ENVI Committee Report

Dissenting report from the New Democratic Party on the study on municipal waste.

The members of the New Democratic Party (NPD) would like to thank the witnesses who participated in the study on municipal waste by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. We would also like to recognize the professionalism of the Library and committee staff.

While we agree with the general thrust of the report, we find it important to raise key points not covered in the report. For one, the report does not state that, according to a study by the OECD, Canada ranks poorly in waste management and, as a result, the federal government should act promptly to correct the situation in partnership with other levels of government.

We were told that, according to the annual report of the Conference Board of Canada, Canada ranked last among 16 OECD countries in 2014 in terms of waste management, producing more than twice the per capita waste of Japan, which had the best performance.

Moreover, recommendation three does not reflect the reality expressed by experts who called on the federal government to show leadership in harmonizing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs: “a more national and coordinated approach to the decisions related to the collection, processing, and sale of recycled packaging materials, will lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale, and […] to increased waste diversion and recycling.”[1] 

In the committee meetings, the vast majority of witnesses expressed support for the polluter pays principle and said that the federal government should establish a price on carbon to satisfy this basic principle of sustainable development. Witnesses mentioned the need to balance marketplace rules so that low-carbon technology solutions can be developed in the field of waste management and businesses can invest in these technologies: “If we want this industry to flourish, we have to make sure that the rules are fair. It is only through a price on carbon that businesses will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the current environment, that is a very difficult thing to do.”[2]

Other witnesses pointed out that a cap-and-trade solution would provide better prospects for reducing greenhouse gases and concrete support to create new waste reduction technologies: “cap and trade is an important system that can be put in place to help raise funds for viable projects”[3] and “Alberta’s promotion of organics diversion is driven by the specified gas emitters regulation, which seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions through a cap-and-trade system. In this respect, a number of organic diversion projects have been developed to create offset credits in the marketplace.”[4]

Finally, it is imperative to note that the report’s conclusion and recommendations do not reflect the vast testimony that focused on Canada’s poor track record and the lack of federal action. The recommendations are too general and fail to mention carbon pricing or the federal leadership needed in EPR programs.

[1] ENVI, Evidence, 20 October 2014 (Kagan)

[2] ENVI, Evidence, 10 June 2014 (Labrie)

[3] ENVI, Evidence, 24 November 2014 (Conrad)

[4] ENVI, Evidence, 24 November 2014 (Harley)