probably noticed that the problem is much bigger there, and sending them our plastics won’t help them solve it.
[English]
Senator McCallum: This problem with involving all levels of government — we always pass legislation that has interjurisdictional issues. What makes this different from the other bills that we have passed?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Because the bill concerns the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which specifically targets the export of products and is therefore clearly an area of federal jurisdiction.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I congratulate our colleague, Senator Carignan, for his involvement and leadership on this issue. We understand that this bill is somewhat a mirror image of Bill C-204, which had gone through all the stages in the House of Commons and reached the Senate stage, but could not be passed because of the election.
I think all Canadians have seen the images of plastic waste containers in Asia. It was embarrassing for an industrialized country like Canada.
In fact, I have two questions. First, given that this bill is the continuation of the one that had gone through all the stages and was about to be passed, why are we allowing 12 months before it comes into force? Is it because consultations are held with the industry? It seems to me that was coming. That’s my first question.
My second question is this. How can we ensure that this bill is complied with? Will sanctions and inspections be introduced by order-in-council? Obviously, we can’t mention everything in a bill, but afterwards, when it comes into force, how will it work? Will it be by order-in-council? Will the government finally ensure that the spirit of the bill is respected? Thank you.
Senator Carignan: To answer your question about the time frame, I think that when we pass a bill that prohibits doing something that is currently being done and that some processes may be under way, we must allow a certain amount of time to ensure that we don’t take people by surprise and put them in a position to commit an offence.
Earlier, I mentioned the example of driving regulations and speeding. When a municipality installs a new stop, there’s a sign beforehand saying that on a given date, there will be a new stop at that location. This is so that people will change their behaviour and respect the bylaw when it comes into force. It’s a question of fairness.
Secondly, in terms of the enforcement system, the Environment Act already has a whole system of regulation and protection, particularly amended sections 185 and 186. When you look at the entire management and control system, it’s all there. Obviously, this will ban the use of certain plastics, but the export of other plastics that can be recycled will still be allowed, and there’s a whole labelling and control system already in place. At that point, inspectors will only have to identify which plastics can be sent and which cannot. The aim is not to prevent the use or export of plastics that can be reused or recycled. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves short of clothes, because some of the plastics we send out are used to make clothes, when everything is properly recycled, of course. That’s kind of the concept behind it; it’s all there.
Should the government provide more resources or impose tougher penalties? The maximum fines are pretty steep. For a first offence, it’s $2,000.
For a company that moves containers one behind the other and could be in breach of the law — if only one in ten is caught — $2,000 isn’t much. Fines need to be much more of a deterrent.
The Deputy Chair: I too have a few questions.
I understand that since we’re talking about exports, this bill is under federal jurisdiction. The fact remains that these non‑recyclable plastics will have to be processed by the provinces, or even the municipalities.
Do they have the capacity to do this at the moment? Do you know if there have been any discussions with the provinces and municipalities? You used to be a mayor. How is all this perceived? Is the 12-month period for implementing the bill enough time to adjust?
Senator Carignan: The bill has already been studied in the House of Commons. A number of stakeholders, including representatives of the industry and environmental groups, have testified. No particular problems were raised, even by the industry, which said that we had to do more and to innovate.
The same goes for the provinces. When we tabled the bill, my team sent letters back to these interest groups to find out if they had any comments to make or specific points to raise. This included the Quebec government. We have not received any comments or heard any particular concerns about the implementation or management of this bill.
Obviously, the bill will encourage innovation, but I would remind you that in 2016, 86% of plastic waste was landfilled. What are we going to do with the 20,000 tonnes or so that will not be sent to developing countries but kept here? How are we going to manage them? How will we treat them? I hope we find innovative ways that we can then export to other countries. It’s even better to manage plastic waste here. If we can’t manage it, I’m not sure that developing countries are in a better position to do so.
The Deputy Chair: I agree with the objective. Indeed, what we can’t do here —
Senator Carignan: There will be an issue, but it’s not unmanageable; it will be the same for other plastics. Ultimately — it’s not what I want — they will be in a landfill, but they won’t be in our rivers and in the ocean.
The Deputy Chair: At this point, there are still exports going on with the United States. Do we know if the United States has any comments?
Senator Carignan: No. These agreements always aim to prioritize a healthy environment, raise environmental standards and improve the way it’s managed. The people I’ve consulted don’t see this as an issue, because it’s in line with that objective and with that of the Basel Convention, which, once again, has ratified the ban on exporting and trading with this type of final disposal waste. There is a consensus on this. Unfortunately, Canada hasn’t signed it, and the United States hasn’t signed or ratified the Basel Convention, which creates a loophole. This is what we want to put an end to.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, the border. It’s all going to come down to that: How do we carry out those inspections? I sponsored a bill on the issue of modern slavery. It’s now been two years since the bill was passed, and we still haven’t stopped a single shipment of goods produced through forced labour. I mention this because I’m trying to understand how inspectors will be able to tell the difference between plastic that can be exported and that which is prohibited in the same bundle of plastic. Perhaps I’m picking up on my colleague’s question. I know you won’t be the one enforcing the law, but I’m asking you if you have given any thought to this issue.
Senator Carignan: It’s already an issue. These products are already being sampled and analyzed. In fact, in the response that MP Scot Davidson received from Minister Guilbeault about offences — it had to do with businesses that have been issued sanctions or penalties and the number of incidents that occurred when exporting waste.
For there to be an offence, there has to be an investigation and inspections have to be carried out. Here, for example, in 2017, a warning letter stated that the container had 44,487 kilograms of lead waste in it. Therefore, the waste contained lead. A container had 1,000 kilograms of commingled waste in it. A $2,000 fine was issued in 2018 for 26,000 kilograms of scrap metal and e‑waste, and the container had lead or balancing weights in it. I have a whole list of offences that inspectors are able to identify, such as contaminated paper with more than 5% plastic content, for example. So it’s not recycled paper. They have the expertise and the inspectors to do that.
Are there enough inspectors right now? Do they do enough inspections? We think the numbers are underestimated. It’s a problematic situation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for giving me some reassurance.
Senator Carignan: I would prefer to reassure you a lot, but it’s not up to me.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So it’s all about these inspections, which help determine that what’s going to the United States is not what it should be?
Senator Carignan: They are samples. We have samples now, like a survey, so that can provide an order of magnitude if we extrapolate.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Senator Carignan, I didn’t thank you for putting this bill forward. My concern here is not with your bill but with this problem of plastics. My concern is the right to a healthy environment, not only for Canadians but for other people around the world, and it includes protecting mother earth, whether it’s land, water or air.
What mechanisms, if any, does Canada currently have in place to prevent negative impacts on the environment or human health caused by plastic waste after it is legally exported to other countries, including the United States? Do you think that this should be a responsibility that Canada takes on?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am somewhat relying on what I see in section 185 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and in the agreements. When Canada signs agreements, it must have the consent of the country receiving the waste, and a certain number of rules must be in place to monitor or determine what’s being done with the waste.
The problem is when this waste is sent to countries that haven’t signed the Basel Convention or developing nations. It’s a way to monitor, it’s random, and it is dependent on the country’s desire to do it and the means it has to do it.
I went to Vietnam in January and I saw a great deal of plastic waste in the river. My hotel was on a small island and we had to take a small boat to get there. I took a photo of what I saw: It was all plastic. I was flabbergasted; it’s very peculiar. So the hotel site was fantastic, but on my way there when I saw the plastic waste in the water as we would dock, I was flabbergasted. It’s really a major problem countries have to deal with, particularly in Asia and Africa. It’s a much bigger challenge than ours, so we must keep from exacerbating the problem for them. Obviously, I’m not familiar with their monitoring methods. I’m talking about Vietnam because I was there in January, but if they do have a method for monitoring that waste, it’s not working.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In Africa, there is plastic on the ground everywhere; you walk around, and the plastic with the wind is surreal.
Senator Carignan: So we need to lead the way.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you. When countries accept this plastic, as it is waste already, how do they benefit from it? I also wanted to remark that we are also exporting goods in plastic.
I’ve been to Vietnam. I spent three weeks there. Canada is also exporting products in plastics that people are buying there, and then they dispose of it in their country, and I did see the plastic going down the mountainside when I went to a Buddha temple, and I was very shocked at what I saw.
So how do these countries benefit? And then that comment on our exporting plastics in containers. Some countries are really receiving it from two ends.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: What’s the benefit? I imagine that, in some cases, plastics can be reused and recycled, and they see an opportunity to recycle plastic. What I’m aiming for here is final disposal plastic.
What’s in it for them? I think they benefit economically, because I imagine the businesses that receive these plastics are paid a certain amount of money. Look at the Enquête report: People take final disposal plastic and burn it to keep warm, so they can use it as an energy source. Perhaps that is what’s in it for them.
However, we’re forgetting all the harmful effects, which are the pollutants in the air and all the contaminants. There is a clear benefit, but extremely harmful effects also come with that. So, in the balance, it seems that some decide to use this advantage, but I think it’s up to us in Canada to lead the way and manage our own waste. When you take your garbage bins to the curb, you don’t leave them in your neighbour’s yard; you want to manage your garbage yourself until it gets picked up, you don’t go put it in your neighbour’s bin.
The Deputy Chair: I’m just going to take this opportunity to ask you if you have a preliminary assessment or if further managing this waste will have any financial impact on provinces and municipalities. I was wondering if you had those at this stage.
Senator Carignan: I think businesses will have to adapt or decide whether they will keep using these types of plastic products. They will try alternative sources, but I imagine they are already doing that, because they know it’s coming.
As far as municipalities are concerned, I don’t feel there will be any higher costs because municipalities already manage tons of waste of all kinds. If we have 24,000 tonnes of waste in Canada that needs to be managed here so that we don’t export it, I don’t think that’s a disproportionate cost; it really isn’t. As a former mayor and former member of the sorting centre board, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Senator Gignac: I really liked your image of what we do with our garbage vis-à-vis our neighbours.
Our North American economy is highly integrated; your bill talks a lot about banning the export of plastic waste —
Senator Carignan: Of final disposal plastic waste; so it’s only a small portion of it.
Senator Gignac: Okay, but what about imports? You argued that earlier; you may have “somewhat” convinced my colleague when you told her there would be inspections and mechanisms in place to prevent this waste from being sent to the United States. However, could we end up with stuff we would rather see stay in the United States, because basically we couldn’t have exported that waste to the United States under normal circumstances? That’s the other side of the story.
Because the economy is highly integrated, and businesses have subsidiaries on both sides of the border, would they only check things going to the United States, or would that be done for things entering Canada as well?
Senator Carignan: Of course, we’re trying to avoid offloading the problem elsewhere. If we’re naive enough to import someone else’s problem and deal with it — I don’t think that’s what we want. That’s why the countries ratified the amendment to prohibit that, as Europe and some OECD countries did —
Senator Gignac: I talked about the United States, because it didn’t ratify the amendment. That’s our big neighbour, it’s 10 times bigger than we are and U.S. businesses are highly integrated. Therefore, I was wondering if your bill should allude to —
Senator Carignan: “I’m not sending you any, but don’t you send me any.”
Senator Gignac: I’m not sure how to phrase it, but my point is that we’re always focused on not wanting to repeat what we saw on television with the containers of plastic waste that were sent to Asia.
Canada will develop expertise because of the ban on exporting plastic waste we can’t recycle to other countries.
My point, “integrated recovery,” is this: Are we going to end up receiving waste from the Americans, and not being able to send them any? I’m trying to see it from their perspective.
Senator Carignan: I believe that subsection 186(1) states:
. . . the Minister may . . . prohibit, completely or partially and under any conditions that may be prescribed, the import, export or transit of waste . . .
So the minister already has the power to do it. If there were an issue and it got worse, or if we found ourselves not sending plastic waste but receiving even more waste, the minister could already prohibit that by order, with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, as stated in subsection 186(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We have other —
Senator Gignac: I don’t mean to question your intentions. It’s just that the economy is highly integrated, as you know quite well. The companies producing plastics are sometimes big multinationals. I don’t know how many times a week products might cross the border. We know how many times they cross to produce an automobile: they cross over 40 times before a customer purchases an automobile, and that automobile surely goes back and forth across the border.
At what point do we come across the definition of this fabled plastic under the objects of the bill?
Senator Carignan: There is an appended list identifying the types of products that can’t be reused or recycled. It’s pretty well defined. The minister retains the power to prohibit imports of certain types of waste; we don’t always receive the nicest things.
You have seen the story about wastewater imported from sewage treatment plants in Vermont and Maine that was poured onto farmland here in Quebec. It’s allowed and it looks like it’s been checked, but I’d rather they pour it on their fields than mine.
Senator Massicotte: Senator, you made a comment. Given your experience with the sorting centre, you said there were no major problems in terms of managing the surplus. If you want to use it —
Senator Carignan: [Technical difficulties]
Senator Massicotte: I have a different understanding of it. As a society, I thought we had a major problem with our waste. Is that right or —
Senator Carignan: It is, but what I’m saying is that it’s not that much, the amount of plastic for final disposal. It’s not on the same scale as all the other garbage.
Senator Massicotte: If you were to add that to all garbage and all the rest —
Senator Carignan: We already have all that to manage. The problem is that we put it in places where it ends up being exported, once it’s been contaminated or something else. We should be managing it ourselves. As I said, in 2016, 86% of plastic waste went to landfills. That’s not where I want it to end up. However, that’s better than to sending it into a river in Indonesia or into a dump where the people who live next door burn the garbage. That’s the idea.
In my experience, I don’t think it will be a big deal. Yes, we will have to manage it to a certain extent and we will need to change our behaviour. What I’d really like is to see the industry take charge and develop innovative technologies so we stop using this waste or make it reusable or recyclable, if that’s possible.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: I know that you have answered some of these questions I’m going to ask. I’m just not comfortable leaving this waste in Canada unaddressed.
If Canada seeks to export plastic waste, the amount of plastic waste to be managed in Canada could increase. Which jurisdictions and industries would be most affected and in what ways? What would be the implications on the environment and on human health of a sudden increase in demand for plastic waste management and disposal in Canada? How would plastic waste likely be disposed of in Canada? For example, would landfill incineration or other measures be the most likely method of final disposal?
Would you recommend that the Energy Committee do a study on this area and what’s happening in Canada?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Obviously, we are talking about a small quantity of plastic in relation to the millions of tonnes produced and used in Canada. Millions of tonnes will have to be managed. Currently, waste in Canada is managed in a number of ways, including plastic. There’s collection and sorting when the waste is picked up, or mixed waste collection and sorting at the recycling facility, and then it’s brought back.
First, could the plastic waste be incinerated in Quebec City, with sensors for the various particles? Then at least, it would be incinerated here, in Quebec. That would ensure a decrease in pollution, and the particles would be captured here, instead of the plastic being burned in Indonesia.
You brought up mother earth. Whether it’s here or in Asia, it’s the same earth and the same water. I think that’s extremely important.
Second, there are already costs and challenges associated with waste management, whether it’s biogas capture at a solid waste landfill, incineration or electrolysis. Waste is managed in a host of ways. Overall, this bill will have a minor impact when it comes to waste destined for final disposal.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Okay, I thought this bill looked at the final disposal of plastic waste, not just single-use plastics. Are you saying this will only look at single-use?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The bill deals with plastic waste that can’t be reused or recycled, so products destined for final disposal. I’m not sure whether it’s clear, but it pertains to plastics that can’t be reused or recycled, so a small portion of plastic waste. Plastics that can be reused or recycled can continue to be exported in accordance with the terms of the Basel Convention. Canada finally ratified it and ratified the amendments on the control and trade of this type of plastic waste. The problem is that it did not ratify the part of the convention addressing the ban on plastics destined for final disposal.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Following up on Senator McCallum’s question, I’d like to know whether you have a sense of the proportion of all plastics used, and disposed of, in Canada. What is the proportion of reusable plastic versus the proportion of plastic that can’t be reused or recycled?
You’re always saying it’s a small portion.
Senator Carignan: It’s 20,000 tonnes. Canada produces millions of tonnes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If those figures appear —
Senator Carignan: I have them somewhere.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If you could forward them to the committee, I would appreciate it. You refer to them often, and it is important given the impact on costs, for instance. I’d be interested in knowing what exactly the proportion is.
Senator Carignan: I can send you more exact figures. According to the figures that appear in the online publication Our World in Data, Canada mismanaged 23,500 tonnes of plastic waste in 2019. That’s a lot, but not when you compare it with other countries. In Algeria’s case, for instance, the figure is 764,000 tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste. I covered those data in my statement.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, and they were also in the excellent summary provided by our analysts. When you get a chance, I’d like to know the proportion.
Senator Carignan: I saw the figure for plastic production in Canada. It’s millions of tonnes. I can’t remember the exact number, but I will get it to you.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions?
In that case, I want to thank the senators and our witness for participating in today’s meeting. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)