ENVI Committee Report

DISSENTING REPORT FROM THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS REGARDING THE REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION IN CANADA

SUMMARY

The Conservative Members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development agree that Canada needs to do more to reduce plastic pollution and waste.  However, the report makes a number of recommendations that either are not supported by the testimony heard at committee, impose financial commitments on the public purse that are not justified within the context of Canada’s current fiscal challenges, or represent overreach or heavy-handedness on the part of the government. For this reason, the Conservative Members oppose Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 20 contained in the majority report.  Subject to the qualifications outlined herein, the Conservative Members support the remainder of the recommendations contained in the Committee’s majority report.

A PERMANENT SECRETARIAT

Recommendation 2 proposes the establishment of a permanent secretariat to coordinate the fight against plastic pollution in Canada. We take note that protecting the environment is a shared responsibility of the federal and provincial governments.  As such, a collaborative approach is required to produce the desired results on plastic waste reduction and increased recycling rates.  The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the appropriate forum for this collaboration, augmented by departmental support at both levels of government.  As such, a permanent secretariat is unnecessary. A working group, as recommended in the report, is sufficient to facilitate the inclusion of industry and ensure the expected outcomes are attained. The working group should only be established within existing resources, given the challenging fiscal pressures facing the government.  Given that spending by Environment and Climate Change Canada is set to reach a record $1.8 billion next year, up 64% from last year and representing an additional 223 full-time equivalents, there are more than enough human resources available to support such a working group.

USING CEPA TO REGULATE PLASTIC

With respect to Recommendation 3, we do not believe that the federal government should add single-use plastic to the Priority Substance List under CEPA. The term “single-use plastic” encompasses a wide range of plastic products, including packaging, straws and bottles. A blanket listing of the type envisioned by this recommendation fails to take into account the unique nature and recycling profile of each product and may result in unintended consequences.

As a general principle, the Conservative Members of the Committee encourage the government to consider a more targeted listing of specific higher risk single-use plastics rather than imposing blanket bans when developing a plastics policy.

With respect to Recommendation 4, we do not believe that CEPA is the appropriate tool for regulating plastics. Using CEPA as recommended would require plastic to be declared “toxic” by the Minister under Section 90(1), or under Section 64 by individuals who are presumably more qualified to make that assessment.  Common sense is sufficient to conclude that plastic does not belong on Schedule 1, the List of Toxic Substances, alongside the likes of mercury, lead, asbestos, and sulfuric acid.  Similarly, the use of what the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Hydro-Quebec) declared to be a criminal statute to regulate plastic is inappropriate and heavy-handed.

Collaboration between industry, the federal and provincial governments is required if we want to reduce plastic waste and increase recycling.  The federal government should resist the temptation to act unilaterally through CEPA for short-term political gain.  Doing so would be symbolic, with marginal results at best.  At worst, it could send a false signal to Canadians that progress is being made and undermine efforts toward a more sustainable and satisfactory outcome.

For these reasons, the Conservative Members believe that using CEPA to regulate plastics would be disingenuous, heavy-handed, and ill-suited for the particular problem that plastic pollution and waste presents. We further believe that a new framework is required to reduce plastic waste and increase recycling rates, building on the collaborative work that has been done under the auspices of the CCME and incorporating the participation of industry stakeholders and their technical expertise.

Our disposition of Recommendation 5 flows from our opposition to the use of CEPA as noted above.

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

With respect to Recommendation 9, Canadians expect that the industries and companies that produce, use and profit from plastic should play a major role in the recovery and recycling of the waste created by those plastics. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is one of the tools available to harness the expertise and knowledge of the private sector.  However, EPR should not be implemented without prior extensive and sustained consultation with industry, whose buy-in is necessary to achieve the desired results.  The same holds true for product standardization, labelling, and minimum content requirements, given that the related considerations are highly technical and can lead to unintended consequences. 

PROHIBITION ON THE EXPORT OF PLASTIC WASTE

With respect to Recommendation 11, it is imperative that the export prohibition be extended to plastic waste that will be incinerated in the destination country. Both landfilling and incineration of waste plastics are less than optimal ways of maximizing environmental outcomes. Furthermore, testimony at Committee indicated that the absence of a critical mass of waste plastic feedstock was contributing to industry’s preference of using virgin resins over recycled plastic to manufacture new plastic products.

ELIMINATION OF FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

With respect to Recommendation 13, the Conservative Members note that this recommendation by any reasonable measure falls outside of the scope of this study and should be rejected by the Committee.

NEW PLASTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING PROGRAM

Recommendation 14 implies the creation of a new funding program for research and development in plastic management. Given the current government’s ballooning deficits, burgeoning debt and serious fiscal challenges, all research and development into plastics management should be conducted within existing funding envelopes.

We note that Recommendation 15 asks the government to create incentives such as grants, contributions and tax credits to encourage businesses to invest in research and development related to various aspects of plastic waste management. It is the opinion of the Conservative Members that this kind of research and development activity should be carried out by the businesses themselves using their own resources rather than new taxpayer subsidies. A number of the other recommendations contained in this report are already intended to send the market signals that would prompt this kind of research and development by industry.

Recommendation 17 asks that the government establish a funding program to help the plastic recycling industry modernize and expand its facilities across Canada. We believe this represents overreach into areas that are best left to industry to undertake and fund. As mentioned before, the government faces significant budgetary and fiscal pressures which should provide Members with reason to pause before recommending new spending programs that benefit in the first instance the private sector. There is no compelling reason for taxpayers to subsidize the modernization and expansion of recycling facilities across Canada.

MANDATORY LABELLING

Recommendation 19 proposes the establishment of legislation and regulations to require plastic products to contain labelling which would identify the type of plastic contained in the product, the proportion of recycled plastic content, and how to properly dispose of the product. Although this recommendation is laudable, in many cases it will be impractical in its application. Plastics are used in a wide range of products, including packaging, construction, automotive, electrical and electronic equipment, textiles, home appliances, agriculture (food products), medical, dental and personal care, toys, household furniture, sporting goods, mattresses and industrial machinery. Many of these applications do not lend themselves well to conventional mandatory labelling requirements. Similarly, many plastic products are too small to incorporate additional labelling information, and labelling requirements for imported plastic goods represent additional enforcement and competitiveness challenges.

We take note of the reference to QR codes and the ability to use this technology to reduce the logistical burden on producers of plastic goods.

The Conservative Members conditionally support this recommendation but encourage the government to consider a more targeted approach that reflects the diversity of plastic products used within Canada and the impact which such requirements will have on Canada’s economic competitiveness.

EDUCATION CAMPAIGN & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Recommendation 20 calls for stable funding for campaigns to inform Canadians about the life-cycle environmental impacts of plastic goods, how to properly dispose of plastics, and how to reduce plastic use and waste.

Although most Canadians understand that littering is wrong and that recycling plastic is the responsible thing to do, most plastic waste is, in fact, not recycled or reused. Similarly, the effect of public education campaigns to encourage recycling will remain negligible until the outstanding barriers to public participation are overcome. More specifically, the greatest barrier to robust participation in recycling programs is the limited range of plastics that our recycling systems can accept and the high degree of variance between such systems across Canada.  This inherent barrier to participation is compounded by the limited time, energy, and attention that households are able to dedicate to sorting plastic waste, the myriad of rules that determine what can and cannot be recycled, and the generally poor way in which recycling programs and their rules are communicated and promoted by the operators of same.  For this reason, a public education campaign should only be considered at a point in time when these outstanding barriers have been overcome. Even then, given that recycling falls primarily within provincial jurisdiction, education campaigns are best conducted by provincial agencies and the operators of recycling programs.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PROCUREMENT POWER

With respect to Recommendation 21, the federal government can provide leadership by leveraging its procurement powers to promote the purchase of plastic products made from recycled plastic.  However, this should not compromise value-for-money, given the government’s responsibility to exercise wise stewardship over taxpayer dollars.

We note that Recommendation 10 expressly asks the government to implement a minimum recycled content standard. If the government moves forward with Recommendation 10, Recommendation 21 may effectively be rendered moot. In any event, either the government regulates mandatory recycled content or leads industry on using recycled products. The latter approach is more likely to impose additional costs on government operations, at least in the short term, so Recommendation 10 is probably a better option and is more likely to be supported by industry.