Honourable senators, I am pleased to resume my remarks on second reading of Bill C-204, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (final disposal of plastic waste).

Colleagues, the world is facing a challenge with managing plastic waste responsibly. Challenges in domestic management of large volumes of plastic waste often result in releases to the environment or landfilling, posing a serious global environmental problem and lost economic opportunity. There is simply no denying that reality.

However, whether Bill C-204 is the appropriate instrument to address those issues or even to assist in addressing them is an important question that this chamber must carefully contemplate. Respectfully, it is the government’s view that it is not, and I will outline the reasons for this position.

Canada’s policy response to the issue of the transnational movement of harmful plastic waste has been focused on multilateral solutions. Specifically, Canada and its allies have successfully sought to respond to this issue under the auspices of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

The Basel Convention was adopted on March 22, 1989, in response to a public outcry following the discovery of deposits of toxic waste imported from abroad in Africa and other parts of the developing world. For context, during the 1980s, a tightening of environmental regulations in the industrialized world led to a significant spike in the cost of toxic waste disposal. This led to a rise in what is called “toxic trading,” whereby hazardous waste began to get shipped to developing countries and Eastern Europe. When this abhorrent practice was revealed, international outrage led to the conclusion of the Basel Convention.

The objective of the Basel Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the serious adverse effects of hazardous waste. The fact that it binds 188 countries makes it a crucial instrument in global efforts to curb the harm caused by hazardous waste in the developing world. It is also an effective platform to address emerging issues effectively in concert with the international community.

In May 2019, the parties to the Basel Convention agreed to and ratified amendments in response to the global problem of plastic waste. These amendments addressed both plastic waste exported for final disposal, which is the subject of Bill C-204, as well as plastic waste exported for recycling. Importantly, these controls require the prior informed consent of an importing country that is party to the Basel Convention before export of plastic waste can occur.

The amendments are implemented in Canadian law under the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations made under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. To put it simply, these new rules mean that since January 1, 2021, an export permit is required before the export of Basel-controlled plastic waste can occur, when that waste is destined to a party to the convention. Before issuing a permit, the consent of the transit and importing countries is required. In short, this means that Canada has taken significant steps to improve the control of plastic waste exports in concert with the international community.

Colleagues, I would also note that Bill C-204 was introduced in the other place before these measures were put in place domestically. This raises the question of what Bill C-204 can offer to address the issue of problematic plastic waste, whether it is redundant or could generate confusion under the applicable act and regulations.

As mentioned, the plastic waste amendments under the Basel Convention impose controls on plastic waste destined both for final disposal and recycling. This is significant because, as was noted by some of our colleagues in the other place during their deliberations on this bill, it is assumed that the majority of exported plastic waste is traded for some form of recycling rather than for final disposal — as is the focus of Bill C-204 — as there is little economic incentive to export plastic waste across long distances for final disposal.

However, Canada does export municipal solid waste, which contains plastic waste, to the United States for final disposal. Bill C-204 would prohibit trade in this type of plastic waste for final disposal to the United States. Stopping trade of municipal solid waste to the United States will have economic and environmental repercussions in Canada. This, colleagues, is an area of this bill that the Senate should examine closely, with an eye to giving it sober second thought.

Bill C-204’s narrow focus on final disposal was also raised during debates in the other place and at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in March of this year. In particular, the issue of recycling was discussed by both environmental and non-governmental organizations and industry, albeit from different perspectives. Mr. James Puckett of the Basel Action Network, who appeared as a witness before the committee, stated that:

. . . the biggest global problem, which Mr. Davidson and others are hoping to address with this bill, will not be addressed, because the bill currently only looks at exports for final disposal, which is landfilling or incineration. The bill currently does not address the heart of the problem, which is exports for recycling.

On the other hand, Canadian industry sent written submissions to the committee regarding the importance of trade in recycled plastics and the negative consequences Bill C-204 could have on recycling efforts in North America.

Honourable senators, the Basel plastic waste amendments place new controls on certain plastic waste destined for final disposal and recycling, aiming to allow free trade in valuable, clean, easy-to-recycle plastic waste only. These controls have only been in place since January of this year, and the work continues to ensure that trade in controlled plastic waste has been consented to.

Respectfully, that is why Bill C-204 misses the mark. It comes at a time when new controls have been put in place following the bill’s introduction and which are designed to address the challenges posed by exports of plastic waste globally.

In addition, the bill’s proposed Schedule 7 also presents some challenges that are more technical in nature for our consideration. Bill C-204 defines “plastic waste” as “any type of plastic listed in Schedule 7” of the bill. There are 32 entries — 31 proposed by the House sponsor of the bill, and one entry adopted at the committee stage in the other place.

I would like to highlight a few problems associated with the proposed Schedule 7, some of which were raised before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s study of Bill C-204.

First, the plastic waste amendments to the Basel Convention include what is likely a broader scope of “plastic waste” than what is listed under Schedule 7. In addition, Bill C-204 proposes a more stringent control for exports destined for final disposal only. This discrepancy between Basel-controlled plastic waste and plastic waste listed in Schedule 7 would be confusing for businesses, create overlapping regulatory regimes and introduce operational challenges for exporters.

Second, four substances under Schedule 7 are not commonly considered to be plastic. Ethylene, for example, is a gas at room temperature and used as a feedstock. It seems that a properly designed schedule is fundamental to the proper functioning of Bill C-204, but as it is currently written the schedule may also create confusion and operational challenges. While the bill proposes to allow the Governor-in-Council to amend this schedule, I would encourage us to carefully consider the proposed Schedule 7 and its implementation challenges.

I would also like to note some of the enforcement challenges that could be associated with Bill C-204. First, if enforcement officers were to inspect the shipment, laboratory testing could be required to determine whether an item contains a substance that is on the list. Laboratory testing is expensive, time-consuming and creates logistical challenges for the Canada Border Services Agency and port authorities because containers cannot remain in a port for extended periods of time.

In addition to challenges associated with enforcing the prohibition proposed in this bill, there could also be impacts on provincial and territorial waste management systems. The legislation could strain intergovernmental relationships because an immediate plastic waste export ban runs counter to the federal government’s collaborative approach to working with provinces and territories on achieving zero plastic waste and transitioning to a circular economy for plastics. Unilateral federal action without sufficient consultation could have unforeseen consequences on these initiatives, including complicating efforts to achieve zero plastic waste. For example, it could affect the transition to expanded and improved extended producer responsibility regimes.

Honourable senators, the Government of Canada is also working closely with provinces and territories through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, or CCME. In 2018, the CCME approved a strategy on zero plastic waste, followed by a two-phase action plan that is being jointly implemented. This plan involves facilitating consistent, extended producer responsibility programs across the country to make companies responsible for collecting and recycling the products and packaging they place on the market.

Prior to adopting measures proposed under Bill C-204, consultation with provinces and territories to understand the potential implications on their waste management systems would be needed. Bill C-204 seeks to assist in addressing a complex global challenge. In any environmental problem that is transnational, complex and involves many players, the problem must be considered from multiple angles.

In summary, the government has already begun to take action to address problems caused by plastic waste exports when it strongly supported the adoption to the plastic waste amendments of the Basel Convention, when it ratified the amendments in 2020 and now by implementing through its regulations. Bill C-204 has a narrow focus on final disposal, while our current domestic regime addresses both recycling and final disposal. Moreover, the proposed Schedule 7 contains technical challenges and some entries that would not be commonly understood to be plastic.

Finally, there are practical implementation challenges associated with the bill. One of these is significant. The prohibition, as proposed in Bill C-204, would likely result in prohibiting the export for final disposal of all municipal solid waste to the United States to the extent this waste contains items on Schedule 7 of the bill. In turn, this is expected to impact provinces, territories and municipalities by increasing pressure and costs on waste management systems, giving greater volumes of municipal solid waste that will be needed to be landfilled in Canada.

Honourable senators, these are just some of the issues that I wish to highlight and that I hope will be the subject of a rigorous and thorough study by our Senate’s Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Thank you for your kind attention.