THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 5, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Rosa Galvez. I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of this committee.
I would like to begin with a quick reminder. Before asking and answering questions, I ask members and witnesses to 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 the committee staff in the room.
I will now ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Senator Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I am Senator Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: I am Paul Massicotte, and I represent De Lanaudière, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: I welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings.
Senator Clement Gignac from Quebec has just joined us.
Today, the committee continues its examination of Bill S-234, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste). Today, we have just one panel.
[Translation]
From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have joining us Heather McCready, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs; Dany Drouin, Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate; Tanya Smyth-Monteiro, Manager, Waste Programs; and Hannah Rogers, Director General, Environmental Enforcement. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Tonina Simeone, Senior Director, Environment Directorate, Lands and Environmental Management Branch. Welcome everyone, and thank you for being with us. Five minutes are reserved for each organization’s opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Dany Drouin, Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning. I will be giving our group’s five-minute opening remarks. We would be happy to answer your questions afterwards.
My name is Dany Drouin, and I am the Director General of the Plastics and Waste Management Directorate. I am accompanied by my colleagues Heather McCready, Director General of the Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Directorate; Hannah Rogers, Director General of the Environmental Enforcement Directorate; and Tanya Smyth-Monteiro, Manager, Waste Programs. We are all from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC. I am also joined by Tonina Simeone, Senior Director, Environment Directorate, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, from Indigenous Services Canada.
[English]
Thank you for the invitation to participate in your study of Bill S-234. As you are aware, Bill S-234 follows its predecessor, Bill C-204 from the last Parliament. Some of the remarks made by officials during the study of that bill remain relevant, and I will share those again for this study. I will also provide you with information on recent initiatives of relevance to this bill.
[Translation]
I would like to start by providing an overview of the controls currently in place in Canada relevant to plastic waste.
[English]
A key element of Canada’s domestic actions stems from our obligations to control the trans-boundary movement of most plastic waste and to work with the international community to ensure that our exports do not lead to pollution abroad.
For over three decades, the Government of Canada has had strict regulatory controls to ensure that trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials are managed in a way that protects the environment and human health. This regime includes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which provides a range of tools to manage waste. It ensures that the international movement of wastes controlled under Part 7, Division 8 of the act cannot take place unless the minister is notified and a permit is issued for international exports.
The Cross-border Movement of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations — I’ll refer to it as cross-border regulations thereafter — set out requirements for international and interprovincial movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials. These regulations implement Canada’s international obligations, including those under the Basel Convention.
[Translation]
These regulations control the export of any waste covered by the Basel Convention when exported to a Basel party. They also control the export of waste that is defined as hazardous, or waste prohibited by the importing country even if the waste is not defined as hazardous in Canada.
A cornerstone of the convention, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, and the regulations is to seek the consent of importing and transit countries for any export of these wastes from Canada before an export permit is issued.
[English]
In providing their consent, the importing and/or transit countries confirm that these wastes will be managed in an environmentally sound manner.
On December 29, 2020, Canada accepted the plastic waste amendments adopted under the convention. These amendments strengthen controls on the trans-boundary movement of certain non-hazardous, non-recyclable plastic wastes, such as mixed or contaminated plastic or certain resins like polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. The concrete result of this acceptance is that since January 1, 2021, an export permit is required for the export of plastic waste subject to the convention from Canada to a Basel party. This requirement applies to exports destined for recycling or final disposal alike. This is a concrete and effective mechanism to ensure that exports of plastic waste covered by the convention are only allowed if the consent of the importing country has been obtained and a permit has been issued.
[Translation]
Work to improve the regime for the transboundary movement of waste continues. Just last Saturday, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, published proposed amendments to the regulations.
In addition to improving controls of transboundary movements of waste electrical and electronic equipment, the proposed amendments would align with the requirements of the Basel ban amendment.
[English]
The ban amendment prohibits exports of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable materials from member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, like Canada, to developing countries. These changes would place Canada in a position to ratify the Basel ban amendment to the Basel Convention. Practically speaking, this would mean that exports of hazardous waste, including plastic hazardous waste, would be banned to non-OECD jurisdiction.
Exports from Canada of non-hazardous plastics controlled under the convention destined to another Basel party would continue to be allowed only when the consent of the importing country is received and a permit is obtained.
[Translation]
The proposed amendments also include changes to ensure greater clarity of the regulatory requirements and improve implementation.
Specifically, the proposed amendments clarify that any person that is exporting hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material has a permit prior to the start of any movement of these wastes and materials for export.
[English]
The proposed amendments also modify the definition of hazardous waste to allow for the assessment of whether something is a waste using certain characteristics, as opposed to entirely relying on whether something is to be disposed of using specified operations. These proposed changes would strengthen the implementation of the regulations, and we trust this will help tackle the issue of illicit export of waste, which is a real issue.
[Translation]
Stakeholders, interested parties and Canadians are invited to review the proposed amendments and provide feedback before November 29, 2023, and we would encourage them to do so. The government plans to publish the final amendments in summer 2024.
In closing, I thank you again for inviting my colleagues and I to speak with you today. We are happy to answer questions you have related to your study of Bill S-234. Thank you.
The Chair: Does any other witness have opening remarks? No. Honourable senators, since we have just one panel of witnesses and they have kindly agreed to stay longer to answer all of our questions, we will have more than the scheduled hour with them. By all means, ask any questions you have. We will start with four minutes per senator.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a straightforward question for you, since you didn’t say one word about the bill we are studying. What do you think of it? Could it help address what seems to be a rather complex situation? You talked about all kinds of complex amendments further to the ratification of the Basel convention. However, I don’t think you said that Canada had signed off on the amendment on the disposal of waste destined for final disposal, indestructible waste.
Does your department see Senator Carignan’s bill as a good thing?
Mr. Drouin: Thank you for that excellent question. I’ll start by saying that the amendment Minister Guilbeault published last Saturday will make it possible for Canada to ratify an amendment to ban hazardous waste exports to developing countries, including hazardous recyclable waste. As far as the department’s position is concerned—
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does that include indestructible plastic waste?
Mr. Drouin: It covers all waste deemed hazardous, whether it’s hazardous and recyclable or just hazardous.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s not my question. Does it include indestructible waste? Unrecyclable waste, period?
Mr. Drouin: What is not recyclable is actually covered by the plastic waste amendments. Hazardous unrecyclable waste will be covered by the Basel ban amendment.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let’s turn back to the bill.
Mr. Drouin: As far as the bill is concerned, I was asked to describe the measures in place and the way that the system currently works. The government has not yet adopted a position on Bill S-234. That position will take shape as we make our way through this process. Certainly, the government will take into account the findings of your study as well as the views of stakeholders.
Unfortunately, I’m not here to speak to the bill. I’m here to tell you how the system currently works.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Just so I’m clear, would the current system prevent the situation that was the focus of a report and investigation by “The Fifth Estate” and “Enquête”? Here’s a quote:
[English]
The federal government has privately sanctioned several Canadian recycling companies for shipping illegal, unsorted household trash to developing countries, but is keeping the list of names of those caught violating environmental and international laws secret from the public.
[Translation]
That was taken from a 2022 article on the story. It’s not known who the violators were, but they exported materials mixed with waste. Is it still possible to export plastic mixed with paper waste? Is this practice sanctioned by the government? I’m talking about shipping our waste to poor countries, which are then stuck with it.
Mr. Drouin: The issue you’re talking about has to do with illegal waste exports.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But you sanctioned them, did you not?
Mr. Drouin: What we realized is that a certain number of exporters mislabel what is in their containers. An exporter could report to ECCC that the plastic is compliant and the importing country can indicate that it wants the merchandise. However, the shipment may not contain the type of plastic that is listed on the permit application. We know that happens, and regulatory amendments to remedy those types of situations were proposed.
We also work a lot with the Canada Border Services Agency and other countries. We take part in periodic inspections at certain ports and locations known to pose more of a problem. We carry out periodic inspections under an initiative known as Operation Demeter, which brings together some 90 countries.
If you like, my colleague can answer your specific question about implementation and give you more information on how it all works.
Hannah Rogers, Director General, Environmental Enforcement, Environment and Climate Change: Good morning. Thank you for your question.
[English]
To give you some background on how Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, enforcement works on issues of illegal export of waste in general, we have a number of approaches, as Mr. Drouin mentioned. First, we work closely with our colleagues from the Canada Border Services Agency, also known as CBSA. Our team at ECCC does quite a significant amount of information gathering. We have intelligence officers and other staff with whom we work, mostly in Mr. Drouin’s shop, to gather information about where we suspect there may be non-compliance and the export of illegal waste.
We provide that information to our team that works on this in particular. They work with our colleagues at CBSA. If we determine that there is a possibility of an illegal shipment of waste in Canada, we make the decision as to whether we’re going to conduct an inspection. We then go with our CBSA colleagues to the port, and we will do things like open the shipping container at the port to determine whether there is actually some sort of illegal waste, for example, plastic waste that has been put in this shipping container to go to a place without the proper permit or it might be mislabeled, as well.
Oftentimes, we find containers that have one HS code but what’s in the shipping container is not what it says. In those circumstances, we work again with our CBSA colleagues to ask that they prohibit the export of that waste under the Customs Act. That means that shipment is not leaving Canada. Sometimes people also work further with the CBSA to then remove the shipping container and do inspections.
Another way we do enforcement work on illegal waste exports is when we hear from a transiting country. If a container has, for example, landed in another country on its way to somewhere else, sometimes they will open the container and say, “We think there may be some non-compliance here.” Or we may hear from a receiving country if the container has made its way to the shipping destination and once they receive it, they realize that it may be illegal. In those cases, we work with agencies or governments in those countries remotely. They will send us information and photographs and our officers will work with them to determine whether there is non-compliance. In those cases, then our officers use their discretion to determine what kind of enforcement action to take. They have a number of options at their disposal. We often issue written warnings when there is a first offence or when the offence is relatively minor and when the party is cooperative. However, any written warnings form a part of their file so that in future, if there are additional infractions, that will be taken into account and penalties will be more severe.
Other enforcement actions our officers can take include administrative monetary penalties. These are fines that do not go through the court systems. There is not an actual court prosecution, and charges are not laid.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m sorry, but I want to leave some space for my colleagues.
Ms. Rogers: That’s a quick summary of our enforcement action.
The Chair: I will retain this maybe for later when I ask questions about why there are no penalties. This is very important. Thank you so much.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses. You’re here to talk about the bill. Is this bill redundant? Will this bill produce any improvements or benefits to the regime already in place? If so, what would they be? We’ve been told the bill will not improve the system, not function or make any real difference whatsoever to the system that you already have in place or that you’re proposing.
Second, Annex II of the Basel Convention includes waste that does not appear to be aligned with Schedule 7 of this particular bill. That seems to be a big problem. More importantly, is this bill fundamentally redundant because no real improvements will occur?
Please answer that question. It’s fairly straightforward about the bill.
Mr. Drouin: The bill would introduce a second regime that would go alongside the regime. As I mentioned before, I’m here to talk about how the regime works.
By introducing Bill S-234, we would then have a regime that would prohibit waste for final disposal to other countries. At the same time, hazardous waste for recycling and final disposal would also be prohibited to non-OECD countries. We then have the plastic waste amendment that would allow for export if the consent and the permit is obtained.
On your second question, Schedule 7 introduced a list of polymers, while Annex II introduced different types of waste. I think some of your witnesses mentioned that last week too.
Senator Arnot: Right, so that seems to be a flaw.
Mr. Drouin: I really cannot speak to the merit of Schedule 7, but I wanted to give you an idea of what the landscape looks like.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you to the witnesses, Mr. Drouin and his team. At our last meeting, we heard from a City of Toronto official. I get it when it comes to shipping containers at ports, but the movement of waste across country borders is more complicated. Recyclable materials are often mixed with other waste, and traceability is an issue.
Can the bill have any impact? What are the means and mechanisms you have implemented to prevent exports? Canada and the U.S. do have agreements in place; there are treaties. Can the bill affect that?
Mr. Drouin: There were a lot of questions packed in there. I will try to keep it brief so you have time to ask more questions.
It is true that waste is traded internationally, mainly between Canada and the U.S. via the southern part of the Canadian border, by ship, rail and road.
Is the waste mixed? Possibly, especially when household waste is likely to be mixed. That is certainly one of the things we want to tackle at the federal level, with the upcoming regulations on labelling and packaging aimed at improving waste sorting and creating less confusion for Canadians.
That’s all I will say in response to your first question, since the question about trade between Canada and the U.S. requires more than 30 seconds.
Senator Gignac: If I understand correctly, neither cities nor provinces are responsible for the bales of waste that are shipped, even though it comes down to traceability. Enforcing regulations is tough without traceability.
Mr. Drouin: Certainly, we are aware of the limits of the current system. The amendments brought forward by Minister Guilbeault and the upcoming labelling regulations will help to address the problem.
As far as traceability goes, I would say enough information is covered by the convention when it comes to permitting. When a permit application is received, it lists a significant amount of information on what’s inside the container. Mislabelling does happen, and people do try to cheat the system. It is a real issue.
It becomes more challenging when the waste is not covered by the convention. For instance, the movement of plastic soda bottles is unfettered. They are not covered by the convention because of their economic value.
No information on the bales is required if they are not covered by the convention or if they are not regulated. The federal government manages the cross-border and interprovincial movement of waste, provinces make the laws governing recycling facilities, and municipalities manage those operations, a bit like the City of Toronto official explained to the committee a couple of days ago.
Senator Gignac: This question will no doubt seem very harsh, but why did Minister Guilbeault wait until last Saturday to do something? I was somewhat surprised, because I thought the regulations were already in effect. Can you follow up on what the minister announced? Perhaps I misunderstood.
Mr. Drouin: In the past, we only controlled waste that was considered hazardous by the importing country, even if we didn’t consider it hazardous ourselves. There is also a basic amendment to the Basel Convention, which, rather than proposing a permit, proposed an actual ban. Canada never ratified this amendment, which came into force in 2019. The amendment that Minister Guilbeault has proposed will put in place domestic controls to ensure that we are in a position to accept these amendments and tell the United Nations that Canada is bound by them and that measures are in place.
In Canada, we cannot accept an amendment to an international treaty if the measures aren’t in place domestically first. Why do it now rather than 3 or even 15 years ago? I don’t have any data on this, but I can say that what really tipped the balance was the public debate about Canada’s waste.
Can the system be improved? The system isn’t perfect. That’s why these amendments are designed to improve the system. We amend the regulations every three or four years with the aim of improving them, and this represents a major change.
Senator Gignac: Surely there are other countries doing the same thing?
Mr. Drouin: Yes, and we want to make sure we implement the Basel Convention in Canada in a way that works for our national circumstances.
Senator Verner: I’m delighted with what was done last Saturday in terms of regulatory additions. Two days ago, we heard witnesses from the David Suzuki Foundation and from Environmental Defence. Maybe it’s not what they wanted to do, but they left us with the impression that we were wasting our time, that it wasn’t enough and that the bill didn’t go far enough.
Do these organizations know that the minister tabled a regulatory addition on Saturday?
Mr. Drouin: I assume that they do. Have people read it?
Senator Verner: In principle, this should satisfy some of their requests.
Mr. Drouin: It was Tania’s team that oversaw the amendments to the regulations. Once the regulations have been implemented, stakeholders on a large scale are informed. We also have an advisory committee on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Is the information shared? I’d say so. Have people had a chance to read the regulations and form an opinion?
Senator Verner: In any case, they have until the end of November to comment.
Mr. Drouin: They have until the end of November. I mentioned in my remarks that we’re really interested, as there’s a critical issue concerning waste in Canada, and these stakeholders are going to give us a lot of information. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that we are in consultation and are waiting for feedback.
Senator Verner: Does everything that’s done on the waste management and export front, including the tabling of regulations, exclude the U.S. because there’s a special agreement with them?
Mr. Drouin: I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about the waste exchange agreement between Canada and the United States. As you know, the Canadian and American economies are highly integrated. In addition, the United States is not a member of the Basel Convention. So to enable waste exchanges between a member country of the convention and another country that isn’t a member....
The convention has a provision that states that we can enter into a bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral agreement with a country that is not a member of the convention and that, in accordance with this agreement, the waste must be managed in an environmentally sound manner. That’s the first thing.
Other places in the world with integrated economies also have this same type of agreement, such as the European Union, which is an economic union, whereas our case is more of an integration of economies. The United States and Canada have two agreements. The first dates back a number of years and controls all waste considered hazardous in Canada and the United States. For this waste, there are permits and movement documents. If someone sends hazardous waste, it doesn’t move freely.
The other arrangement we have with the Americans on plastic waste is to confirm that both the U.S. and Canada have measures in place to manage our waste in an environmentally responsible way.
This means that waste moves freely. Sometimes it moves freely from one municipality to another; sometimes the movement can be from a Canadian company to an American subsidiary; that’s another scenario.
However, once waste leaves Canada and goes to the United States, then on to another country, it is not covered by the bilateral agreement. What is required is a permit under the Basel Convention.
In other words, if the waste goes through the United States, a permit is required and we must ensure that the country that is to receive the waste agrees and is willing to receive the waste. So the waste is excluded from the bilateral agreement.
Why do we think this waste is managed in an environmentally friendly way? We’re talking about two legal states, which have legislative and regulatory frameworks with provinces, states or municipalities that regulate how waste must be treated and what kind of standards must be met. The private sector is very capable; it has made investments, it has the technology and it is innovative, so there is greater confidence that waste between Canada and the U.S. meets these specifications.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
The bill stipulates that, once it has been passed, municipalities would have 12 months to comply with it. I see you’re raising your eyebrows. According to the Toronto-area witness we heard yesterday, this would be more or less problematic for them; however, since many small municipalities use subcontractors, do you think a 12-month period is realistic? Have you heard any comments on this?
Mr. Drouin: It’s always on a case-by-case basis. We’ve heard what my colleague from the City of Toronto mentioned from other municipalities.
For us, a 12-month period is always short from a regulatory viewpoint, as the regulations may need to be amended. We’ll have to look at what’s happening with the bill, but if we had to amend regulations, a 12-month period is extremely short. We’re talking about two to four years in general to make regulations.
Senator Verner: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel. I’m going to be the fifth senator to ask Mr. Drouin, in a different way: In terms of the amendments that were announced by Minister Guilbeault, are the elements that are covered in this bill covered under his announcement of the other day?
Mr. Drouin: Thank you for the question, because I think I can answer that question.
Senator Wells: I thank all my colleagues for the question.
Mr. Drouin: If I look at Bill S-234, the cornerstone seems to be the schedule and the final disposal. What Minister Guilbeault introduced is all hazardous materials as well as hazardous recyclable materials.
Senator Wells: I understand that there are other things involved in the announcement. Are the elements in the bill covered under his announcement? Does his announcement make this bill not necessary?
Mr. Drouin: That will be for the government to answer. They will provide you with a position.
One thing I can tell you is that when these regulations come into place, all hazardous and recyclable materials for recycling and disposal will be banned from Canada to non-OECD countries. What I’m saying is that when the final amendments are published, the effect will be that all hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials will be banned for export from Canada to non-OECD countries.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So it doesn’t cover the bill. It’s not the same thing as the bill because the bill is all plastic for elimination.
Mr. Drouin: All plastics that are deemed hazardous will be banned.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay, but that’s not our question.
Senator Wells: I have another question, but I also want to note that we didn’t really get an answer to the first question.
Ms. Rogers, as director general of enforcement, you had mentioned HS codes. I know that more than 10%, maybe up to 15%, of HS codes on all products that exit Canada are incorrect. They’re either mislabeled deliberately to hide or it’s done in error. I know that Canada doesn’t publish real time or timely data on our exports. We do it in metadata by Statistics Canada a year later or something like that.
Would it be helpful to you, to the cause, if this data were published on a timely basis, like dozens of other countries do, through customs data, bills of lading and the other sources that you may use?
Ms. Rogers: Our current cadre of officers and intelligence analysts use a wide range of information that’s out there. We have been expanding our data analytics team to be able to sift through the massive amounts of data that do exist publicly and through subscription services, all the kinds of information that you would want ECCC enforcement to be looking at.
I’m not an expert on exactly what HS code information could potentially be available in the future, but I will say that, in general, the more information we can use to gather information generally helps us do our jobs, as long as we have the capacity to sift through the amounts of information.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. The HS code is on every bill of lading. If that were publicly available or readily available, do you think that would be more helpful than it not being available in real time?
Ms. Rogers: Speaking generally, as I said —
Senator Wells: I want you to speak as the director general of enforcement.
Ms. Rogers: More information is always helpful. I know that there are potentially consequences, including information that may have been private in the past, for maintaining customer privacy or whatever those things are. As a non-expert on the import/export side of things of CBSA, I don’t want to veer into their territory. But we certainly do appreciate whatever information our officers can obtain. If, in the future, there were more information, we would use it.
Senator Wells: Do you have access to the bills of lading when something is leaving port and before it gets to Asia or wherever?
Ms. Rogers: Yes. We work closely with CBSA, both at the regional and HQ levels. They will share information with us. We have information-sharing agreements. Again, there is a lot of publicly available data that we can obtain.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to take this opportunity to ask a quick question.
From what you are saying, this will not stop the export of our waste whether it is recyclable, hazardous, or for final elimination. It will control it better, but it will not stop it.
Why can we not manage our waste within our borders? We need jobs. We need creation of industry.
What is the size of this problem? How much of our waste — because morally and ethically, I don’t think we should be exporting any kind of waste. Why can we not manage it, as you said, with sound environmental management, which includes taking care of our own backyard, which is our waste?
Mr. Drouin: Our plastics economy is linear. Currently, we manufacture a product and then we dispose of the product. The transition to a circular plastic economy is happening; it’s under way. There’s a long way to go, but we’re working with the provinces, territories and the federal government together to transition toward that.
I will give you a few examples that will strengthen our ability to manage our plastic waste in Canada.
For example, the federal government has banned some single-use plastic items that are not necessary in our economy. That reduces stress on waste management facilities to process those products. If they’re not in the economy, they don’t end up in the environment or clogging up our recycling system. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment published a single-use plastics roadmap that has 30 items of interest. The next step for the government is to look at those 30 items and whether additional items should be removed from the economy.
Those are examples.
Another example is the introduction of the recycled content and labelling rules that I was referring to not long ago. They will require plastics packaging and some single-use plastics items to integrate recycling in the manufacturing process. That would mean that, suddenly, what goes to the garbage has an economic value that will then incentivize keeping them reintroduced in other products, whether in another bottle or another plastic product. The rules with the labelling component will help reduce the confusion of Canadians regarding what waste goes in which bin.
In the fall, we will also be introducing a plastics registry, which will give us the data of the plastics that are put into the economy and what the fate of those plastics is. It will require producers to do that.
The provinces are doing their part, as well. They’re introducing extended producer responsibility legislation and regulations across the country, which shift the burden from taxpayers to private companies to deal with the waste. Essentially, they have targets for the collection and recycling of different types of materials. That means that in 2027, 8 out of 10 Canadians will live under a regime that is governed by extended producer responsibility.
The system is changing to strengthen our internal works. Change is happening, but is it happening fast enough? That, I think, is your question. The answer is “no,” which is why we’re constantly trying to improve the system.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for joining us this morning.
I would have asked the same question regarding the same point of view, but instead I’ll devote my speaking time to another topic.
My first question is about container inspections. Statistically speaking, how many inspections do you do per year?
My second question is this: In what percentage of these visits have you found a defect or had a quality-related concern?
Ms. Rogers: Thank you for the question. I will provide some context.
[English]
Each year, our enforcement branch decides upon its priorities. We have a certain number of officers across the country, and we decide where the highest risks to the environment and human health are. Over the last two years, one of our national priorities has been the export of plastic waste.
We have been upping the number of inspections we have been doing. I can give you some numbers; they are not complete because it’s an ongoing project. In 2021-22, we did 23 inspections, and we took action in 13 cases. Up until now, in 2022-23, we’ve done 39 inspections, and we took 16 enforcement actions.
What that does not tell you is how many of those shipments — as I mentioned before — did not leave the country because of our inspections. We’re not necessarily taking enforcement action there ourselves; those might be our partners at CBSA. So it does not give you the full picture. There might be many cases where the shipments did not leave Canada, they were refused and the exporter was unable to export illegal plastic waste.
Senator Massicotte: If I look at the numbers, approximately once a month, you do a search, and approximately half the time, there’s something wrong with it.
Ms. Rogers: From a statistical perspective, they’re small enough numbers to not be able to say as a general trend that would be what we found. When we finish the project, we’ll complete a report, and we’ll be able to give more general data —
Senator Massicotte: You must be spending a lot of time preparing the report, because your main job is to do the inspections, right?
Ms. Rogers: We have over 400 instruments that we enforce across the country, with about 225 officers.
Senator Massicotte: Those 225 officers — they’re what allows you to do the 23 inspections?
Ms. Rogers: Yes. We enforce the Fisheries Act, which has regulations. Any time there’s a spill, we are out there responding to spills. Then, as I noted, we have about 400 instruments just under CBSA.
Our officers are targeting plastics exports, but it’s one of many areas that our officers have to —
Senator Massicotte: You say that and yet you only do one inspection per month. Why am I disappointed?
Ms. Rogers: I wish I could give you a different perspective in terms of numbers. We’ll see what the trends are over the years.
We have been working on this more and more as we have noted trends in the data. Our work with CBSA is increasing. Sometimes there are also cases where our officers are taking actions but no actual inspections might take place, but action is still taken.
Senator Massicotte: How about cars? Are they recyclable? I hear there is significant trafficking of cars that are being stolen off our streets and being sent to African countries. Is that recyclable or not?
Ms. Rogers: That is an area beyond my expertise in terms of looking at illegal exports of that type of waste. I don’t believe that would necessarily be caught under these regulations, but I’d have to get back to you on that.
Senator Massicotte: Because that would lift your numbers quite significantly. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. I’m sorry I was late this morning.
I’m concerned, like everyone, that we might not need this bill, and I think that’s what we’re trying to get an answer to.
When you look at the waste exports that happen, there was a huge decrease from 2016 to 2020. It was primarily due to China’s updated contamination standards. Then, despite the Basel Convention concepts of environmentally sound waste management, authorized movement and informed consent of receiving countries, we still ship the majority of our waste to the United States, which is not a member of the Basel Convention. It almost looks like there’s a loophole.
I want to go back to Senator Galvez’s question. The more I listen, the more I think this bill is not required. We could put in an amendment to this bill to stop all plastic shipments. If we keep shipping, it’s not going to address the over-consumerism that’s driving the plastic waste within our own country. If it’s environmentally safe, then let’s do it in our country. Why are we sending it somewhere else?
I don’t understand what’s happening here.
You say the countries are covered by the rule of law, but with resource extraction, the Canadian companies that go overseas don’t even abide by the law that exists. They go in and destroy countries, basically. Will the amendment to stop all plastic exports resolve the issue? I’m trying to wrap my head around this, and it just seems that we’re not dealing with plastic waste properly. We’re sending it off to different countries that really don’t have — it’s not actually by consent.
Mr. Drouin: I’ll try to give you a more elaborate response because I think you’re all looking for that. I will try to say a few things that might help.
First, on China’s decision not to accept waste from any country, it has big implications. It was followed by other Asian countries as well. The decrease can also be explained by the COVID pandemic, but there is also a big change in the system. That forces everyone to look at their internal domestic capacity to deal with waste. That is one clear implication.
What Minster Guilbeault has tabled will mean that — I will try to say it a bit differently — hazardous plastic and other waste that is hazardous will not be shipped to developing countries. The plastics that are recyclable, that is, so not the unrecoverable you mentioned, senator. These plastics will continue to be allowed to be traded even to developing countries but only if they want it. Sometimes they want it because they have businesses that need this input as feed stock.
Another type of waste stream that will never be covered going forward is the type of — well, unless the international community amends the convention, but in reality, it’s a very clean plastic. You could think about plastic bottles all baled together, those are not controlled by the Basel Convention by any country.
That’s what the amendments that Minster Guilbeault introduced will do on plastic waste. Another thing Bill S-234 will do, based on my understanding, is to prohibit the export of any product that has a substance included in Schedule 7. Some of those components or polymers are not necessarily plastics or they are sometimes part of the manufacture of some plastic items but others are not plastic at all.
Bill S-234 would, in effect, introduce another regime that might be difficult for regulators to find what they need to do. Can they export? Do they need an export permit and the consent of another country? Or they have to find a way to see if their product has one of the 32 components of Schedule 7 included in their product and, if so, their waste will not be able to be shipped to any country. That’s the two types of regimes that will be introduced.
Some of your witnesses two days ago were saying that it might create difficulties for implementation because it might be difficult to find out what is exactly in the waste, looking at Schedule 7. That creates confusion for regulators in terms of what they can or cannot do.
Will Bill S-234 address the issue of illegal export? I think the answer is no. Nothing right now in any regulations will solve the illegal exports. What will solve that issue is the compliance promotion, enforcement and working with other countries. That is a real issue. I want to be clear: Illegal exports are happening and all countries are very concerned about it. I don’t know if that answers the questions.
Senator McCallum: Why do we not stop shipping to the United States if they’re not covered by the convention? Why are we sending the majority there and then they can do whatever? How come we don’t just say, “no more”?
Mr. Drouin: I don’t know if you were here or not, but I’ll summarize what I said about the U.S.
The two economies are extremely integrated and things move across the border on a regular basis for many types of products, and that is also based on waste, as well. The convention allows that type of trade between a country that is a member of the convention and a country that is not a member. This is the bilateral agreement and arrangement we have with the U.S. that allows for that trade.
The same type of agreement is in place for the EU, for example. Within the EU, the waste circulates freely among the member states, a bit like Canada and the U.S. If a plastic is hazardous and covered by another type of agreement, we have with the U.S. and a permit is required, what circulates freely is the non-hazardous clean type of plastic. If waste coming from Canada goes to the U.S. and is destined to another country, it’s not covered by the bilateral agreements with the U.S. It’s covered by the Basel Convention and we need the consent of the recipient country. Without that, we will not issue a permit.
Then, lastly, trade between Canada and the U.S., sometimes between a municipality and a facility maybe 60 kilometres away — but also between Canadian or American businesses that have subsidiary businesses on the other side of the border — can exchange the waste as a feed stock for something they’re recycling.
In other words, the bilateral agreement with the U.S. is in line with the obligations of the Basel Convention. It allows for that type of arrangement or agreement to be put in place between two parties. Canada and other countries have signed those agreements for reasons, as I mentioned, mostly around trade being linked and those two countries are very integrated.
Senator McCallum: Does Canada accept any hazardous material? Do we accept anything?
Mr. Drouin: Especially between U.S. and Canada, there’s almost equal exchange between the two sides.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
We’re seeing an increase in marine shipping and travel, including cruise ships and smaller ships, in the Northwest Passage in the Arctic as a result of climate change. The Arctic is one of the oceans highly impacted by plastic waste and debris from around the world, which in turn affects the animals that we hunt, our lands and the health of people in our communities.
Can you tell me what knowledge we have about activity in the Northwest Passage given that Canada does not monitor the Arctic as effectively and the uncertainty of all the activity incoming from Canada, China, Russia and other countries? Do you have a baseline of plastic waste and debris in the Arctic? Secondly, how do we ensure that these new laws do not encourage pollution crime in the North and in Arctic waters?
Mr. Drouin: Thank you for those questions. They are extremely important.
The first one, though, on the ships is something that I’m not fully aware of. I don’t know all the rules, especially the international rules. Officials from Transport Canada would be able to explain how the system works, exactly.
The science is clear, right? When plastics get into the environment, it has a major effect, and it is probably compounded by the density of animals in the Arctic and in the North, coupled with, perhaps, fewer recycling facilities to manage the waste.
We do have a baseline of waste produced in Canada. We have this by province and territory. We would have to get back to you on the numbers and whether we need to aggregate them for the Arctic, at least the Canadian part.
That’s the best I can answer for you now, and we can follow up to provide you with more data.
Senator Anderson: When you’re talking about the baseline in the Arctic, is that from the communities, or is that from the oceans themselves?
Mr. Drouin: That’s probably even more complicated. We’ll look at that data to see what we have, both on land and in the ocean.
Senator Anderson: Thank you very much.
Mr. Drouin: It might be limited, to be very honest, but we’ll look at it.
Senator Anderson: I just want to point out the fact that within the Arctic, there is a lot of waste that was brought in by companies that have been left by companies that sit in our ground, and it is waste that, due to the warming of the temperatures and climate change, is now being exposed and is now much more prevalent than ever before on our lands. It has huge implications in terms of our subsistence hunting and the health of individuals in our communities, so it would be appreciated if the Arctic were given more consideration in terms of this legislation — or any legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Drouin: Maybe one thing I would say is that there is a real concern in the North, and we’ve been discussing with Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, and the territories, a few ideas around what pilot projects could be put together that would contribute to addressing the issue you’ve just raised here. I know my colleagues in the territories are also looking at that very carefully.
One thing that pretty much everyone agreed should be done — and the question is how to do it — but in the context of extended producer responsibility, if companies bring ships to the North, they would probably have the reverse logistics to take it back to some place down south where it could be treated, until such time that the North has more infrastructure.
That was, kind of, one idea that came out of that workshop we had with officials from the federal government, some private sector companies and officials from the territories back in August, I think.
Senator Anderson: If I can just add, there is a concern regarding cruise ships and them dumping waste in the waterways in the Arctic, but there are also concerns with smaller ships that are not mandated to report and say they are research ships but are not often checked.
Those are two key concerns, as well, with the traffic in the water. Thank you.
Ms. Rogers: I can speak very briefly to disposal at sea and any, sort of, dumping of waste from ships in any of our waters.
There are disposal at sea regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We do enforce those. I don’t have the numbers right in front of me, because that wasn’t necessarily our focus today, but I could get you information on what our inspections and enforcement have been in Arctic waters.
Senator Anderson: That would be great, because I don’t know how you would be monitoring that.
Ms. Rogers: We do have some officers in each of the territories, and they do work with their partners in the territorial governments as well.
And just to let you know, we also have a bit of a focus on cruise ships right now, too, not necessarily in the North, but we have been looking at cruise ships and issues around them as well.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Rogers and Mr. Drouin, since this issue really interests us and is very important — the issue of plastic floating in the oceans, and the illegality or legality of this ocean dumping — I’d like you to send this information to us.
If possible — because you mentioned Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada — we’d greatly appreciate you telling us who in those departments could respond to us before October 13.
[English]
And just because we are talking a little bit broader than upstream, and you mentioned that we are far from the circular economy of the plastics — you said it’s not for tomorrow; it will take years. In the meantime, we have a lot of waste going to the United States and from the United States going to everywhere thereby adding to the plastic patch that is found.
Apart from the extended responsibility is this issue that Canada is one of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, countries in which per habitat, per person, we produce more and more and more waste every year. That’s the problem at the source.
I remember that there was a very simple program that I discussed 20 years ago, which was pay as you throw, because the people who throw more should pay more. In Quebec, there was this incredible project, where METTLER — a weights and measures industry — worked with a local garbage truck, and they put themselves together so that every time the truck lifted the waste of a house, it read the house and adjusts the tax, and they pay for how much they throw.
I think this will stop the producing of waste, because when it touches your pocket, then you react faster. Why don’t we have anything like responsible taxpayers who pay for the damage they cause in Canada?
Mr. Drouin: Thank you for that question. It’s an essential one.
I think the data that is available from the OECD demonstrates that Canada is among the top producers of plastic waste per capita, right after the U.S.
However, when you look at it in absolute terms, we produce about ten times less than the U.S. and four times less than China, for example. But per capita, we’re very high, so, of course, we’re part of the problem, and as part of these negotiations on an international treaty for ending plastic pollution, Canada is at the forefront in recognizing that we need to do better.
I fully agree with your assessment that in places where there’s a polluter-pay principle, not based on the regulations but as an economic incentive or disincentive, by using economic tools, as some municipalities are doing — whether it’s pay for weight, or you have ten garbage bags for free, and then if you need more, you have to pay $2. A lot of those things are being implemented in municipalities. My understanding is most of those decisions are made at the municipal level.
The extended producer responsibility creates that type of incentive, because businesses will have to deal with their waste financially as well as the way they produce. That will create an incentive for designing things better or eliminating some things that are either too costly to recycle or just unnecessary. That’s another tool that’s quasi-economic, but it’s one that the provinces have been implementing, and that’s the one that the federal plastic registry which we will be issuing this fall will support those programs by giving us the data.
I fully agree. A lot of the solutions to plastic waste are not that complicated. Some people have lived or live without plastics at all, and there were other products that were available.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to talk to you about what the Basel Convention says or doesn’t say about another country’s acceptance. How is it assessed whether or not a country accepts to receive waste? Does the government or private businesses accept? Who accepts? We know that, in India, whether accepted or not, they burn the waste, which is terrible. Is this enough? What form of acceptance is required? These are not government-to-government negotiations; these are local companies looking for customers elsewhere.
Mr. Drouin: Ultimately, it’s the governments that have the conversation and notify each other. There’s a system in place that enables Canada, for example, to receive a request from a Canadian exporter who says they want to export to such and such a country, and that their business partner is in that country. The Canadian government will contact the country in question and say: “Here’s what’s happening; do you want to give your consent to receive this waste?” If so, we’ll issue the permit, which will contain documents that will mention what was done with....
However, I want to say two things. Sometimes countries say that no, they don’t want the waste. If they don’t want it, there’s no permit. Over the last few years, 13 permits have not been issued, since the country didn’t want the waste. In some cases, the country doesn’t want the waste because there’s no ecosystem to deal with it. The company says it can handle the waste, but the country says it has no subcontractors, no regulations, that it won’t accept it. If they won’t accept it, Canada won’t issue a permit. We don’t follow up with the country to find out the reason for the refusal.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to come back to the bill at the heart of our study. If I understand your last explanation correctly, it would mean that the bill covers more plastics than the last regulations, since the bill bans all plastics for final disposal, whether hazardous or not. If I’ve understood the regulations correctly, it’s purely for hazardous plastic waste. Is my interpretation correct?
Mr. Drouin: It is partly correct. What Schedule 7 actually does is cover a lot of products that aren’t plastics. Schedule 7 covers many products that are not plastics. Schedule 7 includes chemical components. There are 32 chemical components, and many of these components are not found in plastic products. In other words, there would be a ban on non-plastic products.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is that why you say it would be difficult for companies to operate with an act and regulations?
Mr. Drouin: The colleague from the City of Toronto explained the situation quite well when he said that there are two issues. The first is that Schedule 7 contains chemical components that could end up in municipal waste, but it won’t be possible to know exactly how much because everything is mixed together, and because it’s not a product that we could see in the bales and identify as plastic or not. This creates a certain difficulty.
Industry stakeholders have often brought up the other difficulty: It becomes difficult for them to know exactly all the components that are in their products. There would be a lot of products that would be banned from export, including products that are not plastics.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: As someone who works in this field, what would you say is more restrictive for private businesses? Is it duly passed legislation in Canada or the Basel Convention with its regulations? Does this have an impact on the level of penalties? These are basically non-binding conventions.
Mr. Drouin: Once a country like Canada has accepted the Basel Convention, it becomes binding. It is an international obligation. Currently, Canada has international obligations under the Basel Convention and under the amendments on plastics adopted in 2019. What Minister Guilbeault has presented will require us to assume new obligations because of the Basel Ban Amendment. The United Nations treaty is legally binding.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When you comply with it.
Mr. Drouin: Yes, when you comply with it. Canada has accepted the convention and amendments on plastic waste, and it will accept the ban on waste exports in the coming months.
[English]
As soon as we accept it, we’re bound by it.
[Translation]
You asked whether it was a convention, an act or regulations. It’s the whole package that makes the system work, and provides the capacity to implement it. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives the minister the power to accept or reject a permit, but also to impose sanctions. This is an important point. Regulations establish the conditions under which the minister meets their legal obligations.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Heather McCready, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you for the questions.
[English]
I have the pleasure to add something so I can feel as if I’m being helpful.
Mr. Drouin is correct, of course, in that all of these things work together to form a complete regime. For an international rule, treaty or convention that Canada is a party to, to have effect in Canada — so that if Canadians violate that there is some sort of sanction — typically we see it find effect in Canadian law and Canadian regulations, and regulations are creatures of law.
We have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and various regulations under it. The Basel Convention finds its life in Canada through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and then subsequent regulations. Those provide tools that Canada’s enforcement officers can then enforce. In some cases, they go to court, and there are penalties through a prosecution. In other cases, as mentioned, there are administrative monetary penalties, which are civil proceedings.
I certainly sense the frustration of us not being able to answer directly whether we support this bill. That’s because the government doesn’t yet have an official position on that, and part of forming that position is listening to the witnesses here. However, Bill S-234 is, effectively, the same as Bill C-204, and as Mr. Drouin mentioned in his opening comments, the government had an official position on that which is public, so we can refer you to that.
That doesn’t necessarily mean we will have an identical position on this bill. We still have to listen to all of the witnesses and form an opinion, but we would point you to the testimony of other witnesses, as Mr. Drouin has done as well, who have outlined some potential issues, including implementation of two overlapping regimes and potential enforceability issues, in addition to banning the export of things that may actually have value to the countries where they’re going. Not all waste is necessarily harmful and bad.
What we’re trying to do with the circular economy is to extract value from waste and have it be used so it doesn’t have to be destroyed. There are countries that want this waste and are using it in productive and environmentally safe ways, and that is not necessarily something we would want to prevent.
As I mentioned, there is no official government position on this yet, which is why we seem a little awkward in the way we’re answering questions. It’s not intentional.
Senator Wells: I want to thank the panel for agreeing to stay longer than one hour. I’m finding this helpful, and I will use your time.
Director General McCready, after my colleague asked her question regarding reducing waste and why we send it out, Mr. Drouin mentioned promoting Canadian innovations and that sort of thing. As Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Director General, can you explain to me the logic behind not having an exemption for the single-use, rapidly compostable, Canadian-invented, fully biodegradable plastic bags? To a normal Canadian guy, it seems like it’s a really good idea, really good innovation and really good invention — something that reduces plastic waste in landfills. Can you help us there?
Ms. McCready: Not to be glib, but as Director General of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, I’m here more about the legislative and regulatory processes. Mr. Drouin is your expert on things to do with the plastic content. So I will respectfully stay in my lane and pass the puck to my right.
Mr. Drouin: Thanks for this. I think the straight answer is that there is no scientific evidence that compostable checkout bags, for example, do compost in the environment. Sometimes, those products are using industrial facilities with very particular environmental conditions in them in terms of temperature and humidity. Those conditions are not found in the Canadian environment. When a plastic checkout bag, whether compostable or non-compostable made of petroleum products, gets to the environment, it does two things. One, it can strangle animals. We’ve all seen this in the news. The second thing is that it may not disintegrate to the level of disintegration that would not be harmful to the environment and would create microplastics, which can be problematic. In Canada, we have hundreds of jurisdictions — municipalities — that don’t want to receive the compostable bags because it contaminates their system.
I think the colleague from the City of Toronto explained it very well two days ago.
Senator Wells: Do you know the bag I’m talking about — the one that was —
Mr. Drouin: Yes.
Senator Wells: Are you saying that is not fully compostable under the right conditions?
Mr. Drouin: It’s not —
Senator Wells: Because that’s the one I’m talking about, not other bags.
Mr. Drouin: I think I am totally understanding which one you’re referring to. When those types of bags get into the environment, they don’t compost because they have been designed to go back to an industrial facility that has very, very strict components and conditions that are not found in the Canadian environment. That is why they are banned.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Ms. Rogers, I’m going to go back to the discussion we were having earlier about HS codes and available data. It might be helpful to you to go to the data that Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, and the Philippines provide on their imports because they make that data freely available. You will see Canadian exports in that data. Of course, it will be too late because it will have long left Canadian ports. Those developing countries provide that data freely to the public. Canada doesn’t. I go to Senator Massicotte’s question about one inspection a month or whatever it is in that scale. I mean if I were trying to send illegal or some kind of plastic on a banned list, and I knew there was a very minimal chance that it would be caught, I can imagine someone would change the HS code to get it out. I know we don’t, but if the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, or Environment Canada can go to Bangladesh, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Philippines to get data, wouldn’t it be better if that data was readily and publicly available from the Canadian source?
Ms. Rogers: As I mentioned earlier, I’m not trying to skate around the issue either. As I said, we do take large amounts of data into account. We look at trends. We look at patterns. We’ve hired a number of great data scientists who are able to analyze a lot of information, and they certainly are always looking for additional sources. So if there is something that could be publicly available in the future, they will certainly look at it.
Senator Wells: It would be great to get it at the source rather than at the destination.
Senator McCallum: I just wanted to go back to what you said about how the plastic decreased with COVID. It actually increased. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the reliance on single-use plastics increased, and at the height of the outbreak, some provincial health officials advised against using reusable bags. The new source of plastic pollution was the single-use PPE and that they’re not being discarded.
When I look at how much we ship out, it is in the tonnes, and 70% is discarded as waste. In Canada, 86% is landfill. We’re talking about tonnes and tonnes. When you look at this bill, it says that we are looking at controlling pollution and managing waste. That’s Part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, right? If we’re controlling pollution, why are we not controlling it in our own country? It seems like this bill doesn’t cover enough because we’re not addressing the root cause of why we have all this waste.
Therefore, I’m looking to amend the bill to address our own pollution because Senator Anderson talked about pollution crime, and we’re committing that in our own country and not doing anything about it. My concern here is that this waste is going into our fresh water and affecting the birds and the animals, including humans.
Could you talk a bit about addressing our own pollution that we create?
Mr. Drouin: I think you’re pointing out that a very high percentage of waste going to landfill. In other countries, it goes to incineration because that’s what they do, but at the end of the day, globally, we all have the same problem. Our recycling rate is about 8% to 9% in Canada as well as in any other country. That’s the first thing I want to say because we do have a problem. We’re still a linear economy for plastics, and we need to move this to a circular economy.
It’s under way. It’s happening, but I think what you’re saying is that it’s not happening fast enough. I would not disagree with you. The reality is that governments are taking action and putting regulations in place for exactly that type of purpose. Can we strengthen our own domestic ability to recycle the plastics? First and foremost, it would probably mean not using as much plastic. The second thing is reusing the plastics — having more options for reusable. There is also the repair and the remanufacturing so that we extend the end of life of these plastic products.
We need to take items, especially single-use plastic items, out of the economy because they’re not necessary. They don’t necessarily perform an essential function. They lead to pollution, and there are alternatives. That’s why the government has banned some single-use plastics and we’re going to be looking at others.
We need to create economic incentives for recycling. One key policy for Canada that we’re going to put forward this fall is requiring plastics packaging to have a certain amount of plastics that comes from waste and is recycled content. We hope that with this policy it will have an impact on the 8% to 9% that we’re talking about, because suddenly, if a plastic bottle or a plastic resin has an economic value and is required by regulation to be put back into another product, then companies will have to do it. That will mean they will have to design their products better so that they can be recycled easily. It will have to be labelled as recyclable or not, so as to reduce confusion among consumers. Then all of this, with the extended producer responsibility for programs in the provinces and territories, is likely going to create a big push to invest in infrastructure to recycle this influx of waste that’s going to come to these facilities for recycling.
The idea behind this is that private sector investment will have to kick in and stimulate those investments in infrastructure and also for innovation. We know that in Canada this gap in infrastructure is about $8 billion, so it’s quite a challenge that the country is facing, but our federal, provincial and territorial governments are tackling this within their power and jurisdiction. That will create the type of environments that you’re saying we should have and that we don’t have.
As I was saying earlier, we’ll see more of these results in 2025, 2026 and 2027 across the country. That’s the trajectory. The ban on single-use plastics is already happening. It will be illegal to sell those products by December 2023, for example, and the year after that, Canada will ban the export of these products. So we won’t be able to produce single-use plastic cutlery in Canada produce it and sell it to other countries. That will also be banned. That is happening. The country has started to transition.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Before I give the floor to Senator Miville-Dechêne, can you please send us the list of the substances in Schedule 7 of the bill that according to you are not plastic? Can you send that to us?
Mr. Drouin: Yes, we can look at this.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We need this; is it a high number? There are 32 products; aren’t many of them plastics?
Mr. Drouin: I cannot answer your question right now, but we can get back to you later.
[English]
The Chair: For October 13, please.
As we keep saying that we are not going fast enough and the problem is growing because we are not going fast enough on making this circular and taking care of our waste in our home. Is there is a recommendation that you can make to us to help you go faster? We are the legislators. We have, I think, power. If we don’t have the power, I don’t know who has the power. Can you please tell us, what recommendation do you need in order to accelerate the pace to be responsible in managing our waste?
Mr. Drouin: There are definitely a few things that are extremely useful collectively. The fact that you’re doing a study on this issue is creating a debate among stakeholders, you’re getting input and your study is going to inform the government’s position. That’s one thing.
You’re also hearing from a broad range of stakeholders who are telling you what the bill does or doesn’t do. That’s extremely useful as well. Keeping the debate alive is very useful. Bringing to the conversation what I would call the regional particularities that some of you have mentioned today is also very useful. It informs our thinking and our analysis.
In other words, what I’m just trying to say is that the more we have discussions in Canada on that issue, both on the export side and on our domestic capacity, is very useful. You may want to also discuss and invite other witnesses that will be impacted by the bill. All of those things are extremely useful both for us and the government.
The Chair: Thank you.
Tonina Simeone, Acting Director General, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Indigenous Services Canada: I wanted to add to the question that Senator McCallum asked about waste reduction strategies and highlight for this committee that the federal government through the First Nations Waste Management Initiative, particularly for First Nations communities, supports a number of projects to reduce plastic waste or waste generally. We fund and work closely with the Indigenous Zero Waste Technical Advisory Group and other organizations across the country for community-led education strategies, partnerships and zero-waste initiates, to decrease the amount of waste that is generated in First Nations communities and divert that waste to regulated licensed facilities off-reserve.
I just wanted to note that federal funding has been available to communities in that respect since 2016, when the program was first launched, and waste reduction key component of the program.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any more questions? We have exhausted all of our questions. I thank you and our witnesses.
(The committee adjourned.)